Deacon.. Please cite an instance where a straight person has been beaten to death (or near death, or even hospitalized) by a gay person just because they are straight.
Gays face violence and death everyday in the US for simply existing.
Your FUD, and that of your hateful religious brethren is tired. No one is suggesting gays do the same thing (beat up, attack kill) to straight people.
They would just like to be afforded their rights as citizens.
1) Anti-Prop8 graffiti - could have been anyone. Judging the tactics by the religious zealots throughout that campaign, it's equally likely that it was planted. No one was charged.
2) El Coyote.. tragic? Hah. A restaurant with a large gay clientele until its owner donated money (essentially from that gay clientele) to No on 8.. the backlash is a straightforward boycott. Why would that large gay clientele want to continue giving money to someone who thinks they are second class citizens. That's not intimidation, that's the consequence of making a stupid stupid decision.
3) The mobbing in San Fran - let's see, what else did this known religious fanatic group expect when they start spouting their bullshit in the Castro? That's like a group of KKK going to a Martin Luther King day event and chanting how all them n*****s should go back to picking cotton.
Those religious fanatics went into a hostile crowd and incited them. And then cried "oppression" when they met resistance. Hardly "intimidation."
Wanna try again?
What the Haters in Washington are trying to accomplish is a subversion of well understood law so they can HATE anonymously. That's deeply unamerican, and cowardly.
In our knee-jerk anti-Tory attitude we often forget that the Liberals were the ones who proposed -- and passed -- this legislation in the first place.
So what? It was also the Liberals who defined this legislation with a sunset clause - specifically because it was not envisioned to be needed forever.
The correct "anti-Tory" tack to take here is that the Conservatives are so gung-ho for law and order that they're insane enough to strip Canadians of civil rights over trumped up fears.
I was thinking about this general issue last night and realized the great irony that Brazil and "enlightened" Europe would have to outlaw a lot of South Park episodes because they would offend the sensibilities of some group, typically homosexuals. I'm entirely unimpressed with these countries and their "progressiveness" that says that throwing around human sexuality is ok, but saying offensive things is not.
Nice - you jumped right to the "homosexual agenda" in the first sentence. Watch out, or they'll get you! (And at the time I wrote this, you've been modded +4! Neato!)
You know what breeds hate and resentment? Empowering people to turn subjective feelings into a legal weapon.
Saying that you hate fags is different from advocating that all fags must die. See the difference there? One is a personal opinion (which others may find agreeable, or ignorant), and the latter is inciting violence. In some countries, that's a crime. And the best part of these anti-hate laws is that is applies across the board.. so advocating the death of all fundamentalists is also a crime.
So, you can hate fags all you want, and how you perceive they will ruin your television veiwing habits. Just don't incite hatred and violence, m'kay?
All manner of bigotry is rampant around the world and the force of law is not going to change hearts
I disagree. Laws act as social conditioning tools. Consider slavery, or the status of women in North America. What once was legal (i.e slavery, women as non-voting pieces of chattel) is made to be illegal (via struggles for Emancipation, Sufferage), and over time people's attitudes have generally changed (i.e. slavery is bad, women are equal). This is not to say that life is peachy for all blacks and women, nor that everybody is on the same page (e.g. KKK, sexist men). But it is an improvement.
Maybe in your little border town in Canada you haven't seen such things, but if you go to the "wrong part" of Toronto, you may be in for a quick and painful education... but at least you will have free medical care to get you fixed back up;)
Please, do tell - which parts of Toronto would those be, exactly? Maybe I haven't live in Toronto long enough, but I haven't found a place where I feel "unsafe," and I've lived in the vicinity of what the Toronto Star once referred to one summer (2002, I think) as a region of death (Sherbourne/Dundas).
but it seems every little cult and sect likes to call itself "Christian" and nobody's allowed to challenge them on that.
