FANDOM


  • Oh, such an impressive story! I wonder if the law of Skyrim would admit their marirage or not, if they had made it.

      Loading editor
    • Well, Skyrim does allow gay marriage for the Dovahkin, so one supposes.

      An impressive love story, though. Shame they didn't make it.

        Loading editor
    • What love story?

      One guy went nuts and killed his lover. That doesn't sound like a love story to me. It doesn't event sound like much of a story at all. More like an anecdote

        Loading editor
    • It's actually unclear whether he killed him or the bandits did, but even so. A couple who loved each other very much were separated when one went off to Solstheim for whatever reason. They kept up their relationship over the distance, only the one who stayed behind in Solitude, Bjornolfr, began receiving increasingly strange letters from Hrodulf, who was being influenced by some unknown force and beginning to lose his mind. He begged Hrodulf to return, but when he was unable to convince him to come back, Bjornolfr made the long voyage to find his lover in an attempt to save him, and in the end, they were both killed. It's not some long epic, but it's a sad story of love and devotion.

        Loading editor
    • I wasn't aware of either of them, but I'll be sure to look into it. From what I've just read on the wiki, it sounds pretty sad.

        Loading editor
    • A much better love story than Twilight.

        Loading editor
    • Epzo wrote:
      A much better love story than Twilight.


      Even Van Helsing had a better love story than Twilight, and it didn't skimp on having proper vampires and werewolves.

        Loading editor
    • was quite interesting as its the first gay story in the lore (i presume)..the intriguing part was the dwemer chamber and the strange happenings didnt lead anywhere. Would be nice if it developed into a new secret quest (or is there??..)

        Loading editor
    • I'm going to play the devil's advocate here by mentioning that there are a whole boatload of sad stories from dead people throughout Skyrim. In fact it seems to be a facet of all games Bethesda is even remotely connected to; at one point in the game, you're going to stumble into a room with a corpse(s) and a whole lotta blood, and you can pretty much bet your last septim that one of those poor sods, somehow, some way, managed to write a coherent epitaph that more or less explains their death.


      Don't get me wrong, I'm not devaluing them or saying that they're worth less than all those other people who got killed. In fact I think it shouldn't be a good thing that I was more emotionally distressed that I had no idea what to do with the giant Dwarven engine that Hrodulf uncovered. I'm just saying that Bethesda has sort of desensitised me to that sort of thing.

        Loading editor
    • Man that made me very sad (no homo) Why do they make these sad stories?!

        Loading editor
    • If you say "no homo", you are insecure about your sexualality. If you can't say I love you to your friends without having to say that. Then grow up.

        Loading editor
    • I wish they could make a sidequest for every character we run into in Skyrim.  I know that would take a lot of work but I really do get quite attached to each of them and I have this weird feeling when I walk away from them without knowing anything about them.

        Loading editor
    • Lame, my house was missing the body, no love stained letter for me. But it sounded cool (if not sad).

        Loading editor
    • Interesting, I do belive that at least in Skyrim, this is the first evidence of homosexuality in NPCs. Everyone knows that there is a total freedom of who you can marry, as long as they are marriagable. However, they never showed any NPCs of the same sex to be in love. It is a shame that they have perished, but at least they died not too far from each other. Indeed, Skyrim is full of tragedies like that, they are not kidding when they say Skyrim is a dangerous place, and life is too short. On your travels, you often run into corpses who have on them or nearby notes, or journals telling of their tragedy. Take for example that couple, not far from Old Hroldan. They were going to elope, she was a daugher of a wealty merchant and he was a wood elf. Unfortunately, they were both killed in their camp by a random animal. The journal of a girl mentions the stash in the hollow of the tree near by that you can pick up.

      On the Solstheim couple, I belive it was something like this. The Bjornolfr came over despised the warning in the last letter, he went to get his lover, Hrolduf, out of the Dwemer chamber. He succeded, however something went wrong and he was killed, just as he was about to leave that place as well. Hrolduf ran for the shore, where the rowboat was waiting. Ironically, there were Dunmer Revers there already. He bravely tried to fight them off, but they mannaged to break his iron ax at last, and he fell to the ground. Then, those Revers camped out in his house, making fun of the two lovers feelings, right before Dragonborn arrived to take care of them for stealing food from the Skald. By the way, from the looks of it, the two might not have been yet married, I assumed it since the Amulet of Mara was in the boat, maybe Bjornolfr was going to propose to Hrodulf right there? It obviously still opened for debate. It is sad though. Oh and if you listened to the Revers, they do mention killing a Nord outside. Although the other one wasn't sure if that's the one in the letter, that all Nords look the same to him.

      Appearantly there is a bug that makes dead bodies not appear. It can also be the fact that they seem to fall under the ground and beyond your reach. My original character is full of those glitches. When I plaid as that character, I could only find Bjornolfr's letter and Hrodulf's journal. I had to search forever for the pieces of broken iron ax. I mannaged to get them only when they were suspended in the air because of another bug. On that file, I never even saw bodies, only bloody stains. Same goes for Ilas Tei.

        Loading editor
    • The Imperials don't want to see these homosexual couples, if they do, they cut there heads off. Or the Stormcloaks would do that, and might be saying that it is a full embarrasment to there own race.

        Loading editor
    • Cast 101 wrote:
      The Imperials don't want to see these homosexual couples, if they do, they cut there heads off. Or the Stormcloaks would do that, and might be saying that it is a full embarrasment to there own race.

      And do you have any evidence in canon lore to support this? Oh wait you don't -- that's because there aren't any social or religious hang-ups in Tamriel or Nirn at large against homosexuality.

        Loading editor
    • From what I know, you can marry whoever you want in Skyrim, that was stated by many people. Someone even said, if you are male Nord and want to marry a male Orc, you can do that. So if a player can marry whoever they want, why cannot everyone else. The only slight suggestion to the race that doesn't accept that, are Dunmer. Here I only going from the fact that two Revers were making fun of that latter. One of them read it to the other one and the other one was all like "what a fool". Again, that only slight suggestion, and could only be related to such low lifes as Revers. So yeah, I agree there is no where in canon or lore is stated that Tamriel anti gay. Quite the opposite, they emphasise that there are no discrimination based on gender in any classes, and you can marry whoever you want. Oh and before any homophobes areound here would try to label me. I am heterosexual, happily married man with an opened mind, plus I am Russian Orthodox. I also belive that anyone free to make their own choice, regardless of what I believe in. I respect other people way of life.

        Loading editor
    • Skyrim allows a person to marry whoever they want, regardless of gender

      M'aiq even makes a reference to it by saying how open minding people in Skyrim are

        Loading editor
    • And yet he is feels nervous when he sees a Nord wearing fur armor. I guess, it is actually being open minded of it's own. M'aiq might be a liar, but few of things he says are true. For example, he is right about his father being M'aiq and his father's father. That would explain M'aiq in Oblivion, and if I am not mistaken Morrowind as well. So he doesn't always lie, just most of the time. Like that dragons just knew how to be invisible and very very quiet.

        Loading editor
    • Legate Alexandros wrote:
      From what I know, you can marry whoever you want in Skyrim, that was stated by many people. Someone even said, if you are male Nord and want to marry a male Orc, you can do that.


      That would be the most overly masculine couple ever. The only way it could be better is if they fought hordes of dragons and undead together.

        Loading editor
    • AzuraKnight
      AzuraKnight removed this reply because:
      Homophobic rant
      08:00, July 3, 2013
      This reply has been removed
    • For once, it is just one instance. Two, it's so buggy, you don't always see the bodies and you don't always get the full story. Three, Skyrim is a fantasy, that gives you freedom to do anything. Lastly, have you ever heard of role play? I am sure that there are perfectly strait role players, who wanted to make a homosexual character at one point. To some extent it's like writing a book, the character doesn't have to be you in real life. Sometimes it's like thinking abstract. I am strait and a married man, Russian Orthodox Christian at that, and yet I still can apreatiate them showing the concept in game that any relationship are possible in Skyrim. Although if you ask my wfe, there are very few male followers that look decent enough for marriage, however she never feels right to marry her characters to a female. The only difference between me and her playing, is that she always makes female characters only, while I mostly play as males, but also have some female characters. My goal in the game, to create every gender character, of every race. If I like the feel of race enough, I might create another one of those. I believe so far I tied between Imperials and Nords and I have the few male characters for those two and one for each of females. I hope no one see me as homosexual just for playing a male. I don't play Skyrim to look at character's body. Also, I am a male, it would be logical for me to make a character based on my own gender at least. Although there are some people who say that they are males 18 hours a day, they want to at least in the game to be a female for few hours. So for all of you people going on about homosexuality in gaming, get an open mind! And don't try to bring out the example of Sodom and Gomora! There is no where in there that they say they were homosexuals. Those were sin cities, they had crime, rape, murder, orgies, gambling. It just weren't safe to walk the streets at night and they usually were after strangers. You know, in prisons males like to have sex with other males, does that makes them homosexuals? Personally, I don't think homosexuality is natural, but that just how those people are. It is not the life style they choose, they are born with those preferences, that means that God makes them like this for a reason, out of the ordinary. I can respect that, I for once was born with cleft lip and cleft pallet together. It is rare enough to get one of these conditions and I had both. I can at least related to being born different, so stop your sensless arguments in here about how they litter Skyrim with homosexuality, belive it or not, homosexuality can happen even in the world of Skyrim if it common place in real world. I better stop going on about this, close minded people who say things like that just annoy me. I don't completely accept homosexuality, but I can at least have an open mind on that. I say if homosexuals don't bother me, I don't bother them, so they free to do all they want, as long as they don't convert me into their homosexuality. That might sound a little imature and a bit homophobic, but that is just my opinion.

        Loading editor
    • It's sad that people don't accept homosexulity in a GAME? There isn't any lore against homosexuality in the game (that I know of) so what's the problem? Legate Alexandros is the one making sense and he's Orthodox Christian? Close minded people- This isn't reall life, It isn't your game you didn't make it, it's fantsay and the Nine Devine arn't real world religion? Leave politics and opinions out of the game and just enjoy?? FFS VAMPIRISM IS A CRIME IN ELDER SCROLLS NOT SAME-SEX RELATIONS!

        Loading editor
    • AzuraKnight
      AzuraKnight removed this reply because:
      Deleted at users request.
      08:06, July 3, 2013
      This reply has been removed
    • Pink Slim wrote:Should we delete this message? and then mine too?

      I vote for deletion.

        Loading editor
    • Dmoontear wrote:
      Pink Slim wrote:Should we delete this message? and then mine too?
      I vote for deletion.

      I deleted it and tidied up, i thought i'd deleted it yesterday when it first appeared (maybe it was on another post but it was really similar). Anything that aggressively homophobic just remove on sight if the person keeps doing it after that click report to a admin when you delete it.

        Loading editor
    • 67.181.18.67 wrote:
      Lame, my house was missing the body, no love stained letter for me. But it sounded cool (if not sad).

      Love stained letter? 


      Ew...

        Loading editor
    • lol I didn't even noticed that typo. It obviously was meant as blood stained letter. I wonder what would be even more ew, to find a letter with blood all over, or love all over. I guess it depends on person's issues. Ahh! There's blood on this letter! *faints*

      On a serious note, the blood on the letter does make it hard to read.

        Loading editor
    • Legate Alexandros wrote:
      lol I didn't even noticed that typo. It obviously was meant as blood stained letter. I wonder what would be even more ew, to find a letter with blood all over, or love all over. I guess it depends on person's issues. Ahh! There's blood on this letter! *faints*

      On a serious note, the blood on the letter does make it hard to read.

      umm, do you know what love stains are? American english isn't your natural language right?

        Loading editor
    • Yeah I'm pretty sure love stains would be grosser to come across on a dead man in a basement. On another note, I do appreciate this story. For dead npc's this has to be my favorite background story between the two because of its depth (long distance, propasal, etc). Damn reavers ruined it!

