Slashdot Mirror
EA Defends Itself Against Thousands of Anti-Gay Letters
donniebaseball23 writes "Video game publisher Electronic Arts has not only had to defend itself against 'worst company in America' labels, but GamesIndustry International has revealed that EA's been receiving thousands of letters protesting the inclusion of same-sex relationship content in games like Mass Effect and Star Wars: The Old Republic. The campaign against EA appears to be led by Florida Family Association and the Family Research Council. The letters threaten to boycott purchase of EA games if the company won't remove the LGBT content, and many allege that EA was pressured by LGBT activists to include the content, which they say is forcing LGBT themes on children playing the games. 'This isn't about protecting children, it's about political harassment,' said Jeff Brown, VP of corporate communications."
Soddom
Are these bastards really going to make me side with EA on something? I need a shower.
These people only have a media outlet because we even listen to them. They might as well just burn these letters.
Who is more evil here? I'm going to say the FFA and FRC, but I don't think they're evil enough to get me to buy an EA product just to spite them.
If this were any other company than EA (well also Ubisoft and Sony), I'd write them a kind letter and buy the product. I hope the normalization of homosexuality isn't impeded because no one is willing to defend EA.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Am, in the interests of balance, going to boycott EA games unless they have more lesbian content.
It's only fair after all.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Fuck you!
EA was criticized, not for including same sex relationships, which many games do, but for delivering it in such a stupid way that it was just jarring. It was also criticized because of its online pass scheme, the fact that it shuts down good devs, and because it routinely takes advantage of consumer trust to sell a sub-par product at premium prices. If anything, the gay community should be offended by how they were portrayed in the mass effect universe.
Put in controls for 'Good Job' ass-smacks in Madden '13.
Anyone who voted for EA over Walmart as the worst company has no idea what they are talking about.
So: Being gay is wrong. Gays can't be open about their sexuality. Gays don't get the same rights as heterosexuals.
So yes, that absolutely does make you anti-gay.
All villagers are male, and they reproduce by kissing, and create baby male villagers... (for real)
(Of course I think the whole thing is silly... don't we have better things to worry about than what virtual characters do in the virtual world?)
If parents don't want their children exposed, they can chose to not let them play the game. However, I fail to see how the game is going to portray anything different than their peers in school. No, instead, these idiots want regulation and law to enforce their standards and ideals on others. Have some personal accountability.
In other news, its not like they force the LGBT encounters on you in the game. You pretty much have to consciously chose them.
If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
I don't think that Evangelicals are big market for these kind of games anyway. Another political stunt by the bigots on the extreme fringes.
This is an easy enough fix for EA. Allow parents to 'turn off the gay' in Mass Effect if they want to.
Actually, strike that... I think EA should just ignore these morons.
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
Does this make me anti-gay?
Yes.
Aren't you a bit old to have an imaginary friend?
Obviously a PR move, "hey stockholders, people don't hate us cause we're shitty, they just hate us cause we support gay rights!"
Worse company because they have games that give you the option to engage in same sex marriage??? All this time guys were playing as female avatars to get together with guys was getting old. Now you can legitimately engage in a loving relationship between two males or two females.
EA was under fire years ago for horrible working conditions, where workers were putting in 60+ hours a week and in one case 80 hours! But I think EA loosened up a bit but I'm not surprised if this is still going on. Working for the game industry below upper management is very volatile because everbody is eager to work for a game company until they realise how much grueling hours they have to put in.
In those games, you actually have to ACTIVELY PURSUE gay relationships. So are these groups arguing that game makers have an obligation to stop good Christians from their *own* desire to pursue gay relationships? Because I'm pretty sure that eliminating the POSSIBILITY of gayness in a game is not going to make them all into good Christian heterosexuals, especially if they're *that* determined to pursue the gay endings.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Does this make me anti-gay?
Yes:
I oppose gay marriage.
That's the problem. You don't want gay couples to have all the rights associated with marriage that married people have, like residency rights, visitation rights, and all the various tax benefits, such as estate tax, etc.
So yeah, pretty much by opposing gay marriage, you are acting to make life worse for gay people just because they are gay. Own it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
It's not like the FRC are going to buy their software anyway.
Caving to the likes of the FRC is not going to get them anywhere and they should simply circular-file the letters, which are easy to spot because they are all identical. It's too bad that a lot of companies cave to tactics like this. Do they come out ahead after? Nope.
--
BMO
It does not currently have them. There are some suggestive conversations between different characters but is as close as it gets. Top it off with how bad the in game romance story lines are and I serious doubt any self respecting gay person would want to see the Bioware developers take a stab at it.
I mean, the scripts used make the prequel love story between Anakin and Padme look downright Academy Award material.
Then toss in the fact it all is a computerized version of "Choose your own Adventure" and its painfully obvious you could choose to totally ignore that direction in any conversation.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Except it's not being promoted aside from how the public has taken it upon itself to run with it.
You don;t have to pursue the homosexual options in the game, they are optional.
*On a more personal note, if you against gays having the same rights (marriage) as straights, you kind of are by definition anti-gay.
"I'm not a misogynistic I just think woman should be kept in the kitchen."
"I'm not racist I just think blacks should have stayed on the plantations."
If it was strictly a matter of theology I would agree it should be up to the church, but so long as the insurance companies cannot insure a domestic partner, nor the government grant tax benefits to domestic partners, nor hospitals allow visitation to domestic partners; then it is a federal mater and the church should have zero say.
I believe homosexual acts are a sin. I believe homosexuality should not be promoted. I oppose gay marriage.
Does this make me anti-gay? No way. Hate the sin and love the sinner. We are all children of God.
By denying gay people respect and what they want - yes you are anti-gay
BTW being gay is natural. If not then why did God create all those gay animals? See Biological Exuberance:Homosexuality and Natural Diversity which lists the gay and bisexual nature of over 300 species as seen in the wild.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Well said man. You're a masterful debater
I am no child of your evil god. Your morality is corrupted by its vile and malevolent influence. Read the bible sometime and see the horrors that the god you worship with so much glee would inflict upon humanity if he actually existed. If you were not prejudiced and compromised by faith, you would note that your god represents a narcissistic sadistic psychopathic personality disorder on an ego-maniacal power trip.
Just curious, but if the poster would be working actively to remove these rights/advantages from all married couples, would that be better?
It doesn't make sense when they have to appeal to all gamers. And, the content is completely avoidable for those that don't want to see it. EA has the right to include something that is so accustomed in our society today anyway. You can boycott EA all you want, they will still sell just as many games.
I was only offended by the way in which that content was incorporated. It seemed like it was just slapped into the game to please a specific group of gamers, without any thought as to how it would affect the story.
Example -- I was talking with James, and my lady-killer Shep (the one who romanced every woman in the previous games and was a complete douce to Kaidan at every possible moment.. up until I had him nuked) made a pass at him ...a guy... and he did it without user input. WTF? I don't have a problem with the pass being made, but I have a problem with it not being within my specific shepard's well-defined personality.
When I got to the end of the game, however, the sloppy story integration made total sense.
Did God Himself come down from heaven and personally tell you that homosexuality is wrong?
Or did you read about in a book that some other (fallable) humans told you was inspired by God?
I do not agree with your beliefs, but honor your conviction in them. So, getting back on topic; Would you boycott a game because it allows the players to virtually sin? Or, is the type of sin relevant? Can you kill or steal in a game? If there are false gods, like in the Zelda series, is that OK?
I suppose there would be no games left to play if you avoided all virtual sin. And, please, boycott ALL games on Sundays.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Mass Effect 3 is a game with, according to the esrb, "Sexual content" and "Partial nudity" (butts, breasts off screen sex) and is of course rated M. The hell sort of "children" are playing that? According to folks like the FRC, children should be able to buy such a game, so what do they care? Of all the things in such a game to get angry about. One would think they would be requiring EA to take out the whole relationship thing as a whole due to the sex. Crap. I gave them an idea.
Far too many religious people define themselves by what they hate, and measure their own worth by how much hatred they can stir up.
Personally, I'd like to see all these hateful "Family" outfits treated the same way as other hate mongers that are currently dealt with harshly by law, like neo-Nazis and Islamists.
We are all children of God.
We are all sinners too. Satan awaits you too, my friend.
You do realize that only the Mormons got it right, don't you? Everyone of the rest of us...straight to hell, right beside Hitler.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Um, in Star Wars Galaxies ten years ago you could have same-sex marriage and inter-species marriage. Where was the outcry then?
You know with all the families that deal with neglect, abuse and other problems you'd think Florida Family Association and the Family Research Council would have other topics to tackle that are just a tiny bit more important than whether or not a parent is too shitty to talk to their child about homosexuality in media. For crying out loud, people, really?
You know, you have a right to be homophobic, I can't tell you how to raise your children. But don't fuck up my kid while you're at it. "Mommy, why was I able to marry my best friend in the SWTOR?" "Because some people are homosexuals and we believe that's wrong so don't ever do it in real life." There, was that so hard? Please let the rest of us move forward while your ignorance dies with you, okay?
My work here is dung.
they have the right to marry what ever woman they want
So you're pro lesbian but anti male/male union? Odd, but not unprecedented.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
I wish I had mod points to counteract at least one of the "flamebait" mods you're probably going to get. Sad when an honest opinion gets modded down.
You might have added that gays' sins are no worse than yours or mine. We're all sinners. One needs to remove the plank from one's own eye before trying to remove the speck from his brother's. I'm completely against many of the so-called "Christian" preachers who encourage hatefulness; that's the opposite of what Jesus taught. Rather than encouraging their congregations to write letters, they should have simply discouraged them from buying the game.
And Jesus H. Christ, games with blood and gore and these people are complaining about there being gays in them? What the hell is wrong with these people, anyway?
Free Martian Whores!
If they are angry on "think of the children" grounds, then shouldn't they be mad about the fact that the characters are having SEX, not just that the characters are the same sex?
But no way, that would be . . . hypocritical!
I'll be happy to lend a hand in responding to some of them. I have an innate ability to respond in a way that is completely rational, yet drives the religious nuts up the walls at the same time.
I consider it my super power.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I believe homosexual acts are a sin.
Fine. Many people believe eating bacon is a sin.
I believe homosexuality should not be promoted.
Fine. I don't think boxing should be promoted. Doesn't seem to stop them.
I oppose gay marriage.
Here is where it is not-so fine. If you are actively trying to suppress two consensual adults from entering into a mutually beneficial contract because of their gender, you are anti-gay. Maybe you're ok with civil unions; that makes you less anti-gay and just deluded in believing that separate-but-equal will work this time.
no comment
I believe homosexuality should not be promoted.
What do you mean by 'promoted'? Should heterosexuality be promoted? Out of context, probably neither should. But if you are going to portray hereto behavior, then it would be reasonable to expect about 10% LGBT activity as well. In keeping with the demographics of society. I'm not asking for a quota. But until your so-called homosexual behavior far exceeds 10%, I don't think there's any 'promoting' going on.
I believe homosexual acts are a sin.
Then don't perform them.
Have gnu, will travel.
Which they feel is equivalent to sticking something up your ass.
Not that theres anything wrong with that.
Whats the rating on ME3?
If its 16 or 18+ can you really say its still corrupting children?
And those "family" people that would say that children are still going to play it, its their task to stop that, no?
Does this make me anti-gay?
Yes:
I oppose gay marriage.
That's the problem. You don't want gay couples to have all the rights associated with marriage that married people have, like residency rights, visitation rights, and all the various tax benefits, such as estate tax, etc.
So yeah, pretty much by opposing gay marriage, you are acting to make life worse for gay people just because they are gay. Own it.
Being anti-gay marriage does not necessarily mean you are anti-gay. It depends on your motivation for anti-gay marriage AND your definition of marriage. Personally, I consider marriage a religious ceremony, if religions or religious people do not believe in gay marriage, fine. That said, I ABSOLUTELY believe that the rights and privileges that the government grants to heterosexual marriages must be made available, at all governmental levels, to same-sex couples. I defy anyone to provide me with any legal argument, with no religious aspect, to why same-sex couples should not be granted equal rights.
Games are a luxury item, not a necessity.
If you don't like it, don't buy it.
If you want to pressure a company, organize a boycott. But do so based on facts and your well-documented position, not on innuendo and supposition.
In the free market, money talks. If enough would-be customers agree with you, the company's stockholders will get the message. If the company's customers pretty much ignore you, then oh well.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
BTW being gay is natural.
So is wanting to punch someone in the face when they do something to make you angry. Doesn't mean I have to actually punch people in the face.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Chose? Choose
Your bible does not say homosexuality is a sin. It just says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." I interpret that to be an endorsement of anal sex or cunnilingus. You cant lie with a man as you would with a woman, the holes dont line up. And of course that same section of the book says you are going to hell for eating shell fish, for wearing linen and cotton at the same time and for not stoning to death a disobedient daughter.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Coincidentally, anyone who espouses such hate is headed there, too. Have fun with your new roommates!
Regardless of where you stand on homosexuality, citing nature's activities as defense of homosexuality is entirely illogical. Animals, within the context of their natural environs, commit a variety of acts humans would never even think to tolerate within civilization, so when you say "well, look, all the animals do it so it's immediately acceptable for humans to do it, too" you offer me, and everyone else, the unmitigated authority to condone pretty much anything.
Isn't the figure that 1 in 10 people is LGBorT? Including LGBT content won't "turn kids gay"... you either are or aren't. What it does do is accept the reality of our world, and provide acceptance for people that might otherwise still live horridly stressful closeted lives.
It's simple... if you don't agree with homosexuality, then simply DON'T shtoop people of the same sex as you! Denying that LGBT people exist and are part of our culture/norm isn't going to change facts.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
I believe your bigoted narrow view of reality has no weight in the real world. Leave your hate at home and let people live in peace.
Would eliminating privileges of marriage be better?
Well, it would be fairer.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
If "children" playing this game are mature enough to cope with the issues of conventional warfare, genetic warfare, genocide, robot races turning on their creators, intentional extinguishing of all other life by a super race, gang warfare, racism (specism), people being abducted and digested alive into raw materials, and terrorism throughout the Mass Effect games, they're probably mature enough to cope with a dude having an intimate relationship with another dude. (Or chick/chick. But I suspect that's the far smaller part of the complaint.)
100% correct I'd say though I am anti-gay, but I don't give a shit what gays do in their personal life. I don't agree with it and wouldn't want it around me but otherwise they can get mud on their helmet all they want.
I suggest you do the same. Or pick up the book God Forsaken and open up you mind to opposing thought . On second thought, don't bother. Your post pretty much shows your mind is quite closed and not tolerant of opposing viewpoints.
to other /.'ers: The above comment was directed at nadaka's comment and not intended as a comment on the OP. For the most part, I don't care what EA does. And I sure as heck don't care about FRC. Their belief that non-heterosexuality can be created through popular culture is ridiculous.
Does this make me anti-gay?
Yes, very much so.
We are all children of God.
No, we really are not.
Odd, but not unprecedented.
Lesbians are hot!
Get your politics and public issues out of my video games. I just want to blow shit up not be grossed out by dudes going at it.
"We refer you to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram."
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
gay characters, situations and stories have been in games and stories for a long time and it's here to stay for a long time too. so in other words, even if you don't like, deal with it cause it's here to stay
This, time a hundred.
Sometime this month, the Legacy patch is landing and in there you'll be able to construct a family tree. Well, all my characters are dudes because I hate pretending to be a chick in a game and I hate when people flirt with me. So anyway a feature of this new patch is going to be that you can construct family trees with your characters and their children will inherit traits from the parents that they have learned. I'm guessing you can have two parents of the same sex. And, honestly, if you have two level 50 male characters and only those you're probably going to marry them to give the kid better learned traits (unless you can only inherit one trait). There's not a lot more details than that but I haven't seen information one way or the other if same sex marriage will be possible.
My work here is dung.
I have been very interested in the whole "God hates homosexuals, but not me personally" group.
Why do you believe this particular sin is worth your time and effort to fight. You, and a lot of other people with similar views, make a big deal about how God hates homosexuals but does he not also hate tattoos and even temporary skin markings (if you read a literal interpretation of the earliest bibles then it does not say "tattoos" but instead simply "markings", I believe) and 101 other things that no Christians care about?
If you (or others like you) really do have nothing personal against homosexuals then do you spend as much time protesting in front of tattoo parlours and kid face painting stands as you do for anti-gay stuff?
I would be very very interesting in any kind of a response to this (in case you do not want to do this in public: jonathonwisnoski at hotmail.com).
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
The LGBT controversy is EA trying to misdirect the rage.
This is not proof, just a visual representation of my point: http://i.imgur.com/UmLsc.jpg
They are not the worst company because of LGBT content in a game, they are the worst company because of their draconian DRM, their theft of money from paying customers, and their ineffective customer service. If the stock market understands that this is a company trend, their stock will plummet. However, if they can convince the stock market that the ranking is due to a short-term LGBT controversy, their stock price will only take a minor hit.
Acknowledging that gay people exist is not promoting homoseuality.
The funny part is that I can reword all your points in some way towards your religion. And do you know what you'd call me? Anti-christian like a good little hypocrite.
George Takei has offered up his name as an alternative to gay, so you can support Takei Marrage instead.
Chill out and accept everyone, including those who don't tolerate you.
I don't like what's in my video game. Waaaaah!
What a bunch of fags.
I have it on good authority (No, I can't reveal my source) that this is EA responding to being voted the worst company of 2012 by Consumerist.com. The higher-ups are worried about the bad press right before the stock holders meeting, so they are deliberately trying to spin the negative press as being tied to their support of LGBT. However it's pretty obvious that the voters at the Consumerist were much more focused on EA's price gouging and charging extra for downloadable content just to get the basic content, anti-competitive measures and a host of other issues.
So when you hear EA saying "They hate us because we're taking a stand for human rights", you know the truth is "They hate you because you mercilessly squeeze every dollar out of your customers, you provide horrid customer service and because you deliberately hold back game content as DLC, making the customers feel like they're being blackmailed instead of being consumers."
Just like the MPAA rating board.
Violence is fine.
Sex is evil.
Fits well with the small faction of christian nutjobs who work tirelessly to spread their evangelism to all parts of the country and the world.
How so few people manage to have such a profound impact is truly amazing.
They definitely aren't a lazy bunch.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
The gay sex scenes (which really aren't even scenes!) are wife's favorite parts of Mass Effect II. Sure it might gain Renegade points for my fem shep, but I have to listen to my wife - my avatar is modeled after her. I'm pleased to see EA morph is to a less evil company over time, but I wouldn't say I love them, especially since Mass Effect III isn't (and won't be) on Steam. I do hope they resist pressure and put more (optional) lesbianism instead of less into future games.
Of all the things to hate EA for, they choose progressive gay rights? I'd say I have to side with EA on this, but I'm choosing to believe BioWare had the cubes convince EA to let them put it in.
One of the very best things about the additional "same-sex" content was how completely UN-weird it was, and I applaud the developers for treating a historically delicate subject as standard fare. Hell, Cortez almost made me cry when I found out he lost his husband; that was definitely NOT the usual "zomg gheys!" giggle-treatment. Even the treatment of inter-racial relationships still doesn't have that level of dignity in entertainment media.
I figure if a vampire can eat a fetus out of the uterus of the woman he impregnated with his zombie spawn on screen, and the only protest is the quality of the acting, two dudes can make out in a video-game just peachy.
I'm surprised that people can get things done in this day and age. Everyone has an opinion which has to be forced onto other people. Personally I don't want to see gay stuff in my games, but if I don't make the wrong choices in game I won't see it, so no problem. I'm sure people don't want a lot of things to happen to them in game, but make the wrong choices and you get "shafted".
Seriously though, instead of banning it, put warnings on it or think of some other way to overcome your differences. Stop playing this "I'm right and your wrong" game.
It's incredible how this all started with Jeremy asking EA to "suck his balls," way back in 2004. Who knew they listened to customer feedback?
Well, EA can still suck my balls, and there's no religious group that will intimidate me from making such a request.
http://www.purepwnage.com/ has the full video, but there's egregious ad-portals in front of them. So you only have to sit through one, it's Season 1, Episode 3. The whole thing's worth watching, but the quote is at 4:14.
As for fundamentalist family groups, they can suck my balls too. I can only hate on EA so much.
First of all, where are the same-sex relationships in SWOTR?
Secondly - besides having lived in the bible-belt for quite some time, I'm still shocked. I expect that the next time Germany's foreign minister (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_Westerwelle) comes around, he'll be bared from speaking publicly or something..
So these groups don't have a problem with slicing people in half with a light saber, but they draw the line at two guys getting married? Sorry, I just can't take these people seriously. Not that I ever really could.
Actually, he's right. The god of the bible is a tyrannical child deeming seemingly random things as "sins." And if you can't tell what this supposed god really meant, where he was serious, where the translation screws up its meaning, or where humans messed it up, then the bible is essentially worthless and untrustworthy to begin with.
That's a lie. I do not have the right to marry what ever woman I want.
I'm a straight male, and I just tried to marry my coworker by saying "It is my right to marry you, as it is my right to marry any woman I want!"
And weird I got an invite for a meeting from HR where the meeting location is in the lobby outside security.
that episode of south park is one of my favorites
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
I'll assume you're a "Christian" based on your post. Correct me if I'm wrong.
What if I were to say "Being Christian is wrong. I don't believe Christianity should be promoted. I oppose Christians being treated equally under the law as atheists".
Wouldn't that make me anti-Christian?
Note I'm not espousing hatred of YOU, but of your flawed belief that you able to make ME follow your belief system. I.e, I am hating your SIN of requiring me to cave into what YOU BELIEVE and being forced to suppress MY BELIEFS.
It's just a hypothetical because I'm not anti-Christian. Neither am I pro-Christian. I believe it is your right to do what you want, as long as you don't interfere with my rights or the rights of others. Can't you see how myopic your world view is?
would that be better?
Yes. Effectively what these wingbats want is a class system whereby only certain people get benefits. These are the same people who protested against blacks marrying whites because "it's against God's will" and other such crap such as separate but equal education.
What's truly funny (in a non-ha ha way) is these are the same people who talk so much about the freedoms of this country, how the Constitution is so great, the evils of Islam, how a blob of cells is a person (who may be gay btw) and shouldn't be allowed to be aborted, yet then go about and do the exact same thing they rail about happening in other countries or try to ignore what the Constitution says.
It's like this, either everyone gets the same rights regardless of their genetic composition, or we start having a stratified society like India (which, while outlawing the practice, still has a series of societal classes) in which certain people are only allowed certain rights. If that is the case, then we need to rewrite the Constitution because currently the Fourteenth Amendment provides equal protection for everyone regardless of their genetic structure :
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (emphasis mine)
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
In a way, yes. Why should people get tax breaks for signing a paper?
If the government wants to boost the number of children why not just increase tax breaks for having children.
And can't a person designate anyone to have visitation rights etc?
I find that if I can substitute the word "bigot" in place of the word "family" and the title still fits, then I don't listen to that organization.
For example they have the right to marry what ever woman they want.
Miss Sarah Brown would disagree with you, as would I.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Organizations like the Florida Family Association and the Family Research Council are terrorists, plain and simple. They firebomb abortion clinics, they terrorize soldier funerals and they do this terror tactic.
Why is it OK for these religious extremist groups to practice terrorist like acts inside the united states and get away with them? If any other religous faction were to do it they would see a government smackdown of epic proportions.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I say make it on by default. Nothing better than pissing off a bunch of mouth breathers.
citing nature's activities as defense of homosexuality is entirely illogical.
I disagree. A lot of anti-gay stance is based round the concept that being gay is a choice and not a fundamental attribute. By showing that animals are gay as well means (among other things) that either God has given animals the ability to choose to be gay or not, or that being gay is natural.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
That is such semantic nonsense. Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they romantically love. Homosexuals do not have that right in most of the United States.
I think EA needs to check their facts. Sending in letters to let a corporation know you do not approve of their behavior isn't 'harassment', it's freedom of speech, which is precisely why it is enshrined within the founding documents of the United States of America, and simply because letter senders speak from a position many deem 'unacceptable' doesn't violate that groups right to speak on behalf of their beliefs, unless you think everyone is required to accept homosexuality. Seems to me EA also missed the part whereby some thousand or more game-players exercised their right to free speech with respect to Mass Effect 3's ending, which seems odd to me, as it would appear it's quite acceptable to decry a video games ending like children throwing a tempter tantrum, but if you write a company to criticize their choice to popularize life-styles that conflict with your personal and cherished beliefs, your letters are labeled 'political harassment'. But I guess manipulating the masses is one good quality of every successful video game company. For the record, I'm a independent atheist, but everyone has the right in my opinion to say what they want, and if the US continues trending in it's current direction, the following link portends our future: http://catholicexchange.com/canada-orders-pastor-to-renounce-his-faith/ Not really where I want to see civilization trend.
Why should people get tax breaks for signing a paper?
Ask the corporations. Actually, there's your answer. If couples want extended rights, they should incorporate.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
It's no coincidence that the male part and female part mate up much better than male-male or female-female connections.
