Slashdot Mirror
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"
...queer, even.
Grammar Lesson: you're is a contraction of "you are"; your means you possess something; yore means days gone by.
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
"[Sylveri] So we suffer because of their lack of maturity"
Yes. That's almost always the case. Because other people are too sensitive and might get their feelings hurt by seeing/hearing things they object to, it's in Blizzard's best interest to put a muzzle on things that are potentially offensive or would cause other problems ("LOL FAGS").
It's an interesting variation on being politically correct, but that's really all it is.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
What next?
/.
He's playing a Female character... That's not right!!!
She's playing a Male Orc...
It's a freaking Game. A ROLE playing game. This is insane...
I can't believe this made it onto
As opposed to human females performing unspeakable acts with male gnomes, which is just fine. Date outside your species, just get the sex right.
Reminds me of the old "Finding Nemo" joke.
"Why are the fundies so mad about Finding Nemo?"
"Because Ellen Degeneres is in it!"
"She's a talking blue fish!"
"Yeah, but she's a lesbian talking blue fish!"
Then perhaps a Mature server should be setup to set these kind of topic to rest, not sure how they could regulate that kind of scenario but then again.. that's not my job! And please give me a break, don't tell me there is a single teen out there that doesn't know about same sex couples.
What the hell? You're comparing kiddy fiddlers and biggots to people who happen to find members of the same sex attractive?
It's a game. And more importantly, a business. They will do whatever they need to to keep maximum profitabiliy.
*Fortitudo, aequitas, fidelitas.*
No, and for good reason. The groups you mention both advocate the hurting others. Aryans advocate violence against others based on skin tone or religious affiliation, while "pedo's" prey on children. GLBT would just like to do their thing without being attacked for it. Huge difference.
A more apt analogy would be, "would a 'Christian-friendly' guild be tolerated that actively recruited Christians?"
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
This is as I warned! First you allow interracial marriage- Humans and gnomes, dwarves and tauren. Disgusting! Now these same groups want to take a step further. Two troll males as fathers?!? This is unnatural! They cannot have children. This is not the way it is supposed to be. They should not be allowed to adopt either. Can you imagine the poor child with two Tauren daddies? Or two undead mommies? Inconceivable!
/please don't take these comments seriously ;p
The next thing you know, these same groups will be preaching polygamy. Kalimdor cannot support this! It is a slippery slope!
**disclaimer**
I wouldn't defend their views and I wouldn't compare them .
However I would support their right to hold their views , so long as they are not forcing their views on others , such as racial intimidation , or grooming children .
The difference between GLBT , Aryan Nations and Pedophiles is simple.
There is no problem with being Gay or Trans-gender .
The other two however are a menace to society who prey on children or try to oppress other people for the way they are born.
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
You know this will ruin the sanctity of online marriage.
Maybe they should create a monster named Santorum that will unleash a frothy mixure of lube and fecal matter upon the players that choose to have a gay marriage
Ban marriage in the game. Tell me it's not easy to accomplish. Nothing can be as fair as that! Why does a MMORPG need marriage anyways??
Oops, how did this get here?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
That's a very "intolerant" view there... They do something you don't agree with.
Bigots have the "right" to dislike you. What they don't have the right to do is infringe on your rights in expressing their views.
Hey, it's all 1's and 0's in WoW. And you can't have 1's consorting with other 1's while 0's consort with other 0's. Why if that happened the first time a big, nasty XOR came along everything would become nothing, and then where would you be?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
From TFA:
So punish the harassers . Blizzard should sprout a pair and teach that intolerance will not be tolerated.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
Let's get a little more exact here.
Being attracted to children is not a crime. Acting on it is in some countries.
Believing yourself to be superior to others is not a crime. Hurting others in an attempt to express that view or make that view a reality is a crime in some countries.
Being attracted to the same sex is not a crime. Acting on it is in some countries.