        Loading editor
    • My wife did explain to me what that is and indeed that is eww, except I am sure whoever made that typo didn't intend to write that, but possibly that was in their mind. *cough* siko *cough* lol

      And you are correct, I was born in Soviet Union, grew up in Russia, came to USA when I was 15 and for the most part learned English in America. I converse preaty good in English and people don't even think I am Russian most of the time, but appearantly true meaning of some words, still elude me.

        Loading editor
    • AzuraKnight
      AzuraKnight removed this reply because:
      Not a comment.
      14:14, June 28, 2015
      This reply has been removed
    • The Daedric Warrior
      The Daedric Warrior removed this reply because:
      Homophobia
      20:50, October 1, 2013
      This reply has been removed
    • AzuraKnight
      AzuraKnight removed this reply because:
      All caps.
      14:14, June 28, 2015
      This reply has been removed
    • AzuraKnight
      AzuraKnight removed this reply because:
      Replying to deleted comment.
      14:15, June 28, 2015
      This reply has been removed
    • Wolf of Velka
      Wolf of Velka removed this reply because:
      Offensive.
      09:43, August 15, 2013
      This reply has been removed
    • AzuraKnight
      AzuraKnight removed this reply because:
      Replying to deleted comment.
      14:15, June 28, 2015
      This reply has been removed
    • I appologize for not noticing sooner that my previous comment was made while I was not logged in, also I truly believe that you are wierd & we are not.

        Loading editor
    • Cyne wrote:
      I appologize for not noticing sooner that my previous comment was made while I was not logged in, also I truly believe that you are wierd & we are not.

      I can't believe we let provincials like you wander Skyrim.

        Loading editor
    • Cyne wrote:
      I appologize for not noticing sooner that my previous comment was made while I was not logged in, also I truly believe that you are wierd & we are not.

      I'm sorry, but I just feel compelled to apologize for my misspelled word, I usually am more careful & hate that kind of thing.

        Loading editor
    • Cyne wrote:
      I appologize for not noticing sooner that my previous comment was made while I was not logged in, also I truly believe that you are wierd & we are not.

      Doesn't make you any less weird. and I assure you, I am as weird as is normal.

        Loading editor
    • Sorry, I can be a little slow at times, I don't think I understand that statement. Can you elaborate?

        Loading editor
    • Dmoontear wrote:
      Cyne wrote:
      I found this story very repulsing.
      Because gay, or because they were the only NPCs that were gay and they ended up dying?

      Because, if the former, you must find the entire game very repulsive, what with all the NPCs hitting on you when wearing the amulet of Mara, regardless of your PC's gender.

      I do not find the entire game repulsive, too much great content elsewhere, but I do really hate if I ever forget to take the Amulet of Mara off for some reason, I'm very forgetful, & a guy hits on me.

        Loading editor
    • Nope, you're still weird. I mean, if it was little kid and an adult? Yeah, not only is that disgusting, but creepy as all get-out.

      I don't understand why people are repulsed by things that don't hurt them, and don't hurt anyone else - like two dudes loving eachother.

        Loading editor
    • Aerendyll
      Aerendyll removed this reply because:
      Homophobic bigotry.
      19:05, January 14, 2015
      This reply has been removed
    • And to me, you're weird then.

        Loading editor
    • Weird is but perspective. To me you're the weird one.

        Loading editor
    • Cyne wrote:
      I agree to the second part of your first point completey. But I see homosexuality as wrong & less importantly disgusting.

      If you think that two people loving each other is disgusting, then you're not mature enough to play The Elder Scrolls.

        Loading editor
    • Pickleseller wrote:
      Cyne wrote:
      I agree to the second part of your first point completey. But I see homosexuality as wrong & less importantly disgusting.
      If you think that two people loving each other is disgusting, then you're not mature enough to play The Elder Scrolls.

      That is where you are wrong. I do not feel it is disgusting for two people to love each other, I just feel it is completely wrong if they are the same gender.

        Loading editor
    • Pickleseller wrote:
      Cyne wrote:
      I agree to the second part of your first point completey. But I see homosexuality as wrong & less importantly disgusting.
      If you think that two people loving each other is disgusting, then you're not mature enough to play The Elder Scrolls.

      As a side note, my friend (who is pro-gay) probably really isn't mature enough to play this game.

        Loading editor
    • Cyne wrote:
      Pickleseller wrote:
      Cyne wrote:
      I agree to the second part of your first point completey. But I see homosexuality as wrong & less importantly disgusting.
      If you think that two people loving each other is disgusting, then you're not mature enough to play The Elder Scrolls.
      That is where you are wrong. I do not feel it is disgusting for two people to love each other, I just feel it is completely wrong if they are the same gender.

      What's the difference? They are two people, and they love each other. If they are the same gender, so what? It's not like it affects you in anyway, so why do you fell that it's wrong?

        Loading editor
    • I'm not going to stop loving my cousin because she's into girls. And I'm not going to be repulsed by her, or her lover under the fear that they're "into me". Besides that being rather obnoxious of a thought, gay people have prefrences, just as straight people do.

      I can't understand how love can be wrong when between consenting parties. That, is why you are weird to me.

      I'd much rather see two men holding hands than two men beating eachother bloody, personally.

        Loading editor
    • I was hoping not to need to say why, but it's because of my religion.

        Loading editor
    • Aaaaaand yet my late grandfather was a Minister and didn't have issue with gay people.

      You can have a religion that doesn't agree with it, but not be digusted by an act of love.

        Loading editor
    • Dmoontear wrote:
      I'm not going to stop loving my cousin because she's into girls. And I'm not going to be repulsed by her, or her lover under the fear that they're "into me". Besides that being rather obnoxious of a thought, gay people have prefrences, just as straight people do.

      I can't understand how love can be wrong when between consenting parties. That, is why you are weird to me.

      I'd much rather see two men holding hands than two men beating eachother bloody, personally.

      That's another reason why I don't aprove of it, I don't believe it is a preference any more than burglary.

        Loading editor
    • Dmoontear wrote:
      Aaaaaand yet my late grandfather was a Minister and didn't have issue with gay people.

      You can have a religion that doesn't agree with it, but not be digusted by an act of love.

      Not in my opinion.

        Loading editor
    • ....wot?

      I said that they had prefrences. They're not going to go out and fuck anyone of the same sex, just as you woulden't go out and fuck anyone of the opposite sex. You have prefrences - turn ons if you will, and you have prefrences in the opposite direction as well - turn offs.

      Would I go out and suddenly fuck the first guy I met? Noap.

      Likewise, gay people woulden't either.

        Loading editor
    • The Bible also says you have multiple wives, and you can sell your daughters to be sex slaves if they're 12 and not married yet.

        Loading editor
    • Don't forget you can have slaves and you can cut the hands off of theives.

        Loading editor
    • Pickleseller wrote:
      The Bible also says you have multiple wives, and you can sell your daughters to be sex slaves if they're 12 and not married yet.

      This is why I didn't want it to come to my religion because I haven't studied enough to put a good argument up to defend myself.(& I've learned in the past there are)

        Loading editor
    • Cyne wrote:

      This is why I didn't want it to come to my religion because I haven't studied enough to put a good argument up to defend myself.(& I've learned in the past there are)

      ...


      All I really wanted to say was my opinion on a forum, I didn't think it'd get this far. -.-

        Loading editor
    • ...That means you are probibly fllowing the false ideals spread by people who didn't understand that OT and NT are totally different and you can't pick from both. Also, probibly are being taught by someone that didn't understand that the majority of gay-hate comes from Sodom and Gomorrah, where the majority of the time, it was rape.

        Loading editor
    • I have no desire to waste more of my time here. The only thing that truly upsets me is that you will most likely think you may feel supperior now. (I apologize if that offends you.)

        Loading editor
      • Raises eyebrow*

      Well, ok then. Have fun beleiving the lies taught to you until you do your own research. Which is probibly well overdue if you claim this as your religion.

        Loading editor
    • I take back my apologies now, for you truly do feel supperior now...

        Loading editor
    • Cyne wrote:
      The only thing that truly upsets me is that you will most likely think you may feel supperior now. (I apologize if that offends you.)

      You're upset that we feel superior for being decent people who don't force others to follow our own personal philosophies, but want them to be informed on them, and why we think they're correct? I wouldn't be saddened in the least about that.

      And you're actually doing the same thing, but you have nothing to say except, "it disgusts me", "my religion [...] I haven't researched enough."

      I appologize that you are offended, but at the same time I hope you are offended, we as a global people need to progress and hating eachother for loving people, no matter who they are or what gender they may be, is not the way we should be heading.


      Infact, I'm gonna say something about gay people that might get some people mad at me; I personally hate the argument that Gay people were born that way, I don't believe it, I believe it's something they become, but not something they chose to become(kind of like how some people are nice, and some people are mean); I have gay friends and friends that publicly support gays, I too support gay people and their rights to be who they are, but that one argument is one that I can't stand behind, it doesn't make me feel any different about how they should be treated though, They are people like you and me, no matter what some idiot standing behind a pulpit claimes.

        Loading editor
    • Pink Slim wrote: I personally hate the argument that Gay people were born that way, I don't believe it, I believe it's something they become, but not something they chose to become(kind of like how some people are nice, and some people are mean); I have gay friends and friends that publicly support gays, I too support gay people and their rights to be who they are, but that one argument is one that I can't stand behind, it doesn't make me feel any different about how they should be treated though, They are people like you and me, no matter what some idiot standing behind a pulpit claimes.


      Despite being a GRA, and having gay relatives, this doesn't bother me at all. I only become rage-filled when they say it's an actual choice. Like, dafaq? Who'd in their right mind would make that choice? It's not like dying your hair or anything ._.

        Loading editor
    • As my wife always likes to say, bible wasn't writen by God, bible was writen by MEN. It is hard to say if they were really relaying the word of God, or just writing down as a law, what would benefit them most. And she usually makes an emphisis on men, since it's obvious that women didn't take part in writing bible. According to her, everything said in bible, is desighned to justify men subjugating women.

      Also, from what I know, the bible that we all know today, wasn't even originally writen by God's people (Hedrew), the first known version of bible that includes old testament and new testament, was writen by a Greek person living in Judea. So, right at the start there's bound to be missinterpretations. Also, there were many stories in early bible that everyone liked, there were even mentions of women in better light there. However, at one point Roman Chatholic church called a closed meeting of church officials, where they brough up a question of the bible as a religious text. The bottom line, is that they decided what stories going to go into official bible and which were not. Appearantly many stories that most people of that time enjoyed, were not included in the official version of the bible.

      At the end, we may never know what the original word of God should have been like. The bible have been rewriten, edited and interpreted too many time. The best thing to do, is to follow your heart, belive in religion the way you feel right. Is God to you all merciful and forgiving no matter what you are and what have you done? Or the God is merciless and punishing and will punish you for being weird and for what you have done in the past? I believe that God loves all his children and meant for them to have preferences they do. Ofcourse even if God forgiving, doesn't mean that everyone can do what the heck they want to do. The key is remorse, one have to see the errors of their ways before they end up being judged by God. If they will have remorse and would trully change the way they act, they will be forgiven. Possibly even if they didn't have time for remorse in life, they still could be saved, but that is just between them and God. Who are we to decide who God hates and who God loves?

        Loading editor
    • The Old testament was in Hebrew, it was then translated into either Latin or Greek (and the new testate was added) then to the other, then after hundreds of years, some time around The Renaissance it was translated into French and English, and all languages have had revisions(based on Latin versions) to make the wording more... "accurate"; though to translate something that isn't even the original source material (Hebrew word of mouth) there is much mistranslation (like how Lucifer became the name of Satan, when it was originally meant to be a Hebrew word for the sun)

        Loading editor
    • I have no problem with two men holding hands, but I do have a problem with two men holding guns.

        Loading editor
    • Naturally, this discussion had to turn into a religious debate.

        Loading editor
    • Jonesy95 wrote:
      Naturally, this discussion had to turn into a religious debate.