Well, if we're going to go there... it should also be pointed out that all human beings have both "male" and "female" parts (topologically speaking). That's no coincidence either.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
The real problem is that the word "marriage" has a religious meaning. I propose we remove the word from all federal, state, and local laws and documents, replacing it with civil unions (with rights and responsibilities identical to those currently attributed to marriage). All current marriages are automatically converted over to the (functionally identical) civil unions and any couple of legal age and standing (neither member already part of a civil union) may fill out the paper work and be legally joined. Leave the word marriage to mean "joined by a church"; which, of course, any couple, gay or straight, could also have performed as part of forming their civil union.
There, everyone has their religious freedoms, everyone has identical rights, everyone is happy right? Oh wait no, the religious wackos (and no, I don't mean that to be everyone who is religious is wacko) will throw an ever loving hissy fit, yelling at the top of their lungs that "the gays won" and "you're destroying marriage!".
Worth mentioning that EA is only the worst company in the world if you disproportionately count the opinion of disgruntled 4chan /v/ users. Because that is what actually happened.
I think you'll find that you piss-ant pinheads don't add up a rounding error on EA's balance sheet..
BTW, the girl on girl shower scene in ME3: hawt. The straight one? Lame. But why the hell does Traynor still have her knickers on and Shepard still has her uniform on? Despite that, and despite the aging UE3 engine it's rendered in ... still hawt.
Anyway back from that little daydream ... the FRC is an outfit that's basically run by a guy by the name of Brian Fischer. Go look up some of the things this toad says: he's seriously mental. He makes Jack Thompson look sane. He's a regular paycheck and lack of a colorful sign away from Fred Phelps.
Probably in the same book that said usury was a sin. It's funny how that doesn't bother the religious. I guess society has evolved beyond the book.
BTW being gay is natural.
So is wanting to punch someone in the face when they do something to make you angry. Doesn't mean I have to actually punch people in the face.
And I'm not stopping you from acting on your beliefs.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Bigot
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Look at St. Paul's letter to the church at Rome. Pretty much condemns homosexuality right there. Both male and female.
I believe homosexuality should not be promoted
I read this as: Homosexuality shouldn't be included in culture.
This troubles me, people growing up homosexual need to know they are not alone and inclusion of gay characters and themes in culture can improve how they view themselves. Lesbian and gay youths already have a significantly higher suicide rate then their heterosexual counterparts and pretending they don't exist will only make this worse. If you care about the lives of the people around you, you would retract that statement.
The various plugs, cables, and ports on my game console have male and female ends.
It's no coincidence that the male part and female part mate up much better than male-male or female-female connections.
Jesus Christ, if that's all you think there is to sex I feel sorry for your girlfriend.
Here's an example of what you're saying:
"I believe cats are dangerous. I believe cat ownership shouldn't be promoted. I oppose cat ownership. Does this make me anti-cat? No way."
When you declare that homosexual couples are not deserving of the same rights as heterosexual couples then you are, by definition, anti-gay. You can maybe get away with "I believe homosexual acts are a sin according to my religion". Even then, I think that is only explicit in the Jewish and Mormon traditions. Look it up, the prohibition on gay sex is in the same book that prohibits blended fabrics, eating shellfish and cutting your hair. Why do you hold so close to one arbitrary prohibition and not the rest?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I believe homosexual acts are a sin. I believe homosexuality should not be promoted. I oppose gay marriage.
Does this make me anti-gay?
Yes, and whining about it in public it makes you an asshole. Try reading Matthew 6:6 again, if it hasn't been censored out of your "Social Conservative Edition" of your "holy book".
We are all children of God.
Keep your Iron Age imaginary friend to yourself, buddy - leave the sane people in the world alone.
(Not Mine but worth reading through. I honestly think some people believe 15:33 is going to happen).
8:00 a.m. Wake up. Wonder where you are.
8:01 a.m. Realize you are lying on 100 percent cotton sheets of at least a 300 count, so don't panic; you're not slumming.
8:02 a.m. Realize you are actually in your own bed for a change. Wake stranger next to you and tell them you are late for work so won't be able to cook breakfast for them. Mutter "sorry" as you help him look for his far-flung underwear. You find out that you tore his boxers while ripping them off him last night, so you "loan" him a pair of boxer-briefs, but not the new ones because you never intend to see him again.
8:05 a.m. Tell the stranger, whose name eludes you, "It was fun. I'll give you a call," as you usher him out the door, avoiding his egregious morning-breath.
8:06 a.m. Crumple and dispose of the piece of paper with his telephone number on it when you get to the kitchen.
8:07 a.m. Make a high protein breakfast while watching the Today show. Wonder if the stories you've heard about Matt Lauer are true. Decide they must be.
8:30 a.m. Italian or domestic? Decide to go with three-button Italian and the only shirt that is clean.
8:45 a.m. Climb into red Z4 and try not to look too much like Barbie driving one of her accessories as you pull out of your underground parking. Revos or Armanis? Go with Revos.
9:35 a.m. Stroll into office.
9:36 a.m. Close door to office and call best friend and laugh about the guy who spent the night at your condo. Point out something annoying about best friend's boyfriend but quickly add "It doesn't matter what everyone else thinks, just as long as you love him."
10:15 a.m. Leave office, telling your secretary you are "meeting with a client." Pretend not to notice her insubordinate roll of her eyes (or the cloying "poem" she has tacked to her cubicle wall).
10:30 a.m. Hair appointment for lowlights and cut. Purchase of Aveda anti-humectant pomade.
11:30 a.m. Run into personal trainer at gym. Pester him about getting you Human Growth Hormone. Spend 30 minutes talking to friends on your cell phone while using Hammer Strength machines, preparing a mental-matrix of which circuit parties everyone is going to and which are now passe.
12:00pm Tan. Schedule back-waxing in time for Saturday party where you know you will end up shirtless.
12:30 p.m. Pay trainer for anabolic steroids and schedule a workout. Shower, taking ten minutes to knot your tie while you check-out your best friend's boyfriend undress with the calculation of someone used to wearing a t-back and having dollars stuffed in their crotch.
1:00 p.m. Meet someone for whom you only know his waist, chest and penis size from AOL M4M chat for lunch at a hot, new restaurant. Because the maître d' recognizes you from a gay bar, you are whisked past the Christian heterosexual couples who have been waiting patiently for a table since 12:30.
2:30 p.m. "Dessert at your place." Find out, once again, people lie on AOL.
3:33 p.m. Assume complete control of the U.S., state, and local governments (in addition to other nations' governments); destroy all healthy Christian marriages; recruit all children grades Kindergarten through 12 into your amoral, filthy lifestyle; secure complete control of the media, starting with sitcoms; molest innocent children; give AIDS to as many people as you can; host a pornographic "art" exhibit at your local art museum; and turn people away from Jesus, causing them to burn forever in Hell.
4:10 p.m. Time permitting, bring about the general decline of Western Civilization and look like you are having way too much fun doing it.
4:30 p.m. Take a disco-nap to prevent facial wrinkles from the stress of world conquest and being so terribly witty.
6:00 p.m. Open a fabulous new bottle of Malbec.
6:47 P.M. Bake Ketamine for weekend. Test recipe.
7:00 P.M. Go to Abercrombie & Fitch and announce in a loud voice, "Over!"
Until the word "marriage" loses it's legal definitions, being anti-gay marriage is, by your own statements, being anti-gay. Reality is that civil unions don't exist in most states in the US and many places where they do exist aren't legally identical to marriage. I agree with you, marriage should be a religious ceremony, the problem is that according to the laws of the land it also is a legal agreement. Until the two concepts are separated you can't be for one and against the other. And besides, the pro/anti-gay marriage debate is focused exclusively on the legal aspects, there's absolutely nothing stopping a gay couple having a religious marriage ceremony, it just wouldn't be legally binding.
Personally, I consider marriage a religious ceremony
except that it's not, because you can get married by a justice of the peace/judge/whatever.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Because gays are icky.
That is after all the underlying reason for the viewpoint.
Sure, then we can have switches for everything. It can default to all white male, then switches to add female, black, gay, atheist, muslim, disabled whatever. That way the people who live with their heads up their ass can pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
the USPS must be getting for this! Aside, printing and signing canned letters is about as effectual in real life as having a gay relationship in an video game.
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
It's full of gods!
The problem with this position is the original assumption of homosexuality as a sin. You and your ilk are not empowered to decide that homosexuality is wrong in the first place. In fact, you should be careful, for ye are judging, lest ye be judged, and the transparent way your judgement is packaged isn't fooling anybody.
It's just as logical for me to say that I love you but hate your sin of being named 3arwax. You could be a good person, if only you'd get away from your addiction of using 3s in place of Es. Does this make me anti-numeral? No way. Hate the sin, not the sinner. Sounds pretty stupid when I pass judgement on you from an utterly baseless position I've picked for no good reason, doesn't it?
Why? I mean, the game probably already gives you the option to go forward with the romance or not. So there's a conversational switch already somewhere in there. Personally, I think there shouldn't be. Quite a few of your character's likes and dislikes should be random or derivative of seemingly unrelated actions. It not only makes for better roleplay, but can you imagine the incredibly fun fallout of such a scenario? You're a happy bigot playing Mass Effect as a male Shepherd and then, suddenly, you're having sweet, sweet buttsechs with a Krogan. Just for an added kick, you can keep the conversational switch (Krogan: "Hey, Shepherd, want to come to and in my cabin tonight?" Possible answers: "Yes / Sure / I'd love to")
In Vampire: Bloodlines, you have to choose between keeping a character alive and getting the best armor in the game. I'd like to see more of that sort of thing in games, and I'm hoping one of them will give you an infinity +1 sword for being gay. I'm not sure what kind of message it would convey, but it would surely upset prejudiced completionists and trigger amusing message board discussions.
Fortunately, humans have all sorts of holes and plugs they can use in many various combinations, for those with even a modicum of wit and creativity. That's because of the mechanical acts required by the nonpliable housing, it has nothing to do with what actually makes those connections work.
Protip: it's what's inside that matters.
During the SW:TOR beta tests, the issue was brought up several times, and it always erupted into a firestorm of controversy on the forums. Originally, there weren't any homosexual romantic relationships with NPCs. The devs stated that they planned to add it in the future. The direction that the game is headed, based on those dev comments, is one of the major reasons I refuse to play that game. That, and all the general chat that made Barrens Chat look like civil discourse. It's too bad, because I generally had fun during the beta tests.
You have no right to force others comply with your twisted world view.
marriage with goats?
So you are saying that because I am an atheist that I shouldn't be allowed to marry?
Debate? Debate! You're kidding, right? His reply was perfect.
Heh... I'm hoping this is ironically funny and missed the joke. From this ridiculous position I could argue that black folks have historically had the same rights as white folks; all they ever needed to do to exercise them is stop being black.
Are these bastards really going to make me side with EA on something? I need a shower.
Just think of it as an EA PR story. Its not like ignoring thousands of letters is something new to them. Its just business as usual.
The game is rated mature, which means that giving it to a minor is morally analogous to giving them an R-rated movie. As a conservative Christian, I find it more problematic that parents give their kids and teens mature games than the fact that a mature game has a mature option you have to actively seek out. Unlike the MPAA which only grudgingly explains to parents how they arrived at their decision, the ESRB bends over backwards to empower traditional families to really find out which games are appropriate for their kids and teens.
What I still can't get is why EA even bothered with gay male options. 90% of their demographic (heterosexuals) tend to find watching actual gay sex between men to be repulsive (lesbians are a different story). It's a toss up between normal heterosexual men and women who finds watching two dudes going at it more repulsive to actually watch.
I think speak for many ME fans at this point by saying that the space for the gay sex options would have been better spent adding more to the ending...
Well the ancient Greeks had a lot of man-boy love going on and they're considered the high point of western civilization so maybe the white man should go back to molesting kids to revitalize his crumbling empire.
Would gay people and supporters of gay people's rights object if there simply HADN'T been any gay material in the work? I mean, it's understandable if there would be an objection if they had heard it had been specifically excluded from consideration, but what if it had simply never been an issue? How many people would have objected to the notion that homosexuals weren't explicitly included? Why?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I don't know how many people would agree with me, but I would say 100% yes, it would be better. Personally, I don't believe the word "marriage" has any place in law. Marriage is a religious ceremony that was given legal status a few thousand years ago when everyone was religious, and we've spent the last couple hundred years trying to decouple the religious aspect without changing terminology. This creates a situation where separation of church and state becomes impossible, as any change to the legal status of marriage is viewed as a change to the religious status of marriage, when in fact we're talking about two entirely different things. I do not support government recognition of marriage in any way.
I would support a government system that allows two people, any two people, to file paperwork allowing them to declare joint ownership of assets, joint filing of taxes, sharing of benefits, and any other legal statuses that legislature decides is appropriate. It should be required that these people share joint residency, but sex, race, and whether these people decide to share bodily fluids should have no legal bearing. If two heterosexual, same sex roommates decide they'd like to enter this type of arrangement, that's fine with me (thought breaking of this contract obviously still has legal significance, since you are declaring joint ownership of assets, so it should not be taken lightly). If people decide they'd still like to stand before friends, family and/or religious authority and declare their eternal love for each other, that's also fine with me, but it's between them and their church, not them and the government. But in the end, the current legal definition of marriage just boils down the federal government taking an interest into what two consenting adults choose to do with their genitalia, and no matter what Rick Santorum thinks, I cannot possibly see any justification for that.
So to you, relationships are based solely upon a prudes view of sex? I hope you're not paying much for boring sex.
Firstly let me state that I'm not gay.
That said, I accept that homosexuality has been found to be a natural part of the animal kingdom (not just humans) since the beginning of all life, as far as smarter people than me can tell.
Blowing peoples brains out with assault weapons is absolutely not natural.
Yet look at which issue the American parents are worried that their kids might learn about.
Personally I don't believe there's much of a cause/effect thing with kids becoming more violent just from playing violent video games, but there's always gonna be a very low percantage of freakish kids that will prove any theory wrong.
I prefer believe that glorifying hard violence is far more dangerous to younger kids minds than showing people of the same sex kissing.
But then the real fault is actually with the parents that let those kids play these games in the first place, even though they're often clearly marked 18+.
Lets move the blame back to where it belongs, on the parents for not properly shielding and educating their kids instead of doing that very American thing of finding everyone/anyone else to blame instead of acknowledging their own failures.
Well said man. You're a masterful debater
For short, call him "master 'bater". Seriously, though, he might have a point. Maybe what he means to say is "hey, if some guy fucked you, you'd just like it and change you mind about that sort of thing, you know?". Really, "fuck you" isn't just a bad argument at all when sexuality is being discussed, it just has a very bad rep. It's especially useful when opposing abstinence.
Honestly? Yes. Assuming, anyway, that it was done across the board with no exceptions. It's a stupid, scorched earth solution to the problem, but it would a) level the field fairly and b) bring the hammer home for hetero couples when they face the same difficulties of pooling resources that a committed a same-sex couple does. Right now too many people can't get past their "eww sick" gut reactions long enough to recognize that the bumping-same-shaped-uglies bit is not the damn point.
Despite the fact that many religious fundamentalists use that argument, I've never been able to read it in anything other than a sarcastic, mocking tone of voice. Imagine if the government was in charge of distributing food and gave all the black people nutriloaf every day, while the rest of the country got delicious and varied meals. But it's fair! Because everyone has the right to eat what's given to them.
I have the right to marry the person that I love, I wouldn't deny anyone else that right simply because the person they love happens to have the same set of genitalia as they do.
i dont understand this idea that gays have different rights than straight people.
i am a straight male...i can marry a woman but not a man.
a gay man can marry a woman but not a man.
we have the exact same rights.
The ultimate in customization!!
I thought most people liked more choices and ability to customize here on Slashdot....you're not saying more choices are a bad thing, are you?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
What about angsty nerds like you who can't get laid? You're a defect to the species and should kill yourself.
So you're pro lesbian but anti male/male union? Odd, but not unprecedented.
Actually, it's not odd at all.
Source: porn.
There are hundreds of things in these games which are not compatible with the book of lord. Killing people every minute, mystery forces and so on. Just get over it and play Hello kitty adventure instead, 100% free of gay marriage.
These same people rant and rave about Sharia Law coming to America, because they're worried it would move in on their turf.
But their values are more like those of Nazi Germany. I'm with EA on this one.
The real problem is that the word "marriage" has a religious meaning. I propose we remove the word from all federal, state, and local laws and documents, replacing it with civil unions (with rights and responsibilities identical to those currently attributed to marriage). All current marriages are automatically converted over to the (functionally identical) civil unions and any couple of legal age and standing (neither member already part of a civil union) may fill out the paper work and be legally joined. Leave the word marriage to mean "joined by a church"; which, of course, any couple, gay or straight, could also have performed as part of forming their civil union.
There, everyone has their religious freedoms, everyone has identical rights, everyone is happy right? Oh wait no, the religious wackos (and no, I don't mean that to be everyone who is religious is wacko) will throw an ever loving hissy fit, yelling at the top of their lungs that "the gays won" and "you're destroying marriage!".
I would agree to this with one additional provision. A couple MUST have a civil, not religious, joining for the legal status to be in place. Meaning, if it happened in a church, it's not legal.
I don't think there should be a default, but I think sexual orientation should be a character attribute definable at creation. (At birth, if you will.) It's ridiculous that you can choose the shape of your nose and your skin color and your gender, but not your sexual orientation. And sure, undefined could be an option, but it shouldn't be the only choice.
Not that this will satisfy the detractors by any means, but I believe it would be an improvement nonetheless.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Don't worry, it gets better.
Am I the only one thinking the if those moron bigots want to protect their children they should not let them play games that have a "Mature" rating?
Isn't the figure that 1 in 10 people is LGBorT?
No, only about 1 in 40 in the US. See "Sex in America, a Definitive Survey" 2.8% of men, 1.4% of women. 1 in 10 in the largest 5 cities, much lower in more sparsely populated areas. Data based on detailed interviews with 3400 people randomly selected, not self-selected.
It's gender equality. You have the right to marry any woman you want. A woman doesn't have this right. Why not? Because she's a woman. It has nothing to do with her being gay or not.
If you're not a troll, you're a horrible person. Use the exact same logic to ban interracial marriage. I forget history, did we try that already?
Actually, the people who are against homosexuality in public generally aren't crazy about any open sexuality to begin with. These are the same groups who claim there's too much porn in mainstream TV
Yes, actually, that does make you anti-gay. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one. Why is that so hard? Why do you have to feel that you can make government bigger just to suit your needs?
No. That argument does not work at all.
No, historically Black people had a separate set of laws and rights.
And it was not supposed to be funny, it is supposed to be an interesting technical fact that does really change the fact that homosexuals are being unfairly treated and oppressed.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Heterosexuals (and maybe 50% of the time bisexuals) can marry a person they romantically love, if that person is able to give consent and does so.
In most of the United States, homosexuals are NOT able to marry a person they romantically love, even if that person is able to give consent as does so.
That anyone can claim that this is not depriving homosexuals of equal rights is astounding.
No, yours is. You're phrasing the right in such a way that heterosexuals get what they want, but homosexuals do not. It's like saying that someone has the right to vote for whatever Republican they want. It doesn't fucking work.
No, but why should someone stop you for punching someone else who was up for it? Like, say, boxing? While we're wallowing on this metaphor, see Stallone talking about gay rights here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjIHYjiXJuE
I wouldn't say that'd be better. It might be fairer, but you'd have to have something to back up the idea that it would be better.
Being anti-gay marriage does not necessarily mean you are anti-gay.
Sorry, it kinda does, though much less so than people who oppose equal rights entirely. You're saying sure they should be able to have the legal benefits, but they should not be allowed to have your special designation of being "married". They can have "civil union" or something but "marriage" is special and should not be allowed for gays because your religion says so. This is inherently acting to make them second-class citizens.
"Separate but equal" is inherently unequal. Especially when it's a one-way separation -- heterosexuals could have a "civil union" if they don't want to be called "married", but it doesn't go the other way.
Besides, what makes your religion's definition of marriage so special? What if they're of a religion that doesn't care?
The enemies of Democracy are
It's not enough that you turn our children into terrorists. Now you make them *GAY* terrorists? Jeeze.
So much wrong crammed into one post...
Semantics is not about re-defining words, it's the complete opposite.
The fact you think all north america (sic) has the same set of laws just makes me shake my head in disbelief.
Just because something is fact does not make it right. If you can't understand that, I'll gladly invoke Godwin as a demonstration.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Maybe the magic boy in the Citadel can wave his magic wand again and make a magic light that combines the gay and the anti-gay into a single, synthesized form.
I believe homosexual acts are a sin
Biologists, OTOH, realize that it has something to do with the organization of your brain.
Do you think lefties are sinners? People used to try to make them use their right hands.
You're condemning people for what they are, not for some "vice" that they elected to adopt.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Being anti-gay marriage does not necessarily mean you are anti-gay.
Yes, it does. It means that you are against an entire class of people having a fundamental civil right.
It depends on your motivation for anti-gay marriage AND your definition of marriage.
No, it doesn't. If you're against people having equal rights, you're against that class of people.
Personally, I consider marriage a religious ceremony
Tough titties, that hasn't been how it's been for a long ass time. Since before the US was founded, actually.
if religions or religious people do not believe in gay marriage, fine.
Then they can just not have them, and not perform them. What's so hard about that?
No heterosexuals have the right to marry whoever they want of the opposing sex, love is not a requirement by law(See arranged marriages). Homosexuals have the same right as heterosexuals, only that's not what they want. I have no problem if gays want to get married; just I have a problem with same sex marriages as it devalues the concept as it was traditionally defined.
I do agree how ever that most people treat homosexuals unfairly though and I don't believe it was there choice to be gay.
Ah, but you can still punch a heavy bag to let it out. There are outlets for your desire that nobody judges you for using. Let's change your "punching in the face" analogy to a more general "acting based on your feelings" since I don't really want to compare a loving homosexual relationship to a punch in the face (apologies, but I can only meet halfway on that one).
You point out that not acting on your feelings when you are angry is a virtue, and seem to imply that not acting homosexual tendencies would also be a virtue. Why is this so, if you can find another that feels the same way as you, and act on your feelings safely and in private? I'd like to hear why people believe it a virtue to ignore a part of who you are, even when you've found others who are just like you and are willing to explore that part of you with them?
I guess I've just never heard a concise example of why homosexuality is "wrong" other than the classic "Read the bible, heathen!". There might be a discussion if homosexuality was actually harmful to the people involved, such as the drug or alcohol abuse problems I've had homosexuality compared to, but that's just not so. Sex is sex, and stupid sex is dangerous sex, no matter what shape the naughties are.
I don't get how grown-ups can actually argue from a position of "eeeewwwwwwwwww (or the much more rational "God says eeeewwwww"), because that's what every discussion I've ever had about this issue has boiled down to. Please, prove me wrong so we can have a real discussion.
Frankly, yes? Because if you're going to actively vote against the human rights of others, and then try and dodge the title of anti-gay (or anti-black, or anti-woman, or any number of other examples in history) all it makes you is a hypocrite. If OP is so proud of his imaginary friend, one would assume he should be proud to embrace his stance, instead of trying to claim he's not anti-gay. It's hypocrisy, and even worse on a personal level, it's self-delusion.
Hate the sin, love the sinner is such a bullshit sentiment. Using your religion to justify taking away the rights of others doesn't make it right. It's just fatuous self-justification of immoral behavior.
I believe brain washing children is immoral and wrong, but you don't see me passing laws making it illegal for parents to indoctrinate children with their ancient sky-lord myths.
Of course not. The fundamentalist compact bible* says nothing against womankind lying with womankind as with womankind.
*consists solely of Leviticus 18:22.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
They put it in there for people who might like it?
I just didn't pursue a gay relationship in the game. Problem solved.
That is such semantic nonsense. Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they romantically love. Homosexuals do not have that right in most of the United States.
I.e., "everyone has the right to do whatever I say they can do".
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
WHEN do I get to make out with Mako!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So, I guess all the gays need to do in order to be completely accepted by Christians is just agree not to penetrate their boyfriend's/husband's vagina while saying "after this you're gonna make me a sandwich!"
i dont understand this idea that blacks have different rights than white people.
i am a white man...i can use the institutions set up for my race.
a black man can use the institutions set up for his race.
we have the exact same rights.
Fixed that for you. (Does it seem dumb now? It should.)
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
But you can marry the one you love. A gay person cannot.
There are lots of right gay people don't get to have as a result.
Let's also not forget to mention that neither of these games are for "children". The Star Wars one is rated "T" for teen, and Mass Effect is rated "M" for mature. At worst, the Star Wars game rating might need to be upgraded to "M". Other than that, this is just nonsense. There is a rating system, an asinine established system for dealing with the content of games because parents can't raise their kids without help from a beauracracy.
These groups have a voice and a way to effect change through the rating system, and they have the right to protest, but you can't send harassing communications to a person or corporation with demands. You're going to be ignored or prosecuted if it goes too far, and rightfully so. Yes, you have a right to have and voice an opinion. No one is taking that away from you, but you do have to express those opinions in appropriate ways and appropriate places if you want your opinion to be respected. Otherwise, you're not helping society, you are a menace to it.