Be careful what labels you use. I'm only trying to point out the fact that it is a person's ACTIONS, not their BELIEFS or FEELINGS that are the issue here. However, there are people out there who will attempt to persecute you for your beliefs if they do not agree with them. The belief could be racial superiority, sexual attraction, spiritual, etc.
What do you mean you're only "ROLE-PLAYING" a female character?!
Those people are wrong and base this on the fear of the unknown or propaganda .
I perfectly accept those views , but GLBT people are just people who either happen to fall in love with those of the same gender , or are people who were unfortunately born into the wrong gender due to some fluke of biology(in the case of the Trans-gender folks) .
The Aryan Nations however espouse violence and hatred , pedophiles whilst not all active are fixated on sexual desire which can never be legal and is very hurtful.
People who look down upon the Pedophiles or the Aryan nations are basing this on solid evidence , as opposed to views on homosexuality which are based on very little.
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
And I can just imagine, 45 years ago:
"And, like it or not, 60-70% of the South Carolina public is against negroes being in the same movie theaters as whites. If allowing negroes in the theaters pisses off more people than it pleases, it'd be a bad business decision. The "Why" of what their movie-watching population doesn't matter to them."
It would undoubtedly go on to argue that imposing restrictions that prevent the majority from being offended (separate theaters) is perfectly reasonable, and that the black patrons can still watch movies and have a good time.
Son, a woman is a lot like a refrigerator. They're six feet tall, 300 pounds... they make ice... umm...
The laws around marrige and finances have nothing to do with what you're taking about. The reasoning behind it all is that if you are married to someeone, it is for all intents and purposes impossible for someone to accuratly track what is yours and what is your partners. Therefore there needs to be provisions for that, in the income tax act, in the housing act, etc etc.
The reason you can move your deductions onto your partners return and vice-versa, to get the tax breaks, is because even if there was no law allowing it **you could do it anyway**, because they would never be able to prove whose actual deduction it was in the first place, since you likely have joint accounts etc etc.
I say screw the middle man.
So... You're saying 3-way marriage should be okay too, then?
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
You know, yesterday I would have thought that was an apt analogy; but not today. See, today a debate on another forum demonstrated something I didn't anticipate learning: people react to the same thing very differently. Call a homosexual a fag and you'll get labeled a homophobe, and possibly charged with a hate crime. Draw blasphemous cartoons of Muhammad, and you get a number of Muslim countries boycotting your entire country, and widespread rioting. Say pretty much anything you want to about Christians (haha, homophobic, superstitious, clinically retarded crusaders) and... nothing happens. On occasion you might have a Christian complain about you, but nobody cares about them.
:P
I can't really remember what point I was going to make with this post, but I suppose I'll still throw that fact into the fray
You have tried to support your argument with faulty reasoning! Go directly to jail; do not pass Go, do not collect $200!
Immature people exist everywhere, my friend. Kinda like smoking pot: I thoroughly enjoy it, but there are those that try to convince me that I'm a drug addict and need to find help, while they're holding a cigarette in one hand and a beer in the other. In my opinion, stuff like this should be unmoderated in games (or real life, really). I mean, banning accounts for having names like "BigGayFlamingFaggotFucker", I understand. But in all honesty, like one of my Country's Prime Minister's once said, "What you do in the privacy of your own home, is your own business". Please don't take that out of context, I'm not in the mood to deal with inane flame-wars, it was said in the context of homosexuality anyways.
In short, WoW GM's are in no position of authority and/or capable and/or have the right to judge your life style. If the people engaging in the open display of homosexuality are mature about it, then I say let them be.
Nobody's gay for Mole-Man.
If Blizzard's actions piss you off, tell them about it.
What a fetid load of dingo's kidneys.
zoophilia: sex with an animal (that can't give consent)
necrophilia: there are public health issues as to what you do with dead bodies, not to mention your going against the wishes of the deceased or their families
group marriages: I have no problem with those whatsoever... if the group is willing to live up to the economic and social responsibilities of marriage, more power to them
cannibalism: you must be a troll
"This is a slippery path on which I wouldn't want to tread."