      Welcome to the internet. Leave your sanity at the door.

        Loading editor
    • I'm not against homosexuals though I'm not one of them.

        Loading editor
    • Jonesy95 wrote:
      Naturally, this discussion had to turn into a religious debate.

      of course it did, everyone on the internet is entitled their own opinion; but of course the stupid ones think they have to throw it at us, and give a reason as simple as, "I was told it was bad, so I believe it is bad."

        Loading editor
    • Otakufreak40 wrote:
      Jonesy95 wrote:
      Naturally, this discussion had to turn into a religious debate.

      Welcome to the internet. Leave your sanity at the door.

      Sadly, you're right.

        Loading editor
    • Cyne didn't want to get into it any further because he was afraid he was inviting a flamewar. Which he was. *Suits up*

      Ookay. So, the first major misconception here is that thinking that a certain type of behavior that someone engages in is wrong equals hating that person. Which is Insane Troll Logic of the highest degree. Example: I believe that homosexual behavior is wrong, partly because of the various Scripture passages indicating this (and no, not just S&G, there are others too; also, the fact that records indicate that the Bible hasn't changed to any significant degree despite the massive translations and time-gaps is in fact frequently used as a major proof of its veracity) and partly because it's quite obviously counterproductive and useless to society and the world at large. I also find homosexuality somewhat unsettling, and prefer not to deal with it when possible. These two facts are largely unrelated. There are plenty of things that aren't wrong that I personally find disgusting (but obviously I'm not going to interfere, because objectively, it's fine and my disgust is kind of irrelevant), and plenty of evil actions that I'm not particularly repulsed by.

      What people need to realize is that nobody hates homosexuals, and nobody wants them killed or even like yelled at. At least, nobody who takes the matter seriously does. I imagine most of the people who legitimately hate these types have never given a thought to the moral nature of the issue.

      Which brings me to the second misconception, which is that a belief that homosexuality is wrong has something to do with who these people are, rather than what they do. To be honest, I personally don't care either way -- as people have said, it doesn't affect me, so just stay out of my business and I'll stay out of yours. The issue arises due to the fact that people want to help homosexuals rather than just letting them (in their view; disagree with the viewpoint all you like, but they're trying to help) continue to damage themselves. But to be honest, the concept of 'gay rights' has never made any sense to me. First of all, I don't really think of someone as 'a homosexual', because that's demographic stereotyping, which annoys me. Seriously, who cares; so-called 'sexual orientation' is only important insofar as it affects anything. In other words, I don't see sexual orientation as a thing at all. The behavior is the issue, not some psychological condition or identity thing or whatever it's even supposed to be.

      The third misconception has to do with equality and the nature of fairness. Homosexual marriage is often painted as an issue of equality. This is entirely fallacious. Homosexuals can already get married just like anybody else -- a gay man can find any woman he likes and marry her. Likewise, heterosexuals can't marry others of their own gender. It's not a matter of equality; it's a matter of changing law to make allowances. Which is not, on principle, wrong; it's a cause of concern in this case because there's absolutely no reason to do it other than the fact that those who support it wish to force their philosophy on the rest of us in order to achieve a sense of validation.

      BOOM! X2 table-turn combo!

      ...Okay that was stupid.

      Anyway. To be honest, I wouldn't have a problem with some sort of civil union thing, if the tax breaks are, as is claimed, the real issue. I don't want it to be called marriage because that's not what marriage is. It's really that simple. It has nothing to do with the fact that it's wrong; tons of things that are wrong are legal, and that's fine. I certainly don't want homosexual behavior itself, or the marriage of homosexual couples in a non-legal sense, to be outlawed -- the state has no business dictating any of that. The thing is, the government isn't keeping anybody from getting married. They're just not doing it themselves. 'Legal' marriage only exists because of procreation and the fact that the state has a vested interest in furthering childbirth. (And no, the fact that the elderly or barren couples can be married does not invalidate this. A., it's the exception rather than the rule, and B., they can care for adopted children far more competently than gay couples can because of the simple fact that the human is designed to function best with one parent of each gender, since that's what it takes to create one.) Homosexual marriage, of course, does not further this goal.

      No, I'm not concerned about normal marriage being 'devalued'. As I've said, I couldn't care less. This isn't about me. This is about right and wrong (insofar as I see it as immoral) and about society as a whole (insofar as I oppose the legalization of gay marriage). Normalizing homosexuality would probably result in its proliferation, meaning lots of people who don't reproduce, lowering birthrate even further. EXTINCTION. Well okay not really, but it still wouldn't be good.

      Okay that was a mouthful. If you're still reading this, you either really care about this issue, which I applaud, or you just don't have a life, which I...don't applaud. (I don't condemn it either, though, as that would tend to make me a hypocrite.)

      Shutting up now.

        Loading editor
    • Well how do you explain the fact that there are certain church groups that go arround diferent events (Including Funerals) and hold up sighns of "God Hates...." Insert preaty much any word. Worst of all, they oftain claim that whoever died will go to Hell because they were such and such, or that someone had died because of what one of those hated people did.

      Also, my wife pointed out how in Russia "Skin heads" pretend to be someone who care for homosexuality, especially if those are minors who seem to be not sure who to face for help with that. Then, when those people come to those "talk groups" those "Skin heads" humiliate them and turture them in different ways. The biggest thing about that, is that while people horified of the gruesome and cruel torture, 85 % of the people who were asked to poll about that, voiced their hatered of homosexuality. I had hard time believing that, and it saddens me to know that that happening in the country of my origin.

      Also, my wife tend to bring up the fact of how bible most likly was not writen by God, but by a man and most definetly by a male. I am a religius person myself, but I cannot help but to notice that the word writen in scriptures, tend to be design to justify the man's dominance over woman and conviniently woman is blamed for original sin in the scriptures. But how do we even know if that how it happned really?

      There are also a number of religious groups that have their own version of chistianity, do they use the same Word of God, or do they alter it to allow themselves certain things, like polygamy (no offense to anyone who's a Mormon), or how minor females are allowed to be married off to an older man. Now I am not sure if that just a made up fact for a movie, but I've seen one, where in one of those religious communities, it was believed, that their Bible suggsts that on the date when a woman comes of age, it have to be her father who should take her virginity. So does that trully means that Holly Bible remained largly unchanged, or there are certain groups that claim to be Christians, but they alter the Word of God to suite their own believes and needs? Worst of all, those religious groups are largely untochable, since we have freedom of Religion. Oh yeah, I almost forgot Paster Johns and his Johnstown in Gyana where he force entire community to commit mass suicide. Some of them truly believed in his teaching and willingly took their own lives, other didn't had much choice as shotguns were trained at them from behind, by Jim Johns' guards, who had killed United States Senator, reporters and those few who wanted to get out of that community. Those were religious people and they followed their religious leader to mass suicide, does it means that there is not chance to them for salvation, or that doesn't apply to general rule of you commit suicide, you are damned forever?

      Are there answers to that? Oh and don't take me wrong, I am still a believer of God and I try to lead my life as best as I can to keep from sins. Me and my wife often at dissagreement on Religious matters. I say it because she is not a Russian, Religion seemed to always had been a big part of Russian culture, but some would just call it brainwash. Well there definetly was brainwashing in Russia during the Soviet Union, when Religion was attempted to be erradicated and be replaced by Communist Ideals. However,somehow Religion was revived after fall of Soviet Union. Perhaps about 80 years without legal Religion, isn't enough to destroy what have been a part of people in one way or another since around 10th century AD. Again, I meant no disrespect to anyone, anyone entitled to their own opinion. In anycase, it is up to God to judge and to decide who he hates, not us. Besides, didn't God and Jesus taught to love one enougher, not to express how we hate someone, because we think that God hates them? Anyways, this is all I got to say right now.

        Loading editor
    • Well mostly you're talking about cults here. As for the Westboro types, they do that...mostly because they're just completely nuts. They sometimes say things that are correct, but they say them in the most distasteful manner imaginable, and their theology is pretty messed up.

      As for these various cults, I pretty much disavow them all. Homosexuality is an interesting dilemma for people of my beliefs (I'm a confessional Lutheran, in case anyone cares; you can look up the Augsburg Confession for a summary of our beliefs), since they have been mistreated, often horribly, over time, but what they do is still wrong, so it's a fine line between sympathy and endorsement. Particularly now in our hyper-polarized culture (in America, anyway) of these sorts of postmoderistic endorsement/hatred false dichotomies. Again, saying something someone is doing is wrong is NOT the same thing as hating that person. I don't hate anybody. Well okay maybe I do. But as far as I know, none of them are homosexuals, and if they were, that wouldn't be why.

      Also. God...doesn't work the way people think He should. His system of morality is...different. Essentially, sin is a hereditary disease, and anybody who has it (i.e. everyone ever, with the exception of Christ) has to be destroyed because it's incompatible with God's nature. Hell isn't a matter of punishment so much as it is a method of eradicating things that cannot coexist with His nature. Jesus's death was a loophole in that nature that allowed God to basically punish Christ (who was born sinless, presumably because of the Virgin Birth -- it appears that sin is passed down through the male line, so since Christ didn't have an earthly father, He didn't get it; also, the fact that He was God probably didn't hurt) in place of the rest of us. For whatever reason, though, it's still possible to just reject that sacrifice, which is spread through the Gospel -- i.e. the telling of this very same story -- so a large number of people, regrettably, still find themselves in Hell. This, by the way, is what people who tell homosexuals that what they're doing is wrong are usually trying to prevent -- we don't want anybody to wind up in that situation. (Again, I can't speak for Westboro; they may take a certain sadistic pleasure in knowing that people are suffering there.)

      As for your last point, besides the fact that people hating other people is really not what is taking place here, you are absolutely correct. It is entirely up to God to decide. We don't get any say in the matter. However, in certain cases, He tells us of His decision, such as His pretty clear indications in the Bible that homosexual behavior is in fact sinful. That's why we believe what we do, not because we're forcing our own beliefs on God. Really, if it were up to me to decide what's right and wrong, I would probably just tell the whole lot of homosexuals to leave me out of it and carry on. But, as is probably for the best, I'm not God. As for God hating people...God basically hates everyone who isn't a Christian. He also loves them. And even with the Christians, He only doesn't hate them because they're miniature Jesus clones. He still hates the actual people and their deeds. Because again, sin can't exist alongside Him. It's a very...absolute thing. (Hence why people can't actually do anything good without divine intervention -- they can do stuff that we would consider good, but to God, it's just one big pile of sin.)

      /random soliloquy about theology

        Loading editor
    • ANYWAYS...

      The fact that they are gay can be seen as good for either side of a debate on sexual orientation.

      To pro-LGBT: there's a non-standard couple in the game, showing that Bethesda is moving with the times.

      To anti-LGBT: The non-standard couple were killed off.


      I'm still Pro-LGBT.

        Loading editor
    • Pink Slim wrote:
      ANYWAYS...

      The fact that they are gay can be seen as good for either side of a debate on sexual orientation.

      To pro-LGBT: there's a non-standard couple in the game, showing that Bethesda is moving with the times.

      To anti-LGBT: The non-standard couple were killed off.


      I'm still Pro-LGBT.


      Interesting way of seeing it. I wonder if Bethesda will take it a step further and have a similar couple that is still alive for the player to interact with.

        Loading editor
    • I know all about Martin Luther (Not to be mistaken with Martin Luther King Junior, but possibly that one was named after the great church Reformer too.) He was not a priest origininaly, but he was a highly educated man (cannot remember who exactly he was, a merchant or a lawyer).

      He had pledged his life to God after a life changing event. (I believe he survived a terrible storm, on a ship, out in the sea. He voved that if he will come out of this alive, he would become a priest.) So as he was preparing to be a priest, learining Latin, learning all the rituals, he finally read the Holly Bible in the way it was written, not told by the priests. He realized that there is nothing in the bible that says that to have your sins forgiven you have to buy an indulgence, there is nothing in the bible that requires you to pay tax to the church, and definetly nothing about Pope being above even the King.

