Xbox Live Now Allows Gender Expression

Last year we discussed news that an Xbox Live gamer was banned for identifying herself as a lesbian on her profile. Microsoft said at the time that nothing sexual in nature could appear in Gamertags or profiles. Now, they seem to have reconsidered their stance, and they've updated their Code of Conduct accordingly. Xbox Live General Manager Marc Whitten wrote: "[The update] will allow our members to more freely express their race, nationality, religion and sexual orientation in Gamertags and profiles. Under our previous policy, some of these expressions of self-identification were not allowed in Gamertags or profiles to prevent the use of these terms as insults or slurs. However we have since heard feedback from our customers that while the spirit of this approach was genuine, it inadvertently excluded a part of our Xbox LIVE community. This update also comes hand-in-hand with increased stringency and enforcement to prevent the misuse of these terms."

Comments

Incest rights are civil rights.

[jensend]

"Incest rights are the civil rights struggle of our generation. When you have two consenting adults living and loving each other and then telling them they cannot get life insurance on each other to cover their mutual home in case of tragety(sic) is bigotry. This "marriage is between a man and a woman who aren't siblings and neither party can be the child of the other" bit is exactly the same as "coloreds don't drink from the white fountain." I don't even happen to be inbred and I can still clearly see this."

"Bestial rights are the civil rights struggle of our generation. When you have two consenting adults of whatever species living and loving each other and then telling them they cannot get life insurance on each other to cover their mutual home in case of tragety is bigotry. This "marriage is between a man and a woman, not a man and a sheep" bit is exactly the same as "coloreds don't drink from the white fountain." I don't even happen to be a furry and I can still clearly see this."

Just because it's "between consenting adults" doesn't mean it isn't hurting society, and just because two people of the same gender want to mess around with each other's gonads on a continuing basis doesn't mean society has to call that a marriage. Find your own word for that kind of abomination; this word is taken. Nobody has a "fundamental right" to dictate to society what their actions and relationship should be called, or to force down peoples' throat a completely new use of a word. It's almost like if kleptomaniacs were to go around demanding that their actions be deemed a "purchase." "Kleptomania is part of who I am; who are you to deny me the dignity of calling this a purchase? Only bigots will say that a purchase necessarily implies that the price of the goods was paid."

Gender matters to marriage. Why are homosexuals so intent on changing language to fit their needs rather than being willing to call these civil unions and get the same benefits?** The reason is the same reason people worked to control language in 1984: to try to control people's thoughts. Until everyone is forced to say that homosexual "marriages" are just as meritorious as real marriages, homosexuals will be pushing for any other opinion to be labeled as "hate speech" and outlawed- they've already have some success at that (c.f. the Åke Green case). And when they manage to bludgeon language to the point where it doesn't reflect any of the distinctions at issue, they'll have made a large step towards achieving their agenda.

You'll note that most of those who fought for real civil rights are ticked off at the homosexual lobby's ridiculous comparison to their struggle, with the result that blacks faced ridicule and violence from gays after they voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8 in California.

**Isn't it already asking quite a bit for them to get the same subsidies and benefits the government grants to marriages? These benefits aren't there because of a bias against people who feel homosexual attraction, they're there (and in many cases have been there for centuries) because strong marriages and the nuclear family are the basis of a healthy society and so society has an interest in subsidizing them; society has, in my opinion, no such interest in subsidizing civil unions. But in any case, the question of the role of civil unions is one it makes sense to debate as a society, while the attempt to redefine marriage in the courts is an attempt to subvert the process of that debate and ultimately also subvert the processes of democracy.