By your "logic", we can't raise the speed limit by 5 MPH, because then we won't be able to stop until we reach the speed of light.
We have an institution of marriage for a number of reasons. We don't restrict it to only fertile heterosexual couples, or two couples who are or guarantee they will raise children. We open marriage to all heterosexual couples.
Homosexual couples do all, all of the things that heterosexual couples do, including raise children (and bear and raise children in the case of lesbian couples). Why prevent them from marrying as well? There are good reasons for allowing same-sex marriage. If you have equally good arguments for allowing necrophilia, bestiality, cannibalism (I gotta hand it to you... that's a new one), etc., then present them.
The only reason we forbid homosexual couples from marrying is simple knuckle-dragging bigotry, nothing more.
"Making concensual sex legal..."
If this is all you think marriage is, then you are deeply, profoundly ignorant of the matters of which you speak.
"... is fine _as long_ as it doesn't give one extra rights: the right to adopt children, marry and receive tax exemptions."
So, it isn't about marriage after all... just money.
"Otherwise, I demand a tax refund for the time I lived together with several male friends: we didn't have sex with each other, but you can't discriminate against platonic relationships, can you? If the rights you are promoting would be applied, we could have made a fake group marriage"
If you are willing to live up to the legal, economic and social obligations of marriage with your roommate or a group, then get married, with my blessing.
wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith
In other news, check out my drawing of mohammad: @o<-<
Just wanted to get the number up to 5. Five being the number of religions currently sending me to hell.
TO HELL with Blizzard for their intolerant tolerance policy. Take a stand and do something about the players who don't play by your rules - don't cut off a nose to spite a face.
/ Night Elves in WoW? No. Can you contract a sexually transmitted disease in WoW? No. Can you form any kind of meaningful, lasting bond with anyone that exists entirely within the game and doesn't require actual real-life interaction in order to keep it from getting stale because of limitations of software and hardware? No. It's a game and it's a computer - a data stream can't cuddle next to you in bed, a purely online buddy can't massage your shoulders, and an avatar can't make you breakfast the next morning. Get over it and keep what you do in the bedroom IN THE BEDROOM. Last I checked, you can't own a house in WoW, so if you're making hay, you're either doing it in public, or you're doing it on someone else's property without their permission - and neither of those is condoned in our society.
TO HELL with immature intolerant WoW players who can't be bothered to live and let live and allow people to make whatever choices they wish without ridiculing, tormenting, and otherwise being assholes toward people who happen to think or act differently from your perverted view of the normal world.
TO HELL with pathetic lifeless types who have to bring real life into a fantasy game. It's fantasy for a reason - it shouldn't be like real life. Role-playing has its uses and applications, but in the end, it's pretending and doesn't mean anything in the real world. Your avatar in WoW shouldn't be an exact extension of you in an online game anyway - that's what role-playing is: being someone you aren't.
TO HELL with people trying to insert sexuality (hetero, homo, or otherwise) into a situation that has no place for it. Can you give birth to little Taurens/Undeads/Orcs/Trolls/Humans/Dwarves/Gnomes
TO HELL with people forgetting that World of Warcraft is privately owned, privately operated, and they can choose whatever the hell they god damn jolly well please to have going on in their game. If they choose not to allow certain things, they are within their rights to do so. If you have a problem with it, LEAVE! Don't give them your money. But for the love of God, let us other less-finicky souls choose what we will and will not do with our time and money. Consumerism is a choice - take responsibility for your purchases and don't expect the manufacturers to tailor a wide-ranged product to your narrow views.
Seems the guild was created specifically to discriminate on the basis of being GLBT friendly... discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Umm, maybe you don't exactly understand what "GLBT friendly" means. It is not a sexual orientation.