      So what he did? He wrote his findings in the form of points for everyone to read, and nailed them on the door of the church. If I am not mistaken, that was in Neurenberg, but I cannot remember exactly now. Ofcourse, Roman Chatolic Church was not too happy about it, if Luther gained enough followers (which he did), they would loose big portion of profit. Before they knew it, almost all German States (there was no united Germany at that time, or maybe they were part of Holly Roman Empire) became Lutheran or Protestants or Reformed. Much of Europe followed too, like Holland and Switherland. Except in Switherland, Kalvin took a more extreme path. He believed in predistonation, that not everyone will get a perfect life in Paradise, that to gain it, you must leave all the eartly entertainments. Switherland of Kalvin's time was a gloomy place, everyone was supposed to work, work and work. There could have been no dancing, no singing, no laughter, no having fun whatsoever. There were even people out there who would patrol the streets to make sure no one was having fun, but doing what they had to do, to ensure a better afterlife for themselves. Later, England became Reformed too, but only because Pope wouldn't let Henry VIII to divorce and marry again...yet enother time. When Pope excomunicated Henry VIII for not listening, he said I am done with you anyways. So he created his own Reformed church that he called Anglican, the church where he would be the head of church himself and the church that would allow as many divorce and marriages as someone wants. United States is predominantly Protestant for that exact reason, as in 13 colonies were Brithish Colonies and Britain was Protestant ever since Henry VIII, with the exception of Marry Tudor and I think Charles...I cannot remember the number, remember the one who said off with Magna Carta, but insead it was off with his head? Yes, on top of everything he was a Chatolic, which was not allowed in good old England at that time.

      But in anycase, I think the biggest thing of Lutheran Reformation was the fact that Holly Bible was finally translated to many European languages, so now not only Priests could read the scirptures. Apperantly before, Chatolic priests conviniently used the fact that only they could understand the Bible, so they would tell people whatever they wanted them to think the Word of God was. Martin Luther, made the Bible available for everyone to read and know for themselves what exactly is written there, not what Chatolic Priest tell you written in there since only they could read Latin. I am not sure if Roman Chatolic Church decided to do that before or after Reformation, but appearantly bible used to contain many different biblical stories that were loved by people since the old times. The Roman Chatolic authorieties got together and said. Listen, we cannot have just everything in the Bible, let's edit it. Aha, this story seems to fit us very well, let include it in official Holly Bible, no not this one, it voices something that we don't like, it will not be in the Bible. Oh and let's not include the Revalation in our version too. At least this is as much as I gathered from different historical sources.

      If I can, next time I shall also talk about Shism, how there was one Christian Church before, but all of the sudden people in the west decided that they don't want to do anything with Patriarch in Constantinople, so Roman Chatolic Church were born. That is how Western and Eastern Christianity appeared. They call Easten one Orthodox often, because they haven't changed ever since Emperor Constantine made Christianity an official religion of Roman Empire. In Russia, they kept the Christiantiy that was brough to them in early 10th century AD. But this and story of Crusades is for a different time, if I am allowed to go that much off topic in here.

        Loading editor
    • I am suprised that they added gay marriage before the added a spouse for every race.

        Loading editor
    • The storm was John Wesley, not Luther. Luther got struck by lightning. So pretty close, but not quite. Also, Calvinism isn't quite what you're thinking; the idea of double predestination is mostly that rather than attempting to save everyone, Christ died only for those who actually make it into heaven. As opposed to Luther's single predestination: those who go to heaven do so entirely because of God's will and with no merit of their own, while those who go to Hell do so entirely because of their own actions -- God didn't have anything to do with their damnation. And no, that doesn't make any sense. ...Roll with it.

      The Ninety-five Theses were posted in Wittenburg. In case anyone cares. (I dunno why I'm going through and correcting your mistakes. Bad habit?)

      So yeah, the catalyst was the indulgence, which was a little more complicated than just paying to get into Heaven; there was the whole doctrine of Purgatory, a place to 'burn off' one's earthly sins (the main problem with this idea being that the whole point of Jesus was to get rid of those sins entirely), and the indulgences were meant to free one's dead relatives and friends from Purgatory early by buying a bit of spare righteousness from various saints. Which begs the question of why, if the Pope had access to a bunch of random and transferrable righteousness, he didn't just give it all to everybody. This was of course precisely what Luther asked...

      As many problems as it wound up causing, what with the complete splintering of the previous mostly-united church, Luther's bringing about of the end of Scriptural censorship was undoubtedly for the best.

      Pink Slim -- why would anyone like the fact that these poor guys got killed off?? Besides, there are tragic dead lovers in like every other dungeon you come accross. Although to be honest, I don't care at all about this being in the game; it's a result of the culture, not of Bethesda itself. When I see these things, I just shake my head a little at the slow demise of our culture, and continue on my way.

      (The anon reply earlier was me, incidentally, in case you couldn't tell by the writing style.)

        Loading editor
    • Kestrellius wrote:
      Pink Slim -- why would anyone like the fact that these poor guys got killed off?? Besides, there are tragic dead lovers in like every other dungeon you come accross. Although to be honest, I don't care at all about this being in the game; it's a result of the culture, not of Bethesda itself. When I see these things, I just shake my head a little at the slow demise of our culture, and continue on my way.

      (The anon reply earlier was me, incidentally, in case you couldn't tell by the writing style.)

      because if they hate gays they usually don't care that the dead gays are people, just that they're gay, and therefore deserved there unjust death.

      trust me the people who believe this don't even deserve to call themselves humans.

        Loading editor
    • Again with the 'hating gays' strawman. I tire of this argument. I'm sure there are people like that, but none of them are on here.

        Loading editor
    • and I am glad for that, but if they were to show up then I'd just say, 'go believe your idiocy somewhere else and be happy that they're dead, because if I had created the characters you would have HAD to interact with them, and you would have loved them.'

        Loading editor
    • Aha, I was going to say in Witenberg, or Wutenberg, but I couldn't tell weather it was just random place name that poped in my head at that time, or an actual place. Oh and while we are on the topic, even before that there was a group called Catars in France, that belived that Communion should be for everyone. But Chatholic Church did not agree and commenced acctually the first crusade ever against someone. Turs out that that crusade was against certain French people. Ofcourse, some say that the whole communion thing was not the main thing of the purge agains them, some say that they were keeping certain relics and possessed knowledge that Church did not agree. My mistake about life changing experience with Luther, I swear that that how my high school teacher in history class said, Luther's experince was. Oh and another thing, I hear that there are those that belive that there isn't any Hell, since Christ's Sacrifice. They belive that when Christ descended into Hell after he died on the cross first, to save those that were being tormented there, he destroyed Hell just by doing so. Also, the first person who was saved after Christ's blood fell to the ground, was the first man that ever lived. Mount Calvari, or Golgofa that Jesus was crucified on, they say happen to also be the place where remains of Adam were supposedly burried and the first drop of Christ blood that fell to the ground there, had saved that man before anyone else was saved. Also, I believe some who believe how Christ had destroyed Hell, would also say that there is no way for us to Heaven either, since it was barred to us ever since the first people sinned. But that would contraverse the whole idea of Christ saving everyone, starting with Adam and those they were burning in Hell all the time. Why wash away their sins, if they cannot get to Heaven anyways? And indeed, Purgatory was created as a middle ground for those who sinned, but not that much, they would have to spend few hundred years or so there, before moving on to Heaven and it wouldn't torment you like Hell. Chatolic Church though had been saying that indulgence can shorten your time in Purgatory. That was complete absurd, since when money could buy you something like this? We all know that money cannot buy everything.

        Loading editor
    • I've always found the "it's wrong because it says so in the Bible" to be a really dumb excuse. Here's something else the Bible says: "A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. Deuteronomy 22: 13-21"

      So why do they not execute non-virgin newly-wed women, hm? If they're going to do things because the Bible says so, why don't they do everything it says? Why do they nit-pick which sections of the Bible to follow and which to completely ignore? It pretty ridiculous.

        Loading editor
    • Bjornolfr used to be a woman before he met Galathil.

        Loading editor
    • Draevan13 wrote:
      "A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. Deuteronomy 22: 13-21"

      That's nasty. It's the kind of thing that would turn people away from the Bible.

        Loading editor
    • Draevan13 wrote:
      I've always found the "it's wrong because it says so in the Bible" to be a really dumb excuse. Here's something else the Bible says: "A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. Deuteronomy 22: 13-21"

      So why do they not execute non-virgin newly-wed women, hm? If they're going to do things because the Bible says so, why don't they do everything it says? Why do they nit-pick which sections of the Bible to follow and which to completely ignore? It pretty ridiculous.

      Oh good grief. Do I have to explain this too? Seriously people, figure out some rudimentary theology before you go blabbering all over the place? Please?

      Okay here's the deal. That, along with most of the rest of Deuteronomy and some other stuff, was all part of the laws pertaining to the original nation-state of Israel. They were put in place as a temporary measure until the Messiah arrived, and at the time, the Jews were being directly governed by God Himself, and later by kings anointed by Him. The primary purpose of these laws, and the entire system of governance, was to keep Israel separated from the rest of the world. Why? Because it would be from Israel that Christ would come. When that happened, Israel as it had existed prior to Jesus's arrival ceased to be, along with the validity of most of the laws you're talking about. Now, we're governed by the rulers of whatever nations we live in, rather than by God, because unlike the Jews in their enormously specific situation, we don't live in a theocracy.

      At least I don't. Maybe you do. But I can still guarantee that you're not being ruled directly by God. That ended a long time ago.

      tl;dr The old Jewish laws were not objective rules designed to be followed by everyone throughout time, but were rather part of a directly God-ordained government with the specific goal of preparing for the Messiah.

      Honestly. Think about these things before you post. Just for like two seconds.

      ...Although I suppose some of this is a bit esoteric, and it's not like the people you've been listening to are likely to have taught this even if they were aware of it, since it would get in the way of the "Christians are hypocritical morons" narrative. So it's probably not your fault.

      /rant Sorry, that particular argument annoys me.

      Actually most things annoy me.

        Loading editor
    • Actually I was raised Christian in a very religious town in Canada, the only time I ever heard the "Christians are morons"" narrative was on the internet a few years ago. I'm not refuting you specifically, Kestrellius, I haven't even read most of the comments on this thread. I was refuting when Christians say "Homosexuality is wrong because it says so in the Bible". The Bible says quite a few things that modern Christians choose to ignore due to them being inconvenient to them. Those are the people I'm speaking against.

        Loading editor
    • I was born in Soviet Union, back when...well it was Soviet Union Time. In 1980's it was getting more liberal, but there was still quite some atheists who looked down upon any religion and many churches were either closed, or destroyed. Usually there were only so many churches open for service in towns. My parents, I don't think had a church weding, unless it was not photographed. Back in Soviet Union, at the time of their marriage, they had what was called "Palaces of Marriage", people would be proven to be a married couple there by city officials who would make sure it is all according to regulations. There would be witnesses like in normal weding and couple had to sighn marriage licence, along with witness. Although, those that really wished so, they could have a church wedding, if they wouldn't mind staying in line to get into the only opened church in town. In anycase, when I was born, I was babtized, not quite sure how old I was then, maybe even 3 years old, but I only know of event from stories. All I know, that my father got babtized along with me then. Also, I wasn't really told about religion when I was older, even though I was still babtized and all, I think it was perhaps 6, 7, 8 years of age or older. More then likely closer to the fall of Soviet Union, but it seemed to me as something real from the way my grandma talked about it. Ofcourse, she didn't stressed on the bible so much, but we did had a children's book that told the stories of saints and of certain religious rituals. It seem more like an excersise book then a true Bible. The way my grandmother said, God is merciful and will forgive your, even big sins, if you are going to be remorseful and never do those big sins again.

