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"

42 of 820 comments (clear)

  1. Seem kind of odd that they would do that... by b4k3d+b34nz · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...queer, even.

    --
    Grammar Lesson: you're is a contraction of "you are"; your means you possess something; yore means days gone by.
  2. Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do by MoxCamel · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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

    1. Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do by Krach42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In other news, homosexual marriages in the United States are not legal, because "while you may be ok with it, some other people in the world, might not have your maturity level."

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    2. Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do by Golias · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, homosexual marriages in the US are not legal because it's a back-door way (pardon the pun) to get in on all that sweet graft of economic and legal incentives which were intended to keep the parents of children together.

      The hypocracy here is that men and women who are incapable of producing their own biological offspring are still allowed to get married, even though they are no different (procreatively speaking) from gay couples.

      Being a libertarian, of course, I'm all for dropping all those freebies (and slashing everybody's taxes to make up for it) and then letting anybody marry anybody or anything they choose... but alas, libertarian nut-jobs like me never get elected to anything.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    3. Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Informative

      And what about the Christian WoW guilds? Will Blizzard shut them down too?

      Straw man. Blizzard has already said that gay-friendly guilds are fine - it's the advertisement in-game of guilds based around RL controversies like sexual orientation, religion, nationality, etc., that is not. They've also said that if guilds wish to recruit based specifically on these qualities (and can do it without disparaging those of differing qualities), they are welcome to use the official guild recruiting forum on their website (an out-of-game resource) to do so.

    4. Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do by brunes69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you're trying to say that a same-sex couple can not "raise children in a healthy environment"?

      I am sorry, but that's just bigotry.

    5. Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do by Eccles · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Freebies? More like higher taxes if you both earn decent livings, because more of your income is in the upper brackets. I would have saved a lot of money -- not to mention been eligible for IRAs*, more dependent care reimbursement, etc. -- if I wasn't married. Sure we get tax breaks for dependents, but they would have saved each of us individually exactly the same amount they save us as married's. The only married couples that get a break are ones where one spouse doesn't work outside the home. Look up "marriage penalty" sometime. If you earn about the same amount (like my wife and I do), it's especially heinous, because qualification for Roth IRAs, etc. is capped for married couples' combined income at substantially less than twice the limit for singles.

      So sorry, but your claim is nonsense. Gays want to get married because they want to make the formal commitment that is recognized by society, and "freebies" like right of inheritance, next of kin status for medical issues, etc. that don't cost the rest of us a dime (save possibly in estate taxes.)

      * In the mid-90's, I was working a job with no retirement benefits. I could not open a traditional IRA because my wife had retirement benefits from her job. Those benefits were in no way larger because she was married.

      A real-world example:
      "Roth IRA Income Limits
      You can contribute to a Roth IRA if your adjusted gross income is below these limits:

      Full $2,000 contribution
      Single/Head of household Up to $95,000
      Married filing jointly Up to $150,000" -- from quicken.com

      Got a couple where one earns $90K, one $80K? Single, they could both do full Roth contributions. Married? $0.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    6. Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do by radtea · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Only if you subscribe to the notion that a parent of one gender or the other is not particularily important.

      This requires that you believe that abstract properties like the sexuality of the partners are more important than the concrete properties of the individuals involved.

      This seems to me to be absurd. Two loving, caring parents of the same sex are surely better than two nasty, cruel parents of opposite sexes. I once naively assumed that everyone agrees on this, but I now know for a fact that many Bible-believing Christians do not. Instead, they believe that homosexuality is akin to drug abuse in terms of the harm it does to individuals and their children, although when pressed on the nature of the harm they retreat into abstract, unprovable, or provably false claims.

      The very language of the GM reaks of homophobia: "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"

      What is "appropriate action"? Sending gifts and good wishes? Isn't that what you do when you hear people are happily married?

      What is "ok" about being "a heterosexual couple in real life"? And what is wrong with being two females in-game? Sounds kinda hot to me.