Old people fall. Young people spring. Rich people summer and winter.
Blizzard knows it's target demographic. This demographic tends to breed stupidity because of the anonymity they are allowed, also knowing that its hate speech (and this includes calling everything they dislike 'gay' and everyone they dislike a 'fag') is acceptable to Blizzard unless it is reported, which only warrants a warning. Blizzard wants to make money, and does so by supporting the masses who either intentionally prejudice or are so apathetic they use the above-mentioned terms without any thought of the profound consequences. If people started calling everything 'niggerish,' or 'kykeish,' the intelligent world that remains connected with reality would be outraged. Blizzard doesn't care to teach them a lesson by deleting their account and making their cd-key unusuable, they only care to prevent litigation that might result from their egregious negligence. This is one of the evils of a business that cares for little more than profit.
But, it's not a race, or a religion, things which were at one time the basis of persecution and by many, thought acceptable. Now people have moved on to hate based on sexual orientation, or any cultural movement perceived by many to be unworthy. Take the emo stereotype as an example. I posted on a forum something that was deeply emotional, and in retrospect I can see how it could be perceived as melodramatic, because as I posted it, I was in a temporary state of depression. Many of the comments called me 'emo' as if it were an insult, and then wished my death. People always search for something to hate and there are justifications for just about anything, whether or not they are reasonable.
Back to the topic. Blizzard is interested in making money, if they were to ban everyone who said 'gay' or 'fag' as a response to any instance of such words used with derogatory intent, they would lose a lot of money. I would predict that if the number of GLBT players deeply offended (and would thus boycott) by Blizzard's current policy was greater than the number that using such hate speech, they would have a different policy. Unfortunately, there's no way to replicate the WoW experience without using illegal player-run servers, which, if they gained popularity (deemed necessary to the success of an MMORPG by most) and cost Blizzard money, they would be shut-down. It is a certified monopoly and thus has power to spare and abuse for one motive: profit.
I think we can all agree that the use of censorship is potentially dangerous, but when there are a large number of minors playing, it's entirely unacceptable to expose them to such hate-speech, or allow them to participate in it, which at the very least forms negative habits. The right solution is to ban those who use hate speech, but nobody who would use the language in a discussion that does not dissolve into harassment.
GLBT is a reality just like any other quality or quantity we can observe, and to shun its existence in any medium it will propagate is an abhorrent abuse of power. To say there would be no homosexuals in a world with 'humans' or other intelligent beings is against the evidence we have today. Thus, it must be accepted and if there are those who would undermine its acceptance without reason, the harm they cause must be prohibited.
To punish those who advertise as GLBT-friendly because of the irrational responses others might have is tantamount to punishing someone for making a mistake in a party raid that causes everyone to lose their temper and succumb to anger and abusive language when a GM gets wind of the chat filter working over-time. With a reasonable GM, I don't see the second scenario ever occuring, but profits motivates the first.
Sitting Walrus Blog
I'm not familiar with the LP proposals, but it's quite simple to introduce a wide sweeping libertarian reform in any country's economy without destabilizing it. It was less than a hundred years ago that the USA stopped having a largely libertarian economy to become what it is today. It was only in 1913 that the Constitution was ammended to allow an income tax.
There were no gay marriage proposals in 1913 because the idea of marriage was a religious one. There were no special benefits in the taxes for married people, with or without children. Then things were like they should be, religious matters were not in the legislation.
If you think that some regulation is necessary, think well of the limits: *how* necessary are the rules? The rule that every one should drive on the same side of the road, for instance, seems quite useful to me. But starting from there, almost every law seems to be something we would be better off without. Should we outlaw the use of cocaine? Are you sure? What about alcohol? The unneeded prohibition of alcohol started large scale organized crime going in the USA, the prohibition of other drugs today keep it going.