What about gay people, and other people, that don't share your beliefs? Should they be forced to accept them? If a gay person CHOOSES to deny themselves because of the faith they have, that's fine. But a gay person who doesn't share those beliefs? Why should they cause themselves to suffer?
On a related note, since apparently there are many laws that God gave us in the Quoran, you wouldn't mind being bound to those as well, right?
Jesus commanded you to "Judge Not" - if you don't understand that you have no place in calling yourself a christian.
The only bearing the animal kingdom's tendencies have on homosexuality is to refute the old counter-homosexuality argument that "animals aren't gay, so it's unnatural!" It does happen in nature, so that argument is incorrect.
Otherwise, I agree with you completely. Referring to animals in any discussion of human nature won't lead to a resolution of an argument for exactly the reasons you present.
Aren't you a bit old to have an imaginary friend?
How do you know he's more than 5 ?
Write boring code, not shiny code!
There's a pretty simple way to avoid same sex relationships in the game... don't flirt with characters of the same sex. Seriously, Bioware handles relationships worse than Stephenie Meyer. The conversation paths necessary to get into "romance" with an NPC are pretty much lit up with landing lights. It's not like you're going to be choosing random friendly options and suddenly realize that the character has fallen for you.
Ironically one of the things that upsets FOM about the idea of same sex relationships in The Old Republic (which don't actually exist yet, despite what the article says, they're promised for a future update), is that you might inadvertently interact with people having same sex relationships with *their* NPC companions. Never mind that there's no interaction with other people's companions, and you can't possibly know what the romantic status of any companion relationship is for someone else. You might get gay cooties from grouping with someone who is having freaky sex with his avatar's virtual friends while you're not looking.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
There's a lot of reasons why EA is an incredibly shitty company, however, this is not one of them.
Also, correct me if i'm wrong, but EA is simply publisher for the games listed, and did not have a hand in the actual content.
These letters should be shot off a Bioware instead.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
I will, however, be forced to start a letter writing campaign unless they include a 'duck' option damn it!
Though realistically, switches will not work. Their entire point is that they don't want people to have options or make moral choices. If you listen to their rhetoric they are pretty direct in their belief that media should only provide simple black and white ethical situations with no possibility for the player choosing 'incorrectly'. Choice is confusing, and they don't want children getting confused by having options or hearing other view points. That is for college where they can blame liberal professors for corrupting their darlings instead of admitting that once they have options and meet people unlike them (and *gasp* see them as people) they might not follow the path that was laid out for them.
which god would that be then?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
That's my view as well. Let the state manage the necessary legal aspects of a union, and let couples add a religious sacrament on top if they wish.
Which is in fact how it usually works in practice. The only problem is when people think that their religious (or non-religious) prejudices should dictate who can participate in the legal arrangement.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
That more just condemns promiscuity and licentiousness, the idea being that you shouldn't go fuck anything that breathes.
"You cant lie with a man as you would with a woman, the holes dont line up."
I've never tried personally, but I'm told the problem is actually a missing hole.
"and for not stoning to death a disobedient daughter."
Now now, Leviticus, at least that part, is one of the few bits of the bible that aren't sexist. You were supposed to stone your disobedient son to death too.
He probably doesn't believe in Amazon, either.
All this talk about a male/male option in ME3 and I never even found out who it supposed to be! Vega? The latino pilot? Garrus? xD
What I want to say, if you don't look for it, you won't probably find it. It's not like you have to sleep with guys to get a perfect ending (a lot of masturbation a.k.a. Galaxy at War, but it's another matter).
There are options for murder, genocide and (probably) jaywalking and having a possibility to romance a dude is their biggest problem?
Despite what the religious folks tell you, Marriage has always been a legal situation first, religious second. The clergy got in on it because, wow, what a fuckin' racket.
Less precedent then you might think. There is a meme, of course, that lesbians are ok while gay men are not, but this quickly evaporates when someone actually _is_ a lesbian rather then just playing lipstick lesbian... those girls end up getting quite a bit of hate spewed at them for the crime of being 'hot but unavailable'... partly because it threatens people's masculinity (one of the dangers of the lipstick thing, it has really reenforced the myth that someone manly enough can 'turn' a lesbian... so girls who do not magically become strait for the right man are a direct threat to his self image)....
Anyway....
BTW being gay is natural.
So is wanting to punch someone in the face when they do something to make you angry. Doesn't mean I have to actually punch people in the face.
The difference is that a gay couple that wants to get married is a pair of consenting adults, whereas you and whoever owns the face presumably aren't.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I'm not trying to pick on you here, but there's a problem with your belief: it's wrong. Marriage is a legal status conferred by the government. Religious ceremonies exist only to keep the church in people's lives. Many people are married in non-religious ceremonies, are atheists not really married because they aren't religious?
The whole marriage is religious thing is an invention to justify opposing various marriages on religious grounds. Whether it's used to justify opposition to marrying blacks, inter-race couples, gays or lesbians, it's always been a invented reason. There's one legitimate definition of marriage and it's not religious. If religions want to have their own super-hetero-god-fearing-marriage, they can have it, but it shouldn't be recognised by the government as anything other than a civil marriage.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I did not say it works or is fair for both groups.
Sometimes equality is not fair, but it is still equality.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
It makes you a bigot - and not a christian. Christians don't judge others.
Gay people have a specific burden to bear, to deny themselves of their own sexual desires...
And it's you who is asking them to bear that burden.
Would you comply if they expected you to deny yourself your heterosexuality?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
they have the right to marry what ever woman they want
So you're pro lesbian but anti male/male union? Odd, but not unprecedented.
No, he's pro-normal. He's pro-common sense.The purpose of marriage isn't "love", it's a structure for making babies and carrying on families within a frame of legitimacy that bestows a family name, inheritance rights, etc (as opposed to just making babies by bonking every women that moves and then moving on). Men and Men can't make babies. Women and Women can't make babies either. If two guys say they're happy by shacking up, have at it. But we're not going to turn the world upside down and redefine an institution that has specifically existed for a reason since the dawn of civilization itself... with all of the legal and financial implications that entails... just because someone says it's their "right to be happy". They'll just have to find happiness some other way.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
And if marriage was about love, you might have a point. But it isn't, and you don't.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Actually, he's right. The god of the bible is a tyrannical child deeming seemingly random things as "sins."
He also punished Saul for not being thorough enough in carrying out his ordained mission of genocide.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Yet another neo-Nazi no doubt!
Seastead this.
Technically, if you can find a consenting adult who'll let you punch them in the face, you should be free to go at it. I think there might even an underground group of punching enthusiasts who run something called "boxing matches".
Fanatically anti-fanatical
What you're saying is that its perfectly ok for adult persons A and B can choose to enter into a union where person A can visit B in the hospital, get mutual health benefits, handle finances together, not be compelled to testify against one and other, etc. whereas adult persons C & D say "Hey, we want to do that too", the government says "No way!".
I think Gay/Lesbian is like religion. It doesn’t make any sense, but who am I to say otherwise.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
You are correct, of course, that black people had separate laws and rights, although I don't think it changes the meat of my argument.
Still, please allow me to cowardly shift my argument to that of women's rights, then. Did women, also, have a set of different rules and rights from men, or were the rights that men were granted simply not granted, also, to women? I never paid too much attention to my history classes, but I seem to recall the drive was for women to be granted all the same basic rights and privileges that men had always received.
The bird's-eye view is: there is a group of people who is unable to achieve what another group of people IS able to achieve based on the way the laws are written. If expanding the laws to include the first group of people does not harm the second group in any way, why on earth should the laws not be expanded?
No one is going to become gay or have a sex change because they saw it in a video game. That thought is just so stupid I can't believe they are saying it. I had my first gay thought at 5 years old, long before I heard anything about sexual orientation. I was left thinking there was something wrong with me and that I was the only one. That is hugely damaging to a child. Sexual orientation isn't absolute, it is a range. From 100% straight to having an appreciation for the same sex nude form. Then there are those that reach out and touch someone of the same sex.Those that are equally happy with either sex, bisexuals. People who prefer the same sex but don't want to give up the opposite and those that are fully gay. Showing children only one form of relationship confuses them because what they are feeling inside isn't being explained outside. You can change your religion but not your sexual orientation.
That's the problem. You don't want gay couples to have all the rights associated with marriage that married people have, like residency rights, visitation rights, and all the various tax benefits, such as estate tax, etc.
So yeah, pretty much by opposing gay marriage, you are acting to make life worse for gay people just because they are gay. Own it.
There are plenty of other ways to address those other issues. Redefining marriage outside of its actual purpose is simply outright stupidity though.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
"Just because something is fact does not make it right."
I agree with you 100%, and that was pretty much the point of my post.
Equal laws do not equal fair laws.
The problem is not that we are imposing inequality onto homosexuals but that we are imposing equality where there needs to be differences. A set of laws that work for a society of heterosexuals do not necessarily work for a group of homosexuals.
It is not that we are forcing them to go to different schools and ride in the backs of buses but that we are imposing our way of living onto them.
Of course the answer is not to come of with two sets of laws, but to realize that our laws reflect our culture and not absolute morality, and in many cases need to be widened and loosened to allow the differences of humanity to flourish.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume Autism-spectrum disorder rather than troll, but your supposed insight is bunk. No socially well adjusted person would agree that your example treated people equally. Equality with regards to human rights isn't just a simple mathematical concept; equality and fairness are inexorably linked.
"many allege that EA was pressured by LGBT activists to include the content, which they say is forcing LGBT themes on children playing the games"
Clearly these people have never played Bioware's games, and know nothing about their politics. Nobody had to force them to include LGBT themes: Bioware has been pushing liberal political themes (gender, racial, and orientation equality; international engagement and anti-isolationism; community activism over corporate greed) on their own for a decade now -- and they started long before they joined up with EA.
That's not a criticism. The authors are entitled to present political opinions in their work. If you don't like it, make your own game. If it's good enough to sell 3 million copies, I'm sure EA will be happy to distribute it for you.
(Posting anon because I've modded.) If the government (or society, as represented through government) has an interest in increasing the number of children, it has an even bigger interest in assuring those children are raised well, in an environment where they have the necessary resources and attention. For obvious reasons, being raised by a couple committed to the family is far more likely to achieve that goal, so encouraging marriage is also a good idea (note that research has made it clear that the gender(s) of the couple are irrelevant, as much as NOM and others say otherwise).
And while you can designate visitation rights for whoever you want, this requires preplanning and filing the appropriate paperwork -- aand even if youve done that, what happens in an emergency when you're incapacitated (possibly at a non local hospital) and may not live much longer? "Sorry Miss, you can't stand by your wife's bedside as she dies, we haven't had time to pull the paperwork to see if you're approved..."
So. What's wrong with being anti-homesexual? There's a big problem with persecuting people because they're engaging in homosexuality or promoting their persecution, but not with disagreeing with them and understanding them to be engaging in immorality.
There's also nothing wrong with people lobbying a big gaming company like this or boycotting their products. It's fairly obvious that the other side in this matter do the same thing.
Jesus the man would have supported gay marriage, as he supported the oppressed and outsiders, such as samaritans and the woman caught in adultery. Trying to actively oppose people from marrying how they chose (where no-one is harmed), is anti-christian. Please understand how to love how Jesus did, without judging or trying to take happiness from others.
The real problem is that the word "marriage" has a religious meaning.
While marriage has deep religious traditions, the whole reason we're having this fight is because of its legal implications, not the religious ones. The central problem, however, is what we say marriage is for. And it's not for "happiness", and it's not for "love". It is, in it's legal sense, a legal framework for encouraging the nuclear family and encouraging procreation by ensuring that children get their father's name, inheritance, and property rights. It also protects mothers in case the father dies.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
No your reasoning is complete semantic nonsense.
Like I said before, they have the exact same set of rights. I, as a hetro male, do not have the right to many whoever I love. I can onyl marry any human female who is over some minimum age (the exact same as all other homosexual males).
However, here's a point you obviously haven't considered:
Separation of church and state, requires that marriage licences be legal contracts under federal and state law.
Equal protection under the law means that a contract can't discriminate against any protected class including among other things race and gender.
Therefore, it is unconstitutional for a sate to require mirages to consist of pairs of any particular gender combination (just like you can't require marriage to not be mixed race.)
So homosexuals are asking for their right to equal protection under the law (by gender) to be applied. Heterosexuals are also being denied that same right, however in much the same way that whites weren't inconvenienced by poor/nonexistent applications of equal protection under the law by race (see separate but equal doctrine) heterosexuals aren't impacted by the lack of enforcement of the right to equal protection by gender.
QED
I saw a meme doing the rounds this morning that showed EA getting into the semi finals of a worst company competition. I had a look at TFA but it didn't say what people have against EA besides a cursory reference to "nickel and diming" their customers. As a non gamer I'm curious about why people (religious fundamentalist nutjobs aside) are upset by this company.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
EA does a lot of shitty things, but this isn't one of them. EA may lose .02% of their revenue, because I doubt these fundies really buy their games.
We are all children of God.
You're not my real Dad!!!!
That already happens with a marriage license. And technically, anyone licensed to perform a marriage is an officer of the government (for the specific purpose of signing marriage licenses), and they are permitted to do their duties anywhere. Saying it has to happen at a specific place is like saying "All notaries must never allow anything to be signed in a church" or "lawyers can't meet their clients in coffee shops". Its nonsensical.
Bending over backwards and changing the name of shit just to suit some people is idiotic. They need to get with the program and understand that the word is duel use and saying "we're married in the eyes of the state" does not mean "the FSM has blessed this holy union and our souls will be forever entwined on the great fork of destiny" or whatever else might offend you.
And you accuse others of semantic nonsense.
You're an insane anti-gay bigot. It's your right as an american to be, own it. Don't hide from the truth.
And again, if you forgot history: Your exact logic could be applied word for word to interracial marriage. Go fuck yourself, you worthless bigot.
A set of laws that work for a society of heterosexuals do not necessarily work for a group of homosexuals.
I think the only people who can decisively answer that are the homosexuals themselves. And they want the same set of laws - to allow to adults who love each other to get married.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
As a rule of thumb, any organization with the word "Family" in their name is probably a clavern of fag-bashing, misogynist, usually-racist sociopaths and lunatics, who would fit right in with the Taliban if not for their disagreement about what God's name is, whether Mohammed was His prophet, and maybe five or six other minor points of theology:
American Family Association (and state claverns)
Family Research Council
Focus on the Family
Colorado for Family Values
Family Institute of Connecticut
etc.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
...but not the right to marry an adult human of the gender that they are physically attracted to.
Your bible does not say homosexuality is a sin. It just says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." I interpret that to be an endorsement of anal sex or cunnilingus. .
You missed your calling as a trial lawyer.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Would eliminating privileges of marriage be better?
Well, it would be fairer.
It always drove me nuts that some people are trying to define the notion of marriage in a government context in a religious context. I wonder how long before we either a) ban marriage between anyone who's not religious or b) just make up a new damn word for government marriages.
Once the word marriage became a term in law religion no longer had any say in the definition.
They're *too* tame. Where's the Hanar love interest for my femshep? Tentacles, baby! Or a hot sexy Elcor for maleshep?
Elcor: Expression of ecstasy. Oh, yes. Oh, yes. Oh yes. Now the next one.
Shepard: How many holes do you have back here?
Elcor: Alluring quip. They are legion. The time of my climax is coming.
"I interpret that to be an endorsement of anal sex or cunnilingus."
"And of course that same section of the book says you are going to hell for eating shell fish"
So your first statement is only half correct?
Not OK, not fair, not what should be, simply that that situation is equal when you consider the specific text of the laws and rights.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Without equality there will be discrimination.
If laws catagorize people based on physical characteristics that they have no control over (like gender), there is no equality.
So laws only permitting you to marry a spouse of opposite gender discriminate. This discrimination undermines a fundamental aspect of American law - that everybody is equal and has equal rights. Undermining this principle in the past has resulted is riots, killings, and other horrible events. This might not hapen with the gay and lesbian community as they represent only a small part of the population, but erroding the constitution is still a very dangerous thing.
So take gender out of the equation and let same sex couples marry. Even if you hate the idea it is still better than the alternative.
Any place, game or person that condones homosexuality is going straight to hell.
That's funny... God told me that it's the heterosexuals that are going to hell.
And if you don't believe me, I'll write it in a sacred book so you can read it for yourself.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
This reminds me of Seven Deadly Sins. If you're going to sin, might as well break all sins in a fortnight. Including the sin of sloth, where you consult a walkthrough.
However, the amount of sin in that game is nothing compared to Real Life. I think we should boycott Real Life instead of focusing on just one game developer.
There are Bible Games released for the NES. Basically, grab two of each animal, confirm if they are male/female, and send them off in an ark.
Should it be a religious ceremony? It seems to me that religion is the whole problem in regards to gay relationships. Why not do away with the superstitious nonsense, and consider marriage a thing that's for sane people too?
I guess I'm replying to a troll but this "How can there be gays if we evolved?" is so common (and so wrong) way for people to think that it's worth an answer.
Evolution works on the level of a community, not on that of an individual. Let's say that there are two communities of 100 people. In community A, there is a gene that increases your likelihood to be homosexual and in community B there is no such gene. In A, one of every 10 children is gay and in B, everyone is straight. So the claim is that "A produces 10% less children in each generation and as time goes on, the community (and with that, the gene) will disappear".
That holds true only assuming that the homosexuals have no positive effect on the community. If the presence of (statistically) more effeminate/less threatening men in the community A increases the survival rate of the reproducing people in any way by enough to offset the 10% slowed down reproduction, the community that has this gene stays competitive. I can think of some ways through which that could happen but I'm not an anthropologist and the exact mechanic isn't that important for this argument so I won't give it a shot at this time.
Of course that's oversimplification: It assumes that homosexuals never breed (which certainly isn't the case), that sexual orientation is constant (whether you can choose it or not, it's pretty common for especially bisexuals to have mostly-straight and mostly-gay phases in their life), doesn't take into account the fact that it could be a defect and still survive (if communities that kill everyone who is different have less chances to survive than those who tolerate differences - even defects - to some degree), etc. etc... But the point is this: Evolution and homosexuality don't conflict in any way
Well.. since conceiving a child is no prerequisite to raising a child, I'd say you've got no point either.
I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
How does anyone's personal beliefs regarding the religious meaning of marriage have anything to do with this topic? Someone's freedom to believe that their god does not recognize the marriage has nothing to do with whether our government should recognize it.
There simply is no way to be anti-gay marriage without also being anti-gay, no matter how cleverly deceptive your argument may be.
Lets be honest, many times the relationships are not homosexual, they are xenosexual.
Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
I have always suspected some autism like thing.
"equality and fairness are inexorably linked."
That touches on the exact point I was trying to make (I think homosexuality is too emotional a subject for most people to get the hidden insight in my post).
I would way equality and fairness are not linked. In this case it is our imposing of equality where there is difference that is the problem.
That and I just had to point out what I considered as something technically wrong, even if it was right in style and generalities.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
There is no need to make it blatantly public and apparent what someone's sexual orientation is in a video game. Real world issues like this should be left blank and if the game's community members feel they need to have it known they are homosexual, heterosexual or even trysexual, then they can just act that out on their own. There is absolutely no need to make it visible to everyone, especially for a small minority of the population.
I have nothing against gays, lesbians and transgender people... but this constant need to advertise their sexuality is wearing thin with me and even my gay friends and family members.
Just live your life. There is no need to constantly keep it out in the open this way.
The real reason that this has come up now is that they added a male-male relationship. For years now you could romance Liara, while she is an alien she is undeniably some sort of female looking alien and that was ok. Because as a society we have decided female on female stuff is ok or at least ignorable but this male on male stuff is icky and thus the fundamentalist morons have to get all up in arms.
And they want the same set of laws - to allow to adults who love each other to get married.
That's not the law. You can't marry an adult just because you love them.
You can't marry your mother/father. You can't marry your adult child. You can't marry five adults at the same time.
Why is it such a stretch to also say "And you can't marry someone of the same sex?"
My religion has no problem marrying gay people. I perfectly respect that rights of your religion to not recognize the spiritual sanctity of a marriage between people of the same sex, as well as its right to refuse to have its clergy officiate the ceremony or refuse to have said ceremony on its property. If your definition of marriage is so narrow that it consists of "people married my the traditions of my faith, by a member of its clergy, on its holy ground" then certainly you have fair claim denying "marriage" to gay people. If on the other hand you recognize as "married" those who have civil ceremonies or ceremonies in other faiths or traditions than your own... well your argument breaks down. Most Neopagan, some Christian, and some reformed Jewish "churches" will happily perform gay marriages. Legally binding only in states that recognize it of course; but spiritually binding none-the-less.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
No your reasoning is complete semantic nonsense.
Like I said before, they have the exact same set of rights. I, as a hetro male, do not have the right to many whoever I love. I can onyl marry any human female who is over some minimum age (the exact same as all other homosexual males).
And by similar reasoning you obviously would not see anything wrong with laws that prevented interracial marriage as they would effect blacks and whites equally...
Our tax laws are designed around a wage earning husband supporting a stay-at-home wife. There are advantages to society in having children raised in a stable two parent family, and in my experience it is also beneficial to have the mother there raising the children rather than shuttling them around to various proxies. Of course that doesn't mean a homosexual couple shouldn't have the same tax breaks when it comes to raising children.
So I assume you have a problem with people that have had themselves sterilized getting married? If that's the only reason you don't think gay marriage should be legal, don't you think marriage where either the man or woman is sterile should be illegal as well?
And what about gay couples who adopt children? Aren't they providing a benefit to society, giving a stable home to children that would otherwise be brought up moved from foster home to foster home, if they're that lucky? Maybe we should allow gay marriage as long as they adopt.
Or maybe we should just kill all the children that don't have parents (abortion should obviously stay illegal, or we'll have women out there, deciding), or decide that it's illegal for homosexuals to adopt. Then we don't have to give fags the same financial benefits the rest of us enjoy, and that's really what this is all about, right?
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
The various plugs, cables, and ports on my game console have male and female ends.
It's no coincidence that the male part and female part mate up much better than male-male or female-female connections.
Maybe someone should tell you how well the male penis fits the male anus.
You can ask your favorite theologian why God chose to make it that way.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
So to you, relationships are based solely upon a prudes view of sex? I hope you're not paying much for boring sex.
Everything he knows about life, he learned from his game console.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I don't know much about Mass Effect, but for accuracy there should only be one kind of romantic relationship in a Star Wars game, and that's the pure romantic love between a young man and his sister.
Yes, I am applying the Matrix sequel rule to the prequels. They deserve it.
If expanding the laws to include the first group of people does not harm the second group in any way, why on earth should the laws not be expanded?
There are a ton of laws that are about morality, not protection of people. Many of them have to do with sex and drugs. Why is pot illegal? Why is bestiality illegal? Polygamy? Gay marriage?
Just look at the Miller test:
The Miller test (also called the Three Prong Obscenity Test[1]), is the United States Supreme Court's test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene
That tells you all you need to know. We have a whole cast of laws about obscenity, based on what people find obscene. Not dangerous, not harmful.. obscene.
Sucks but that's the way it is. An absolute shit-ton of people support it, too.
So you would ban hetro marriage for infertile people, or women past child bearing age? Otherwise I suspect you are being inconsistent, and trying to cover up prejudice? No marriage wasn't created for making babies - it was created for maintaing control of land for the upper classes. Did you kknow marriage wasn't a religious sacrement in Christianity before the 1700s? Have a look at the history of marriage - it is relatively recent that the poor in society took it up. And yes there is a history male unions prior to christianity (albeit in a minority of cultures).
How would letting same sex couples turn anything over - are you misreading it and assuming someone wants it to be compulsory? Seriously two men marrying will not hurt you or impact on your life. Get some charity in your soul and stop hating please.
Why would you need to choose your sexual orientation at start? It's an RPG - you play out your character the way you want it to be. If he's not homosexual, then just don't flirt with NPCs of the same sex, or if you do and they proposition you, decline it.
No heterosexuals have the right to marry whoever they want of the opposing sex, love is not a requirement by law(See arranged marriages). Homosexuals have the same right as heterosexuals, only that's not what they want. I have no problem if gays want to get married; just I have a problem with same sex marriages as it devalues the concept as it was traditionally defined.
I do agree how ever that most people treat homosexuals unfairly though and I don't believe it was there choice to be gay.
My aunt had the right to marry 8 times and one of them was to the same one she'd already divorced. That's legal and doesn't "devalue the concept" at all, right? In other words, heterosexuals have the right to piss all over their vows, engage in publicly (getting married over and over) slutty and schizoid behavior, but homosexuals don't have the right to marry because you think fucking in the no no place is bad, even though heteros are all into that now. Yeah, no inconsistencies at all there, buddy.
There are quite a number of religions and churches from the larger US mainstream churches who are willing to perform gay marriages.
Good news! You don't have to be gay - you can be straight as an arrow and happy as a clam. But that doesn't mean you can tell everyone else how to live.