Wow. I didn't realize the Anglican Church was a little cult then. Wait 'til I tell my priest.. she'll be sooo embarassed!
homosexuality is no worse a sin than heterosexual infidelity,
According to your "Biblical Christianity," which is based on translations or translations, yeah, got it.
My problem is people saying that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality - it clearly does, see Romans 1.
You mean this?
Romans 1:26-27: "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: 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 [sic] of their error which was meet."
And two liberal interpretations for that passage are:
"Paul didn't write it as a condemnation of homosexuality, but as a criticism of Greek behavior in temple worship. Greeks often incorporated sexual behavior in temple worship."
"This is the tough one. I think one doesn't get around this. It's the only place in the New Testament where there's any extensive discussion of homosexual relations. In Romans, there's no question that Paul thinks certain kinds of homosexual behavior are a result of the idolatry of the pagan world."
So there are differing interpretations - and it may very well be that Paul was condemning the Greeks worshipping practice. How that got morphed into all homosexuals, well, the Church does have power, doesn't it?
Of course, if all your looking for is sound-bites to make Christianity seem stupid, out-of-context quotes are definately your game.
That is an excellent, excellent retort. Point taken. I (clearly mistakenly) assumed you to be a garden variety internet Christian - those ones tend to still go to the OT for the brimstone.
In the end, you win. I don't care what your take on Christianity is, and it's not like either of us will change the other's mind. Your "Biblical Christianity" sure is, well, interesting. Good luck with it. Pity it doesn't allow for deeper interpretation.
Eh? I said that if a homosexual became a Christian, he would begin to deal with his problems. If he's accepted Christianity, then he would also have accepted (rightly or wrongly) that his homosexuality is a problem, and would start dealing with that.
You are aware that not all Christian sects see homosexuality as a "problem," right?
The only problem I have is when people who do do that then claim they're Christians.
Your kind of Christian maybe.
Oh well, judge not lest ye be judged, blah blah blah.
And of course I assume you follow all the other edicts laid out in Leviticus too? Or, your one of those Christians who picks and chooses? Or follows a misinterpretation/mistranslation of what "knows" means (Sodom/Gomorrah)? Or, perhaps you just don't like fags?
Whatever, I'm sure our respective Christian Gods will sort it all out in the end.
I wasn't trying to assert the morality of homosexuality.
Liar.
If they are sincere, then they will begin to deal with their problems (including homosexuality) themselves.
Here you're judging that homosexuality is a problem that can be solved by accepting the morals of your church. No thanks. Adhering to the mistranslations of an ancient cult and selectively lording them over those you disagree with (Leviticus) is pretty messed up.
I'd just like to note that homosexual behaviour IS illegal in many places, both around the world and in the USA.
True enough - but at least in first world countries being gay itself is generally not illegal. Let's not conflate behaviour with existence. It's not like we're having hard core butt sex in game here.
While I say these guys (and girls) have every right to set up their gay guild, they shouldn't be such fags about it.:P
I would be interested to know if you be willing to express this opinion on behalf of groups you vigorously disagreed with? NAMBLA, Neo-Nazis, Klan, etc. Should a KKK group be allowed to recuit publicly on WoW so that they can then talk amonst themselves in guild chat about how much they hate other races? It's really no different in principle- any group that seeks to be exclusive to others could be found offensive by a paying customer not in that group.
Um, that's a nice strawman. Those groups (KKK, NAMBLA, neo-Nazis) tend to encourage and/or participate in illegal behaviour. A GLBT-friendly guild isn't going to be discussing destroying heterosexuals.
And yes, it IS sexual harassment for a GLBT person to run around at work constantly talking about their sex life if they've been asked to stop. Why should it be any different in a MMORPG world?
Another strawman. "I'm recruiting for my GLBT-friendly guild" is not talking about one's sex life.
"This article was listed, and it was the only damn article with a negative spin. Then I see this article here. All the articles to chose, and the slashdot editors of course pick the article which will stir up the most hornets."