Coming back to gay marriages, the best solution, IMHO, should be: let them marry, but give them no special benefits for being married. And give no special benefits to married heterosexual couples either, unless the help goes entirely to children who would suffer irreparable harm otherwise. Feed the children, if the parents are too poor to do it, OK, but do not feed parents who have children without having the necessary means.
since rich people are taxed much more than poor, don't you think it would wildly shift the distribution of wealth into the richest hands immediately and do an excellent job of destroying the middle class?
The richest monopolistic tycoon a hundred years ago, before income tax was introduced, was John Rockefeller. His fortune was in the $10 billion order of magnitude, which would be about $100 billion today. The richest monopolistic tycoon today has a fortune in the order of magnitude of $100 billion. So, the answer to your question is "NO".
A more apt analogy would be, "would a 'Christian-friendly' guild be tolerated that actively recruited Christians?"
Not sure if it is allowed, but on WoW / Hyjal / Horde, I saw a guild recruiting, and the advert mentioned that they were a Christian guild. I did't report it to a GM because, despite the fact that I am not Christian and find the religion offensive, I am not a close-minded bigot like the people who deride LGBTs. I guess I should be more intolerant next time.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Someone who opposes homosexual relationships in any form based on his beliefs and morals is not a bigot. Bigotry is an intolerance towards those holding different opinions from oneself. You can be opposed to homosexual relationships and tolerant of the individual.
People often in a fury of over-emotional reactions blur the line behind accepting of the individual and condemning of their actions. Just like I can accept my friend for who he is as a person I don't have to accept what he does or condone his own beliefs. You can care and love for someone without accepting some of their choices as correct or right despite what people think.
Really. Send me a note with what freebies I've been missing out on all these years.
My wife's really good at finding us tax deductions and such, particularly with her running her own business. However, I don't recall her ever mentioning a deduction that we get just because we're married.
We get credits for the children, but one of us or the other would get that as a single parent as well. I don't know if it's ever been corrected, but if anything, we get penalized for being married. The standard deduction for a married couple is less than twice that of a single person. The thought process behind this little gem was that women stay home and raise kids while men go to work. Since the women had no income, they had nothing to apply a standard deduction against. This made it a tax benefit for a man to marry. Now that we have two income families, the standard deduction for a married couple becomes a penalty instead for the majority of families.
And what keeps parents together for the sake of children (assuming they no longer love each other) is more likely a fear of child support payments and possibly alimony (though alimony is less likely with the two income reality). Nothing like getting behind in your payments and instead of getting a car repossessed, the government wants to repossess your freedom (jail time).
To get back to the topic of the article however...
As far as WoW is concerned, I think it quite wrong-headed for them to deny a guild's existence based on sexual orientation. If they're concern is that there are kids playing, they better be prepared to remove guilds based on swingers, swappers, bi-curious, racially exclusive, religiously exclusive, or gender exclusive guilds as well.
Marriage (hetero / homo, catholic / bhuddist / hindu / muslim / protestant / wiccan / scientolocult / druidic, democrat / green / libertarian / communist / nazi / republican / socialist / anarchist) is a serious thing and should be treated as such (even if there aren't going to be kids). I suppose it's no worse than little kids playing house, but that usually dies down with adolescense. While it would be interesting to see an actual marriage status in a game, worked into the game mechanics in some way, I think it would be the wrong lesson to send to children (marriage being entered into lightly or equating it to being part of some big people game).
I see how it is... I guess I'll just have to recruit on slashdot now.
Join my guild! Guild application for Guildzorz, the hottest all-lesbian guild on WoW!
See answer key on below!
Question 1: Are you really a dude (y/n)?
Correct answer: N
Question 2: Do you mind that I'm a dude? (y/n)?
Correct answer: N
Question 3: Do you like cyber? (y/n)
Correct answer: Y
Question 4: Your race: (1. Night Elf, 2. Human, 3. Gnome, 4. Dwarf)
Correct answer: 1
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.