Actually - it doesn't. The original poster was EXACTLY right. Any MALE ( a protected class under the constitution - i.e. one of the two sexes) can marry any FEMALE (a protected class under the constitution - i.e. one of the two sexes). He can not marry any other MALE. Giving a MALE the right to marry another MALE (or FEMALE) is adding rights.
Now you have two choices here. Add Homosexuality as a protected class under the constitution OR legislate the right into existence. Some states are doing that. However as the law stands at the federal level, those that are homosexual and those that are not have exactly the same rights under the law with respect to Marriage. Whether you want to admit it or not (because it isn't convenient to your argument...) being Gay isn't a federally protected class in the same way discrimination based on Sex, Race, or Religion are protected.
Consequently, the argument that you are denying someone their rights by denying the ability to marry someone of the same sex is bogus legally. Such a right does not exist under current law at the Federal level that I'm aware of.
Have you compiled your kernel today??
The fact that infertile people can get legally married proves that assertion wrong.
When men say they love lesbians, they really mean bi-sexual women.
I wholeheartedly support same-sex liasons in any games, because why not? Read the history of ancient and medieval militaries(Romans, Ottomans, etc) for details on that topic. EA et al have to appeal to all their customers, and they know the ultra-right nuts ain't gonna play their games anyway...
But, I don't want to see any screenshots of Shephard and Thane Kreos doing the interstellar tango.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
In ME3, I was being a good friend to my old war buddy, and they he asked if I wanted to have sex with him. I was unprepared, shocked, and in fact, remember when he told me in the first game he liked girls.
Bioware really screwed that whole thing up just to add gay sex. It was pandering and didn't even fit the character in question. The same thing happened in DA2. Just being nice to ander leads to gay sex. You have to literally berate and scream at everyone of the same gender if you want to be safe. I have no problem with gay characters, but those two instances both felt very forced.
If marriage was solely about kids and inheritance for those kids, you may have had a point (but even then that's ignoring adoption). But it deals with many other things, such as inheritance between partners should one of them die, taxation (even for childless families), and many other special rights that do not involve kids at all.
In any case, by your argument, childless couples should not be allowed to marry. I think the most coherent reply to that would be "fuck you".
The purpose of marriage isn't "love"
Thousands of years of poetry out the window.
I'm guessing it's not the gays that are making marriages fall apart faster than ever.
I don't consider that marriage, I consider it a civil union. Sorry for not being more clear. While I consider marriage a religious ceremony, I recognize that that government considers more than that. I make a distinction between the two parts of "marriage" myself, but later in my post, I am unclear that I am now referring to marriage in the more inclusive religious+government view.
Well it would depend on the country you looked at. What we are certainly talking about, north america, I think that at least in general you are right. I am sure there where more then a few specific cases where they could not just give women the same rights and have it make sense, but in general the idea was equality.
Of course the general idea of the pro-homosexual movement is also equality.
"why on earth should the laws not be expanded?" Well I could come up with a lot of different arguments based on a lot of different starting points. ...
1)The point of laws are not really to create the maximum amount of fairness or happiness.
2)Someone might have the opinion that men are genetically made to fill one role and women another so the laws should enforce that/discourage feminism from actually hurting women (as an anarchist I would have to strongly disagree with laws enforcing this type of stuff, but as someone very much interested in genetics and evolution would say that the idea should not be dismissed as religious bullshit).
3)Just like freeing the slaves hurt slave owners, freeing the women made men lose power.
But if this is still referring to homosexuals, of course the laws should be changed. Even if you do not like homosexuals, having them marry hurts no one.
Random thought: I guess we are lucky that religious fundamentalists do not believe in evolution, or they would be trying to stop them from reproducing. But then the best way to do that might be to allow them to marry and make adoption easy, so I guess it might be a win-win.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Don't waste time arguing with bigots. You have to realize that their POV is not based on any reason, but purely on emotions - they use logic to justify it post hoc (badly, because it's not compatible with logic), but it stems from the simple fact that gays give them creeps. You can't rationally argue against that. The best weapon against this is public ridicule - again, on emotional level, not on logical one. Make bigots be ashamed of expressing their bigotry in public. Make it so that kids point fingers at them and laugh. Then they'll go crawl back under their bridges, and remain there, hoping that no-one finds out what they are. That would be good for us, and some sweet quid pro quo justice to boot.
That WAS the purpose of marriage, and then only the purpose for those who had stuff worth passing on. Nowadays a marriage is founded based on infatuation. I am gay, but I would marry a woman so long as keeping catamites was legal and not a guaranteed way to lose half my shit.
But the laws say nothing about love, simply gender. And that example is not at all the same. A very apt example in the same vein would be: Imagine if the government was in charge of distributing food and gave all the people meals genetically designed to kill black people and then claimed it was fair because they treated everyone equally.
The difference between the two is that in mine everyone is treated equally, in yours they are not. Because equality does not always equal fairness, and that is what I was originally trying to point out.
Unfortunately, I am sure 99% of people will miss my insight and mod it troll.
Look on the bright side; you get nods for at least not being an anonymous troll! :)
Why is it such a stretch to also say "And you can't marry someone of the same sex?"
Because there's no basis for such a law.
The incest laws I can understand - and the polygamy laws just make it easier to argue against marriage in the first place. But why deny Fred marrying Shaggy while allowing Fred to marry Daphne? What's the basis of that denial?
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Yeah, I see what you're trying to say, but all you're doing is just redefining what "equality" means from what everyone else is saying. You're being pedantic and saying "its equal in that it forces everyone to do the same thing" but everyone else is saying "its not equal in that I cannot make the choice I want to make because you're saying I can't". Its the same logic with segregation "You get to marry someone of the same race, I get to marry someone of the same race, its equal!", but in the context of "here's what I want to do" its not.
Of course, society has to balance that kind of "equal" with the good of the whole. If someone satisfy my desires by sleeping with children and chopping their heads off, then the laws against child molestation and murder are oppressive. You're specifically denying someone the opportunity to do something they want because it would detrimentally affect another person and society as a whole. Is that correct? I think most people would argue that yes, it is.
Is it correct to prevent two consenting adults from doing what they want? That's what the oppositions to these laws are all about. Are others being detrimentally affected by these two doing what they want? I would argue no, and the religious right would say "yes, because it sets a bad example, pulls kids onto homosexuality, etc".
The same reason you'd choose any other trait.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Well being hot but unavailable is a crime, regardless of the reason. Or it should be. People don't like getting rejected, period. Whether the stated reason is that we're too ugly or too short or some version of "it's not you, it's me." doesn't change things all that much. But you still haven't described how a hot lesbian girl is any worse off than a hot hetero girl with a boyfriend.
For any hot lesbian who feels she is getting hassled too much let me make a suggestion. Cut your face up and eat a lot until you are no longer hot. End of problem. Hot girls who complain about how often they get "hassled" are some of the most unsympathetic creatures on earth. It's like a billionaire complaining that he doesn't know what to do with all his money. Time to break out the tiny violins.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
I propose we remove the word from all federal, state, and local laws and documents, replacing it with civil unions (with rights and responsibilities identical to those currently attributed to marriage). All current marriages are automatically converted over to the (functionally identical) civil unions and any couple of legal age and standing (neither member already part of a civil union) may fill out the paper work and be legally joined.
Once you throw religion out of marriage... er, I mean, civil union, why restrict it to couples only?
For that matter, why does there even need to be a registered union to enjoy all those special rights? Why not just make things completely independent and available to anyone who asks? e.g. if I need special visitation rights for someone, I just designate that person, and the state is bound to respect that same as they do for married couples today.
NO they want the laws changed. And not to "Any one/thing that a human loves he/she can marry it/him/her".
That want the laws changed to "Any human can marry any other human, except people who are related too closely or unless you are already married or one of you are below a certain age."
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
If everybody gets these so-called benefits, why not just abandon state legal marriage altogether and make the benefits available to everybody, married or not? Why discriminate against single people?
All the usual crap people list as marriage benefits like income pooling for tax purposes and sharing of benefits from insurance should be available to anybody. Why can't I temporarily share my insurance with my buddy who just lost his job, but now some gay guys can marry each other and share insurance?
Any assignment of benefits to only one group of people ("married", regardless of whether that includes gays) is by definition discriminatory. So I have a hard time believing that gay marriage proponents are *really* interested in equality or fairness.
As I said, "I consider..." And yes, I do not consider atheists married. They have entered into a interpersonal legal agreement, or as I sometimes say, a merger. I never stated that my view was the majority view, the legal view, or any other view besides my personal view. This is why I would not consider some one in my position being against gay marriage anti-gay, which was the caveat I made in my first post. I have no problem with any religious group refusing, or preforming, a same-sex marriage. I do have a problem with the government denying anyone who wants to enter into a interpersonal relationship legal status. Of course, I also have a problem with the government denying legal rights to a group of three or more consenting, informed adults who also wish to enter into some sort of legally recognized and protected relationship.
Wrong. Marriage predates organised religion, and the early Christian cults actively tried to ban it. Learn a little history before making bad assumptions. The church eventually stole the idea for their own ends, just like many other pagan seasons festivities.
You mean I can't go gay to hell? Better remain gay then.
You know if people don't like spinach they don't go out and try to ban or stop it, so why are so many people so freaked out by this? If you are that freaked out about gay\lesbian people THEN YOU ARE A HOMOPHOBE. And yet these people all claim to do this in the name of religion, seems like terrorists do the same thing, so now your a homophobic terrorist. And yet all these so called christians seem to forget that "He who is without sin cast the first stone" and the other thing is we should never sit in judgement of other people (that's gods job) oh and what happened to "everyone out there is our brother\sister and we are their keeper" no matter what there religious/moral/sexual beliefs are. We should ALL PRACTICE a little more tolerance. Im Just Sayin
Not the two I worked with at a past job....
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
They were probably born that way too. Where's the love, EA?
Until the two concepts are separated you can't be for one and against the other.
You're admitting there are two concepts, so conceptually they are already separated. The law encompasses both but it's not up to you to determine which concept a person is internally using to justify their position. You can be against gay marriage and not be anti-gay, unless you're equating the letter of the law with morality.
100% correct I'd say though I am anti-gay, but I don't give a shit what gays do in their personal life. I don't agree with it and wouldn't want it around me but otherwise they can get mud on their helmet all they want.
Actually, we douche, so as to not get mud on our helmets. The rate of shit fetish in the homo population is probably the same as or less than in hetero. Avoiding gays has made you such an authority on their culture, maybe you should just STFU about it, eh? If you're so neutral and have no real opinion or care about what "gays do in their personal life", maybe it's a good time to post about another topic, moron.
Other traits are numbers that have bearing on game mechanics which is calculated for you by the game itself. How would sexual orientation have bearing on game mechanics?
Or do you propose to make it so that NPCs are telepathic, and don't let you flirt with them unless you have "gay genes"? What exactly is this supposed to correspond to IRL?
My solution for the problem is simple.
First the definition of the problem:
There is a contention caused by using a religious term (marriage), in a state institution (legal documentation of a union of two people).
The solution is thus to deny "Marriage" to everyone at the governmental level and only grant "Civil Unions" to everyone who wants one. If you want also to be married, go to a church/house of worship/whoever that will perform a marriage for you.
somehow, that pisses off everyone, though I do believe it properly addresses the problem.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Because there's no basis for such a law.
The incest laws I can understand - and the polygamy laws just make it easier to argue against marriage in the first place. But why deny Fred marrying Shaggy while allowing Fred to marry Daphne? What's the basis of that denial?
Bigotry and unreasoned hatred. Glad I could answer that for you :)
Don't be obtuse. Not all traits have effects in-game, and in the real world, people use both conscious and unconscious signals, gestures, and styles to indicate their orientation.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Plenty of people, even before the internet, where homosexual. Mass media in the world today may contribute to people be curious about it, but it doesn't force anything on kids. On another note... Mass effect is an NC17 game isnt it? Arnt most games where same sex relations coming into play already NC17 to begin with? I think I have to side with EA on this.
One could only hope the parent suffers from Fight Club syndrome and will mercilessly beat himself to death.
That want the laws changed to "Any human can marry any other human, except people who are related too closely or unless you are already married or one of you are below a certain age."
I can't find anything immediately disagreeable about that statement.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
There's a verse in Romans that reads "Because of this [false religion], God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones." It's the closest the bible may get, but as it so often a problem it's practically impossible to figure out what it's supposed to mean. A lot of anti-gay Christians point to this as a clear condemnation of lesbianism, but that could be seen as them reading their expectations into the next - it's a possibility, but 'unnatural relations' could just as easily mean masturbation, or bestiality*, or adornment with fine clothing**, or even that the women were so bold as to forget their place as the submissive partner and try to seduce the men into bed.
*The old 'The enemy tribe fuck goats!' insult has been going around from the ancient world to the modern redneck joke.
**Also condemned in Leviticus - and the word is translated as 'lust' here, but it's also used elsewhere to simply mean 'strong desire' without any sexual element.
But their already is equality, and it is the equality that is causing the discrimination.
"If laws catagorize people based on physical characteristics that they have no control over (like gender), there is no equality."
That's great, so you are saying that the inequality does not come to be between homosexuals and hetros but between men and women. We (in a way) have two laws, men can marry women and women can marry men. Make those two laws equal and you have a situation where you can have both equality and fairness.
That is a very interesting way of looking at it. I am not sure if it invalidates everything I was saying or only goes to show that any problem can be looked at as a set of completely different problems depending on how you approach it.
But I would not say that the only way safe way to run a society is to strive for equality. If you have equality then you do not have a group of people you can take advantage of. If the US considered all people in the world equal then it could not pillage the rest of the world of its resources and treat non citizens as not worthy of life (and it would lose most of its power).
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
You appear to conflate autism with arrogance. Clue is this bit: "hidden insight in my post". No it is a minor footnote to the argument at best. If you have delusions that you have insights hidden from others, it is time to take a trip to the doctor.
"Carrying on families within a frame of legitimacy that bestows a family name, inheritance rights, etc." can be done within a homosexual marriage. And there is no shortage of children that are unwanted or unable to be cared for by their biological parents.
Have you ever heard of adoption? People are very good at making babies. They make more than we know what to do with. Besides, I guess you have no objection to people marrying without intent of breeding? Maybe infertile people shouldn't be permitted to marry - they too are perverting the institution by preventing it serving it's purpose, are they not?
Actually, I hear the same complaint from unattractive lesbians too. There is an additional subtext of 'but you are ugly, you should be grateful I want to share my manly dickatude with you!'.
The reason it tends to be worse then simply having a boyfriend is that many males do not see lesbian relationships as 'real' (you see this in OPP too) and thus having a boyfriend registers as a less hurtful rejection since at least the person looses to another male.. but to a female.. many see it as 'you would rather have a fake relationship then me?'. So yeah, it gets pretty nasty.
The laws or must countries do not say anything about love. I can marry any woman. If I happen to love a fish then I am out of luck.
If you want to see more of my reasoning then explore this comment tree more, I have already gone into great detail a lot of times (and I think made my opponents agree with me) and I do not want to do it again.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
A bit like how everyone once had an equal right to marry someone of their own race?
Jesus the man would have supported gay marriage
I think you might have overstepped there.
My father did not support a lot of the things I did. Some of the girls I dated. Some of crap I got into. Some of my life choices were simply not supportable. It doesn't mean that he didn't support ME when possible and try to help me when it wasn't enabling. That he didn't support my choices didn't mean that he didn't love me regardless of my decisions. But that he loved me definitely doesn't automatically mean that he supported what I did... in this case you can have it both ways because it is two different things... just don't try to treat them as if they are the same. Jesus would likely not have "supported gay marriage", but he would have loved those getting married regardless.
My present is the activity I am currently engaged in with the purpose of turning the future into a better past.
Not all traits have effects in-game
Really? I'm not aware of any, other than character appearance which is at least observable by the player. Sexual orientation would literally be a meaningless bit.
in the real world, people use both conscious and unconscious signals, gestures, and styles to indicate their orientation.
Which is what is reflected in the game dialogs - if your character exhibits conscious or unconscious signs that indicate his or her orientation, then pick the appropriate dialog choices, assuming that those signs and ques are what lead to them.
Styles you can reflect separately - how about e.g. dressing your character accordingly?
I do agree that the option to apply cosmetics for male chars would be interesting, though. I wonder what FFA and FRC would say to that.
A wedding can be a religious ceremony. A marriage is not.
Who cares about homosexuality. It's not a big news item in any form. The big news item is that EA rightfully earned the Golden Poo. I'd honestly put any number of local cable monopolies above EA but EA is definitely top 10 epic fucking fail companies in this country. I can't wait for that stock to tank and rid us of one more worthless company that has yet to add any significant value to anything it has shoved its greedy little hands into.
BTW being gay is natural.
So is wanting to punch someone in the face when they do something to make you angry. Doesn't mean I have to actually punch people in the face.
And I'm not stopping you from acting on your beliefs.
Lame comeback. Saying "Fucking is a little more intrinsic to being alive than punching people and a bit more of a natural daily impulse, asshole". would have been a lot better. "I'm not stopping you from acting on your beliefs"...? Really? Why bother replying.
So God basically thinks it's okay as long as the balls don't touch.
Civil unions in the US are complicated, because of the tiered law system. A state may recognise them, but the federal government doesn't - which means a paperwork nightmare when the time for tax comes, a real mess relating to benefits, and so on. If things go interstate, it can get even worse - and that often does, if someone in a civil union is working for a company based in another state that doesn't recognise them and so health insurance coverage becomes an issue. There have been a few cases of couples in a civil union getting into legal difficulty when traveling outside the state, including one in which a lesbian died alone in hospital following an accident while the hospital refused to recognise the union as legally valid and so denied her partner visitation rights.
I know you're not a bible scholar but there are places outside of Leviticus which speak against homosexuality, such as:
Romans 1:26 NLT
That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.
The implication being that homosexuality is not just sin, but at least sometimes punishment from God for rejecting him. It also calls it shameful.
Also there is this new testment reference:
1 Timothy 1:10 NLT
These laws are for people who are sexually immoral, for homosexuals and slave traders, for liars and oath breakers, and for those who do anything else that contradicts the right teaching
Clearly saying in this verse that homosexuality is up there with slave traders and is contrary to right teaching. I would tend to agree that the argument that we as christians are bound by levitical law is very weak, but the new testament reaffirms a number of principles including sex only between two heterosexuals who are married.
The big problem here is that church-marriage and state-marriage are both *called* marriage, and in the minds of most people are just two aspects of the same thing. The root of the problem isn't practical, or theological, or legal: It's linguistic.
Read this and weep (you may skip the 2/3rds of the book that contains the footnotes):
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
It is illogical, harmful to others, and harmful to all society.
(For the christian types) It is not compatible with Jesus' message of christianity, which taught people to "Judge not". Jesus wasn't anti anyone.
There is a problem with being "anti" - of course there is nothing wrong with not judging others and choosing not to take part yourself.
Would you lobby a games comapny because some of the romantic relationships in a game were outside of marriage? Or because some characters were hateful, or demonstrated pride? If not it sounds a lot like irrational bogtry against just one "sin" in particular from a very old book.
You are being intentionally obtuse. Marriage is about a partnership involving two parties under the law and should be judged in those terms, therefor (rights of AA) != (rights of AB). In fact, there are no rights for AA because it is not allowed to exist under the law (i.e. in most states and federally). The fact that AA can't exist represents an inequality. Since Marriage is between two people, you cannot argue that gay couples have equal rights to straight couples because they are all free to marry the opposite sex as individuals. The semantic argument you are making is very similar to the one used to support segregation among blacks and whites at one time.
That you can't understand that there's any distinction between punching someone in the face and allowing two people to consent to marrying each other speaks volumes.
The key word you should try to comprehend here is "consent". If you can find someone that consents to taking your punches when you're angry, then you might have an argument.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
"You're specifically denying someone the opportunity to do something they want because it would detrimentally affect another person and society as a whole. Is that correct?"
I am not. Personally, I am an anarchist and believe that anyone should be allowed to do whatever they want. I would not say that murder is 100% bad 100% of the time. Marry a goat for all I care, but I would still kick your ass if I thought that you where making that goat uncomfortable.
And I would say I am not redefining the word, you are. Equality means =ness, 2=2, A=A.
We share the same set of laws with the homosexuals. that is equal with regard to homosexuals and heterosexuals.
you could look at it from a skewed angle and say they cannot marry who they love, but the law is not about that. or you could say that it is about the inequity between women and men.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
You think gay marriage is a fundamental civil right? On what grounds?
Let's compare it to the right to vote.
For marriage, there's an actor and a target. The actor and target have to be different sexes, but everybody has the chance to be the actor and everybody has the chance to be the target.
For voting, there's also an actor and a target. Originally, the actor was required to be male in all cases. So not everybody had the same chance. That's called discrimination. Later the discriminatory aspect was removed... but let's see how. The law certainly didn't become "any adult can vote for any other adult."
Are such limitations on the connection between actor and target valid? To vote, the actor has to be a citizen, but the target doesn't. Thus there are invalid combinations of actor and target for voting. Do you think that's violating the fundamental civil right of voting? Hopefully not. So can you explain how limiting the combinations of actor and target in the case of marriage IS violating a fundamental civil right?
It's funny when people try to state the principle of marriage as "the fundamental right to marry an adult you love." I guess these people have not heard of unrequited love. In other words, there are plenty of heteros who do not get to marry the person they love. In that case it's certainly not a right at all, let alone a fundamental right.
Others state is as "the fundamental right of two adults to marry each other." Well that's also wrong. For instance if one of the adults is already married, they can't marry again before getting a divorce. How do you explain that in terms of fundamental civil rights? Imagine if your right to free speech was limited like that... oh you've already had your free speech for the year, you'll have to take back what you said, or collect and destroy anything you printed, before you can do it again. Another example is if the two loving adults are closely related, like mother and (adult) child. They can't get married. Imagine if your right to free speech was "You have free speech, but there are certain people you can't talk to."
Let's look at the accessibility of this "fundamental right." Some people have severe problems that make nobody want to marry them. Think of it terms of race.. "some people are so black that nobody wants to hire them." Well that's illegal. But having most of the women in the society team up and say "Nope we're not marrying that guy" is not illegal. What does that mean?
I'd say marriage for anyone, straight or gay, is not a "fundamental civil right." There are just too many differences with our real civil rights.
We're all sinners.
No we're not. Fuck that bullshit. It saddens me that anyone actually believes that garbage.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
i dont understand this idea that gays have different rights than straight people. i am a straight male...i can marry a woman but not a man. a gay man can marry a woman but not a man. we have the exact same rights.
As I said in a comment above, marriage is about a partnership between two people under the law and should be judged in those terms. A gay couple does not have the same rights as a heterosexual couple. If you can't grasp that then you are being intuitionally dense.
The world would be a happier place if there was no religion.
As someone who has bought SimCity, The Sims (about 12 versions), MySims, some EA FIFA games, and just paid for the Katy Perry Showtime add on to The Sims 3, I hope they ignore those letters.
Think of the failed boycott of Starbucks - ten (10) times as many people bought MORE Starbucks (we in Seattle tend to avoid Starbucks, but we drank it when we heard of the anti-gay boycott) as boycotted it.
Anti-gay policies don't get you more customers - they get you fewer customers.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
They should boycott Zynga. When I was playing Frontierville, you have a chance to get married, and it made no attempt to stop me from giving my male character a male spouse. Think of the children!
What many people don't seem to realise is that a church-marriage is wrapped around a state-marriage. As part of the church ceremony the couple getting married sign a legal document that then has to be delivered to the state. A church-marriage without a state-marriage is not a marriage, it's just a show.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
That standpoint is self-contradictory. When you remove the word marriage from the books, the state will have no more say about who gets to call themselves married. Gay people will hence be free to marry. You know it, they know it, and the Christian right also knows it. So it's better to call a spade a spade and be for gay marriage; at least that way you can avoid conflict with the growing number of people who consider marriage first and primarily a civil institution.
Whether or not it's meaningless in a given game is up to the developer, or the DM if you will. BioWare were the ones who made it have some bearing in-game, so the question is simply *when* the decisions are made, not whether they're being made. It makes just as much sense to make it a character trait as to make it an in-game choice, and arguably more sense since that's what defining your character is all about anyway: deciding who you want to be.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
In ME3, I was being a good friend to my old war buddy, and they he asked if I wanted to have sex with him. I was unprepared...
I guess you're not as good of a friend as you thought you were.
Maybe we should Boycott Florida until they get rid of their same-sex relationship content.
Seriously people.
You know why most people don't get involved in these arguments and fight all the intolerance? Because most people are tolerant of the intolerant people too and just want you to get along with people and stop being so dumb.
Well god gave you free will so you couldn't use it after all, that is what the bible teaches at any rate.
I got here through a series of tubes
One of the most used examples of animal homosexuality is the Bonobo. Trouble is that the Bonobo also engage in incest and pedophilia. By your own logic these actions are "natural" and should be made legal.
Looks like The Consumerist's poll was successfully DDoS by the anti-gay trolls.
none
Don't tell him what he can and can't do. The government has no business in marriage.
My religion includes marriage regardless of gender. Do you now consider my faith questionable?
The anus isn't in the exact same position in the male and female bodies either. One of them if sort of further to the front. Look it up on wikipedia, they even have pics.
