No Same Sex Marriage In World of Warcraft?

Previously, we discussed a World of Warcraft guild representative getting reprimanded for mentioning same-sex relationships while advertising their organization. The subject hasn't been dropped in the intervening days, with GamePolitics providing an update to the community's reaction. Additionally, a Cathode Tan post links to a supposed discussion with a GM that kind of wrecks their whole equal treatment statement. From that post: "[GM] Anyone can report and we will take appropriate action. While it may seem ok because they are truly a heterosexual couple in real life, in game they are two females. Please keep in mind, you need to worry about the other players. While I do understand where you are coming from, there are those who do not have the maturity"

Comments

Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do

[MoxCamel]

Say what you want about it being Blizzard's game and they can set the rules blah blah, but they damn well better set the rules for everyone. This notion that some of their players aren't mature enough to be tolerant is bunk.

Obplug for my friend's blog, but I think she says it best:

"...having spent a little time in World of Warcraft myself, I would have to agree that a large number of WoW players really are poop-flingers who can't even spell tolerance, let alone practice it. But if I were one of the few non-gold-farming players left in WoW, I think I would be insulted by [Blizzards] response, no matter how I felt about GLBT guilds. And what about the Christian WoW guilds? Will Blizzard shut them down too?"

Mox

Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do

[Rei]

I'll just ignore the baiting in the "in a healthy environment" part, given that children raised by same sex couples grow up equally well socially adjusted to the general population. Instead, I'm going to just focus on your comment about "violating its very purpose".

In 1995, 4.1 million women in America were "voluntarily childless". Double this to get the total number of people. The trend has been continually rising - almost three times the percentage as in 1982. 18.4% of married childbearing-age women have no children. Where's your self-righteous rage at them?

What percentage of Americans are gay? That number is highly contentuous (and partly depends on definitions), but usually ranges between 1% and 10%, usually around 2% of adults in a same sex relationship at a given point in time. Lets say that 1.5% of Americans are in a long-term (marriage-equivalent) same sex relationship. That's 4.2 million people. Hardly a staggering number compared to the 8.2 people in 1995 (probably near 10 million now) who are voluntarily childless, and the many millions more who are involuntarily childless.

At a more fundamental level, "violating its purpose". So, when your children are raised, is it time for a divorce? No? Then it's not solely about raising children. But even if it was, same sex couples who raise children have the exact same *purpose* as straight couples.

Re:Well..

[Eightyford]

It's a game. And more importantly, a business. They will do whatever they need to to keep maximum profitabiliy.

Right, and by letting everyone know about what shit Blizzard is doing they will become less profitable. OMFG capitalism might just work!

Re:Theyre not freebies

[isotope23]

Please. You can create a contract spelling out who owns what (it would be equivalent to your argument). Indeed you could do this for a spouse, business partner, child etc.

The REAL reason for marriage licenses goes back to Miscegenation e.g. racial
mixing.

Frankly I have always found it offensive that the state thinks it can force you to get permission and pay them in order to marry someone.

Re:Nominal libertarian

[2short]

Yeah, it's off topic, but I agree with you about the civil liberties...

Ending the downward redistribution of wealth would certainly change how wealth was distributed. Without some sort of constant downward redistribution, those with wealth ought to be able to easily aquire ever more of it unless they are incompetent, which they aren't. I'll stipulate that that might be in some sense a more fair society, but I suggest it may not be a more healthy one. Historically, it appears to me that insufficient wealth redistribution mechanisms will screw up your society just as surely as excessive ones.

Re:Nominal libertarian

[Fulcrum of Evil]

And, moreover, since rich people are taxed much more than poor

Sorry, but that's backwards. Rich people get most of their money from dividends and long-term investments, which are taxed at a lower rate.