Fact is, huge numbers of children already grow up without both a mom and a dad, or with relatives who may or may not be single, and there is NO evidence to suggest that growing up with two dads or moms in any way is worse than many of the alternatives we have no problems accepting.
In other words, it is pure bigotry, no matter how much you pretend otherwise.
"I have no issues with gay marriage."
The rest of your post appears to contradict this statement.
"If gays want to fuck each other in the ass - that's their business."
Sigh... Anal Sex 101: Some heterosexual couples engage in anal sex, and like it. Some same-sex couples don't engage in anal sex, because they don't like it. Marriage is about far more than one's preferred sexual activity.
"My only issue with the whole thing is that I think same sex couples should not be allowed to adopt/raise kids. A kid needs both mother and father, IMO. Otherwise you're just messing him/her up."
All of the research to date directly contradicts your assumptions. From a scientific standpoint, you don't have a leg to stand on.
"Once we close this threshold - I will do whatever I can to help ban gay marriage for this reason alone."
Your reason has just evaporated in a puff of logic. Now what?
wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith
Here's my viewpoint on this. I personally do not like the fact that gay or lesbians exist. I think that it is wrong and it perverts something that was supposed to be sacred, i.e. marriage. However, it's better to accept the fact that these players are paying for a game and should be allowed to have an equal amount of freedom. How would I feel if someone was trying to ban me for something similar? That said, I think that since being a gay or lesbian couple in WoW does not change the way the rest of the game goes, let it be that way.
If you are willing to live up to the legal, economic and social obligations of marriage with your roommate or a group, then get married, with my blessing.
Isn't it interesting how the trolls like the one you're replying to never seem to notice how trivializing of marriage their focus on the sex is, as if the only thing that distinguished marriage from other relationships is the fact that the parties to it get to have sex with each other with the blessing of the law, the church, god, and everybody.
Marriage is not just--or even primarily--about sex! It is about mutual aid and care, and taking shared responsibility, including shared responsibility for children. How one is wired up sexually is not an issue. That hardly describes a relationship between room-mates.
So here's a guide for trolls: if the only distinguishing feature of a relationship is sex, it's a hookup. If the distinguishing feature of a relationship is an openly-stated intent to help each other and enjoy each other's company through good times and bad for the rest of your lives, it's a marriage. See how the sex of the parties involved just doesn't come into it?
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Damn! There goes my drive to recruit TRS-80 Color Computer fans.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It's "legal" to "kill" people there, unlike in reality, but same sex marriage is not - unlike here.
Don't like it? Don't play.
End of story.
I'm all for equal rights, but this is not reality we're talking about - it's an alternative game world with it's own physics, laws, customs, etc - if you desperately want to be married in game but can't be due to the law or whatever, then *roleplay* that oppressed minority group in game.
smash.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Let's get even more exact, with the target of the actions.
A child can't consent to sex because their minds aren't ready for the concept that is sexual intercourse. The effects of forcing sex on someone who isn't ready can be disasterous.
A person getting beat up or possibly murdered because of their skin tone, I would bet, doesn't like the fact that they're getting pummeled.
The other person in a homosexual relationship is aware of what they're doing, and they feel pleasure and possibly *love* for the person they're having sex with.
Two of these have undesirable outcomes for one or both of the parties involved. The third one doesn't.
The three aren't comparable.
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.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
It'd be nice if the WoW GMs were as proactive about removing gold farmers, or as responsive about bugged quests/mobs, as they are about ruining the fun of honest players. It really does seem that the worst things about the game are the people running it.
Game... blouses.
People defend "GLBT-friendly" - would they defend "Aryan-friendly" or "pedo-friendly" as much as they do "GLBT-friendly?"
Nice. These comparisons of GLBT players wanting to be free from harassment from the immature players, to white supremacists and child predators, are not winning you any friends on the other side of the debate. Do you think you could come up with something a little less insulting, or do you just want to piss people off?