      Oh, one more thing, with that homosexual couple in Skyrim, at first I didn't even know that their homosexuals since I didn't even see the bodies. At first, from the only letter I found, it seemed to me that someone's wife is pleading for them to come home to Solitude. Upon closer examination of the letter, I realized that it was more then likely written by a man. My suspicions of that were proven on the other character data, where I actually seen the bodies and even found blood stained letter. Just to let you know that it was confusing to me at first and then I was like ok, so it seems to be the first indication of homosexuality in NPCs. I mean the game does allow you to marry whoever you want. I mean that's the beauty of open world RPGs, be who you cannot be in real life, or be who you want to be. If you are a man, wishing to see what it feels like to be a woman, you can in Skyrim, or wise versa. If you want to see what it is like to play for the other team, you can in Skyrim. If you to be exactly who you are in orientation and gender, but try yourself as a thief, or a warrior, or a mage, or Dovahkiin, you can in Skyrim. Freedom of choice in this game, forget what someone says is immoral. It is not like you are going to do the same thing in real life...unless you already doing it. Well you got my point here, I hope.

      World Peace!

      Love thy neibor

      Stand together no matter the cause

      Long live the Empire!

      Skyrim is for the Nords...and everyone else who wants to live in this Aedra forsaken tundra and polar coast, watch out for them giants and mamoths though.

        Loading editor
    • Draevan13 wrote:
      I was refuting when Christians say "Homosexuality is wrong because it says so in the Bible". The Bible says quite a few things that modern Christians choose to ignore due to them being inconvenient to them. Those are the people I'm speaking against.

      Well I just explained why that's not actually the case, and Christians don't pick and choose. Not in the sense you're thinking, anyway.

        Loading editor
    • At least Christians have finally started obeying the "Thou shalt not kill" section of the Bible, 2,000 years and several million dead later. Because that sure was a "pick-and-choose" example.

      Still, citing a 2,000 year old book written by old men with political agendas seems a very poor excuse for why homosexuality is bad. Doesn't it also say mixing fabrics is a sin? Or is that also an Israel-only law.

        Loading editor
    • It's 'thou shalt not murder'. Honestly. That particular translation was created some time ago, and the language has drifted a bit. It's not just a book written by old men with political agendas; the entire point is that it's no ordinary book, but rather a text written by God Himself through a variety of seemingly rather unnecessarily complicated means. The purpose of which is to explain the story of the universe, what our problem is, and what's been done about it, mainly.

      Oh and it's an 'excuse' now? You seem to be 'picking-and-choosing' quite a bit of what parts of my comments you want to actually acknowledge. The Scripture here is just the final confirmation. (And by the way it talks about it all over the place, not just in Deuteronomy. I'm pretty certain it's mentioned in the Epistles somewhere.) There are plenty of other reasons, the main one being that, as I said, it's just useless. There is no reason for it to exist, and no reason for the people afflicted by it to exist, in the larger picture. It's like having an entire subculture of barren women. It's just dead weight that society doesn't need to carry. It's clearly not natural, because it serves no biological purpose like basically everything else that people do. It's really that simple. It doesn't need to be morally wrong to be seen as a problem.

      As for mixing fabrics? No idea; I'm not actually sure I've heard that one. But yes, it's almost certainly a specific thing for the temporary nation of Israel. I doubt it would have said it was a sin, just not to do it. There is a difference, believe it or not. In that case, it would have been a sin, because the temporary instructions were not to do it, and to fail to follow the instructions would have been a sin, but those instructions no longer stand.

        Loading editor
    • Whether is the Commandment is "kill" or "muder" is irrelevant, Christians did both a lot up until 100-200 years ago.

      And yes, homosexuals will produce no children. So what? It's their life, it's their choice. It's none of your business what they choose to do with it. They have no say in your life. Why should you have one in theirs?

        Loading editor
    • They don't? I'm pretty sure society affects me quite a bit. If only I were completely self-sufficient and contained. That would be wonderful. And no it's not particularly my business. However my opinion on the matter is my business. I'm not planning on making homosexual behavior illegal or something, you know. (I do oppose gay marriage though; see above for a detailed, detailed explanation of why and how that's different from meddling.) This is all just why I think it should not embraced by society, and those who oppose it shunned.

        Loading editor
    • It serves no biological purpose

      Most people say that loving someone makes life better.And what if the bob can't love anyone from the opposite gender?People mating serves as much purpose as i seeing Family Guy.

        Loading editor
    • So? How does that further the species? How does it further a culture? People mating continues the species. Otherwise we die out.

      What do you mean what if he can't? Well then that's too bad for him I guess...But he shouldn't expect allowances to be made for him, I guess. That's the thing. None of the rest of us get any slack cut for us by society when we can't contribute, although that's changing in a number of skewed and destructive ways.

        Loading editor
    • Homosexuals getting married will only affect you because you believe it's wrong. It's not like they're going to run into your home and have sex in front of you.

      But people like you are affecting them. You're saying, in essence, that they're not allowed to be happy. You're saying they should be shunned. All because of a 2,000 year old book. I hope you can see why people like myself would oppose this point of view?

        Loading editor
    • There's seven billion of us. I'd doubt that we'll die out soon.

        Loading editor
    • Do you realize that what you are saying can be compared to how primitive animal species work out their society?Do you live up by those horrid ideals?Each of us contribute and doesn't contribute to the society in different ways.The gay people can work,consume and contribute as much as the straight people.I don't know what you're getting at.

        Loading editor
    • Oh dear, here come the ad hominem appeals to emotion. Again. In force.

      No, not all because of a 2000 year old book. I already said why there are other reasons, and I also explained that I happen to trust that particular book a great deal. I fail to see how its age factors into this at all. When it comes to ideology, the time period doesn't really matter.

      Yeah, they can contribute some. But they're still missing a vital piece. I'm not saying they should be shunned, not exactly. But I don't think anybody should expend a great deal of effort encouraging this kind of thing, because it will work to the detriment of society. Maybe by a lot, maybe not by much. But having a segment of the population that doesn't reproduce isn't a good thing.

      Oh yeah, I said that homosexuality is useless to society, not that homosexuals are useless to society. There is an enormous difference. (If I did say the latter, suffice to say I misspoke.)

      As for all the people accusing me of thinking people should not be allowed to be happy...I don't want them to be happy. I don't want them to be unhappy either. I don't care about their happiness. As you keep saying, it doesn't affect me. And as I keep saying, the reason I continue to care is that this isn't about me. This is about morality, and it's also about practicality.

      Are you saying that people should be allowed to do whatever makes them happy? That would quickly result in a great deal of chaos and destruction. So I take it the idea is, whatever makes you happy without harming anyone else? Sorry, everything affects someone else. And anyway, as I keep saying, but as your convenient strawmen keep bypassing, I don't think anything should be done to homosexuals. I don't care what they do. They can do anything they like and be as happy as they want. But I feel no obligation to 'accept' them, and by 'accept' I don't actually mean accept but rather endorse, because that's what people have made the word mean. I'm perfectly willing to accept a homosexual person in whatever capacity, just stay out of my face about it and we'll be fine. But don't expect me to go out of my way to make you feel as though what you're doing is right when I don't believe it is. Essentially, I'm not going to lie, and nor am I going to wantonly and needlessly change my beliefs, in order to make some people feel better about themselves. Can people somehow not be happy now unless everyone in the world tells them that all of their actions are the shining, stellar example of purity? I think that's a bit much to ask.

      Long story short, society shouldn't shun homosexuals, and it shouldn't 'accept' them. It should ignore them. Or rather, ignore homosexuality, and treat homosexuals like it would treat anybody else, and just not bring it up in hopes that it'll die down eventually. It's the fact that people like you guys are trying to force your beliefs on me, and yes, I just said that, that bugs me. You can disagree with me all you like. I know that my reasoning is sound, and that I am correct (either that or I'm completely insane. I have nothing better to go on than my own reason, and so I'm going to assume that a logical conclusion is correct). And I'm not going to say that I'm wrong and that you're right when I know that not to be the case.

      People are making such a big deal of this. Homosexuals have been persecuted at times. But guess what? Having your particular tastes and desires not be absolutely mainstream and assumed by everybody to be completely normal is not persecution. It's especially not persecution if there's a good reason for it not to be mainstream, such as theological or biological/social factors. It's the enormous push to make this mainstream that bothers me. It was just fine being not mainstream. People weren't forbidden from practicing this (as far as I know; there were some anti-sodomy laws at some point, I believe, but that's not the government's business, so I would thoroughly oppose those -- marriage, however, in the legal sense, is very much the government's business, since that's the entire point), but it was frowned upon. If you need everyone to have a certain opinion, or at least have everyone who doesn't share that opinion silenced, guess what? That is interfering with my life, because I do not take kindly to being told to shut up. Especially not in a nation with guaranteed free speech. (And yes, you have a right to be annoyed with me and voice that, and I have a right to voice this rerebuttal. And you have the right to respond. But nobody has the right to make me shut up.)

      (No, you're not going to get the last word here. If you try, you're just going to learn firsthand exactly how stubborn I am. Hint: Very.)

        Loading editor
    • Oh sweet child of the moon,i'm a teenager; it is my duty to be stubborn.

      It seems to me that most part of your argument comes from homosexuals not being able to reproducing.I just can't understand in any way why is this bad.Did you take a look at the researches that show how is going to be life in the next 50 years?At least at the Americas and Asia,population is bursting like wild popcorn,natality(i don't know how this is called in english) control progams are already being inserted into eastern societies.People(normal people,dumb people,old people,new people) reproduce like mad rabbits,i can and will guarantee that the homossexual's lack of reproducing is not a problem.

      I never stated here that i "like" gay people.My ranting is against the denying of the right of one to do what he can do to be content with his life within the boundaries of law and nature.And this materializes into the gay marriage question.Because,just like you've said it,all people must be treated equally.

      So,it seems you don't really give a rat's behind to this,so i'm going to sleep.

        Loading editor
    • Yes, it makes a big difference when the book was written. You're saying the kind of thinking that was used in a time when people thought the Earth was flat, monsters roamed the seas and spiteful Gods caused everything from wars to natural disasters still applies today? 

      You said you oppose gay marriage. Thus, you do want to prevent them from being happy by agreeing with the limiting of their rights. You can't say "I agree with limiting their rights, but I don't want to make them unhappy." That makes no sense. 

      And speaking of strawman arguments, your point on allowing people to do whatever they want and descending into chaos is utterly ridiculous. You do realise there's a difference between allowing people to marry and letting people commit crimes, right? 

      And homosexuals are STILL BEING PERSECUTED. Denying them a right based on their sexual orientation alone is PERSECUTION. They might not be executed in the streets like in medieval times, but it's still persecution.

        Loading editor
    • Did I missunderstand it, or someone did say here that Bible was actually written by God? That one thing have no prove behind of it. I don't think God actually litterly came down and wrote the Bible. He gave Moses 10 commandmants that he, himself written in stone. That I can agree with, but still we cannot prove or disprove that, unless we get our hands on the ark of the covenant and test the stone slabs for anything that can suggest they were man made. Unfortunatly, the ark of the covenant had been lost ever since Roman Empire Sacked Jerusalem. If by any chance, we would be lucky to get to the bottom of that "money pit" in Canada and see if Templars really hid the ark of the covenant there, we would get the actual prove of the word of God, written by God. That if it would be possible to prove such. Ofcourse, all of those Alternative theorist, more then like will see it as a proof that Ancient Aliens had visited us before and left us a great tehnology. (Those theories usually just annoy me).

      The other thing I can accept, is that the Bible was first written by people who heard the voice of God and recorded what they heard. However, there can be many possibilities to that too. They could have been lying, they could really be truthful, we may never know. Like someone had already said, they might have been following their own agenda as well. Not to mention that if someone today claimed that they heard God talking to them, most would consider the Shizofrenic. So do people really hear the Word of God, or are they just having mental problem? That is something that we may never know, in anyways Religion should be something that you belive in, or don't belive it. It is pobably not right to try to prove anything that Religion says exist. However, it is not right to say that God litterly had written the Bible and that is why it's not just the book. Since if anything, the Bible could had be written by people who heard the voice of God.

