Are we close to linking pictures of dead horses and beatings yet?

We don't seem to have that emoticon available to us here.

Well, it's the thought that counts

Every time I think we are, someone hits the horse with a super stimpak and we have to start the whole sorry process all over again.

Might need to hit it with the MIRV.

Someone would just bring in another horse, that looks amazingly like the previous horse......

They don't so much "create a dynamic where race relations with humans are good" as just decline to bring it up altogether. And I don't blame them, a frank portrayal of race relations in post-apocalyptic times would look more like Yugoslavia than Star Trek....racial identity politics has seen to that....it has no upside for them as it would alienate a large part of their target audience and leaves them vulnerable to being crucified for creating a "Race War simulator". Easier and safer to use ghouls as stand-ins.....given that we seem to agree on what they are doing with human-ghoul relations, what do you make of FO3's Tenpenny Tower quest seen in that light?

They do 'bring it up' by the complete lack of any racial tensions. All the interactions between people 'show' the harmony. Realistic? No but it is a sci fi trope it is designed to shine a light on real racism though the lens of media be it books, games tv or movies. The fact that Star Trek creates a utopia isn't realistic at all, it is done by design so that when they encounter a situation that is anologous to a current real world problem they can shine a more direct light on the issue. Yes it isn't realistic but is its strength as it allows people to take a step back and look at things through a different lens to create perspective. Realism isn't the only yard stick to measure commentary nor is it always the most effective measure either.

I think The ghoul vs. Tenpenny Tower was a great quest. First it was one of the only ones that had unintended consequences second it didn't shy away from the inhumanity racial conflicts have. Treat people terribly long enough and some will respond in kind. It was very anologous of the former Yugoslavia, and I felt it did a good job at illuminating the issue without going this side is nothing but white hats and this side is nothing but black hats. It was not a quest I rush off to do because it is rather dark but it was so well crafted that I can't help but repeated it from time to time.

The android quest is another FO3 quest that is anologous to race and it again only works if human to human race relations are utopian.

Which leads us full circle The universe in FO is not the 1950's it is anologous to but not a carbon copy of the 1950's which means there is NOTHING lore wise prohibiting Bethesda being more inclusive and allowing for a Same six couple at the start of the game. It has no impact on anyone else's game play. It is fairly easy to write a plausible biological connection to the player and the child IF such is required.

Granted the game is feature locked so this wont change the game but this conversation is worth having and I am amazed at how far gamers will bend over backwards to explain why excluding people is okay but when this same community gets excluded from their expectation of their own representation they go ape sh!t. (Re: The fecal storm over rust randomizing you character appearance including race). I find that extremely telling and exposes the lie that this isn't about being excluded because it is.

"Dead Horse is knocked unconscious"

Sorry bro, he's essential.

Keep in mind, the entire social dynamic changed when the bombs fell. Someones skin color became a lot less important when you were both fighting to survive. Cooperation was pretty much a requirement, else, you were dead. You cannot base any assumptions about pre-war society, on the post-war result. Way to much has changed.

To be fair, he said "Relatively" blank slate. He never said he wanted a completely undeveloped character, just a better balance between a person whose profession, social / financial position, lifestyle, housing situation, spouse, and desire to have a child and family he seemingly loves, and a completely blank character with no background whatsoever.

Anything is 'possible'. I would point out, that we have zero evidence that it DOES exist as well. Also, ALL of the examples you cited of 'not like 50's society' were taken from Beth's take on the game. Granted, they now own the IP, so, if they want to start playing fast and loose with lore, that is their prerogative. (and it isn't like they don't have a history of doing exactly that in the TES games.......) I should expect some social evolution over the course of 100 plus years though..... God knows OUR society has come a good distance in the last century. (and we have back-slid on some topics as well.....) It's always a mixed bag.

So why should gay marriage be an option? Should beth cater to a tiny fraction of the gaming population, that seems to have the loudest voice? Why shouldn't they add the option to be left-handed? After all, there are more left-handers than gays.....

A set sixuality, preset relationships, and semi-set character aren't dealbreakers but they are red flags. So are the voiced protagonist and removal of skills especially since once they go this route they wont ever go back to the way things used to be done (silent, blank-slate protagonist). It's not just "hey we're doing this one game like this" it's the end of an era there is of course no changing that now. My one hope is that our spouse dies before we emerge from the vault and that our son is an independant advlt that can go his own way. The last thing I want is for the plot of the game to be about finding our beloved and dependant family and keeping them safe every step of the way.

sixuality is not 'set'. You start off married, but, that pretty much means nothing. There are some aspects of your character that are indeed predetermined though, I will grant you that, your age, you appear to be a parent, but, that's about it. Everything else is left for you to decide.

Still quite a bit of debate on if your family members survived the bomb..... or getting into the vault. It would seem kind of a waste to go to all the trouble of setting up a family, with a child, just to kill off the two members that you won't be playing..... and I seriously doubt it would be much fun to play as an infant. Having a 'couple', lets you play male or female. Is the kid just window dressing? Or, are we going to see him later in some role?

Um... wow. Ok, so let's break that down one gender at a time. If you have a lisbian couple who want to have a baby, one of them gets pregnant via sperm donor so only one of them is biologically a parent of that child. The other parent is a random sperm donor. When a gay male couple mix their sperm to inject into the surrogate, only one of those sperm will actually fertilize the egg so only one of the men will actually be the father. They mix their sperm so they don't necessarily know which of them is the actual father so they both can form a proper paternal bond.

I definitely think our son is going to be important and likely at least a teenager. The preset name and gender make me think this. If we could have randomly picked at the beginning the gender and typed in the name then the game couldn't have given the baby a substantial role but since he's a he and has a name that NPCs can say, well it just seems likely that Shaun will play a major part. Like you said it would be a random waste if they built up this family only to have them die at the end of the prologue. If that were the case, why have them at all?

I sympathize with the LGBT community's plight on this issue, but I also understand that due to the story Bethesda has crafted, it's very likely too late to change the game to account for a same six prologue couple.

Since we saw what is presumed to be the entire prologue and I don't recall anything happening that would definitively set them as heterosixual, as a suggestion of how to RP a gay character straight from the beginning, imagine that both the male and female are gay and due to the culture they live in shunning homosixuals, they got married and even managed to have a kid together as a cover (he came into a cup and they injected it into her with a turkey baster), but both have their real partners on the side who also pretend to be married and visit under the guise of "friends" to fool the neighbors.

I find that highly likely as well. Lots of options there..... he could be the bad guy. Maybe we need to rescue him. Maybe he learns of us coming out of the vault, and wants to reconnect, or, perhaps, kill us..... So many different ways it could go.

"Luke, I am your son!"

But what if there aren't any gay characters? You'd be forced to IMAGINE hating on gay NPCs! Finally, something we can unite against! Homo and homophobe alike! Unite! And let the Wasteland taste the rainbow!

I guess the question is, why not? What possible reason is there not to allow this? Would it really not fit the established fallout lore, given the other examples of progressive social norms? Honestly, I care more about player freedom than any socio-political ideaology, but I'm just baffled at how much opposition there is to this. It's actually pretty funny seeing everyone flip out at the option to have a same six couple when there's nothing in established fallout lore that says you can't and, if anything, we know that there are many examples of modern social norms in pre-war era fallout.