I don't think anything is 'intended' to go inside the anus. It seems to be a pretty straightforward one way valve. From a biological perspective I think a good argument can be made that sticking anything up there is unnatural. And the large intestine certainly doesn't seem designed for sexual gratification in any way.
I sometimes wonder if it is the people who enjoy anal sex who are responsible for scat porn. I would guess that you would have to like the smell and taste and feel of fresh shit. Otherwise it's pretty disgusting.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
In ME3, I was being a good friend to my old war buddy, and they he asked if I wanted to have sex with him. I was unprepared, shocked, and in fact, remember when he told me in the first game he liked girls.
Huh, interesting, I actually had the opposite experience (I assume your old war buddy was a character I offed in an earlier ME so I cant comment on that) and thought ME3 actually got it right (from the point of view of a straight guy). I was being nice to one of the characters who, admittedly, *obviously* was gay (so there was no surprise) and there was that same awkward moment I've had once with a gay friend, where you sort of had to find a way to make clear 'I like hanging out with you, having a few beers and shooting the breeze, but Im not into guys...' without sounding like a total douchebag for basically assuming that someone must be interested in you - but you also dont want to give someone the wrong idea and feel like you are leading them on.
I thought that was done pretty well in ME3.
Do you think lefties are sinners? People used to try to make them use their right hands.
I don't know if they are sinners, but there is definately something sinister about them lefties.
This was, most likely, EA's idea in the first place: gather attention by showing gay relationships in Mass Effect 3, and have people think "how tolerant".
- Almost every main female character has bigger boobs in ME3 than they did on previous games. Some have more curved bodies. It quite hard to avoid noticing it.
- Sexier females are more present in the posters/ads.
- The main female human (Ashley) isn't ugly any more.
- The game has a no-brainer "kill 'em all" multiplayer mode, to attract the masses that just like to shoot stuff.
- You have to "save the earth", OMG!
Adding gay content was just to attract even more attention for another, previously unexploited, demographic.
I guess I've just never heard a concise example of why homosexuality is "wrong" other than the classic "Read the bible, heathen!".
Have you ever heard a concise example of why anything is wrong that doesn't eventually fall into "Just because" territory? I don't think it's possible. The answer isn't even "read the bible" -- I think most people who dislike homosexuality just dislike homosexuality.
There's nothing wrong with people who don't like or support homosexuality. Some people just don't like it. That's the way it is. It's no different than not liking chocolate ice cream. Maybe it's gross to you. Maybe you secretly crave it and are ashamed. Whatever, why does it matter? Just because I don't want to be gay, and I find gay sex nasty, doesn't mean that I wouldn't hire a gay guy, or I wouldn't share a table with a gay guy. Just like the fact that I find the thought of sex between two hugely obese people nasty doesn't mean I'm a fatophobe, I wouldn't hire a fat person, or I wouldn't share a table with a fat person.
I support gay rights, but only to the extent that gays should have the same rights as others and shouldn't be discriminated against for being gay. As time goes on, I'm getting really frustrated at the gay agenda though. One kid bullying another kid because he's gay (instead of because he's fat) makes national news, draws comments from the President, and gets legislators busy drafting new laws to make examples of those nasty gay-hating straight kids. Ooh, automatic hate crime! That's the ticket! To me that's bullshit. As soon as a group goes for special treatment, I start losing all respect for that group. There are probably plenty of gays who don't want special treatment, but unfortunately they don't make headlines.
Actually, he said: "Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you."
And Jesus told the woman caught in adultery: "Neither then do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more."
The problem is that people like you think that telling someone to "sin no more" is "condemning" them. It's not.
The parallel passage in Matthew summarizes it thus: "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you."
Don't forget that Token Ring cable is hermaphroditic.
And don't get me started on the relationships I've developed with my gender changers to make things 'work'!
Hmmm KOTOR and Mass Effect? Loved those games...even as a heterosexual male.
Also, I might add, the comments from gay friends have pointed out that the "gay possibilities" in these games (in particular these) are kinda lame anyway (actually, the hetero possibilities are kinda lame too actually...)
Though still... Its good to see games that take the time to put in content that appeals to other audiences. I know male heterosexual gamers, like myself, are the lions share of the industry, but these games show that you can include content to appeal to different groups without detracting from the game.
The biggest sins of these games was the debacle that is only evident if you try to play KOTOR II and Mass Effect back to back (hint: its basically the same story... the central space stations even have the same name and same origin... seriously....)
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Fuck what those people think
They are not going to buy the game anyways.
I did not say it works or is fair for both groups. Sometimes equality is not fair, but it is still equality.
1+x=2 is not equal for all values of x. It is only equal for certain values of x, namely, 1.
Likewise, your logic is only equal for certain values of x: those that wish to get married for reasons other than love, and those heterosexuals who wish to get married for love.
You completely ignore the fact that homosexuals cannot marry for love.
Rights afforded to homosexuals are not equal.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks the government should stop recognizing marriage and just call every one of the civil-unions. Allow gays the same civil rights, but let 'marriage' (basically just to word at this point) be a purely religious ceremony/state. Then let the various religions/sects decide what they want to do with it.
Wow! So not only do we get to choose the color of our explosions, we also get to choose...
*gets dragged off stage for taking yet another shot at ME3 ending*
Hmm, my attempt at deadpan humor must've been TOO deadpan.
My apologies to anyone who found my post offensive in any way.
And yes, I have plenty of gender-changers and over the years I've frequently use them to mate m-m and f-f parts. I am also aware of the hermaphrodite Token-Ring cable. I've also "gotten really kinky" and used "species-changers" (typically USB to SATA or IDE adapters), even if that may not be legal in all states.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Lets go back and look at your original post. You never said anything about "equality under the law". You were talking about rights. The quote is:
"I am not sure it is is true to say that homosexuals do not have the same rights."
You say they have the same "right to marry any woman they choose" which is self-evident. Your logic goes awry because you're not arguing about the same thing. No one is talking about "right to marry a woman", they're saying "right to marry whom you choose". In this case, a man chooses to marry a man, and his right is denied. Laws are about restrictions of "rights" for the betterment of other individuals or society as a whole. In this case, the law is denying a right - to marry whom you choose - to a specific set of individuals - those who choose to marry someone of the same sex. Just as drug laws deny those who wish to use a specific narcotic and murder laws deny folks the right to kill whom they please, this is all about why someone is restricted and why society wishes it to be that way.
(And by the way "You" in your quote above was not you personally, it was "you as in society").
So does the law grant equal access for men to marry women, straight and gay alike, yes, of course.
Does the law grant equal access for all people to marry all people? Obviously not.
And now I don't think we've accomplished anything but argue about semantics :)
There is one problem, though; those laws you cited are only enforceable when there's evidence of a crime. While I don't really agree, there are actually valid arguments against pot (gateway drug? Pfft whatever... but at least I sort of understand the argument) and bestiality (the animal has no way to consent, so it should/could really be considered animal cruelty, even in private. I suppose that if the animal *could* provide proper consent the way a human partner could, then sure, have at, so long as it's in private so as not to be considered an obscene act by the public, but sorry, boys, that's just not looking like it's gonna be possible. Until your dog is smart enough to learn shakespeare and calculus, you really shouldn't screw it. The fact that it's gross to think about is a side-note and should have no bearing on the laws on bestiality, until it happens in public, at which point, sure, call it obscene. The act can be obscene, but you can't yell at ME because you're thinking about the act. In any case, bestiality is not even in the same realm as two consenting adults behaving however they want in private).
;). I can also guarantee that some of the most vocal heterosexual couples engage in some seriously freaky shit in private that would make even the icky gays cry if they witnessed it, so it's an utterly stupid argument altogether (I believe, from your presentation, that you actually agree with me, in principle, so thanks for that).
Even with with polygamy it *could* be argued that it's harmful to the families involved (although I'm one to say if a man wants that level of misery, so be it and good luck, bro). A gay marriage doesn't even have that to hold against it, unless you think actually being gay is itself harmful to the people or their friends/family in some way, to which I say "Prove it without using the bible.". In any case, it's not illegal (or at least en-forcibly illegal) to swear or get a blowjob or do it doggy-style or watch porn except where someone can see or hear you; and I'll even grant that a detailed description of the act in public is borderline obscene.
But, even delving into obscenity laws, the supporters of these types of laws are basically saying that in their imaginations, gay folks are always obscene, so being gay and married isn't the same as being straight an married, so, ever-so-logically, no insurance for the yuckies!!!! Would it be "obscene" for me to say "I sometimes swear when I hit my thumb with a hammer."? Of course not; I didn't go into any sort of graphic detail in any way. What if I instead say "My boyfriend and I got married a few years ago, and we would like to have all the benefits that other married couples get."? If this offends you, you should really be rooting the icky out of your own imagination instead of blaming me.
What's stupid about that is it's a totally subjective complaint, anyway; some people are offended if I kiss my girlfriend (much as I argue for gay rights, sadly, I'm not fabulous! in real life) in public, while others would offer to pay us to get naked (she'd get paid, like, WAY more than me. She's hot and also may be reading this later
The way to draw the line is to do so between public life and private life. Realistically, a gay marriage has no more to do with sex or obscenity than a heterosexual marriage; the straight folks don't need to prove they fuck no more than 3 times a week, missionary only (no icky stuff, you!), and only for procreation purposes, in order to get on a family medical plan, and neither should homosexual couples. It's a completely irrelevant issue.
True, far too many people support this type of idiocy from a position bereft of logic, but the only way to start peeling supporters away is to explain that what they are supporting, and, hence, combating, isn't what they think it is. The "obscenity" is tangential to the argument, at best.
And it's the gay sex bothering them? Not, say, the 6 year old kid that gets killed in the opening scenes of the game or the sniper rifle headshots that make heads explode like watermelons? Or the humans being turned into zombie-like creatures? Yeah, exposing your kid to off-screen same-sex hookups in those games isn't what's making you a terrible parent, there.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I would agree with the analogy. If whites can only marry whites, and blacks can only marry blacks (for example) it is racist but equal.
Similarly to if a man can only marry a woman and the inverse of that statement then with respect to homosexuality and heterosexuality everything is equal but homophobic.
Which is not to say that anti-black/minority laws of the past where equal. most of them where not and were about two separate laws for two separate races.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
You are not just anti-gay you are anti-christian.
To the casual reader Song of Solomon 5:2-4 talks about fisting. Biblical scholars will point out that it says no such thing and that "hands" and "feet" are often used to represent genitals in the bible.
Now you have to reread your Bible for the number if times Jesus either washes his male follower's "feet" or gets his own "feet" "anointed". Or goes around touching men's hands or feet.
Seriously, you are a dude who travels around with 12 men and a fag hag and you are anti-gay? Get real.
If you want to cite "a man who lays with a man as a man would lay with a woman shall be put to death!" keep in mind 2 things:
1. Lesbians are just fine according to that law.
2. That was the angry hateful part of the Bible which became obsolete after Jesus shows up on the scene and starts preaching about "loving your neighbor", "turning the other cheek." and generally not being an asshat.
Star Trek TNG had a very poignant episode on same sex clashes with another alien race. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Outcast_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)
1)The point of laws are not really to create the maximum amount of fairness or happiness. ...
2)Someone might have the opinion that men are genetically made to fill one role and women another so the laws should enforce that/discourage feminism from actually hurting women (as an anarchist I would have to strongly disagree with laws enforcing this type of stuff, but as someone very much interested in genetics and evolution would say that the idea should not be dismissed as religious bullshit).
3)Just like freeing the slaves hurt slave owners, freeing the women made men lose power.
You, sir, are very clever with these three arguments, and I want you to know that I see what you did there. Sometimes I forget that people actually do base their beliefs on these types of arguments, and I cannot afford to dismiss that fact since there are so many who do.
If whites can only use the bathroom designated for whites, and blacks can only use the bathroom designated for blacks (for example), it is racist.
Similarly to if a man can only use a men's bathroom, and a woman can only use a women's bathroom, it is... wait, what is it?
I'm the real Vorokrytin P. Winterbuttocks.
I like assholes.
And EA supports you in at least two ways.
I vote we give homosexuals equal rights by abolishing marriage. Why are we still pushing marriage as a good thing? Over 50% of them are so bad that people are willing to go through *divorce* just to get away from the other person. And of those that don't end in divorce, how many of them are happy? The promotion of marriage as a virtue is the real problem.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
would that be better?
Haha, good question. It certainly wouldn't make him anti-gay.
Subjecting lifetime couples to estate tax when one dies, disallowing visitation in hospital, removing any kind of residency rights would probably make life worse for a larger number of people.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Gay sex is definitely a choice (unless you're raped). Gay desires... who knows. I don't think we know enough about desire to conclude anything. Look at Stockholm syndrome.. people who have no desire to be kidnapped and controlled end up liking their captor. Did they have a choice in that? Maybe not.. and yet at the same time it feels very wrong to say that they have a new fundamental attribute of love for their captor, doesn't it? Everybody in society wishes those people the best of luck in losing that desire and returning to normal. Nobody says "Oh, just accept that you now love your captor and feel bad about him being punished."
But what is being gay, anyway? There are men who have sex with men who don't consider themselves gay, because they aren't attracted to men. There are men who have desire for men who don't consider themselves gay because they don't have sex with men. From that perspective, being gay has to be through self-identification, in which case it is definitely a choice, not a fundamental attribute. An atheist might wake up one day and decide his life is feeling empty, so he's going to become religious. A very fit, in-shape guy might wake up one day and decide he doesn't care anymore, so he becomes lazy and fat. A gay guy could very well wake up one day and decide he's not gay. So, aside from the simplistic study of animal behavior, what makes YOU think that being gay is a fundamental attribute? I think there are very few fundamental attributes, really. I've realized there are even fewer than I used to think after reading on slashdot about an experiment finding that magnetic fields affect the human sense of morality.
What does fundamental attribute even mean, btw? As we see from Stockholm syndrome, the magnetic experiment, cases of child abuse and domestic abuse, etc, people are really dang malleable.
Hmm. I guess I agree with you in principle about special treatment, but unless a group of people does get vocal and demands they be noticed, they won't get what they want.
As far as gay sex being nasty (or fat sex, or even chocolate ice cream)... well, frankly, it's YOUR head filling itself with nasty images, man. Being gay isn't about sex; it's about who you're attracted to and which gender provides more companionship to you. The only people bringing the gay sex into the situation are the people who don't like the gay sex.
Perhaps you should figure out why you think about the sex that gay, fat, or chocolate ice cream flavored people have when you see them in the first place? Problem solved. In any case, just because you think it's gross doesn't mean it's a sin, or that it's as wrong as a random punch in the face.
For example, the gay pilot was ok. He tells you he's gay, acts interested, and you can let him down. The other guy though, I replayed ME1 to be sure, and he tells you he's straight. It was an obvious plot problem imho.
Wow...the gay community on Slashdot is out in full force I guess...quick mod down to -1...geez, where's the sense of humor?
If not taking it as humor, well, at least it might make some people more comfortable with the game, yet allow those who want more choice in how they want it to reflect 'their world'.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Self righteous religious bigots demanding everyone do everything their way...Same old same old.
Bio weapons, chemical weapons, genocide, and slavery in those games are obviously a nuisance in comparison to two dudes getting it on.
A straight person living in a society that was overwhelmingly gay in a world that was overwhelmingly gay probably would be asked to bear that burden, unless you think gay people are naturally more tolerant than straight people. And maybe the heterophobic gays in this society would have a point. If society had evolved in such a way, there must be a reason for it.
I'm no hypocrite in this matter. I have things that I suppress that I really would like to do, but are illegal and frowned upon by a huge segment of society. And I don't have rights groups championing my cause and making me feel better. Sometimes I act on these urges. But I certainly don't go around crying that people are unfair and intolerant and that everybody should change because they're all bigots. I'm tolerant of a certain degree of intolerance I guess. You have to be, because people are naturally intolerant.
You can be against gay marriage and not be anti-gay
No, because then you're co-opting marriage as a thing belonging to your specific religion then trying to stop gay people from doing it. It's never just been a religious thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage.
In fact there's no way you can logically be against gay marriage and not be against marriage between people of a significantly different religion from you.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
and just deluded in believing that separate-but-equal will work this time.
It seems to work well for bathrooms. How do you explain that?
I would say the difference is in the specifics. Did they really force whites to not use the black wash-room? If a while man wanted to sit at the back of the bus would be really be imprisoned?
And mens and womens bathrooms are separate for legitimate reasons, for one because we have different needs when it comes to toiletry.
Also the mens bathroom to a man is equivalent to the womens bathroom for a woman, but the bathrooms for blacks where inferior.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I tried to engage the forum for SWTOR and get ALL 'sexual content' to be filter-able. I was met with harassment from the pro-gay advocates because they said 'why are you protesting now' in which I responded with 'because I just bought the freakin game?'
Then on top of that, every post I made, specifically and clearly stating, 'all sexual content', was removed by moderators and I was given infractions for each.
Then one representative sent me an email saying 'that's discrimination' basically, and I responded with 'How is it discrimination when I specifically said ALL opposite gender, and same gender content'.
He did not respond to the email.
The real problem is that the word "marriage" has a religious meaning.
It also has a civil meaning and has done since the Hellenistic period.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Well words are important, and being precise can be a benefit. So while we had no chance at accomplishing anything directly for gay rights in this conversation tree it is possibly that I have convinced someone to argue more precisely on the subject.
Well what are "rights"? The laws make the rights so practically laws = rights. No one has the ability to marry whoever they choose because of laws, so the right to marry whoever you choose does not exist in any practical sense.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Are you sure your game console entered into a mutually consenting agreement to mate with those various peripherals? Or did you force them into that act?
No, we are all children of Visnhu.
Fuck off.
And mens and womens bathrooms are separate for legitimate reasons, for one because we have different needs when it comes to toiletry.
The only thing I've seen in a women's bathroom that was legitimately different than in a men's bathroom is the little trash can in each toilet stall. And, regardless of their gender, most people have a trash can in their home bathroom anyway.
Also the mens bathroom to a man is equivalent to the womens bathroom for a woman, but the bathrooms for blacks where inferior.
Ah, the separate-but-equal argument.
I'm the real Vorokrytin P. Winterbuttocks.
Odd, but not unprecedented.
Lesbians are hot!
Have you met many lesbians? Some are hot, but most are not, in my experience. Unless you're into that short hair butchy thing...
I recently read the (wholly excellent) book "Sex On Six Legs" about sexuality in insects. (Which can be really seriously bizarre, as a side-note.) The author, a biology teacher, said she was often asked about homosexuality in animals and whether it existed. Her analysis of the people asking was that half of them thought homosexuality didn't happen among animals, and was therefore unnatural, and the other half thought homosexuality did happen among animals, and was therefore bestial. It's a bad-both-ways argument.
A side-note: in the late 1930's and early 1940's, being gay was considered by a lot of people as a matter of choice, specifically because a certain madman was rounding up gays and killing them, with the express intent of removing them from the gene pool. If it was a choice no amount of killing people would make it go away. Now, we're viewing it as a fundamental attribute because we have fewer madmen with legions of henchmen. (I personally happen to think it *is* a fundamental attribute, by the way. I was just adding historical color.)
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Gays are not icky, it's just dumb. There is zero point to have homosexual relations as far as nature is concerned. Unless you're not arguing that's way of nature "controlling the population". After all, only the strong survive.
Technically, it's not just in Leviticus. Romans 1:26-27 states, "...for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
That seems like a clear description of homosexuality to me.
I make the same argument all the time. There are a ton of things that are sins -- and forget obscure rules like tattoos. How about stuff in the 10 commandments like working on the sabbath day, taking the Lord's name in vain, adultery, lying, and the feeling of envy? Yeah, people who covet their neighbor's house are breaking an actual commandment. Most Christians don't say that Jesus did away with the 10 commandments like they say about those rules about tattoos. And yet nobody spends much time protesting e.g. marketing firms that foster envy.
Are you really suggesting a switch to remove Joker? How dare you!?
I believe homosexual acts are a sin. I believe homosexuality should not be promoted. I oppose gay marriage. Does this make me anti-gay? No way. Hate the sin and love the sinner. We are all children of God.
Let's turn this around: I believe Christianity is a sin. I believe Christianity should not be promoted. I oppose Christians' marriage. Does this make me anti-Christian? I understand you may not be Christian, but statistically you probably are. Though you could be Muslim or Jewish and believe homosexuality displeases God. Either way, I think folks should be humble about their faith, since it's just that; faith.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
I don't have to be anti-gay, nature does that for me.
>So is wanting to punch someone in the face when they do something to make you angry. Doesn't mean I have to actually punch people in the face.
Actually, if your sparring partner consents, you may, ABSOLUTELY, punch them in the face and people might even pay to watch you.
People do it often. It's called a sport when both people want to do it.
The analogy you made is more akin to rape. That's already illegal and isn't changing, even when it's two gays.
Thanks for playing.
Women do not have that standing up toilet thing, well at least I do not think they do.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Highly controvertial translations both.
Romans 1:26
In KJ "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature"
In Youngs: "Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections, for even their females did change the natural use into that against nature;"
In Wycliffe:"Therefore God betook them into passions of shame [Therefore God betook them into passions of evil fame, or shame]. For the women of them changed the natural use into that use that is against kind. "
The NLT adds the sense of "with each other" in this verse, which is not in any original.
I would suggest the NLT a politicised translation; a corruption.
Wrong. If marriage wasn't a sacrament before the 1700s, then Martin Luther couldn't have rejected it as a sacrament nearly two centuries earlier. Are you unaware of this debate among the first Protestants? Anyway, as it happens, liturgical texts for marriage as a sacrament go back to the early Byzantine era (mid-first millennium).
From the horror stories I've heard from female friends over the years I don't think it actually is working. But too many people are afraid of the easy alternative and individual bathrooms are just to expensive. Well and combining them wouldn't necessarily make people take better care of them anyways, just invite pervs to act up.
I think you make good points. Too bad you've been down-moderated. I further think that a lot of this issue stems from the conflation of civil marriage and religious marriage. People can get married without any involvement of a religious institution. That is why it is an equal protection issue.
I can understand a religious institution refusing to marry homosexuals. I don't agree, but it's their right. But the civil part of marriage is none of their business. They aren't involved. So whether or not God likes it shouldn't enter into it.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
No, but I've been in a few men's bathrooms that didn't, either. And I've been in buildings where a men's bathroom was temporarily repurposed as a women's bathroom. They didn't seem to mind the standing up toilet thing (it's called a urinal), sort of like I wouldn't mind the little trash can in the stall. For that matter, most of them have probably wondered what it'd be like to try to use one, if not actually tried using one.
I'm the real Vorokrytin P. Winterbuttocks.
And laws were written around existing cultural and religious practices. At this point marriage has been changed beyond recognition, but elements based on religious and traditional life-long monogamy remain unchallengeable.
I know quite a few games have patches to make everyone naked women. I don't suppose it would be too much of a stretch to add that kind of customisability.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
I am straight but have nothing against homosexuality. I just thought that the overt inclusion of homosexual relationships in Mass Effect 3 -- from nearly the beginning of the game -- was completely out of place. It's a fantasy world. Keep your political statements out of it. If you want to pursue a homosexual relationship with a crew member you are more than welcome to. Don't shove it down my throat -- so to speak.
I sometimes wonder if it is the people who enjoy anal sex who are responsible for scat porn
Wonder no more: the overlap in that particular Venn diagram is small-to-miniscule. Also, there are such things as condoms and even enemas. Sorry to burst your bigot bubble: better leave that broad brush behind.
I agree with you, marriage should be a religious ceremony, the problem is that according to the laws of the land it also is a legal agreement. Until the two concepts are separated you can't be for one and against the other.
I was under the impression that they were separated, legally speaking (I know they are not separated in many people's minds). A couple can go down to city hall and get married, no church/synagogue/mosque required. Isn't that right? If so, I don't see why that part should be affected at all by what God does or doesn't like.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
It is a suggestion of it. It is not a commandment not to be gay. Remember the commandments Jesus gave you. They aren't difficult.
BTW being gay is natural.
So is wanting to punch someone in the face when they do something to make you angry. Doesn't mean I have to actually punch people in the face.
But getting angry is a choice, being gay is not.
So why doesn't the Bible make it clearer? The arguements are so tenuous. Jesus talked about a woman caught in adultery, and gave us a clear guide on how to act.
Is it not possible that you are twisting a few isolated passages, where there is not a clear instruction, in a way that unnecessarily judges and hurts a minority?
We are created for god's purpose. Exclusively.
For God's special purpose? ;-)
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
For example, the gay pilot was ok. He tells you he's gay, acts interested, and you can let him down. The other guy though, I replayed ME1 to be sure, and he tells you he's straight. It was an obvious plot problem imho.
True. After all, nobody has ever said they were straight when they haven't meant it, or were confused, or thought they were straight until they found themselves in the right circumstances.
But why limit this to married people. Why not give the tax break to anyone that has and is taking care of the child. Why do people who DON'T have children get a break just because they're married?
Marriage was religious and social long, long before it was related to taxes, hospital visitation rights, and inheritance benefits.