      If you will allow me, next time I would talk about Prophets and how before the time of Christ they had been prosecuted in the land of Israel. I might even bring up something that some of my Muslim coworkers shared with me on that. (Oh and those co-workers though that those who believe that they will go to their Heaven if they kill a lot of Infidels, are just plain idiots. They told me that murder, no matter who you kill considers one of the greatest sins in Islam and by killing someone, you don't just take a sin on yourself, you take a sin on your entire lineage and entire humanity as well.)

        Loading editor
    • ...and they're still at it.

        Loading editor
    • To be honest, I'm getting tired of this too, I am really considering just to unfollow this. This topic didn't start with religious discussion, but I guess some people are bringing up realigion to justify that it's wrong to do this or that. They may be prejudice, they maybe not. Some people are impossible to convince otherwise. I can see the issue of some people with gay marriages, that they would not be able to produce any children. I think they are too paranoid, humanity will not end if homosexuals would be allowed to marry, it's not like everyone in the world are homosexuals. It is probably same as being against heterosexual couples not wanting to have children. Ofcourse, if all the people in the world all of the sudden decided not to have children, then God help us all. However, having or not having children is your personal choice, sometimes it's respecting the wishes of your spouse. In anyways, gay marriages not quite the same issue as people not wanting to have children, but nither will bring the end of humanity because they don't procriate. Also, we have to remember that the homosexuals in question here are characters in an rpg game, taking place in made up world. It was made in mind with escape from our reality, so why do we keep bringing our religious issues to Skyrim? What is next, someone going to call religion of Skyrim blathemy, since they belive in 8 or 9 gods, not jus one God? In anycase, I doubt anyone here even would pay attention to this, I regret getting into that religious debate over there too, now it is clear that it's pointless. Read or don't read this, not like it going to make anyone think any different, well at least those that too fixed on proving how religion is rigth when it talks about homosexual marriages.

        Loading editor
    • This isn't the first instance of gay lovers. In the series.


      In Oblivion Quill-Weave the Argonian who lives in Anvil, will travel all the way to her Lesbian Imperial lover in the most North-Eastern city, I can't remember the name. And will sleep with her in bed. I was surprised because I found Quill-Weave waiting in front of her house, followed her inside, and the two were sleeping on the bed together (Just lying on top of the covers, nothing dirty)


      Though it wasn't tragic like this story, (Had no story at all actually) but it's just people have been saying with these two "First gay couple in Elder Scrolls!" so I was just correcting. 


      And also, people saying how "wrong" this is... it's a videogame, grow up. It's not like these are real people actually in love. Shouldn't be an issue anyway, videogame or real life. Again I say, grow up.

        Loading editor
    • I'm straight and I don't want children, does that mean that I should not be allowed to be marry a women I love?

      Guess who else doesn't want to have children: anyone who is using a condom.

      I shouldn't need to pass my genes unto the next generation if I wouldn't want to. Marriage has nothing to do with passing on your genes.

        Loading editor
    • Moogleknight24: I think you are talking about Chorol's shop keeper...oh wait, that the most North Western City. Cheynohal perhaps then, the closest to Morrowind? I haven't noticed anyone comming and visiting anyone all the way from Anvil there, but I might not have been paying attention.

      Pink Slim: You have a point and condoms also used by those who cannot afford to raise a child yet. That decision, to bring a new life into this cruel world, you have to make after making sure you can support yourself, let alone support a child. I've been married for 4 years now, but we still don't think we are ready for a child, even though I wouldn't mind having one down the road. Instead me and my wife made preaty good parents to two orphan, infant kittens that someone brough to us when we lived in New Jersey. Now we have beautiful kitten twins, Noxie and Smokey. Noxie is a black, lover girl kitty who loves love and Smokey is my little munchkin boy kitty and the only thing that he loves more then eating is killing feet. They absolutely adore us and if anything, they are preaty good training for us in case we finally decide that we are ready to make a human child too. They had to have formula in their early days just the same, wasn't always easy, but we raised two healty kittens. I know that someone whould dissagree with that, believing that animal babies are nothing compared to human babies. In part they would be right, since animal babies are more responsive to you for the most part. So, I am not trying to offend anyone here, I appologize if someone take what I said wrong.

        Loading editor
    • Legate Alexandros wrote:
      Moogleknight24: I think you are talking about Chorol's shop keeper...oh wait, that the most North Western City. Cheynohal perhaps then, the closest to Morrowind? I haven't noticed anyone comming and visiting anyone all the way from Anvil there, but I might not have been paying attention.


      It's Casta Scribonia. In Chorrol. I wasn't sure so I checked Quill-Weaves' article. It said they were good friends and she visits from time to time. I remember seeing them lying in bed together in Casta's house. I can't possibly be the only one who discovered that... but then again there are TONS of tiny things that go unnoticed. One person on a message board said that there is a guy in the game, a married man NPC who really has nothing to do with anything, who once a week goes to a woman in another town and sleeps with her. It changes nothing in the game, it's just there as fun things to look for. 

        Loading editor


    • Good grief. People, getting married, in the legal sense, is not a right. Thinking about this in the sense of 'denying people rights' is a completely wrong way of going about things. Nothing in the law is preventing, and nothing has been preventing, a homosexual couple from going to a church or other organization and getting married. They just won't be recognized by the government, since the only reason the government has any stake in this at all is because of children. How can people not get this? They have the same rights. I already said this. Homosexuals are not denied legal marriage. Everyone is denied marriage to a person of the same gender, or rather, those who marry someone of the other gender are recognized by law, whereas those who marry another of the same gender are not. The benefits of legal marriage are to encourage childbearing.

      Pink Slim: probably. However, that would really be nitpicking, since you could always change your mind, and once again, these cases are the exception, not the rule. I imagine that when the laws were originally created, the kind of cultural disdain for childrearing presumably brought on by the influence of radical feminism that we've seen in recent decades would have been largely nonexistent.

      As for proofs for the Bible? I'm not going to go into specifics, but extrabiblical historical records indicate that Christ's tomb was empty. The only logical explanation (for various reasons; none of the other answers make sense) is that He rose, as He had said He would. He apparently indicated that the Scriptures were in fact completely accurate, written by men but inspired by God. (By the way inspiration in this sense is not like being inspired by a sunset. It's more like having writings dictated to you, not necessarily word-for-word, but to an extent that makes what you're writing what God is saying.) I dunno about you, but I'm going to assume that a man who can raise Himself from the dead, or have His Father do it, or whatever it was exactly that happened, is telling the truth, because if He's lying, we're toast either way.

      Look, society probably wouldn't collapse (it's hard to rule any possibility out; small things can at times have massive consequences), but there's no reason for people to go out of their way to encourage this, because our cultures wouldn't benefit, and some people think it's wrong. Why should people change their ideologies, that they have valid reasons for believing, just because it upsets some people? Why should they be forced to pretend they don't believe it's wrong? They're not hurting anybody, and while not allowing them to get married by law might lessen their happiness, the government has no reason to do so. It doesn't get a nation anything. There is a specific reason for legal marriage, and homosexuals don't supply it.

      By the way, people are not reproducing like mad rabbits. At least not here. Overpopulation is a problem in some nations in the East, but not for long, since China's government is attempting population control which will make them implode, since they're not at replacement levels anymore.

      I take it back; maybe I won't bother to get the last word here. It's just disintegrating, like a lot of similar arguments, into appeals to emotion or fairness rather than logic. There's not much point in arguing anymore, since I'm not going to convince you (not that there was ever really any possibility of that).

      P.S. I would love to be proven wrong. Or rather, I don't care. As I've said, I have no personal stake in this. I oppose this as a cultural issue mostly on religious grounds, and as a legal issue on practical grounds. So if it were to be proven in a way that made sense that the Bible doesn't actually condemn this, and that it does indeed help society, well then that's great! But that doesn't seem to be the case, so I'm opposing it.

        Loading editor
    • wow, you start off talking about skyrim....... HA! elder SCROLLS! --->

      get it?

      anybody?

      no? oh.....

        Loading editor
    • Crimson scar
      Crimson scar removed this reply because:
      A dumb comment on my behalf...
      02:49, September 29, 2013
      This reply has been removed
    • You think no one but you is using logic in their arguments? What you're saying is "I want to deny them something that's perfectly reasonable for them to want, but I don't want them to be miserable". That's like saying "I want to stab them, but I don't want them to bleed." That is illogical.

      You say you don't want them to marry because it's of no benefit to society. By that reasoning, we shouldn't allow sterile people to marry, either. Or eunuchs. And what about people who don't want to have kids? Should we also forbid them from marriage?

      Do you see how ridiculous this gets?

        Loading editor
    • 108.66.235.54 wrote:
      wow, you start off talking about skyrim....... HA! elder SCROLLS! --->

      get it?

      anybody?

      no? oh.....

      Do you know what re-opening a dead thread is?

        Loading editor
    • It's not exactly a matter of offsprings per example if you allowed two men to marry one another then what's to stop a bisexual woman from wanting to marry her male and female lover so then polegamy could be legalized do to constant lobbying and what's stopping  human/ animal marriage if polegamy were to be legalized my point is if you let homosexuals marry then you eventually have to let other groups marry it degrades society.

        Loading editor
    • Crimson scar wrote:
      It's not exactly a matter of offsprings per example if you allowed two men to marry one another then what's to stop a bisexual woman from wanting to marry her male and female lover so then polegamy could be legalized do to constant lobbying and what's stopping  human/ animal marriage if polegamy were to be legalized my point is if you let homosexuals marry then you eventually have to let other groups marry it degrades society.

      I sincerely hope you're joking/trolling. I know there are a small handful of stupid people who actually think slipperly slope reasoning like this is logical, but I never thought i'd encounter one.

        Loading editor
    • Crimson scar wrote:
      It's not exactly a matter of offsprings per example if you allowed two men to marry one another then what's to stop a bisexual woman from wanting to marry her male and female lover so then polegamy could be legalized do to constant lobbying and what's stopping  human/ animal marriage if polegamy were to be legalized my point is if you let homosexuals marry then you eventually have to let other groups marry it degrades society.

      Might as well start sending them to death camps with that attitude, gays, polygamists and animals, anyone you don't want to see getting married, let's just kill them all, that'll solve every problem to ever exist.

        Loading editor
    • I never said anything about murder society just shouldn't allow gay marriage but I mean It's fine if they're together but if they're married it degrades society.

        Loading editor
    • ........ I won't take you serious with that grammar.

        Loading editor
    • Crimson scar wrote:
      I never said anything about murder society just shouldn't allow gay marriage but I mean It's fine if they're together but if they're married it degrades society.

      you know what really degrades society, Stupid people.

        Loading editor
    • Crimson scar wrote:
      I never said anything about murder society just shouldn't allow gay marriage but I mean It's fine if they're together but if they're married it degrades society.

      Alright, here's a better question, what is it about them being married that degrades society, seeing as you don't care if they're together? what is it that they're doing differently as a married couple that you believe will unravel the very fabric of civilized society?

        Loading editor
    • Sky Above,Voice Within wrote:
      ........

      I won't take you serious with that grammar.

      It's a forum dude

        Loading editor
    • Pink Slim wrote:
      Crimson scar wrote:
      I never said anything about murder society just shouldn't allow gay marriage but I mean It's fine if they're together but if they're married it degrades society.
      you know what really degrades society, Stupid people.

      You know what really degrades society gay marriage :D

        Loading editor
    • Pink Slim wrote:
      Crimson scar wrote:
      I never said anything about murder society just shouldn't allow gay marriage but I mean It's fine if they're together but if they're married it degrades society.
      Alright, here's a better question, what is it about them being married that degrades society, seeing as you don't care if they're together? what is it that they're doing differently as a married couple that you believe will unravel the very fabric of civilized society?

      Reply to this one if you're going to be serious, if you're just here trolling you can leave.