      Can someone explain to me in a way that someone who does not believe that the Bible is anything more than a collection of human literature why any of this is a problem? I'm looking for concrete terms that I can understand--if you were to explain why murder was bad it wouldn't be too hard to give concrete details that are true in the case of virtually all murders that I can easily understand are bad because they do concrete, obvious harm to a human being. I just can't see the harm in homosexuality, and despite years of asking no one has ever been able to demonstrate what is harmful without lapsing either into Bible-speak or into claims that are demonstrably false.

      And why is it a matter of "maturity" to accept marriage between people who love each other? In my experience homophobia usually hits around adolesence. Small children, who are less mature, don't have anything like the problems with same-sex marriage that many adults do.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    7. Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do by SpryGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Those children do come from several sources: female couples can get artifically inseminated; male couples can get a surrogate; all same-sex couples can have children from previous heterosexual marriages; all same-sex couples can adopt.

      In particular, same-sex couples who want children would seem the idea group of people to help take up the slack for all those unwanted children that heterosexuals seem to be constantly producing and putting up for adoption. It would seem the Religious Right, who wants to ban abortion and force all pregnancies to come to term and result in children should be pushing FOR gay marriage and gay adoption, to help take care of all those unwanted children that would result.

      --

      - Spryguy
      There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
    8. Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On the other hand, if everybody has bread and circuses, it's a pretty good indicator that our system is mostly working. Even 90% of civil liberties issues come about as a result of people being denied equal opportunity to access one or the other.

      Which begs the question of what our system is trying to do in the first place - is it intended to placate us enough that we don't notice the small number of people at the top (wherever they are) doing whatever the hell we want and running roughshod over is to get it?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    9. Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do by eaolson · · Score: 5, Informative
      Absence is a particularly interesting one. That bastion of hard-core conservativism, The Atlantic, reported a while back that children raised without both a male and female role model in the home are at a significant disadvantage compared to those who do not (subscription required). Now that was comparing single-parent relationships to two-parent relationships, so it is extrapolation to suggest this applies to homosexual relationships.

      I can't get to your linked article, but I'll comment anyway.

      Implicit in your argument is the idea that the reason these children are disadvantaged is because they do not have a role model for one sex. That's a massive oversimplification of a complex problem. A parent in a single-parent household will probably be less able to spend as much time with their child, so he will get less parental attention. For that same reason, he might not be able to get as much help with schoolwork, and might not get as good an education. Or, because single parenthood tends to correlate with lower incomes and younger parents, one of these factors might be what's causing the poorer outcome.

      Jumping to the conclusion that (e.g.) children in a lesbian household do poorly because they won't have a male role model is a major jump to a conclusion, not a simple extrapolation. All the studies I'm familiar with say that children raised in two-parent, same-sex households do just as well as their heterosexually, two-parented friends.

    10. Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do by yarbo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If everyone went to med school and became doctors, we'd have no one to build things. What if everyone did that? Becoming a doctor must not be a good thing.

  3. It's a GAME!!! by GReaToaK_2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 /.

    1. Re:It's a GAME!!! by Mayhem178 · · Score: 4, Funny

      No kidding! 99% of the time, when I'm playing any kind of game, I'll choose to play a female character. After all, why would I want to spend all those countless hours of gaming staring at a guy's ass as I'm running around killing things?

      --

      "You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles

  4. Bestiality, on the other hand... by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
    > While it may seem ok because they are truly a heterosexual couple in real life, in game they are two females.

    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!"

  5. Maturity by umbrellasd · · Score: 4, Insightful
    While I do understand where you are coming from, there are those who do not have the maturity.
    And there are children with two male parents. I bet they have the maturity to handle it.
  6. Re:They *are* allowed to recruit... by FinestLittleSpace · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What the hell? You're comparing kiddy fiddlers and biggots to people who happen to find members of the same sex attractive?

  7. Re:They *are* allowed to recruit... by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 5, Insightful
    People defend "GLBT-friendly" - would they defend "Aryan-friendly" or "pedo-friendly" as much as they do "GLBT-friendly?"

    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?
  8. Slippery Slope... by Doggan · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!

    The next thing you know, these same groups will be preaching polygamy. Kalimdor cannot support this! It is a slippery slope!