I thought we were already boycotting EA because of their obnoxious DRM.
Personally, I'm OUTRAGED by the (Biblical definition) of adultery shown in the games. I mean, you can sleep with up to three DIFFERENT characters of the opposite sex and you don't have to marry a damn one of them - your character should be forced to marry all three (because polygamy is A-OK according to the Bible). This sin is just as heinous as sleeping with your gay cousin in the Bible (death by stoning to appease Old Testament God), and just because Jesus forgave one particular adulteress doesn't mean it is OK all of a sudden. And if Jesus was without sin, he should have chucked the first stone at that bitch.
Oops - sorry - forgot the sarcasm tag again
We are created for god's purpose.
But your God does not exist. Only my God exists. Don't you feel better now? I do!
Sharia Law would be much worse. Homosexuals would be killable with no repercussions on any killer who claims to be Muslim.
Not when the argument is that "gay people" have the "right" to marry people of the opposite sex, equating sexuality to a choice instead of a inherent fundamental aspect of one's being. Which is the point of the poster saying just that.
What about the shellfish and the linen?
The Family Research Council, led by Tony Perkins, is also involved. "In a new Star Wars game, the biggest threat to the empire may be homosexual activists!" said Perkins.
The Empire is the BAD GUYS, which makes "homosexual activists" the GOOD GUYS, Perkins a SITH LORD, and his statement hilariously apt.
Bigots rarely recognize their own bigotry. It's almost a part of the meaning to justify the bigotry in various ways.
You're still a bigot.
lets get real. God is made up, and homosexuallity appears all over in nature.... making it as natural as heteros... its just a less common trait. Lets boycott religion instead
Personally, I'm not a prude. When my kids ask me about sex, I'm going to just tell them. And the main things I'm going to warn them about are pregnancy and disease, the latter of which applies regardless of the type of sexual relationship. If my any of my kids turn out gay, I'm just going to explain to them the social challenges, in an effort to help them navigate the minefields they might otherwise encounter. And the fact is, that is only one out of countless other things that people get persecuted for. How about being geeky? Or fat? Or short? Or even just female (in certain cultures)? In that regard being gay isn't any different.
However, there are many people who get all bothered by talk of sex for kids who are "too young" or whatever. Culturally, for the sake of kids, we have separated romance from sex. Heterosexual relationships are ubiquitous, and everyone sees that there are families with kids. Exactly how those kids came to be may be left as a mystery for some kids until they're "old enough", but you can't exactly ignore the existance of the families. And even in elementary school, you sometimes find kids pairing off and having little mini romances, that are effectively platonic. But the tricky part is when you get into homosexual relationships, because, culturally, we're programmed to think of them in terms of sex, not in terms of romance. That's obviously bullshit; homosexuals are like anyone else, wanting romance (or not) on an individual basis. But that's not how certain vocal people see it.
So there are actually two issues here. One is sex, and the other is homosexual relationships. Certain overlapping groups want both of those stricken from "material suitable for kids."
This is a challenge for a company like EA who wants to make money, and they do so by appealing to people's interests. The instant they add relationships of ANY KIND to their games, they get caught between the group that find a lack of gay relationships to be unfair and the group that finds homosexuality to be objectionable. Personally, I think the latter group can go screw themselves. It's the 21st century, and we know damn well that homosexuality is a normal part of not just human existance but much of the rest of the animal kingdom. But for EA, that's a connundrum, because they're actually entirely amoral about it. They don't care whether something is in the game or not. They just want to sell software, and they maximize their revenue by adding features that people find appealing. The last thing they need is two warring groups causing them equal amounts of trouble.
What EA should do is tell these groups to get together and hash it out, and whatever they collectively decide, EA will do. Meanwhile, until they manage that, these activists can shut up and leave EA alone to do their business.
How does my marriage devalue anyone else's? Did every married couple somehow become less married when I did?
Actually I would argue the opposite. Marriage started as a religious excuse to limit procreation and ensure that a man who raised kids was raising his own kids and not osme elses. Is is a sham.
We have added legal rights and privleges to that over the years. These are encompassed in the idea of a civil union. We have decided as a society that such unions deserve special treatment and are benifical to society. Personally I believe that is a load of crap, but thats me.
So you CAN be anti-gay marriage if you are completley anti-marriage and it be consistant and not anti-gay.
IF however you are pro-hetro marriage and anti-gay marriage, you are being bigoted. And since there is no chance in hell of marriage right/privleges being revoked in the US, a reasonable, logical person you shouold support gay marriage,
two known hate groups that would love to outlaw homosexuality
"people like you"
Really? Claiming to know me?
If it is so much more important than adultery, and I rarely see "christians" condemning adultery with the vigour that they go after homosexuals, why didn't Jesus make this clearer? There are words against sodomy in the bible (NLT mistranslates "sodomite" as "homosexual"), but no global commandment against homosexuality - these may be overlapping categories, but are not the same thing. Aren't there more important sins in society, that actively harm non-consenting people?
What I am getting at is that the vigourous argument of the normally loving christian against homoscxuals sounds a tenuous argument to justify preconcieved fears, resulting in alienation and pain for some, to no good benefit.
Can I ask if you would support boycotts of any work of fiction (like this game) that suggest any sin? The Bible itself depicts sins - and not all clearly punished (in the text).
Today I believe Jesus may have added: "Let people have their kind of marriage and they will let you have yours" - the Jesus I read about was a political radical though ...
So you go around thinking about sucking cocks all the time but make a conscious choice not to? Newsflash buddy, you're a fag!
...and there's me complaining bitterly that my SWtOR characters aren't allowed to flirt with NPCs of the same sex. I guess I missed something.
... is like telling a grown man he can't have a steak because an infant might choke on it.
A gay guy could very well wake up one day and decide he's not gay.
Could a straight guy wake up one day and decide he's not straight?
Could you wake up one day and decide you have changed your sexual orientation?
There's being open about your sexuality and then there's being TOO open about your sexuality.
Good: Hi, meet my partner Sam. We're in a committed relationship.
Unwelcome: My partner Sam and I had some fantastic sex last night.
Really Bad: Hi. Would you like to watch me and my partner Sam have sex in the street?
This is the same for me regardless of Sam's gender and Sam's partner's gender. Taking it as a given that homosexuals should not have to struggle for basic human rights, one thing I really don't like is (most) gay pride parades. This is because there's the inevitable group in the parade that insists on engaging in overt sexual behavior as part of the parade. I don't want to see that. Actually, if they're lesbians, I DO want to see that, but that's my personal sin, and it is still inappropriate to be doing that in public. But mostly they bother me because it makes gay people look like a bunch of perverted assholes, and that's not fair to the vast majority of gay people. Most gay people just want to be left alone, but their freedoms are threatened as much by anti-gay bogots as they are by gay people who put perverted images into the minds of anti-gay bigots.
In other words: If you are human, try to use some discretion.
BTW, what would be great is if we could put behind all of this "gay is sin" crap and focus on some real problems, like how unprotected sex is a disease risk and how rectal contact is even worse, because intestines are full of germs. This applies equally to gay men, heterosexuals, and lesbians with exploratory fingers. We should be able to talk frankly about medical, social, and emotional risks inherent in all sexual encounters, without certain groups squelching it for one reason or another. And every activist group, religious, pro-LGBT, whatever, are all guilty of interfering in this somehow. For instance, religious groups often squelch sexual discussions entirely, leading kids to be ignorant of safe-sex practices. And LGBT groups are so adamant about their "rights" to do what they want that they advocate risky behaviors that have nothing really to do with being LGBT. In my opinion, no one has the right to be indiscriminately promiscuous, because that makes you a disease vector, and you do not have the right to spread disease to innocent victims. I had once assumed that condom use would be ubiquitous in the gay community. Sadly, it is not, and that's really really bad. (Of course, homosexuals are not at all unique in this sin.)
People keep saying that you can avoid the gay content, but that's not true. In Mass Effect 3, the shuttle pilot (I forget his name) mentions in your first conversation with him that he is gay. If you ask if he has any family, he elaborates how he used to have a husband who was lost when the Reapers attacked or whatnot.
I remember thinking how cool this was when I first started the game. Bioware/EA had made a homosexual character have an important role in the game, as he's the dude who flies Shepard into just about every mission. As part of his storyline, you can help him hold a memorial for his husband and see some touching emotional scenes.
It's definitely different that this is a non-romantic NPC, as you can avoid romantic interludes with dudes if you want, and stick to various females or female-looking aliens. But you can't avoid that the guy talking to Shepard all the time, that Shepard relies on and is friends with, and is in all the numerous shuttle landing scenes loves weiner. It's awesome.
I believe homosexuality should not be promoted.
How does one 'promote' homosexuality?
Perhaps boxing? There are people out there that are OK with being punched in the face. Just like there are people out there that are OK with having sex with another man. Weird world we live in, huh?
So you are arguing that because you like a woman and are attracted to women you marrying them is equivalent to a gay man having the right to marry a woman?
That doesn't make sense. Would you feel the same if the law were were such that a person was required to marry the same gender? You would be required to marry a man and a gay man would be required to marry a man if indeed they or you were to marry. Thus you would have equal rights with a gay man. These are not equivalents. Somehow your argument seems to suffer some sort of misunderstanding of what rights are really about. Rights and liberties are about ones ability to pursue ones own bliss and make ones own choices regardless of the belief systems of others.
Your argument consists of a false equivalence since the value of heterosexual relationships between heterosexual folks is not the same as a heterosexual relationship for someone of a homosexual orientation.
Your analogy of loving a fish is a bit nonsensical since we are talking about humans and not cross species rights. Absurdity doesn't strengthen your position.
I can understand you not wanting to argue again since your argument doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.
Jesus the man would have supported gay marriage
I think you might have overstepped there.
I disagree. Supporting gay marriage is a fundamentally Christ-like thing to do.
Look at St. Paul's letter to the church at Rome. Pretty much condemns homosexuality right there. Both male and female.
Yay, soundbite theology about Romans! Here's what I think...
I've already posted a link to what I've written about Romans, but do you seriously think that it is as simple as quoting 1 Timothy 1:10? Do you think that gay Christians simply ignore that verse for some reason? Or is it really more complex than you think?
A lot of anti-gay stance is based round the concept that being gay is a choice and not a fundamental attribute.
And that is a stupid debate, on both sides.
I like to eat blue cheese. A lot of other people think that's gross. Say some of them wanted to prohibit it. Would we then argue about why I like to eat blue cheese, whether I was born that way or learned that behavior or make a conscious choice every time I feel like eating blue cheese, whether other animals like to eat it too.... or would we ask simply whether there's anything wrong with it?
Likewise, if I were some kind of crazy who compulsively maimed people. There are some animals who are like that too, like dogs that have been mistreated and bite everybody. Maybe life broke my mind, or maybe I was just born that way. Does that excuse such behavior? It it's harmful, it's harmful, and should be prohibited no matter why people do it. And it it's harmless, it's harmless, and should be permitted, no matter why people do it.
It doesn't matter, at all, whether being gay is something you're "born with" or "a choice". The only reason that would be relevant was if you had already determined that there was something wrong with it and were looking for the cause in order to prevent it. By conceding that the cause of homosexuality is relevant, even defenders of it are tacitly agreeing that there is something wrong with it, and simply "excusing" said behavior with "but they can't help it!" That is hardly a helpful defense.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Really? I'm gay and I've never left the natural use of the woman. I've never used a woman, naturally or otherwise.
Do straight men use women?
Straight men are weird, if they do. I have never used a sexual partner.
Do I think that homosexuals should have the right to marry? Yes. But this issue is complex.
One issue is that heterosexual marriages are backed by thousands upon thousands of year of tradition, while homosexual marriages are not. Those traditions touch on a wife variety of things. Subjugation of women. Production of children. Contracts between families. Et cetera.
Now, many heterosexual marriages are "modern", being not bound by many of those traditions. But homosexual marrages are an entirely modern construction and are, by definition, not bound by those traditions. So by insisting on calling their relationships "marriage," they are awkwardly insinuating themselves into that traditional framework.
Personally, I think that the legal and traditional frameworks should be completely separated. The legal framework ("civil union") should be open to anyone, making heterosexual marriages the same kind of civil union under the law. Now, if you want to turn around and call it a "marriage," then that's up to you, based on whatever tradition you choose. Someone can object to you calling it a marriage if they want, but in this way, their objection cannot interfere with your civil rights.
BTW, if you want to expore other complications of gay marriage, consider child custody law. In most jurisdictions, you cannot have more than one legal guardian of the same gender. This is a technical issue. My main point is that to adapt to modern reality, it is not a simple matter of semantics. LOTS of laws have to be changed, and that takes time and effort and patience.
Anybody care to explain why it isn't?
Homosexuals are less than 1 percent of the male population. Try to imagine what that's like. 50% of the population are of no interest to you (females), and 99% of the remaining 50%, males, are not interested in you either. You are a freak on the outside of society. Obviously your greatest dream is that there would be MORE gays around, wouldn't it.
Rather like - if a normal (i.e. heterosexual) man lived in a world in which 99.5% of the population were male, he would wish that there were more women around. A LOT more women around. If he could somehow magically turn men into women by CONVINCING them that they were really women, don't you think he'd be putting a huge amount of energy into that endeavour?
That's exactly what gays have been doing for the past fifty years.
None of this 'pro-gay' nonsense is democratic, it's terrorism, pure and simple. If you don't agree with 'the party line', you can be sacked from your job, or even put in prison, in the U.K. and other Zionist controlled countries.
Boycott these sickos and let them go bust. MOST people think homosexuality is vile, but are terrified of saying so. Why don't all the gays go and live in their own country, and stop FORCING their presence onto people who don't want them around? Do you believe in freedom of association or not?
Get help. You are ill.
Yes, if everyone was required to marry within their gender that would be equal with respect to homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Because they would both be following the same set of laws.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
OK, let's take a break from this political and statistical bullshit.
Am I the only one who remembers when Mass Effect 1 came out? It had a "sex scene" in it, which consisted of a minute long scene of two partially naked bodies rubbing together. It was "sensual", not "sexual". The camera angles were very carefully planned out not to show anything- not that it would have mattered, the models themselves weren't "complete" in that fashion (I know the guy who animated that scene).
The media jumped on this and suddenly Mass Effect is all over the news. If you hadn't heard about it at that point, you certainly would have in the next 48 hours with the amount of publicity that little scene generated.
This is an EXACT repeat of that tactic.
We're not talking about pornography here. Nothing is shown in-game. It's just a stupid little decision they left in, if you -really- want to be gay and warm up to one of the men you can. The "sexual" scene is almost identical to Mass Effect 1 in that it shows nothing, the camera angles are very carefully planned, and it's all totally harmless in the end- if it wasn't, do you think the game would have the ESRB rating it currently has?
So now EA has won, because they've done precisely what they knew would happen when either Bioware came up with the idea or EA nudged them to do it. The media will once again blow this out of proportion to astronomical levels, and if you haven't heard of Mass Effect 3 you will have in the next few days.
And you know what? Nobody is going to avoid the game because of it. For every person who says "That's it I'm boycotting EA", there's at least TEN other people who are purposefully going to get on the game somehow (if you're a youngster, you'll just play it at a friends house if your parents forbid it) just to check out this "gay sex" stuff, and either laugh at it or make fun of it. In essence, while this may have outraged a few people- it will have piqued the curiosity of millions more, and all EA cares about is getting them in-game somehow- because if you can do that, then they might realize they actually enjoy the rest of it and buy a copy.
Sorry for the interruption. You may all now resume your meaningless banter about politics, gays, religion, and all the other stuff that spirals around a topic as sensitive as this. Don't worry though, the more noise you generate, the more some EA exec smiles and says "Excellent!".
-AC
Christianity has no problem whatsoever with divorce, as long as the split couple have no sex (except with each other?) until one of them dies. I got married before the Bush era tax cuts, so I actually was penalized for being married for a few years (and I got married mostly to appease my hyper-religious family - neither my wife nor I really cared - it was a ceremonial gesture done by a pagan under a Hawaiian moon with non-religious vows, but they don't have to know that - we had a reception for them later and didn't say a word about the ceremony).
I personally have no problem whatsoever with the government acknowledging a gay "marriage" (call it union or whatever) for tax reasons, though those don't matter at the moment anyway, so it is kind of pointless. Churches can do whatever they want - I mean, the Boy Scouts don't have to let girls in, so why should churches have to let in gays? I do think we should kick their tax exempt status to the curb, but that is mainly because of my loathing of Scientology and to a lesser extent, Catholicism (and I have no problem at all with the people in these religions - my beef is with the religions themselves).
I disagree. As a gay man, I could technically choose to have sexual relationships with women at the age of 30, well after the sexual functions in my brain are set in stone, even if I couldn't get a boner. I can't really change the color of my skin or my gender (easily). I can still say yes to a girl in a bar, which is the equivalent of what happens in games. I've never seen a game where getting an erection is actually a part of gameplay.
In other words, I don't think choosing your sexual orientation at character creation would be an improvement in a game, unless the gameplay actually involved the potential of your male character to get an erection or your female character to get wet.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
EA made the political decision to heavy-handedly include gay content. As opposed to making the political decision to heavy-handedly exclude gay content. They calculated that their brand would be damaged more by getting LGBT groups angry with them than by getting homophobic groups angry with them.
At no point did the demands of the story factor into their decisions. So if the LGBTs would please excuse me from my apparent obligation to care about the consequences of EA's CYA.
I'm sure they also receive a lot of messages like "Mass Effect 3 was gay", or "EA is gay", but that has nothing to do with sexual orientation :)
Gay: (slang, pejorative) Used to express dislike: lame, uncool, stupid.
When I see an article like this I remember Slashdot lost their soul long ago. This is a well-known mainstream article send by EA as a press release to divert readers from the other one: "EA has been voted worst company in America".
For the majority of the world's Christians, the Bible is not the sole authority. If something is not expressly condemned in Scripture, it may be condemned by Tradition, and indeed it has been consistently for two millennia.
The people here who want to take shots at Christianity seem to think that American Fundamentalists with their sola Scriptura principle are especially representative of global Christianity, but "It's not in the Bible!" isn't much of an argument for tolerating homosexual behaviour outside of that subset.
I assure you that gay people presently have no trouble referring to themselves as married in the US states that don't have legal recognition of gay marriage.
People say the same thing about sickle-cell anemia: it's a horrible disease. A defect. Yet apparently in some parts of the world it is positively selected for.
Either this makes no sense, or your understanding of biological evolution is rather too simplified.
Oh, and if you think that multicellular life is consistently only 2 sexes that mate and fertilize an egg with sperm, well, you need to crack open a good invertebrate zoology textbook or two. It often isn't that simple. Sometimes there is only one sex (asexual reproduction). Parthenogenic species manage to reproduce without having to fertilize eggs with sperm. Sometimes species change sex during their lifetimes as part of their normal development (i.e. sequentially), or are both simultaneously (hermaphrodites). There is more diversity to sex than you could possibly imagine. Basically you need to get out more, in the biological science sense.
Careful at that second link. Some pictures may be NSFW, such as the mating hermaphroditic snails.
What is more amazing to me is that it is not immediately identified as gender discrimination. I want to marry a dude. Can you tell me if I am allowed to without asking anything about my gender?
Baseball doesn't make babies. Ban baseball.
A poop joke? Wow ok, school must have let out early or something.
There is zero point to foreplay, oral sex, and baseball too - none of these make babies, lets ban them,
Some people also have an honest opinion that blacks and jews aren't really human. They're still bigoted opinions from bigoted scum.
And Sharia Law has a 0.000000000% chance of ever becoming the law here, and yet people still worry about it, as they practice a Taliban-Lite form of religion.
Well - I'd note that sometimes, the language choices aren't really clear.
For example, in Dragon Age II, when you are trying to help out the gay healer hiding out in Darktown (forget his name now), there's a good chance he'll hit on you just because you are assisting him with his crusade.
And note that there's no body language between your avatar and the NPC's. Such a "gay bit" would indicate what body language might (or might not) exist.
Check your premises.
It is a suggestion of it.
I'm sorry, what do you mean? If you read the verses surrounding it, it quite clearly indicates that the people indicated are doing horrible things. This is just part of a list of behaviors that are wrong in the chapter, if you look it up.
I only see people taking shots at inconsistent christianity - the ones that forgot not to judge others. So your best argument here is it is bad because it is a tradition (i,e. some other people said it is). Wonder why people turn away from you droves if that is the best you have? Slavery used to be a tradition like homophobia too you know - it is still wrong, and nothing to do with the love of Jesus.
So - the appropriate response to an argument about an emotional topic (specifically, love) is to... bully and mock?
Really?
Or are you all about revenge?
I'm not taking sides here, but the crab bucket approach to life only brings others down without allowing anyone to rise.
Check your premises.
So - the appropriate response to an argument about an emotional topic (specifically, love) is to... bully and mock?
It's not a topic about love. It's a topic about hate. Irrational hate, I must add.
And, yes, the appropriate response to that is to bully and mock. Tolerating the intolerant is not a viable long-term strategy if you want tolerance to prevail.
You don't have to be gay to get gay people to hit on you - in real life as well. Adding that to the game just recognizes the fact that, well, gays exist, and one may find you attractive. You're still free to turn that NPC down once he makes those intentions clear, right?
I don't think anything is 'intended' to go inside the anus. It seems to be a pretty straightforward one way valve. From a biological perspective I think a good argument can be made that sticking anything up there is unnatural. And the large intestine certainly doesn't seem designed for sexual gratification in any way.
The human body isn't designed. Baseball is also unnatural, and unpleasant for me, but I wouldn't campaign against it.
Seems to ignore the fact that having sentience really calls into question the point of biological life. If I was put on this planet to make more of me and I... don't want to is that a problem with me, or is that a decision I've made? I see reproducing in this overpopulated world a bad thing, I'd rather sacrifice the passing of my own genes if it means the next generation have one less person to compete with.
Perhaps being gay and not reproducing is some evolved trait? I mean if it served no purpose eventually it will be weeded out right? Straight parents produce straight kids, end of story.
Is the portrayal of gay people as people who have feelings (I'm referring specifically to the character Cortez from ME3), and who are well, people.
That was a story very well told, of love, loss, and hope.
That really hurts the 'gay people are the devil' propaganda that the fundies thrive on. It's the empathy drawn that they can't stand.
I say kudos to EA for standing up for their media.
That said, EA is no saint overall, but credit where credit is due.
You've read the life of Jesus and you think you have his teachings figured out. But a text (not just the Bible, or the Qu'ran or the Bhagavad Gita, but in fact any written representation of human language) is meaningless in itself due to l'arbitraire du signe, and when you are looking at it two thousand years removed, the danger of an interpretation that departs from the original meaning is quite high. Since a text will inevitably be accompanied by an interpretation, a continual tradition of interpretation carries more weight than someone in 2012 picking quotes out of any context.
The majority of Christians worldwide believe that Tradition is something endowed by the Holy Spirit, not just something that people say. (Now, you might not believe in a Holy Spirit, but in that case, why do you bother citing Jesus's teachings? That man did speak of such a thing.)
While the Church condoned slavery, it was never a matter of Holy Tradition. There is no canon that obliges men to hold slaves, and manumission was looked on as a righteous thing. It is not at all comparable to the restrictions placed on sexual behaviour.
They're really trying to spin their "Worst Company in America" award as homophobia. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that homophobia isn't the reason. Nice try with the ad hominems, EA.
Wake Up
Fuck my wife
Take a shit
Kill my wife
Eat six chickens
Get married
Kill my new wife
Eat a cow
Take a shit
Start dating
Belch for an hour
Eat a sheep
Kill my date
Defy the pope
Eat a goat
Take a shit
Kill a bishop
Get engaged
Kill my fiancee
Eat a pig
Marry a pig
Kill the pig
Eat the pope
Vomit
Go to sleep
With my apologies to George Carlin...
Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
I believe homosexuality should not be promoted.
How does one 'promote' homosexuality?
Two for one?
Do straight men use women?
Thanks for bringing up the bit about "using" women, because I looked it up in Strong's to see what the actual Greek words used were. I am not a biblical Greek expert, although I have studied it a little, so I encourage you to check my work. "Natural use" (see Strongs number 5540) appears to be a kind of euphemism the King James translators used for the Greek (because obviously, you couldn't write the word "sex!"). The original Greek ( [XRH=SIS]) means "employment, i.e. (specially), sexual intercourse (as an occupation of the body)..."
Thus, the Greek isn't about using women like a sack of potatoes, or abusing them, or any such thing. It's rather about the act with a woman.
We then see that verse 26 states that the women perverted the sexual act among themselves, and verse 27 notes the men, leaving sex with women, instead did it among themselves. That's the problem.
Sex as in sexual reproduction only applies to one man and one woman. Hobbyists need to quit whining about their asexual existence.
...bash the bad guys with his fabulous purse?
i play swtor and have never been able to [flirt] with a same sex companion or npc. wtf are they talking about?
...
I think ridicule is a fair response to bigotry.
Second rule of consenting adult club is....you do not talk about consenting adult club!