You do realize that the best way to get eyeballs to read your site/newspaper/magazine/what-have-you is to publish controversial (and or trollish flamebait) points of view. People take the bait to point out the general bias in the article, emotions run high, impassioned dialogue happens.. and traffic is generated. Wee!
So, yeah, the guy seems to have missed the point re: Boot Camp, but look at the response! His boss will certainly keep him around!
I think the OP had it right - the WTO rulings have been ruling in the American's favour, but all the NAFTA rulings have been favourable to Canada. Not that a silly trade treaty will prevent the elephant from doing what it wants.
Yeah no kidding. Even if you fuck someoone bareback who definitely has AIDS, the odds of transmission are still only like 1 in 10,000.
Have they really tested this drug on THAT many accidentally exposed healthcare workers? Isn't it possible that perhaps the people exposed just didn't get the disease?
No, nitwit. "Accidentally exposed healthcare workers" generally means needle pricks and contact with infected blood. Google "post exposure prophylaxis" (PEP) to see what's done now. This treatment would certainly help matters, as I understand the PEP treatment is really harsh on your body.
And my problem with Animal Crossing is that there's no "community" place where you can randomly visit someone else's town... you have to manually put someone else's code in.
That would seem to be design intent. If there were such a space, then Nintendo would have to police it. Communities do exist (eg. see gamefaqs message boards). Having random vistors would be very annoying - there are lots or idiots in the world who will trash your town.
A matching service would be nice - perhaps we'll see it in a sequel.;>
You (and others making similar purchasing decisions) should really take 15 minutes and write in to Sony to tell them they have lost a sale, and why.
The various factions of Sony need to be made aware that the actions of one business unit (Sony/BMG) is affecting the others (computers, consumer electronics).
She mentioned the untapped nostalgia market. Well, with MAME, NES emulators, N64 emulators, etc., the "nostalgia" is already there, a click away. The problem is that it's more for quick amusement...doing the remember when. Sure it's fun to fire up some of these games, but I'm not sure I'd want to play all the way through, especially since I did so several times on the original consoles.
You, Sir, are not "average," and not part of the untapped nostalgia market.
I'm pretty sure that the number of people using MAME and other emulators are fairly insignificant compared to the number of casual, non-gamer, "what the heck is a MAME?", non-geek sorts that Nintendo is targetting.
Now, IANAL, but the laws of Canada do not apply in this situation. Blizzard is located in the US, and a clause in their TOS *explicilty* states that any TOS dispute shall be governed by the laws of the United States (although I forgot the specific state).
My bad - didn't mean to conflate Canada vs US.. the first part of my post was just illustrating a difference between the two. (and what differing opinions on commensense are)
The second bit (the various US laws cited by Lambda) are what's relevant here, re: the right to freely associate on someone's private gaming service. I still contend that it's not about the right to freely associate, rather a business providing a service to the public - all of it.
They advertised for a guild in a public channel where guilds of any political nature are disallowed from recruiting.
I strongly disagree with this - advertising a GLBT-friendly guild itself is not a political act. It would be if I wanted to advertise a Log Cabin Republican friendly guild (A GLBT Republician organization).
That it has become a politicized issue is due to Blizzard's mishandling and bungling..
Reread: Blizzard's actions were to allow hatred to go unchecked (using "fag"/"gay" in the perjorative is the behaviour that's creating a more hostile environment, which is what Blizzard claims to condemn), and spanking GLBT folk for wanting to group together to improve their WoW experience.
Blizzard's TOS claims that they don't want to have a hostile player environment vis-a-vis sexual orientation, race, religion, etc.
This has fuck all to do with civil rights (Blizzard != the state), but rather Blizzard not enforcing their TOS on their property. That's the point.
Calling someone a fag in an insult runs counter to that TOS, yet Blizzard does nothing.