Edith Keeler Must Die
If you look at the demographics support for gay marriage rises with education, as does wealth. Support for gay marriage is also greater amongst younger people than old people.
Sure there are a lot of people who vote republican who are very opposed to gay marriage. They are mostly angry working class males. The folk with the big houses who vote Republican are most likely doing it for the tax breaks.
Thats the way a party for the super rich has to operate. They know they can't deliver tax cuts or federal contracts to folk living in trailer parks. But what they can do is to give them someone to blame for their situation and then put a hate plank in their platform against that group. Its an old trick, been around even longer than the Republican party's Southern Strategy.
The Republican party is not run by gay haters, they have enough gay staffers to prove that. Its worse than that, the GOP is run by people who cynically manipulate anti-gay hatred as an electoral strategy.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
All I'm saying is if you send 40 male dwarfs down into a mine for a month, all alone, something is going to happen. And then when Hurin Little-Too-Manly and Glib Lightboots finally emerge from the mine and return home, if you don't let them talk about things and work out their feelings with their family, the shit is going to hit the fan.
They're not forcing you to buy the game. If you don't agree with it, don't buy it. Let the profits speak rather than worrying over it here.
Totally incorrect comparison that illustrates a lack of understanding of real wow rules. Gays are not banned from forming a guild for themselves. They just cannot openly advertise in the general channel annoying everyone. They can advertise on the online guild recruitment board.
A more accurate comparison to the diner example would be. You have a table with 3 gay peoples. They decide to stand up on their chair and SCREAM so that everyone in the vicinity can hear them to join their table of gay people. Most guild recruiters don't advertise once on the general channels in the game. As it'd be lost pretty fast. The gays in your diner would be annoying your other patrons once every minute.
Would you kick them out if they didn't stop then?
Hmmm... Pie...
Look at the Catholic Church's history. It is filled with corruption and greed. Whatever deal you broker with your God has to be better than the inquisition. You 1 Church 0
I think he meant it as a joke. There's no need to expose your insecurities here--many people might find their apparent knee-jerk manifestations to be more offensive than the original comment.
If you were sincerely interested you would learn how to use Google or the myriad search engines that exist. You wouldn't just beg, "links?"
The correlation/causality arguments over what families produce 'better' children are tired. Generally, the more committed and loving adults a child has access to the better they turn out (I don't have to link you to substantiate this), because, generally, more adults equals more time and support and unless you are a sociopath you'd agree that children do better with more adult attention and supervision.
If two available parents is sufficient, would you agree that a child is better off with access to two parents and one or more grandparents? How about two parents, one or more grandparents, and one or more aunts and uncles? How about the addition of adult cousins, committed social groups (e.g., churches) and invested mentors (e.g., teachers)?
If more adults are better-- then two daddies is better than no daddies... But...
We haven't outlawed single-parent families (following my argument, the 'worst' arrangement possible), so why would we outlaw families with even more available adults?
Every time I hear "outlaw gay marriage, for the children!", I have to ask the proponent if they also want to outlaw divorce "for the children" (and widowing, bring on the compulsory marriage/adoption). It's the only consistent position. If you take the argument to the extreme, you'd also have to desire birthrate quotas (so there are suitable, legislated ratios of parents to children in all families).
Of course, libertarians (and I thought "conservatives", too) want the fucking governments out of our lives -- and by extension, out of our familes, and by extension, out of our bedrooms and out of our marriages, etc.
Remember when interracial marriages weren't legal. Disclaimer: I have an interracial marriage.
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
Here's some irony for you. I know three people who are all romantically involved with each other (1 male, 2 female) who play WoW together. So in a way I suppose that's not a complete non-issue.
-Cybrex
Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
Yeah, it's pretty sad that so much brainpower has been wasted through mankind's history on a meme which, almost by definition, can never be connected with any kind of objective reality..