That is true, I guess all my time fucking those chicks in the captains quarters must have given him the wrong idea.
problem is political correct retards want to try and force people to think a certain way or redefine words to mean something else or butt into parenting..
I'm definitely anti-gay, anti political correct, anti-zionist (thats the zionist movement and agenda not jews themself) and Ive raised my son and daugther that way also, but they were also raised to respect others and if they don't like people or a person then to just ignore them.
ignoring a group is a whole lot simpler than the alternatives... Course trolling is also fun on occasion but it serves no purpose other than lulz at any given time.
so a joke for the lulz and an ignore for the movement :)
I believe homosexual acts are a sin. I believe homosexuality should not be promoted. I oppose gay marriage. Does this make me anti-gay? No way. Hate the sin and love the sinner. We are all children of God.
Two questions:
Do you really believe naturally-occurring homosexual activity is the exclusive domain of humans on this planet?
Why do you religious people have so much interest in other people's sex lives?
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Jesus Christ, it's not hard to see why the world is so badly fucked up...
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Marriage is about a partnership between a male and a female. It's not that hard to determine that that's the traditional and historical definition in the US and many other countries.
If you'd like to modify the legal definition to include any combination of male or female, the legislature is that a way.
If you're like to modify the cultural definition in the same way, well, have fun inserting pro-gay marriage commentary and ideas into everything. Video games, movies, tv shows, the sky's the limit.
But while you're pushing to redefine what marriage is, don't complain about the opposition to changing the meaning of words. You're imposing on them as much as they're imposing on you.
After Rush Limbaugh called some feminist activist a "slut" he got boycotts. Well, fine and good, but anyone expecting boycotts to work only on the Democratic/Liberal side of the aisle is living in a fantasy world.
"Color of Change" boycotts Coke and Wal-Mart for giving to anti-vote fraud organizations? EA gets boycotted over "gay" stuff. Bonus, that hurts EA in the bottom line because it makes the company "gay" which is a turn off like a "fabulous" Broadway musical for their young, male, gamers. Many of whom are not, to put it mildly, politically correct.
What, you want to call the boycotts back?
Impossible. The other side will see you the Rush and Coke and Wal-Mart boycotts and raise you on EA. And other businesses.
Oooooh! That would be choice. We are not pro-choice!
20 minutes into the future
Nope, that's just OCD geeks with mod points. I'm also tempted to mod down since an on/off switch could be completely eliminated by being bisexual. It's much more efficient. Switches are just another thing to go wrong. So inefficient...
20 minutes into the future
It is rated "M" for Mature game. Parents who are buying it for their kids under 17 should be arrested as Sex Offenders, exposing children to Mature content.
That is such semantic nonsense. Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they romantically love. Homosexuals do not have that right in most of the United States.
Great point. Technically unsound though.
A marriage is between people, with God as the authority. A priest should. be competent to represent Him. If he won't, that doesn't illegitimatize the whole thing.
But in the U.S. the gay marriage laws concern government and civil law. That's because the argument's not about being joined in the eyes of God or not; it's about tax benefits conferred by the federal government. As usual, they're using a hotbutton issue to get the public seething, while the real legal issue of the day is politicians overreaching to legally establish a new precedant that they can decide who gets federal benefits based on race, orientation, gender, or any other such fool thing.
Meanwhile, they've convinced you that they've already become the arbiter of who can get married and who can't. News flash: They aren't. Go and get married. Have a public ceremony. Get on with your lives. And, optionally, sue the glorious fsck out of the government for discrimination when you don't get those tax breaks. Honestly, if every gay couple hit them in the pocketbook where they'll actually feel it, we could let them take as long as they liked to get around to fixing that legislation. "No rush, we'll just keep suing you..." How long do you think that would take?
The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
While I can't bring it to myself to use four letter expletives I will concur with my next door neighbour.
But I will call you a sanctimonious bastard and I won't argue with you. I won't quote frome the bible to you since that's like throwing poo at a monkey.
If your bastard god comes anywhere near me I'll rip his nipples off.
A silver tongue spewing crap is still part of the asshole. Knock it off, I'm not buying.
20 minutes into the future
In a way, yes. Why should people get tax breaks for signing a paper?
It seems to be the case that about half of married US couples get a tax break by being married, while about half get dinged with a higher bill when being married. Couples with similar incomes end up paying more if they are married than if they are not (due to higher tax brackets for the average income of a married couple), while couples with different incomes get a tax break (due to income splitting/averaging).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty
http://marriage.about.com/od/finances/a/marriagepenalty.htm
It looks like this might not be as big of an issue in recent years due to tinkering with the tax code, but 2010 was when things were supposed to revert to the higher penalty rules, and I don't know if they were extended.
Also there's the traditional way to "help" them not to be lesbian anymore.
Interestingly the same kind of "help" is given to gay men.
Oh man, this world is so full of crap. Sanctimonious assholes like the guy way up the thread hierarchy totem pole serve the excuse for those "helpful" human shitbags. I consider them an accessory and as guilty. Roll in the mud with pigs and be as filthy like.
I ain't gonna pretend it smells of roses. No perfume is strong enough for that.
20 minutes into the future
Yes and marriage didn't include couples of different races for a very long part of our history. That changed more through the courts than the legislatures. Marriage is just a word anyway, it's the legal benefits of a recognized relationship that are being denied to an entire class of people. BTW - the idea that someone would think recognizing gay marriage as "imposing" something on them while they are ok with denying rights and benefits to others sounds ridiculous. I fail to see how it imposes anything. It's once again the same arguments once used against interracial marriage at one time.
Yes, bullying and mocking is exactly the way to deal with crap like this. You don't argue with them as much as you fling poo at a monkey.
You do not comprimise. This is exactly what got us in the situation we are currently in. Religion is private and it needs to stay thus. It's got no place in law. It's got no place in law making. Which is the reason why it can stay free.
There is no state sponsored religious persecution in this country since we wisely and based on experience kept state and religion apart.
They don't want to give their blessing to gay marriage? Fine. Don't let them marry in your church.
The problem is that the more clever ones of those idiots are aware they can't argue against gay marriage based on their religion. It wouldn't stick. Instead they weasel around the matter with pseudo-scientific factoids they interpret as they want.
You shouldn't argue with them because you can't compromise. And the best way to get rid of them is to bully and ridicule them back into their churches where they are free to do as they please. The separation of church and state is one of the founding pillars of the US. And they have been gnawing at it ever since. Letting them know that this is not negotiable in no uncertain terms is the only way to go. We do not want another updated issue of Foxe's Book of Martyrs written in the blood of others.
20 minutes into the future
Following the same set of laws doesn't make someone equal or even bring equality.
Equality isn't derived from laws but from the natural order of things. However, in certain instances, laws can serve to make things unequal and such is the case with making marriage between a man and a woman. It is a restriction and serves to unnecessarily block others from equal access under the law.
Saying "they would both be following the same set of laws" doesn't mean citizens have the same rights because both are subservient to the same statutes. In fact quite the opposite since one groups equal access is being blocked by a legal statute. Such laws will necessarily be changed with time as was case with rights for slaves, women, and black american citizens before. Homosexual rights are the next area of obvious restriction of equal rights for all citizens.
Laws defining marriage between a man and a woman are not liberating... they are contracting. There is no place for such absurd laws in a free society.
Why? Because they are inherently treating citizens in an unequal manner. There is no burden placed upon heterosexual individuals and yet there is an unequal burden placed on those who are homosexual. Homosexual couples and their families do not derive the same benefits bestowed by the government to those in long term monogomous relationships. They and their families do not get equal rewards for stability and the longevity of their relationship. They don't even get the same legal standing in terms of family life, inheritance and a host of other benefits showered on much of the heterosexual population. Gays are actually at a large disadvantage from a legal and financial standpoint. The government is picking favorites.
Human rights is about humans and not about genders.
Any citizen should be allowed to enter into a government sanctioned union with the full host of benefits any other citizen would receive. Perhaps the term "marriage" would better be left to church sanctioned unions and ceremonies. Blocking civil unions for gays because of religious theologic arguments and bigotry is wrong.
Our government and constitution are secular and should abide no religious insertions although plenty have infiltrated our laws. It is not the physical genitalia which should determine whom can marry whom since none of us has a choice at birth as to which gender we are to be. Nor do we get to determine which gender we would wish to be with. We are all humans and citizens and should have the right to determine who we want to spend our lives with.
What would be your answer for the case of a man who undergoes a sex change surgically and legally, and then decides to marry a man? Is that two men marrying?
What would be your thoughts about a completely physiologic woman who is in every way physically a woman and yet is genetically a man. Should she be allowed to marry a man or should she only be allowed to marry a woman because of being a genetic man?
To your point:
Having a law that explicitly states marriage is between a man and a women and then saying gay men have equivalent rights to strait men because they can marry a women ignores the entire purpose of what a relationship bond is about.... the ability of the individual to choose whom they want to be with for life and to derive the legal/financial benefits of such a union.
Your statement is fundamentally more about genitalia and less about a person. Laws based upon genitalia rather than the individual are by their very nature contrary to equality. The government should not make arbitrary decisions which abridge the rights of the citizens. This is what DOMA and the state constitutional amendment laws do. Such laws set up an unequal status among citizens. One Man /One woman definition is a narrow interpretation of law based upon religious bigotry. Forcing such a law on everyone and then saying they are equal cause the law covers everyone is backward frankly.
So whatever trick your brain is playing on you about how the law engenders equality simply because it exists and if people play by the rules they are equal is kind of a sad delusion. Interesting trick of the mind, but quite misguided.
Then that fact should be used as an argument against homosexuality being a choice, not as an argument for accepting homosexuality.
Having a false argument for a in a given hypothesis does not mean the hypothesis is wrong. Consequently, proving that particular argument wrong does not prove the hypothesis wrong.
Actually, in Dragon Age II one of the characters does, in fact, seem to fall for player characters of either gender. He'll start flirting with the player even if they never hinted that they had any romantic interest in him. It didn't bother me personally, but it caused a bit of a sensation at the time. The incident might be one of the reasons why Bioware is so now so careful to make sure the player knows what they're getting into.
If marriage is "just a word", then why care if gay couples have it or not? There's already a word they can use, "civil unions". In the same way that "marriage" has meaning to a gay couple, it has meaning to others.
But let's put that aside - you want to focus on the "rights and benefits" associated with marriage, and don't see how that imposes anything on anyone. You ought to recognize that all of those legal rights and benefits *are* the imposing.
If not, why only allow all of those rights and benefits for married couples? Why not singles? Friends with benefits? Brothers, sisters? Why deny legal benefits of a recognized relationship to entire classes of people?
The legal benefits for marriage exist because society recognizes marriage is a special relationship. For good reason, too, as it's the basic unit of a family and provides a structure for reproduction and education of a new generation.
Changing how society organizes itself is a big deal. Forcing your vision of how society should be organized on others is imposing.
Pick an argument: Marriage is no big deal, in which case no one should care one way or another if gay couples get it or not; or marriage is a big deal, and it is imposing to force people to use one definition over the other.
Calls self "Family Research Council." Doesn't actually pay attention to any research on homosexuals and related families.
Everyday i really do despise America more and more. You are as a country ....a joke.
And if that's how you read it, you must agree that it cannot be used as a general condemnation of all same-sex relationships. Neither I nor my husband have ever had sex with women, and so we have never "left" it.
How does my marriage devalue anyone else's? Did every married couple somehow become less married when I did?
Interesting - If true the thesis that there is a fixed proportion of "marriedness" shared out between all couple, surely population growth is a far great threat. Must research further. Can you please tell me how married you are as of today?
Actually, interestingly enough you can't legally consent to be punched in the face (at least in my country).
I am trolling
I'd say I'm pretty married.
What are the SI units again?
Sorry but history really doesn't bear you out. It was quite the reverse - the Church moved in on a legal practice. Notice how Jesus doesn't marry anyone, but performs the other sacrements? Religious marriage wasn't a church sacrement, or common practice until fairly late in church history. The history of the church and marriage rather surprised me - worth a read around.
That said I'd not want to take the idea of religious marriage from you, and welcome the idea of keeping "legal" or "state" marriage separate.
If everybody gets these so-called benefits, why not just abandon state legal marriage altogether and make the benefits available to everybody, married or not? Why discriminate against single people?
All the usual crap people list as marriage benefits like income pooling for tax purposes and sharing of benefits from insurance should be available to anybody. Why can't I temporarily share my insurance with my buddy who just lost his job, but now some gay guys can marry each other and share insurance?
Any assignment of benefits to only one group of people ("married", regardless of whether that includes gays) is by definition discriminatory. So I have a hard time believing that gay marriage proponents are *really* interested in equality or fairness.
So do you post on other stories talking about a hetro marriage saying it discriminates against you? I'm not sure if this is flawed logic to have a go at "the gay rights lobby", or you really believe all marriages are somehow discriminating against you. In either case you really sound like you need to hug someone, now.
The only homosexuality that is yours to accept or not accept would be your own (if you wanted). Can't you see you are starting from an illogical position?
Where did he say "natural" means "should be made legal"? No the point is it is not unnatural, like many other things, good, bad, and indifferent.
Timefor you to retake logic 101.
Your opinion is your opinion, but why Slashdot is running this story eludes me. Is Slashdot anti-gay? The question has to be asked, because the only other explanation is shock value. And we all know that Slashdot only published well researched, meaningful and interesting stories for geeks.
Marriage is a social ceremony that was co-opted by religion hundreds of years ago. It didn't originate as a religious idea, and the religious organizations still don't own it, nor should they.
yeah, forget about that, it's the gay
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Defiance in the face of bigotry is no vice. Stand your ground, EA. Most people who buy these games don't care about the addition of same-sex couples that we see all around us in reality.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
No, there is no fault with not shielding kids from the facts of life. Kids are more mature than they're given credit for. They should be exposed to real life. The parent's job is to explain that, even though something happens in real life, there are things and their consequences that are preferable over others. Parents who shield their kids are doing a similar disservice to them as parents who let kids do anything they want without learning of the consequences. The problem with American parenting is that they want to see their kids smile at any cost, even if the smile is fake and they hide deep personal issues.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
I believe homosexuality should not be promoted.
I see the fact that some people think exposure to the implication of homosexual relationships is promoting, and that promoting can affect a person's "decision" to be gay shows their own uncomfortable feelings that people sure of their sexuality don't have. No amount of promotion of homosexuality can change a person to become homosexual. Stop pushing your irrational fears on us - not even on heterosexuals.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
Now, you can eat your words flavored with your foot in your mouth and the bitter taste of defeat -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2741535&cid=39525081 because you only defeated yourself.
Flavored w/ ur foot in ur mouth + the bitter taste of defeat -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2741535&cid=39525081 where ur big mouth defeated u.
Mill's harm principle? Punching people hurts them, therefore it shouldn't be allowed. Being gay isn't, however, as offensive as some people might find it. Harm != offence and vice versa.
Yet despite that there are gay animals.
Ooops, guess your point is invalid. try again next time Coward!
I'm an athiest, and I'm married. I'm married strictly in the legal sense of the word and view marriage as a legal commitment between two individuals involving mutual affection and the desire to pool their respective resources either to make their lives better or raise a family. (Note that my definition may not match actual legal definitions). In my mind there is no reason why a homosexual couple cannot partake in the same legally binding union.
Granted I did participate in a relgious ceremony (not Judeo/Christian/Islam), this ceremony had nothing to do with our legal agreement (in fact they were several months apart). That part was strictly for show (family).
The religious aspect is only important if you and your partner are religious. The legal aspect is important for everyone, because after you've shared resources for a few years, it's very difficult to decide how to split those resources should you need to end the agreement.
I was married in a "church" (different continent, different religion, same idea). It was not legally binding. 4 months later I signed a paper at the local City Hall. I was then legally married. It's already essentially done in some places.
Ignorance isn't opinion. If he'd said that gays are all evil and aren't human, that would be flamebait. If you say smoking pot is a sin, that's an opinion and a valid one, although one I disagree with (I like pot). Mormons think drinking is a sin. Valid opinion, even though saying that makes Jesus a sinner.
Free Martian Whores!
I'm not gay but who cares if there is homosexual content in their games. I own both Mass Effect 3 and Old Republic. They feature adult themes anyway. If your old enough to explode an enemies head in Mass Effect or stab someone thru the neck in Old Republic you can deal with 2 chicks kissing. Get over it people its 2012!! I am ashamed to live in Florida if I have to share it with stupid activist groups like that. Just start accepting gay people because I'm tired of hearing about this stupid controversy and they are not going anywhere.
You're perfect and have never done anything wrong? Never said a hurtful word in anger? Never lusted after a married woman? Never participated in the military? Never turned away someone who was hungry?
You're lying, and you're the only one who believes your lies. Nobody' perfect. Not you, not me, not anyone.
Free Martian Whores!
The real problem is that the word "marriage" has a religious meaning. I propose we remove the word from all federal, state, and local laws and documents, replacing it with civil unions (with rights and responsibilities identical to those currently attributed to marriage).
It would be interesting to see how quickly some of the people who currently oppose gay marriage come up with another excuse to oppose the rights of gay people to share in that strictly legal, non-religious process.
I'll bet it includes something like "think of the children!"
I think your laws = rights misses the mark on what laws and rights are.
Laws are rules. Laws can be used to ensure human rights are preserved or also be used to deny people their human rights.
Rights are inherent in being a human and about the freedom to exercise ones individual will. The law does not define what is inherent in humanity.
The law can define which rights will be allowed....eg. The law ensured a person has the right to be a slave if said person was purchased from slave traders back in the 1700-1800's. The law could say women couldn't own property and couldn't vote. The initial drafts of the constitution only allowed people who owned land to vote. I don't believe any rational person would say that such laws did anything except block human rights.
So I don't agree that laws=rights. That is a logical fallacy on many levels really.
You and I both know that if I wanted I could find a website that says "Supporting beastiality is a fundamentally Chist-like thing to do". Will that be enough for you to hop on that band wagon too - or to expect that Christians really believe that - or for that matter that Christ would have "supported" it?
The website shows only that there are in fact gay christians. I'm pretty sure nothing I said precluded that and I wouldn't argue it for a second. I would however argue exactly what I did argue - that love transcends transgressions and that supporting someone's choices is different that supporting that person. You can do the latter without the former.
I'm not Christ, and I can't tell you what he thinks other than what he said. Christ defended a prostitute and claimed her as "good" as anyone else in his final days, but he didn't support what she in particular did, nor did he support prostitution in general, nor would he (I believe) have supported legalizing it [that never came up so I can't be sure]. But to argue like the website you sent that because God loves gays too and that God doesn't want gays treated unfairly must mean that God supports gay marriage is nothing more than shenanigans and fiddling with words... the pharacies did the same thing.
My present is the activity I am currently engaged in with the purpose of turning the future into a better past.
It's a metaphorical leaving, sir, regardless of whether a man has ever had sex with a woman, or if a woman has had sex with a man. Otherwise, if we follow your interpretation, only bisexuals are condemned, but homosexuals and hetereosexuals are fine. That seems like a strange interpretation.
"The law does not define what is inherent in humanity."
But what does then? You cannot just say they are inherent and then seem to imply that you mean that rights are about perfect equality based on your own cultural based opinions.
The idea of rights is too complicated and based on opinions to really get us anywhere.
What I am saying is that the only practical thing everyone should be able to agree on is that the only real guarantee is a guarantee backed by force.
You can say, that women have the exact same right to freedom as any man, but there is no omnipotent god in the sky making sure that "right" is obeyed. There is nothing to be gained by saying all humans have a right to food when millions are starving every day. That is absolute proof that that "right" does not exist, and in fact there would not even be humans on Earth if every living thing had the right to food, shelter, and to be free form being killed and eaten (because evolution could never of occurred).
The strong pray on the weak whenever possible, beings suffer and not because of any particular failing they have, and it is not "evil" per say, it is not "fair", it is life. Confusing the issue with theoretical "rights" just hides the real issues.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Except that's NOT equality. No matter what twisted viewpoint you try to use to justify it.
And honestly, I don't get why the fuck you'd be against gay marriage, unless you were bigoted. Gays getting married does absolutely nothing to you.
You think gay marriage is a fundamental civil right? On what grounds?
No, I think the right to marry the person you love is a fundamental civil right. The grounds I have are not only the UN Declaration on Human Rights, to which the US is a signatory, but the Loving v Virginia decision, in which the SCOTUS said that marriage was a fundamental right.
Let's compare it to the right to vote.
Let's not, because there's absolutely no reason to.
The actor and target have to be different sexes
Why? Because your bigoted self says so?
I'd say marriage for anyone, straight or gay, is not a "fundamental civil right."
And you'd be wrong.
There are just too many differences with our real civil rights.
No, there aren't. And you have not demonstrated that there are. Your little examples are cute, but they are definitely not the majority, and they're just shitty reasons. Because a few straight people don't get to marry for love, we should stop a whole bunch of other people from doing it? Pull your head out of your ass.
I will indulge your clumsy segue:
Participating in the military is not a "sin", and never can be. Like the GP, you are lying, and neither you nor anyone else is fooled by the lie you have told.
Marriage is about a partnership between a male and a female of the same race
Theres the 1950s American definition. It has already changed.
This, time a hundred.
Exactly. It's like whenever the media describe GTA IV as "the game where you kill prostitutes".
"The law does not define what is inherent in humanity."
But what does then? You cannot just say they are inherent and then seem to imply that you mean that rights are about perfect equality based on your own cultural based opinions.
Well "inalienable rights" are guaranteed "by our creator" whoever that is if you buy into the declaration of independence. But that is a pretty generic term for it. But the point of the statement is that these rights are not derived by manmade laws or institutions. Rights are something beyond the limitations of government and rest with the being of each individual.
Human rights are also not based upon my own cultural opinions. There are agreed to international norms which have been determined to apply to all peoples of the globe.
I also didn't say anything about "rights are about perfect equality based upon" my own "cultural based opinions". I'm not even sure what you mean by that.
The idea of rights is too complicated and based on opinions to really get us anywhere.
What I am saying is that the only practical thing everyone should be able to agree on is that the only real guarantee is a guarantee backed by force.
1. Rights are not complicated.
2. Rights are based upon universal precepts agreed upon by the peoples of the world.
3. Rights are not guaranteed by force but by assent.
4. Rights are a relatively modern concept.
Actually I don't agree that the 'only' guarantee of rights is backed by force. A far larger guarantee of rights is assent. If everyone in a society agrees that everyone should have a certain set of rights, then no force is necessary to establish such rights. We vote and we all agree that what is voted upon will be how things are until they are voted on again to make a change. If everyone buys in... then no force is needed to guarantee such rights. That is what the constitution set out to do and there has been pretty successful peaceful perpetuation of the system which safeguards our rights for the most part.
The ideas are much more powerful than force. Doesn't mean force isn't needed from time to time, but it isn't predominant.
You can say, that women have the exact same right to freedom as any man, but there is no omnipotent god in the sky making sure that "right" is obeyed. There is nothing to be gained by saying all humans have a right to food when millions are starving every day. That is absolute proof that that "right" does not exist, and in fact there would not even be humans on Earth if every living thing had the right to food, shelter, and to be free form being killed and eaten (because evolution could never of occurred).
It isn't me or anyone saying women have the same rights as a man. Women are humans and do have the same rights as individuals as any man. That is a standard agreed upon human right and me saying women have rights or not has little to do with the fact of women's rights existing.
Rights don't depend on respect of the given right or adherence to respect of the right by others. Human rights throughout the world are trampled upon all the time by governments and other groups. It doesn't imply then that because this happens the rights do not exist.
Human rights are derived from agreement on what such rights for humans should be. For some the rights may be derived from a god or others may just find that they are a part of each of us.....it doesn't matter. The rights are inherent and not dependent on the whims of any one individual or group within society.Others infringing on your rights doesn't mean that therefore the rights don't exist.
Rights are the ideals to which we as free people aspire. Most rights are negative rights in the sense of people not being required to do something or are entitlements to be left alone. Less common are positive rights which guaranteed access to something. Like the bill of rights, most humans rights are a set of negative rights. I don't have the right to food s
"people like you"
Really? Claiming to know me?
"people who tell me I'm judging, and remind me that Jesus said not to".
If it is so much more important than adultery
You're putting words into my mouth.
I rarely see "christians" condemning adultery with the vigour that they go after homosexuals
Adultery is a horrible sin. It hurts if not destroys many lives, many more than homosexuality probably ever did.
However, there aren't vocal factions trying to promote adultery as an acceptable lifestyle, and pretty much everyone can already see the devastation it causes when a marriage falls apart due to an adulterous spouse, so it's understandable that it would get less air time from Christians. You'd really be better served by identifying promiscuity, rather than adultery, as a sin which gets less attention from Christians than it probably deserves. Although some Christians don't make a distinction between adultery (promiscuity after marriage) and promiscuity before marriage.
There are words against sodomy in the bible (NLT mistranslates "sodomite" as "homosexual"), but no global commandment against homosexuality
There are some pretty clear commandments against homosexuality. And nobody is really sure what "sodomite" means, since Sodom was a city where the people clearly were involved in all sorts of deviant behaviors, including but not limited to homosexuality.