You can still hate whomever you like, for whatever reason. Again, this isn't a civil rights crusade, it's the misguided application of their own freaking policies.
What are you trying to say? That AIDS is only a gay disease, and every time someone mentions it they're specifically talking about GAY people with AIDS? I think all the straight AIDS victims would like some honorable mention too.
True enough - I let my cynicism get the better of me there I guess. At the same time, I suspect that those making those comments aren't as nuanced in their thinking. I just ran with the stereotype (or.. stereotype of a stereotype).
News flash, you don't have a right to avoid being offended, or even avoid being called names.
Well, duh. (ergo fuck-tards!)
Blizzard's actions were to allow hatred to go unchecked (using "fag"/"gay" in the perjorative is the behaviour that's creating a more hostile environment, which is what Blizzard claims to condemn), and spanking GLBT folk for wanting to group together to improve their WoW experience.
And it's funny how you disparage the "fuck-tards" for name calling. I have to assume that while you seem open to homosexuality, you're a raging bigot when it comes to mental disability.
Self-hatred can be a bitch.
'K, that was funny. Honestly, I giggled out loud.
(To me, fuck-tard != mentally handicapped, but your mileage clearly varies)
If you take raising children out of the question - why have marriage as a contract at all?
That one's easy - division of property and pooled resources and inheritence.
The marriage license is a general tool for general use.
Agreed. It's a general tool for general use. Not just for the kids, but for the social declaration that a couple is bonded in a more "serious way", and the tax/estate/power-of-attorney benefits.
(To obtain the benefits heterosexuals get for free when they marry, GLBT have to spend a lot of money on various contracts and legal documents, which may end up being contested. That sucks)
The rest of your comment was entirely agreeable. Now, just allow it apply it to every pair of consenting adults and we're done!;>
These votes did not come from the Religious Right. Sure - the entire Religious Right voted for the bans, but the Religious Right is not 57% of Oregon. It's not 59% of Michigan. It's not 73% of North Dakota or 62% of Ohio.
Your mistake here is that you're assuming 100% of the population votes...
The conservative elements got their vote out - adding gay marriage to the ballots further fomented that righteous indignation that God is love, except for those pesky ass-bandits.
Also: Because marriage is traditionally the basis for a family, and families are the conduits for bringing new lives into the nation and raising and nurturing them to be productive citizens.
While this has some merit, marriage is not only about procreation. The state does not require a pregnancy to validate the union, nor does the state invalidate unions that are childless. Clearly marriage is not just about propagating the species (and looking at the middle ages, it never was).
Pair-bonding, mating, and rearing young has gone one for millenia. "Marriage" is a relatively recent invention and does not have the "weight of 1,000's of years of history."
And finally, I don't give a rat's ass whether practically every major world religion feels that homos are icky. Religious freedom includes the freedom from religion. They can sanctify whatever relationships they want - they don't have the right to dictate what the state does (ie. civil marriage).
IANAL, but by refusing to take your money, they can refuse your service. That just seems commonsense to me.
In Canada, that sort of behaviour is illegal. A business cannot refuse service to someone soley based on gender, race, religion, sexuality, etc.
(google "CGLA Canadian Gay and Lesbian Archive printer lawsuit")
That refusing service to someone 'cause their skin's funny looking, or they might take-it-up-the-bum-and-God-told-me-that's-wrong is wrong just seems commonsense.
I'm fairly sure your right to freely associate does not extend to a right to freely associate on someone's private gaming service.
It's not a freedom to associate thing, rather it's providing a service to the public. And as such, there's some laws Blizzard must adhere to.