        Loading editor
    • Crimson scar wrote:
      I never said anything about murder society just shouldn't allow gay marriage but I mean It's fine if they're together but if they're married it degrades society.

      1.) As Pink slim asked, what about gay marriage degrades society?

      2.) It's narrow minded people like you who degrade society by promoting inequality because of your own homophobic tendancies.

        Loading editor
    • Crimson scar wrote:

      Sky Above,Voice Within wrote:
      ........

      I won't take you serious with that grammar.

      It's a forum dude

      Exactly; it's a forum, dude. We need to read your crap to reply, and that is very hard with grammar like that.

        Loading editor
    • ^ Wow I  am simply trying to make a political statement but you keep attacking me shame on you.

        Loading editor
    • Al Wolf2200 wrote:
      Crimson scar wrote:
      I never said anything about murder society just shouldn't allow gay marriage but I mean It's fine if they're together but if they're married it degrades society.
      1.) As Pink slim asked, what about gay marriage degrades society?

      2.) It's narrow minded people like you who degrade society by promoting inequality because of your own homophobic tendancies.

      I never really understood the term   "homophobic it implies that you're afraid of gays well I'm just afraid they will be allowed to marry in every state that would kill America.

        Loading editor
    • we're just asking about the base of your argument, why does gay marriage 'degrade society'? what can two gay people who are married do that two gay people who aren't married can't? and how the hell does it degrade society?

      if you can't answer that you have no right to even argue against it.

        Loading editor
    • You do realise that many countries allow gay marriage and those countries haven't died, right? Their economy/society/military or whatever you're afraid will degrade stayed the same. 

        Loading editor
    • Please refer to my previous post it explains why gay marriage degrades society.

        Loading editor
    • I sense trolldom. "Kill America" scared me off.

        Loading editor
    • Draevan13 wrote:
      You do realise that many countries allow gay marriage and those countries haven't died, right? Their economy/society/military or whatever you're afraid will degrade stayed the same. 

      It's a matter of time It doesn't happen the split second gay marriage is legalized..

        Loading editor
    • Except that your logic is flawed. Show me a real-world example where a country allowed gay marriage and then allowed beastiality or polygamy. You won't find one. It's never happened.

        Loading editor
    • Well Polygamy is legal in multiple African countries and some middle eastern nations and look at the morality of Pakistan per example.

        Loading editor
    • Do you mean this load of crap that you think is logical?

      Crimson scar wrote:
      It's not exactly a matter of offsprings per example if you allowed two men to marry one another then what's to stop a bisexual woman from wanting to marry her male and female lover so then polegamy could be legalized do to constant lobbying and what's stopping  human/ animal marriage if polegamy were to be legalized my point is if you let homosexuals marry then you eventually have to let other groups marry it degrades society.

      let's see, what groups of people have been known to practice polygamy in america... Oh that's right, insane christians, who by the way use their illegal polygamy to marry girls as young as ten.

      That's right, no gays, just insane religious pedophiles.

      Also their are other countries out there where Polygamy is normal, but where are the sheep fuckers? any gays? nope, no link to polygamy and homosexuality.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, Arab nations sure as hell doesn't allow gay marriage.

        Loading editor
    • They also doesn't allow a lot of things. I heard that in Arab nations women treated like slaves. Not too long ago, I think it was in Saudi Arabia, a woman was condemned to lashes, because she got raped. Her trying to get a lawyer to help her got her even more lash. Apearantly they think that it was her fault in the first place, because she got in a car with a man, who wasn't her blood relative.

        Loading editor
    • Them are the most two nonsensical names I've ever heard.

      Bjorlifejaw and Hrojdslijmvksmdk

        Loading editor
    • who's hrodulf...?

      is it this guy

        Loading editor
    • yep

        Loading editor
    • I also always have trouble spelling out each of their names. All I know is one on the shore, near the boat, dead, with pieces of broken iron axe next to him and with a Burnt Sprigan nearby. The other is just inside the Dwemer chamber, that one seem to wear novice mage outfit. And sometimes, your game would be glitched and you won't even see any of the bodies and the only way to get the pieces of broken iron axe then, if they would be occasionaly suspended in mid air and once you take one, the other falls back under the ground again. Good thing, it seems to be a respawning item. When would they ever adress anoying glitches like that, when certain things seem to fall under the ground and out of your reach.

      Oh and on the account of Polygamy. Yes, many muslim countries, that are not too bad to their women, have Polygamy quite sucessfuly. It might not be the same as during Ottoman Empire, but in fact the Sultan's Harem used to be the only institution for women, where they were allowed to learn. All of Sultan's wives in Ottoman Empire would be quite educated in many fields in those "gilded cages". Despised of what I said earlier about harshness of treatment of women in some muslim countries,. I also heard that each wife in modern day muslim houshold, have equal rights. Husband have the duty to visit each of his wife every night and if he failed to do so, the wife that was not visited, have all the rights to file for divorce. That is why in modern day Muslim countries such as United Arab Emirates, most of those that can afford having more then one wife, usually settle for two wifes. That's reminds me of one song from Russian comedy movie: "If I have been a Sultan, I would have three wives, and with the triple beauty, I would have been surounded. However, on another hand, with the way the business is going? To us Sultans, Allah Save us! Not too bad to have three wives, but really bad on another hand. For myself, I have long have decided, that if I was a Sultan, I would be single! Not too bad, with no wife at all. And even better on either hands." Something to that effect.

      Oh and isn't Utah, the only state in USA that leagaly allows Polygamy because of Mormons? Now, I am not sure how crazy Mormons are, but I always viewed them as better then all of those Christian Sects that preatch about giving up your 10 year old daughers to the leader to be his wives. But for all I know, Mormons can be just as bad. So on the thing that Polygamy is Illegal in USA, they can just go to Utah and get it legalized. Unless you actually have to be a Mormon even in Utah to have multiple spouses.

        Loading editor
    • I think if you gonna pronunce those name in english i would have to be something like this:

      Bjornolfr = Bjornulfer

      Hrodulf = Rodulf

        Loading editor
    • Pickleseller
      Pickleseller removed this reply because:
      SO THEY WON'T KNOW TOO MUCH
      10:52, October 8, 2013
      This reply has been removed
    • I edited it, I am not sure any muslim had time to see it or not. Hopefuly not, I guess I was in the hurry then and made a typo. Thank you for noticing it.

        Loading editor
    • Legate Alexandros wrote:
      I edited it, I am not sure any muslim had time to see it or not. Hopefuly not, I guess I was in the hurry then and made a typo. Thank you for noticing it.

      Glad you've changed them. :)

      miswriting the Moslems God name ussualy makes them indirectly offended... 

        Loading editor
    • Now let's remove the post that told him to do it and everything will be fine.

        Loading editor
    • Really, don't know why you are all arguing. It could just be another easter egg like all the others, you know. Its probably just a reference to brokeback mountain

        Loading editor
    • I hadn't seen that movie, but know a bit about it. Homosexual relationship, definetly would fit. However, did both lovers die at the end, after one of them had to go away? If it didn't happen the exact same way, or similarly; I don't believe that their relationship is enough ground to make a parallel to "Brokeback Mountain." But it might as well be an easter egg refering to something else.

        Loading editor
    • I could swear this was an Elder Scrolls forum. Guess I'm in the wrong place.

        Loading editor
    • It's tragic, I blame either Reavers or the Ash Spawn.

        Loading editor
    • No, you are in a right place. It is just that you never know what discussions they will come up next. The one by the boat was probably killed by Reavers, or that Burnt Sprigan. The other one more then likely died when there was a rock fall inside that tunnel.

        Loading editor
    • Last words, ashes to ashes .. I burned it, and mixed the ashes, and left them in the tomb.. the last thing I can do it for them.

      Edit: Image removed, please read the Forum policy for uploading images to be used in the forum. Thanks.

        Loading editor
    • Still a better love story than Twilight

        Loading editor
    • ^I beat you too it.

        Loading editor
    • did anyone notice it was 2 guys

        Loading editor
    • 108.234.211.94 wrote:
      did anyone notice it was 2 guys

      ... I really hope that was sarcasm: most of this thread was derailed because it was about two guys...

        Loading editor
    • i was surprised to find that it was two men involved. im not homophobic by any means, i mean ive made gay characters on mass effect, dragon age and of courrse skyrim. i just meant i was surprised because there were no other gay couples in the game (aside from some of the characters i have made). but i did find it sad that they were both dead.

        Loading editor
    • Jonesy95 wrote:
      Epzo wrote:
      A much better love story than Twilight.

      Even Van Helsing had a better love story than Twilight, and it didn't skimp on having proper vampires and werewolves.

      just about any love story is better than twilit, i bet like $1,000 that someouns guna rage agenst me for writing that...

        Loading editor
    • 71.228.34.80 wrote:
      Jonesy95 wrote:
      Epzo wrote:
      A much better love story than Twilight.

      Even Van Helsing had a better love story than Twilight, and it didn't skimp on having proper vampires and werewolves.
      just about any love story is better than twilit, i bet like $1,000 that someouns guna rage agenst me for writing that...

      I'll take that bet.

      anyone who actually comes to this thread should be smart enough to dislike twilight.

        Loading editor
    • I was more interested in the ruins below, and the loot they may contain, but instead found a gay love story XD

      An in an attempt to not offend anybody, I was kidding there, I mean no offense to gay people

        Loading editor
    • I was hoping to find a mysterious Dwemer ruin, with creature or automaton being the reason he went insane. Instead I found a crappy love story and butt load of angry comments.

        Loading editor
    • I realized most of this entire thread was one argument... sheesh.

        Loading editor
    • Pickleseller wrote:
      I realized most of this entire thread was one argument... sheesh.

      Disappointing isn't?

        Loading editor
    • OK, this thread is sort of getting boring.  So I will quote a famous philosopher (who is so famous, I can't even remember his name):

      "Just as no-one can be forced into belief, no-one can be forced into unbelief."

      So let's all agree to disagree and shush (Please?)!  I would normally say, "Let's get back to the matter at hand." after a thread trails off, but you people have been arguing about God saying this and those people being hypocrites and unproductive members of society being the bane of civilisation that I can't remember what the topic was!

        Loading editor
    • Hmm... I almost get the feeling that Hrodulf may have actually killed Bjornolfr. I mean, the Reavers say they found the body in the tunnel, but then there's that big bloodstain in the basement corner by the fireplace, and a bloody rag by the sleeping bag. It leads me to believe Hrodulf killed Bjornolfr, then moved his body into the tunnel for some strange reason. It would appear he then went out to the boat for some reason and found the amulet and ring, or possibly took them from Bjornolfr as a memory. If you inspect the boat, you'll see there's a large bloodstain in it, then it goes to the chest, and then to Hrodulf's body, so it can be assumed that he was attacked in the boat and then possibly fell out onto the chest and was killed where his body lay.

        Loading editor
    • That would be a convincing story, but where is the motive?  If Hrodulf doesn't have a reason to kill his boyfriend, then I refuse to believe it.

        Loading editor
    • The sad part of this story is that no one can tell what happened. If there was something in the Dwemer ruin that had some sort of mind-controlling effect on Hrodulf, and he killed his boyfriend, you could imagine he didn't put up that much of a fight when he was at the rowboat.

      It seems a shame that the first homosexual couple we come across in the game are dead. I hope the next game will feature some live, operational homosexual couple.

        Loading editor
    • Epzo wrote: If you say "no homo", you are insecure about your sexualality. If you can't say I love you to your friends without having to say that. Then grow up.

      You only say no homo if you're like 'let me tickle your butt no homo'

        Loading editor
    • But anyways, with all this 'its against my religion' or 'its weird' I've had a friend that homo, and I didn't see her as strange, my neighbours are gay I and don't care, and its all because I wasn't brainwashed by people believing some old guy sits in the clouds and makes everything. And don't say 'you've never been anywhere religious then' because I went to a religious school for most of my schooling, but yeah, I'm straight, but I look at some guys and say they're attractive, does that make me gay? No. Does it make me strange? No.