Can I ask if you would support boycotts of any work of fiction (like this game) that suggest any sin?
Why? What's the point? If I felt that a game would create too much of a temptation for me to sin, I might myself not choose to buy it, but that's about the extent of it.
tinfoil hatz bitcoins russian reversals lulz the cloud trollz ftfy obligatory xkcd whoosh pedants PROFIT!
I just noticed that your signature is the perfect summary of Slashdot comments :)
for your girlfriend.
For his what?
the character limit won't let me include them all, or i could go three lines and end it with a "tl;dr"
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
I am not against gay marriage, when did I ever say that.
I am 100% for gay marriage.
I am simply against nonsensical use of the English language.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Blowing peoples brains out with assault weapons is absolutely not natural.
Well, they don't use assault weapons because they can't build it, but you'll be surprised to know a few interesting things:
(a) Dolphins kill for pleasure.
(b) Cats kill for fun and to show off, even playing with their prey (this torture-like behaviour is also present in killer whales and other hominids).
(c) Chimpanzees are so territorial they will form gangs and go killing the invaders in cold blood. A biologist told me they would pursue a competing pack for days in order to kill them, even when they have abandoned their territory. Moreover, Wikipedia just taught me that "Chimpanzees also engage in targeted hunting of lower order primates such as the red colobus [...] and use the meat from these kills as a "social tool" within their community", mainly bonding. Finally, chimpanzees, both male and female, kill the infants of their packs.
(d) Female hamsters cannibalise their newborn progeny if they feel threatened.
I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
"It isn't me or anyone saying women have the same rights as a man. Women are humans and do have the same rights as individuals as any man. That is a standard agreed upon human right and me saying women have rights or not has little to do with the fact of women's rights existing."
A standard in most of North America, and only in the last ~100 years. If you knew anything at all about other cultures you would know that this is a cultural opinion. You can think that this is the absolute truth, you can call everyone who disagrees a stupid barbarian, but far far far far far more people over the history of the world have disagreeable with that they have agreed to it. You are a tiny minority, and if we are using Democratic means instead of force then that is a provably wrong statesman (even just in our own time it would probably lose).
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
So you support civil unions that have *all* the rights and benefits of marriage? But you don't want them to use the word marriage? That is your only issue? How fragile those relationships must be if allowing gay couples to have the same rights and benefits.. and *gasp* use the same term to describe them, would be such an imposition. That weight of that would just crush your feeble souls. There would be mass divorces, suicides maybe even. I think you missed the other posters point in reference to yours, which seemed to be that marriage is just a concept. It's the legal weight behind it that gives rights and benefits. It's just silly to have to call it two different things. Your argument is a bit funny and sad at the same time. You don't see how hypocritical it is for you to be upset that recognizing the relationship of gay couples is imposing something on you while you are perfectly happy imposing your belief system on them and denying them equal rights in their relationships. Also, by your definition of marriage to support "reproduction and education of a new generation", I guess hetereosexual couples that can't have children should not be allowed to get married either. Fortunately, the majority of people are starting to come around to a more evolved view point both here and in other developed countries.
Kaiden tried to seduce me.
It was ugly.
You're really cute ;)
alas, I'm on the sunshine coast
I seem to remember these same types boycotting Disneyland, which shrugged it off and declared itself a Baptist-free zone. They didn't suffer and neither will EA. These wretched people have no more power than the rest of us give them.
Grar II
Not a national law in the US. Some states did choose to restrict the simple definition of recognized marriages to a subset, but not every state did so.
That something has changed in the past does not mean any proposed change is a good idea.
Yes it dose make you anti gay. You are not being forced to see or play through such a relationship, it is only being given as an option for those who want it. So your saying that anyone else who dose not think as you do should not get a chance to express themselves or to let their beliefs be expressed.
Frankly by saying it is a sin, you shown where you stand. You are a religious type who is very narrow minded. While I disagree with what you believe in, i won't try to force my viewpoints across you as long as you don't try to force yours onto me.
Civil unions don't have all the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage.
Nor do I support making them complete legal equivalents. A homosexual couple is objectively different in nature than a heterosexual one. But I don't oppose expanding rights granted to marriage like hospital visitation rights, power of attorney, and so on.
Since your premise about the nature of civil unions vs. marriage is wrong, and since I do not support making them completely equal, your argument falls apart.
Calling two different things by two different names is natural and not wrong. It may offend some people's delicate politically correct sensitivities, but that in of itself does not make an observation wrong.
I also recognize that the status quo is my position imposed on others. But if marriage is as fragile and worthless as they say, I don't see why they care to have my official recognition through our collective society. (Because the reality is that the word and its associated meaning is actually quite valuable)
Sadly, some who oppose my position have deluded themselves into thinking that their position does not and will not impose on mine. I'm correcting the record on that point. We both impose on each other. The question is not if imposing will happen, the question is who will impose on whom, to what ends.
Because gays are icky.
That is after all the underlying reason for the viewpoint.
True, although what people often forget is that thinking about your very own parents having sex is also icky. Therefore, we should ban all marriage. Or maybe thoughts.
Statistically a male child being raised by gay men has a much greater chance of being molested than if his parent were heterosexual.
You may not like the messenger. You may not even read it because of the messenger but it is food for thought.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
I wish I still had mod points. This might be the most concise argument I've ever seen on the topic.
If you don't like it, youre free to leave anytime.
Why is only the "leaving" metaphorical? The rest of the passage doesn't look metaphorical to me.
Anyway, if you just focus on verse 27, it is very difficult to get anything other than a "strange interpretation". However, if you look at the whole context of the passage, you will see verse 27 is not nearly so general as you think - see http://faithandpride.org/2011/01/17/romans-1-and-sound-bite-theology/
What do you think the end of verse 27, "and received in themselves the due penalty for their error", means?
I'm not saying that there are gay Christians, therefore Christ would have supported gay marriage. The key point of the article I linked to is this: "by opposing same-sex marriage, you are effectively encouraging poorer health in gay men, which is hardly a Christian position to take."
A standard in most of North America, and only in the last ~100 years.
I understand that the concept of human rights is a new phenomenon. I actually stated such in my last post. You must have missed that or I did not emphasize it enough.
The constitution of the united states is a new phenomenon as well being a bit over 200 years old. It is a pinnacle of a few hundred years of enlightenment thinking. But it has largely supplanted the way most of the globe view how the relationship of individuals and their government should function.
Newness of ideas does not make them less potent or important. It does not make them specific to any particular part of the globe either.
The concept of human rights and their ongoing evolution is actually an extension and a continuance of enlightenment philosophy and thought. In some ways it enlarges what the constitution started and the further agreements internationally which are fundamental to their continuance and expansion are a completely different phase of how humans will go about living together on an ever shrinking globe together. They are in essence a necessity for the continuance of peaceful human coexistence in a more diverse and crowded planet.
If you knew anything at all about other cultures you would know that this is a cultural opinion.
Since I have lived ample time among multiple cultures of the world, I think I might have some insights that the average person perhaps does not.
However, my having spent many many years living overseas and experiencing other cultures does not really have relevance to this issue anyhow. What is an important take away point about the issue of human rights is that they are agreed to by multiple cultures. Human rights are a global and international agreement already.
I would disagree with your assertion that this is my opinion. Human rights are global, international, and multicultural. They have nothing to do with my opinions.
You can think that this is the absolute truth, you can call everyone who disagrees a stupid barbarian, but far far far far far more people over the history of the world have disagreeable with that they have agreed to it
Human rights have nothing to do with absolute truth, whatever that is.
Human rights are agreements but international groups and societies.
I never said people who disagree with me are stupid or barbarian.... the concept is hard to grasp if one has not really explored what it is about.
but far far far far far more people over the history of the world have disagreeable with that they have agreed to it
1. Human rights is a modern concept... just like the constitution was in its day.
2. Human rights is a new phase of how humans should deal with each other....and yet the concept is revealed somewhat in religious and philosophy as well. Basically they are a more refined version of "do unto others as you would have the do to you." or the Golden Rule.
3. Most of history has not been kind to humans. I don't see what relevance that "history of world" disagreeing?? with human rights ?? has to do with the current evolution of human history. The modern world is about changing things for the better. The constitution of the US laid out a blueprint for the relationship of people to their government. Human Rights hits a different and yet similar set of concepts in a more profound way.
You are a tiny minority, and if we are using Democratic means instead of force then that is a provably wrong statesman (even just in our own time it would probably lose).
I actually don't think I am the tiny minority. Most people who come to understand what human rights really are about will see a value in them. It is actually harder for people who live in places such as the US and Europe. People who live under military juntas and dictators tend to have a more favorable view of human rights and understand the value of
Ever since Dragon Age 2 in Bioware games same sex characters will throw themselves at you if you choose the wrong dialogue option
Generally, I agree with your statement. However I do believe kids younger than, say, 2nd grade, do need some shielding from some of the more edgy stuff life and the internet can throw up.
I have to admit, this almost convinced me. For the last 12 hours I thought you very well might have a point.
But for something to be inherently human you would expect it to appear throughout history and geography.
But even you admit (and I completely agree) that inherent rights are a brand new philosophy that have originated in North America.
I would compare it to a religion.
Not inherent, not particularly meaningful, not containing any ultimate truth.
Starting in a single location and spreading only through conversions.
And even similarly to religion the new conversions are the most devoted. "People who live under military juntas and dictators tend to have a more favorable view of human rights and understand the value of them."
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I have to admit, this almost convinced me. For the last 12 hours I thought you very well might have a point.
But for something to be inherently human you would expect it to appear throughout history and geography.
But even you admit (and I completely agree) that inherent rights are a brand new philosophy that have originated in North America.
I would compare it to a religion.
I don't believe it all originates in North America but that is not really important. Enlightenment thinking has its roots in Europe mostly although the constitution of our country proved to be a sort of apex or seminal document which encapsulated 3 centuries of philosophic thinking.
But philosophy, thinking, although they may begin in once place if they prove worthy become universal across the globe.
Something doesn't have to be apparent throughout history and geography for it to be relevant or useful. If that were the case, the guy with the most muscles and the biggest club would still be getting all of the women by brute force. And yet our societies have evolved far beyond primitive and tribal times.
Ancient Rome didn't have human rights really at all, but that does not mean we can't agree to have human rights and define them through universal norms we have agreed to as a more civilized people.
Human rights do not serve the same function as religions. You compare it to a religion, but I am not sure how it really is comparable since it doesn't serve the same functions as religions. Human rights is more like how we want to set up the day to day minutia of our societies functions. More like the actual mechanics. Human rights seeks no grand answers of the universe.
Religions seek to answer the big questions. Who? Why? How? Where?
Human rights and enlightenment thinkers are more along the lines of.... we are here.... how can we make all of our lots in life better and what mechanisms can we as a species use within our limitations to achieve such goals. Humans are capable of great good and great evil, so how do we maximize the good aspects while limiting the bad sides.
The constitution went a long way toward changing the course of human history and even changed how people live their lives.
Human rights will do the same and acts more as an extension of what the constitution was just beginning to do.
Not inherent, not particularly meaningful, not containing any ultimate truth.
The inherency of human rights is just how we define them. We are people. All people in principle should have the same set of rights because we are all equal entities. This doesn't mean we are all the same or should be. But we can define a space where everyone is free to follow their path as much as they are able and not be unnecessarily impeded by other people, groups, or governments.
I would not agree that human rights are not meaningful any more than I would agree the Constitution of the US is not meaningful. Human rights has already proven meaningful and I would have to ask you why you think the achievements of human rights don't mean much?
As to truth? Human rights are not seeking to define "ultimate truth" if there is such a thing. They only attempt to delineate where the peoples of the globe think we should start as far as agreed upon rights. There are lots of rights that are not defined by human rights because people can't agree that they are indeed rights. The only way things become a human right is if globally, humans can assent to them being so. Human rights is a participatory thing.
Starting in a single location and spreading only through conversions.
And even similarly to religion the new conversions are the most devoted. "People who live under military juntas and dictators tend to have a more favorable view of human rights and understand the value of them."
Everything is spread by dialogue and conversation. At one point, all philosophy was only passed down by oral tradition. Human rights is defined
"Religions seek to answer the big questions. Who? Why? How? Where?"
"God did it" is not an answer to anything, and not all religions even have a creation story. I would say, Religions seek to give meaning to life.
"Everything is spread by dialogue and conversation. At one point, all philosophy was only passed down by oral tradition."
All philosophy, yes. But not inherent human conditions.
Laughter, love, friendship, did not have to be spread by dialogue. Nothing that is inherent, by definition, needs to be spread or invented.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
"Religions seek to answer the big questions. Who? Why? How? Where?"
"God did it" is not an answer to anything, and not all religions even have a creation story. I would say, Religions seek to give meaning to life.
....but god did it is the only answer for those who believe it to be true......just saying everyone has an opinion and doesn't agree on everything.
Ok, I would say I agree with what you say, but you were saying human rights is a religion. It is not. Human rights are a mechanism for society to function better.
We were not discussing what religion actually is.... and although I love to discuss that as well I will stick to the point of human rights. They are in no manner equivalent to most of the major religions I am aware of. How are human rights a religion if you indeed feel them to be? I am curious.
Or are you just saying that people are passionate about them and dogmatic and this seems similar to folks who follow religion?
"Everything is spread by dialogue and conversation. At one point, all philosophy was only passed down by oral tradition."
All philosophy, yes. But not inherent human conditions.
Laughter, love, friendship, did not have to be spread by dialogue.
I'm not sure what you are really trying to say here. .... such and such people have these rights, but because these folks come from a different part of our globe or different traditions and cultures that they somehow can't have the same rights. The agreed upon rights are inherent in everyone.
Human rights does not seek to define such things as laughter, love, or friendship. Human rights a set of ideas that everyone can agree to that allows us to function better as societies and peoples. Once defined, we say that such rights are inherent to every human without distinction.
By defining rights as inherent in everyone makes them inherent. We don't say
And remember all laws and everything which makes society is agreed to in some fashion, so human rights are not something mystical or unique. They are only new in the refinement of what human society has done since groups of humans got together. But the agreement part is no different to all of us agreeing that murder will be considered a crime or robbing a store is considered a crime. We all agree for the most part that such things will be viewed this way in our society. But even what murder is exactly is not so easily defined in any black and white way; which is why there is a graded approach to killing people.
The constitution defined rights which were viewed to be inherent in humans as the declaration of independence so eloquently stated..... but these rights are also merely philosophical gymnastics, human rights elaborates more of the rights to which we as humans can agree. Inherency in the sense of the constitution just means that everyone under the law is inherently the same and yet reality shows us everyday that this is not true. The constitution sets up a structure and plan to enable this structure. And it provides this structure to everyone who is a citizen. Human rights is more of a worldwide phenomenon and applicable to all of mankind and the inherent human rights belong to all humans of our planet.
Nothing that is inherent, by definition, needs to be spread or invented.
Yes things which are inherent can be invented and spread. The constitution was all about inherent rights. But those were the ones we could agree to at the time..... and they were invented and they have been spread. Inherent can certainly be a defined characteristic.
Seems to me, your objection to my use of the word inherent is more one which is definitional or semantic. You perhaps define the word to be only one facet of how the word has come to be used. Perhaps you need to look further into the founding philosophies which resulted in our constitution to grasp inherency in the sense of enlightenment thought. Inherent can be something inbred or innate fro
OK, I understand what you mean now (and I did not exactly before).
You are right, at least mostly, I guess, in my opinion. - You are very convincing.
As for equivalence to religion: Religions often are about aggrandizing a deity and through him/her/it finding a clear purpose in life. Human Rights seems to parallel this by self-aggrandizing the human race and raising it to a godlike position (evidence: it is clear from your wording that you have a certain reverence for human kind), and through this philosophy giving a purpose to life. Gods give sets of rules to follow to live a moral life, Human Rights give sets of rights to follow to live a moral life.
I don't think there is anything about Human Rights that does not fit within the boundaries of religion, and I do not think that it leaves anything out that religions normally have either.
Ultimately, I think I am too nihilistic to personally buy into Human Rights.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I actually think that the human race is rather insignificant at least to the universe. I don't believe that humans are sacred or particularly exceptional even though we don't yet know of other similar creatures in the universe. Humans are merely the creatures we know of rising up out of star stuff and attempting to understand the universe. I think someone on Star Trek once said that we are an attempt by the Universe to understand itself and this seems as good an answer as any I have heard.
But I do have to live on the planet and I also have to do so with other humans so I firmly believe we need a rational set of rules we can all agree on so that each of can pursue our lives without unnecessary restrictions by whims, dogma, and morality of others.
In the sense of human rights being rule-like and some religion being rule-like I suppose you might have a point.... but then again is the constitution a religion? I think some view it as a sacred document and in some ways this makes it a religious text..... I don't know though. I still think that religion is attempting to explain how we got here, what made us, where we will go after we die and such. Human rights gives this aspect of religion a pretty short shrift.... if in fact it gives any attention at all to it.
I think human rights is also less religious like in that the rights defined are not what you should do, but what others can't do to you. More of a set of negative rights.
Religions generally tend to morality and dictates what followers need to do..... not always, but Human Rights is more about what each of us is entitled to as humans and not how we should go about our lives.
"Ultimately, I think I am too nihilistic to personally buy into Human Rights."
hahaha... that is funny. Why do you think you are too nihilistic?
I have always found nihilism to be useless except as a mental distraction or exercise. I loved reading Turgenev and at some point I read lots of philosophy by folks like Kant, Kierkegaard, and Neitzshe but in the end I didn't see the point to dwelling upon there isn't a point to anything. It can be fun in a rhetorical sense, but overall life is too short to be so self indulgent and not seek meaning or purpose on a personal level at least. Currently, my entire purpose or reason for being here is to merely experience. This seems to me a rational purpose for being on the planet, because it is more like a statement of what already is. It doesn't sound like much, but for me it is awesome and keeps me engaged in the world. I just want to always keep in my mind that I should never pass up a chance to engage and experience. I want to become the best at experiencing things that I can. It makes life full and magical.
The human race is far far far away from achieving true human rights everywhere, but then again, it took more than 500 years to get from the Magna Carta, thru the enlightenment to the Constitution of the US. In the last 200 or so years the world has gone from being dominated by Monarchies, Empires, and Theocracies to most of the world having their own sort of constitution. People are increasingly able to determine how they are to be ruled.
In another 300-500 years we might achieve a even better status with regards to how humanity runs its affairs on the planet.
It has been fun chatting...it always helps me to clarify my own thinking and check whether the chaos in my brain can be beaten into rationality. It is nice to be coherent sometimes. I am ecstatic that you can understand what I mean even if you don't entirely agree. It is nice to be able to have anyone understand where I am coming from. I too understand where you are coming from and wish you well on your own path.
--best regards
I joined the Navy in 1982,. As the Village People sang, in the Navy... Well I retired from the Army. Ah yes 150 days at sea nothing but men, men, men you know that old SNL thing. That is except for a rare and occasional viewing of a BMO. When one my shipmates said "You do realize I am gay, don't you." I then said "Does that mean you don't drink beer?" I suppose now that it is OK to be gay in the military and females are on warships. Crossing the line has to be different now because that would be too gay for any kind of female. BTW you still have to 17.5 years old with your PARENTS PERMISSION to sign up for full active duty.
I agree nihilism can be very useless, but equally useless is imagining there is purpose where there is none. Everything in moderation, I guess. I believe in personal purposes and reasons for living, but grand purposes for the universe and everything inside it, or all conciseness beings? No.
"my entire purpose or reason for being here is to merely experience. ..." That sounds very much how I would explain my personal reason for being.
It has indeed been fun chatting.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Honestly, only an asshole would call this "nonsensical use of the English language", and would claim that gays have "equal rights" because of it. Your argument is completely and utterly worthless, and if you had any shred of self-respect, you would cease using that argument immediately.
You can pretty easily define your way around that. Instead of saying that everyone has the right to "marry a person they romantically love, if that person is able to give consent and does so" you can say that everyone has the right to marry a partner of the opposite sex. If that is the only right you want to fulfill, homosexuals are not technically deprived of a right you are acknowledging.
Natural is a badly defined word. Living in houses is not "natural".
While the current gay community promotes the idea of a biological cause for homosexuality, the Nazis did, too. The Nazis reaction to this view was not the one desired by the gay community.
Natural is irrelevant to morality in current society, too. Sociopathy has biological causes, but we don't consider serial killing morally acceptable.
Few Christians argue that non-human animals have moral rules or penalties applied to them. So, Christians don't really care whether non-human animals "choose to be gay".
(I am not a Christian.)
Since when is marriage a right?
Can there be a switch to make everyone be voiced by Wes Johnson?
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
you make a good point - logically speaking, that would be just as equal. doesn't necessarily make it a good idea though.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
I long since thought that kind of thing would be a good compromise.
You're right, the religious fundamentalists won't stand for any recognition of homosexual relationships.
Also, some gay activists won't settle for anything not called marriage.
The perils of being a moderate: no one's happy.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
This sounds like the LGBT version of greenwashing on environmental issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Yes.
Certainly going from gay to completely straight or straight to completely gay is a big step. But I'm sure every day there are people who have been straight their entire lives who meet someone and suddenly they're a little more bisexual. Do you think there's something wrong with that or something? Is it wrong or impossible for a gay person to change as well?
No, I think the right to marry the person you love is a fundamental civil right. The grounds I have are not only the UN Declaration on Human Rights
The UN is a joke. So is their declaration of human rights. Here's an example:
Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
So do you agree that you aren't allowed to attack anyone's honor or reputation? So.. negative political ads should be banned?
Sorry, I prefer OUR declaration of rights to the crap the UN comes up with.
Anyway I assume you're talking about this:
Article 16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
Is that it? That doesn't address whether men can marry men, just that men and women of full age can marry. It doesn't say to whom. Why do you think that applies to gay marriage? Do you think it also applies to incest and polygamy, because those are also "men and women of full age?"
the Loving v Virginia decision, in which the SCOTUS said that marriage was a fundamental right.
Okay, first of all, wrong. You amended your statement to say "I think the right to marry the person you love is a fundamental civil right." That case, based on the wikipedia article, is about race restrictions on marriage, not about "the right to marry the person you love."
I think you have a problem understanding technical arguments or something. The examples I gave, which you called cute but shitty reasons, are the corner cases that test the laws. You can't just dismiss them, the law has to deal with them. Your citation of Loving v Virginia confirms that -- you take what the court actually said and transform it into something different. As far as I know, Supreme Court decisions are treated as narrowly as possible. Excuse me for having to point out the obvious thing, but you seem to have missed it: there is still debate over the constitutionality of gay marriage. If the Supreme Court had unambiguously ruled about it, the debate would be over. Crazy how that works huh?
Neither point you brought up supports your position that we have a constitutional right to marry people of the same sex.
Why? Because your bigoted self says so?
Don't be an idiot. I was paraphrasing the law as it stands. We're talking about the constitutionality of those laws and whether gay marriage is a fundamental civil right.
Because a few straight people don't get to marry for love, we should stop a whole bunch of other people from doing it?
You talk about UN rights and the Supreme Court.. then you say stuff like this? So hypocritical.. so much for arguments like "equal protection before the law."
I guess you have a very strange idea of what a fundamental civil right really is. To you it's not something that applies to everyone.. it applies to the people you want it to apply to for your own agenda.
No, because then you're co-opting marriage as a thing belonging to your specific religion then trying to stop gay people from doing it.
What if it's not necessarily my religion but just something I don't like? On the other hand, what if it is part of my religion, and also part of many other religions, and we form a vast majority of the society? Are we not allowed to shape society in an image we like? It's not like we are hurting gay people by not letting them marry, I mean lack of marriage is rather different than slavery for instance. I don't think you can call a society that bans gay marriage cruel or intolerant just because it bans gay marriage.
In fact there's no way you can logically be against gay marriage and not be against marriage between people of a significantly different religion from you.
I don't know if there's a logical argument either way. It's all based on our personal preferences.
Heh, no, I don't, but I don't think the logic is flawed either. The typical comparison is incest, polygamy, bestiality -- all "non-traditional marriage" types that are still illegal and that even gay marriage proponents tend to distance themselves from. I thought it's an interesting twist to look at single people as a group. I stand by the logic 100%.
The incest laws I can understand
I.. don't get it. Why do you understand that? The only thing I've heard about incest is it's banned in the modern, "non-discriminatory" world because of the risk to the children of incest. Here are two counterpoints to that.
First, should a father be allowed to marry and have sex with his adult gay son? That removes any risk to potential offspring.
Second, should two straight people, not related, be allowed to marry if they have genetic conditions that are risky for children? What about someone with HIV/AIDS?
I think the real reason incest is banned is that people find it gross.
and the polygamy laws just make it easier to argue against marriage in the first place
Hah.
But why deny Fred marrying Shaggy while allowing Fred to marry Daphne? What's the basis of that denial?
Well we already have two examples that don't make any sense. Even gay marriage proponents generally support bans on incest and polygamy, without being able to give a reason. The ban on gay marriage is around for the same reason -- people just don't like the thought. It doesn't mean they're bad, intolerant, or cruel people, they just don't like gay marriage.