From TFA:
Online environments are public accommodations, subject to regulation as such. Butler v. Adoption Media, L.L.C., 2005 WL 1513142 (N.D.Cal.). Discrimination against LGBT individuals in the provision of public accommodations is clearly prohibited by California law. Id., see also, Cal. Civ. Code 51 et seq. It has been so for more than fifty years. Stouman v. Reilly, 234 P.2d 969 (Cal. 1951). Insisting that LGBT persons not discuss their sexual orientation or gender identity can constitute discrimination under California law. Erdmann v. Tranquility Inc., 155 F.Supp.2d 1152 (N.D.Cal. 2001) (in which an employee who experienced a hostile environment at his workplace, including being instructed by a supervisor to "keep [his homosexuality] in the closet while he [was] at work," stated a cause of action for employment discrimination); see also Gay Law Students v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph, 595 P.2d 592 (1978) (same); Henkle v. Gregory, 150 F.Supp.2d 1067 (D.Nev.2001) (discussing students' right to discuss their sexual orientation at school); Colin v. Orange Unified School District, 83 F.Supp.2d 1135 (C.D.Cal.2000) (addressing students' right to use the word "gay" in the name of their school club).
Slashdot Mirror
Deacon .. Please cite an instance where a straight person has been beaten to death (or near death, or even hospitalized) by a gay person just because they are straight.
Gays face violence and death everyday in the US for simply existing.
Your FUD, and that of your hateful religious brethren is tired. No one is suggesting gays do the same thing (beat up, attack kill) to straight people.
They would just like to be afforded their rights as citizens.
You dolt..
1) Anti-Prop8 graffiti - could have been anyone. Judging the tactics by the religious zealots throughout that campaign, it's equally likely that it was planted. No one was charged.
2) El Coyote.. tragic? Hah. A restaurant with a large gay clientele until its owner donated money (essentially from that gay clientele) to No on 8.. the backlash is a straightforward boycott. Why would that large gay clientele want to continue giving money to someone who thinks they are second class citizens. That's not intimidation, that's the consequence of making a stupid stupid decision.
3) The mobbing in San Fran - let's see, what else did this known religious fanatic group expect when they start spouting their bullshit in the Castro? That's like a group of KKK going to a Martin Luther King day event and chanting how all them n*****s should go back to picking cotton.
Those religious fanatics went into a hostile crowd and incited them. And then cried "oppression" when they met resistance. Hardly "intimidation."
Wanna try again?
What the Haters in Washington are trying to accomplish is a subversion of well understood law so they can HATE anonymously. That's deeply unamerican, and cowardly.
In our knee-jerk anti-Tory attitude we often forget that the Liberals were the ones who proposed -- and passed -- this legislation in the first place.
So what? It was also the Liberals who defined this legislation with a sunset clause - specifically because it was not envisioned to be needed forever.
The correct "anti-Tory" tack to take here is that the Conservatives are so gung-ho for law and order that they're insane enough to strip Canadians of civil rights over trumped up fears.
I was thinking about this general issue last night and realized the great irony that Brazil and "enlightened" Europe would have to outlaw a lot of South Park episodes because they would offend the sensibilities of some group, typically homosexuals. I'm entirely unimpressed with these countries and their "progressiveness" that says that throwing around human sexuality is ok, but saying offensive things is not.
Nice - you jumped right to the "homosexual agenda" in the first sentence. Watch out, or they'll get you! (And at the time I wrote this, you've been modded +4! Neato!)
You know what breeds hate and resentment? Empowering people to turn subjective feelings into a legal weapon.
Saying that you hate fags is different from advocating that all fags must die. See the difference there? One is a personal opinion (which others may find agreeable, or ignorant), and the latter is inciting violence. In some countries, that's a crime. And the best part of these anti-hate laws is that is applies across the board.. so advocating the death of all fundamentalists is also a crime.
So, you can hate fags all you want, and how you perceive they will ruin your television veiwing habits. Just don't incite hatred and violence, m'kay?