About the only thing that such thought has been good for is occasionally coming up with some simple rules on how people should treat each other to try and improve the human condition, but those rules could have easily been arrived at without the need to invoke anything supernatural as motivation - just plain old common sense and an appreciation for history.
So, by the same logic, you must be saying straight people bring their "drama" into everything from dating games on TV to online games, too. You're amazingly blind to how pervasive heterosexism is in your culture if you think gay marriage in an online game is "shoving" an ideology down your throat but that straight marriage in the same environment is a given.
I'd say *no one* has no business legislating what goes on in the bedroom of consenting adults. unless you're in the same bedroom... wouldn't you say?
Coming back to gay marriages, the best solution, IMHO, should be: let them marry, but give them no special benefits for being married. And give no special benefits to married heterosexual couples either, unless the help goes entirely to children who would suffer irreparable harm otherwise.
YES. This I completely agree with. The government should not be involved in the concept of "marriage" at all.
+++ATH0
Since most of the female characters in game are actually male players, 'gay' marriage is more common than you think...
I don't get it. Why would a "neo-con" attach any political significance to word origins? Any educated person knows that we have thousands of words descended from Old or Middle French, which in turn mostly come from Latin, which in turn mostly come from Indo-European. I guess that this is relevant to the debate, though. In real life, when you're talking about two different things, is it appropriate to use the same word for both, or is it better to use a new word or term for the second, in order to avoid confusion? Does it take away the right of a person to do a thing by naming it differently?
More importantly, in the context of the video game, which is based largely on medieval lore, does it make sense to turn the game into a battleground for homosexual relationships? I mean, people play games to escape real life, not to have 21st-century politics brought into the game. If the GMs allow this kind of thing to creep in and take over the game, the company is ultimately going to lose participants and money. It isn't that people hate or even disagree with a lifestyle, it's just that most people want to play a game without turning it into an afternoon on talk radio.
Not everything has to be about sexuality. There's much more to life.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: That averages about 660,000,000 of each kind.
The bad part of this trend (act -> identity) is that gay people are themselves victims of their own propaganda. The Onion got it spot on with their satirical article. The gay community is so anxious to be given equal rights that they're actively labelling themselves. They are no longer regular people who have sex with same-gender partners. They are people who have sex with same-gender partners who also happen to have jobs, etc.
Just as I don't walk around telling everyong I prefer brunettes to blondes, I don't walk around telling people I prefer women to men for sexual relationships. It's a private part of my life. While important to me and whomever I am going out with at the time, it is no-one else's business. I also have a job, I go to the gym, and have a number of hobbies. There is plenty of other, non-intensely personal subjects on which to discourse.
Why people can't keep their sexual lives to themselves is a bit of a mystery. You wouldn't think it would be that hard . . .
Have you ever mentioned, casually, that you were going to go out with your boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse, while at work or at school?
If so, then congratulations - you've just brought your drama into a place that is not appropriate, according to your statement. The entire world doesn't need to see you parading about your heterosexuality, you drama queen!
Have you ever engaged in a public display of affection - holding hands, a hug, kiss, or other activity while out and about doing something completely unrelated to sex?
If so, then congratulations - you've just brought your drama into a place that is not appropriate, according to your statement. The entire world doesn't need to see you parading about your heterosexuality, you drama queen!
I'm kind of torn - should I look down on you because, like you said, you bring your drama into inappropriate places, or should I look down on you because you do it and you don't have enough personal insight to realize that you're doing it?
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
I don't know where you live and what your laws are, but in both France and Ireland, being a married couple gives you an additional legal status. The couple is no longer two individuals with the same address, but are an entity in regards to certain laws. I couldn't be exhaustive, but among the rights that you have, there would be:
You're right when you say that marriage was a religious thing for long. But nowadays, at least in the countries i know, it's much more than that, it's a different legal status in regards to society and its laws. And i can perfectly understand homosexual couples wanting to be on an equal par in this regard.
This post is awesome.