    **disclaimer** /please don't take these comments seriously ;p

  9. Re:They *are* allowed to recruit... by FidelCatsro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  10. Sanctity by The_Rippa · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

  11. Cats and Dogs Living Together by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 5, Funny

    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."
  12. Re:There is one simple fair solution by Suppafly · · Score: 4, Informative

    WoW doesn't have marriage in the first place.. People have mock weddings but there isn't really an ingame way to get married and have the software recognize it. A wedding in WoW is just a bunch of characters standing around in a church just like in every other mmo.

  13. "Harassment for players"?!? by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From TFA:

    "we do feel that the advertisement of a 'GLBT friendly' guild is very likely to result in harassment for players that may not have existed otherwise"

    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.

  14. Re:This says it all: by KiloByte · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In some parts of the world, anti-gay propaganda is frowned upon.
    In some parts of the world, pro-gay propaganda is frowned upon.

    The only way to satisfy people globally, is banning such kind of talk -- in a game, it is TOTALLY out-of-character anyway. Thus, while somewhat limitting the freedom of speech, it bans only topics that are not appropiate to the topic of the game. If you want to discuss outside things, nothing can prevent you from using any outside forum.

    I used to be a high-ranking but sub-admin coder on a MUD. We enforced PG13 rules (no swearing, etc), and, while allowing OOC talk in general, we stopped (first by a verbal warning, then another one on the record, then a ban from global comm channels, and in egregious cases with a removal of the character) some topics that are grossly out-of-place. Such topics included talks about someone's sexual exploits, racial and sexual harassment, and yeah, pro-gay and anti-gay propaganda.
    You are free to talk about any topic you want, but you are not free to talk about them everywhere. On private property (like a game), the game admins have the right to remove you for not complying with the rules.

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  15. Re:Well.. by Eightyford · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!

  16. Re:They *are* allowed to recruit... by Zondar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  17. Gay marriage happens all the time in WoW by Kawolski · · Score: 5, Funny
    It's just that the grooms involved don't know it...yet.

    What do you mean you're only "ROLE-PLAYING" a female character?!

  18. Re:They *are* allowed to recruit... by FidelCatsro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  19. Re:Dude, they got a business to run by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...
  20. Theyre not freebies by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Theyre not freebies by isotope23 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
  21. Re:Sorry Zonk by Golias · · Score: 5, Funny

    I say screw the middle man.

    So... You're saying 3-way marriage should be okay too, then?

    --

    Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  22. Re:This says it all: by Krach42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You are free to talk about any topic you want, but you are not free to talk about them everywhere. On private property (like a game), the game admins have the right to remove you for not complying with the rules.

    Yeah, I have this diner, and we only serve white people. Because since it's private property, we can chose to deny service to anyone we want!

    --

    I am unamerican, and proud of it!
  23. Re:They *are* allowed to recruit... by Mr.+Mikey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah. Both are promoting sexual attraction to a wrong target.

    Letting John marry Bob because "he loves him" and not letting M. Jackson love one of his kids even though "they love each other" means an inequality within the law. If you allow homosexual marriages, you are obliged to allow:
    * zoophilia
    * necrophilia
    * group marriages (including ones with under-age kids (Utah!))
    * kill-and-eat-me relations


    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
  24. TO HELL with 'em all! by Eggman27 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    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/ 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 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.

  25. It's very simple, but not insignificant. by Barabbas86 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  26. Re:This says it all: by tsm_sf · · Score: 5, Funny

    How do they taste?

    --
    Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
  27. Re:This says it all: by Tony · · Score: 4, Informative

    How do they taste?

    Like Chicken.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
  28. Re:It's all fine and dandy by Mr.+Mikey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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
  29. Re:Sorry Zonk by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 5, Insightful
    the church is probably a whole lot more qualified to interpret God's will, since two milleniums of millions of minds is probably better than a year or two of one mind.

    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.

  30. Re:My Karma can afford this! by davidstrauss · · Score: 4, Insightful
    In closing, when you define your entire life by what you like to fuck, even to the point of bringing your fucking drama into an ONLINE GAME, it really ought to not be a shock why people look down upon you.

    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.