        Loading editor
    • 46.15.118.27 wrote: I think if you gonna pronunce those name in english i would have to be something like this:

      Bjornolfr = Bjornulfer

      Hrodulf = Rodulf

      Closer to this

      Bjornolfr = Byornlfer

      But Hrodulf is probably how you did it.

        Loading editor
    • Daedric Prince Of Potatoes wrote:

      Epzo wrote: If you say "no homo", you are insecure about your sexualality. If you can't say I love you to your friends without having to say that. Then grow up.

      You only say no homo if you're like 'let me tickle your butt no homo'

      I tickle the butt without that and I don't have any problems.

        Loading editor
    • Ah, the internet where everybody is going on about how they hate religion and believe their political views are right. How could this get any better? But... I thought this was about Skyrim not politics.

        Loading editor
    • Like almost everyone else, I recognize homosexuals shouldn't be oppressed. However, I also believe that it's wrong to gang up on someone for simply saying they don't agree with homosexuality or they're unsettled by it. If someone disgusted a part of who I am or someone else I care about, I ignore it. Why don't people leave the comments they view as bad alone instead of trying to convince them that their life-long views are wrong? We're strangers on the internet. We can't rewrite each other's lives to suit ourselves.

        Loading editor
    • Thank you for saying that! The person who wrote this obviously wanted to start a very heated debate.

        Loading editor
    • What I find disturbing is the total lack of tolerance on the part of all these people who are "defending tolerance"... Only *their* point of view is the right one. People with other views are not allowed to express their opinion (freedom of speech?) even if they are doing so corteously and not attacking anyone in particular, just saying, "this is my opinion". People with other views shouldn't even allowed, in the view of the intolerants, to even think in those terms (freedom of thought?). Don't you think that it would be a matter of general interest to know how many people are unsettled or disturbed or don't agree with encountering homosexuality in a game? But most are afraid to express their opinions because they know that they will be smothered in flames. Who knows, they might even be the majority. I think a good RPG will allow homosexuality, for those so inclined, but at the same time will let players not so inclined to discreetly avoid finding it. I believe Skyrim does a good job of this, unlike Dragon age of Fable, for example.   

        Loading editor
    • 190.106.210.61 wrote:
      What I find disturbing is the total lack of tolerance on the part of all these people who are "defending tolerance"... Only *their* point of view is the right one. People with other views are not allowed to express their opinion...

      So what you're saying being intolerant of intolerance is still intolerance?

      Basically, its ok to say whatever you want and be judged according to those words.

      "I think a good RPG will allow homosexuality, for those so inclined, but at the same time will let players not so inclined to discreetly avoid finding it."

      At the same time you wouldn't have a problem with people finding heterosexuality. This is the definition of double standards. As long as you agree that you don't have a say in what others' sexuality should be and that you can't treat people differently because of it, there shouldnt be a problem. Being disturbed by it is perfectly fine.

        Loading editor
    • Want to know the interesting thing about this? Hrodulf is escaping his sexuality. I grant you, many of you are going to dismiss this but think again. He ignores his lover's plea to come home and may have killed him. This isn't even all of it. Notice how next to the bed rolls there are two copies of the Lusty Argonian Maid. Coincidence? I think not. It's likely Hrodulf had gone to Solthseim on some quest to find out who he is or something along those lines. He's questioning everything about himself and when it all confronts him, he tries to escape again. He's heading away from the island to run again, only this time it all catches up with him. I feel good now I've ruined a mushy love story.

        Loading editor
    • The person who made this perposely tried to start a flame war obviously.

        Loading editor
    • Wow this is a lengthy discussion and there's no way I'm going to read the entire thread, haha. I personally liked the little story. I'm a gay dude and those kinds of stories always kind of get to me a bit. It's nice to know Bethesda had the creative spark to put something like that in the game without trying to make an obvious statement. Really if anyone is offended or repulsed or whatever, all I can say is "okay". 

        Loading editor
    • Dovakiin47800 you are so right about this. Whoever posted this thread clearly did it to start a war between the religious and non-religious people on this site while he sets back and watches evryone tearing eachother apart.

        Loading editor
    • AzuraKnight
      AzuraKnight removed this reply because:
      Kinda offensive.
      09:35, January 15, 2016
      This reply has been removed
    • Commenting the overheard reavers' conversation, someone said that Dunmers could be against couples like this. Well, as a straight male Dunmer and also Azura's believer I feel the need to say that I vehemently support same sex marriages in Tamriel and beyond.  

        Loading editor
    • I read so much of this discussion that I actually forgot that it was even attatched to a Character's page...

        Loading editor
    • Tell me about it. I mean thia thread was intenially started to cause a feud. 

        Loading editor
    • Im being nit-picky so delete this message if y'all want. Something that really annoys me is how alot of homophobic people always blame their religion on why they're being homophobic and how alot of non-homophobic people assume that beacuse you're part of a certain relgion you're homophobic. Also i'm saying alot NOT ALL. On that note i have a slighting funny story to tell because i'm bored and want to write this down somewhere. Again if y'all hate this delete it. Once I was talking about religion with a stranger on the bus and i mentioned I was Catholic and he went crazy yelling that I was probobly a "Homophobic asshole" and how I should "Rot in Hell" and a bunch of other stuff and I just let him go on till the end before I got off and all I did was say "Sorry to disapoint you but no, I'm not any of those things i'm actually bisexual."

        Loading editor
    • LoqD wrote:
      What love story?

      One guy went nuts and killed his lover. That doesn't sound like a love story to me. It doesn't event sound like much of a story at all. More like an anecdote

      An anecdote is a story, dumbass.

        Loading editor
    • Cast 101 wrote:
      The Imperials don't want to see these homosexual couples, if they do, they cut there heads off. Or the Stormcloaks would do that, and might be saying that it is a full embarrasment to there own race.

      Actually, unlike the sh*tty world we live in, Sexuality is not something people get angry about in Mundus/Nirn/Tamriel/Whatever/The Elder Scrolls Universe.

      I'll have you know, the Imperial's Social Policies can be compared to EU Social Policies.

      The Stormcloaks, being the Nords they are, can actually reflect the EFF-Boer Situation in South Africa as well as any "Homeland" story...

      Except in Mundus, both sides aren't crazily religious to the point where they actually make rules about love.

        Loading editor
    • 31.52.59.74 wrote:
      Want to know the interesting thing about this? Hrodulf is escaping his sexuality. I grant you, many of you are going to dismiss this but think again. He ignores his lover's plea to come home and may have killed him. This isn't even all of it. Notice how next to the bed rolls there are two copies of the Lusty Argonian Maid. Coincidence? I think not. It's likely Hrodulf had gone to Solthseim on some quest to find out who he is or something along those lines. He's questioning everything about himself and when it all confronts him, he tries to escape again. He's heading away from the island to run again, only this time it all catches up with him. I feel good now I've ruined a mushy love story.

      Yeah but it's the Dwemer ruin that probably made him do that.

        Loading editor
    • 190.106.210.61 wrote:
      What I find disturbing is the total lack of tolerance on the part of all these people who are "defending tolerance"... Only *their* point of view is the right one. People with other views are not allowed to express their opinion (freedom of speech?) even if they are doing so corteously and not attacking anyone in particular, just saying, "this is my opinion". People with other views shouldn't even allowed, in the view of the intolerants, to even think in those terms (freedom of thought?). Don't you think that it would be a matter of general interest to know how many people are unsettled or disturbed or don't agree with encountering homosexuality in a game? But most are afraid to express their opinions because they know that they will be smothered in flames. Who knows, they might even be the majority. I think a good RPG will allow homosexuality, for those so inclined, but at the same time will let players not so inclined to discreetly avoid finding it. I believe Skyrim does a good job of this, unlike Dragon age of Fable, for example.   

      Don't you think that the world doesn't have to revolve around a single viewpoint.

      You're literally saying how the game is implying a single-minded agenda then here you go "WHat abotu those that dont wWant it??!?"

      Which implies a bit of hypocrisy.

      It doesn't matter if the game has more mo--- (I wouldn't say Modern because as a Greek I'd usually know my people's history and we've been known for Homosexuality.) views, you'll call others "snowflakes" for not being represented properly or just being offended in general (being offended is a concept as old as time, it's not something to be mocked for.), then people will proceed to go on and actually be offended when the offended ones get their way, which causes me, in return to go on Twitter and exclaim "Who's the snowflake now, b*tch!"

        Loading editor
    • Dovahkiin47800 wrote:
      Ah, the internet where everybody is going on about how they hate religion and believe their political views are right. How could this get any better? But... I thought this was about Skyrim not politics.

      The game literally takes place during a civil war.

      A literal mechanic that comes with Political Concepts including Diplomacy and Geopolitics.

        Loading editor
    • Draevan13 wrote:
      Except that your logic is flawed. Show me a real-world example where a country allowed gay marriage and then allowed beastiality or polygamy. You won't find one. It's never happened.

      Although my Trans-Lesbian friend is a Polygamite, and I respect her decision, you can never have too much power.

      I don't Polygamy as bad, I mean I don't practise it, but I fully endorse it.

      I endorse LGBTQ+ as well. (well, Im trans so why wouldn't i, well, truscums exist, but im not a truscum)

      I endorse Lust too.

      But I do not endorse Beastiality, Pedophilia, Necrophilia, Necromancy or anything that is just wrong.

      And this is a common view amongst the LGBTQ+ community.



      So if you see a person saying P in the alphabet when it comes to LGBT means "Peidosexual", please shank them with Pansexual intent, because no, it stands for Pansexual, which means loving of all genders, sexes, etc. (It's Bisexual Premium)...

      And if you see anyone saying LGBT shouldn't be around children or the young, it's mainly because they think that LGBTQ+ is always about lust, which it isn't, because Asexuals (who come in different types) are not about Lust.

        Loading editor
    • LoqD wrote:
      What love story?

      One guy went nuts and killed his lover. That doesn't sound like a love story to me. It doesn't event sound like much of a story at all. More like an anecdote

      One was killed by reavers the other by a burnt spriggan. They didn’t kill each other...also on Hrondulf’s boat is an Amulet of Mara and a Gold Diamond Ring. I would guess to propose to Bjornolf, but that’s just speculation really.

        Loading editor
    • Legate Alexandros wrote:
      lol I didn't even noticed that typo. It obviously was meant as blood stained letter. I wonder what would be even more ew, to find a letter with blood all over, or love all over. I guess it depends on person's issues. Ahh! There's blood on this letter! *faints*

      On a serious note, the blood on the letter does make it hard to read.

      Lol yeah it is a bit hard to read, but it is possible to see through the blood. Not really a vital letter, but it does say a lot about Hrodulf’s mental state. It’s just a Dwarven ruin, they have them everywhere. People study them and (for the most part at least) remain sane. Definitely a strange reaction, unless the sounds simply drove him mad over time...or Sheogorath got to him :P.

        Loading editor
    • For the record, Bjornolfr was found with a Nordic Dagger underneath him. It is possible that he killed himself after his boyfriend was killed by Reavers.

        Loading editor
    • 71.214.88.170 wrote:
      Legate Alexandros wrote:
      lol I didn't even noticed that typo. It obviously was meant as blood stained letter. I wonder what would be even more ew, to find a letter with blood all over, or love all over. I guess it depends on person's issues. Ahh! There's blood on this letter! *faints*

      On a serious note, the blood on the letter does make it hard to read.

      Lol yeah it is a bit hard to read, but it is possible to see through the blood. Not really a vital letter, but it does say a lot about Hrodulf’s mental state. It’s just a Dwarven ruin, they have them everywhere. People study them and (for the most part at least) remain sane. Definitely a strange reaction, unless the sounds simply drove him mad over time...or Sheogorath got to him :P.

      This story reminds me of the person who could hear the chanting from a word wall underneath them, and was also driven mad. I don't remember who it was, but the story is similar nonetheless.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.