All manner of bigotry is rampant around the world and the force of law is not going to change hearts
I disagree. Laws act as social conditioning tools. Consider slavery, or the status of women in North America. What once was legal (i.e slavery, women as non-voting pieces of chattel) is made to be illegal (via struggles for Emancipation, Sufferage), and over time people's attitudes have generally changed (i.e. slavery is bad, women are equal). This is not to say that life is peachy for all blacks and women, nor that everybody is on the same page (e.g. KKK, sexist men). But it is an improvement.
Maybe in your little border town in Canada you haven't seen such things, but if you go to the "wrong part" of Toronto, you may be in for a quick and painful education... but at least you will have free medical care to get you fixed back up
Please, do tell - which parts of Toronto would those be, exactly? Maybe I haven't live in Toronto long enough, but I haven't found a place where I feel "unsafe," and I've lived in the vicinity of what the Toronto Star once referred to one summer (2002, I think) as a region of death (Sherbourne/Dundas).
Wow. I didn't realize the Anglican Church was a little cult then. Wait 'til I tell my priest.. she'll be sooo embarassed!
homosexuality is no worse a sin than heterosexual infidelity,
According to your "Biblical Christianity," which is based on translations or translations, yeah, got it.
My problem is people saying that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality - it clearly does, see Romans 1.
You mean this?
And two liberal interpretations for that passage are:
Source:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc5.htm
So there are differing interpretations - and it may very well be that Paul was condemning the Greeks worshipping practice. How that got morphed into all homosexuals, well, the Church does have power, doesn't it?
Of course, if all your looking for is sound-bites to make Christianity seem stupid, out-of-context quotes are definately your game.
That is an excellent, excellent retort. Point taken. I (clearly mistakenly) assumed you to be a garden variety internet Christian - those ones tend to still go to the OT for the brimstone.
In the end, you win. I don't care what your take on Christianity is, and it's not like either of us will change the other's mind. Your "Biblical Christianity" sure is, well, interesting. Good luck with it. Pity it doesn't allow for deeper interpretation.
Eh? I said that if a homosexual became a Christian, he would begin to deal with his problems. If he's accepted Christianity, then he would also have accepted (rightly or wrongly) that his homosexuality is a problem, and would start dealing with that.
You are aware that not all Christian sects see homosexuality as a "problem," right?
The only problem I have is when people who do do that then claim they're Christians.
Your kind of Christian maybe.
Oh well, judge not lest ye be judged, blah blah blah.
And of course I assume you follow all the other edicts laid out in Leviticus too? Or, your one of those Christians who picks and chooses? Or follows a misinterpretation/mistranslation of what "knows" means (Sodom/Gomorrah)? Or, perhaps you just don't like fags?
Whatever, I'm sure our respective Christian Gods will sort it all out in the end.
I wasn't trying to assert the morality of homosexuality.
Liar.
If they are sincere, then they will begin to deal with their problems (including homosexuality) themselves.
Here you're judging that homosexuality is a problem that can be solved by accepting the morals of your church. No thanks. Adhering to the mistranslations of an ancient cult and selectively lording them over those you disagree with (Leviticus) is pretty messed up.
Oh well, I'm sure you disagree.
To ease your pain, give Rebelstar: Tactical Command a go on GBA. Very fun, most X-com like thing you're gonna find on a handheld. Cheap too.
I'd just like to note that homosexual behaviour IS illegal in many places, both around the world and in the USA.
:P
;>
True enough - but at least in first world countries being gay itself is generally not illegal. Let's not conflate behaviour with existence. It's not like we're having hard core butt sex in game here.
While I say these guys (and girls) have every right to set up their gay guild, they shouldn't be such fags about it.
Well, clearly.
Danged uppity fags!
I would be interested to know if you be willing to express this opinion on behalf of groups you vigorously disagreed with? NAMBLA, Neo-Nazis, Klan, etc. Should a KKK group be allowed to recuit publicly on WoW so that they can then talk amonst themselves in guild chat about how much they hate other races? It's really no different in principle- any group that seeks to be exclusive to others could be found offensive by a paying customer not in that group.
Um, that's a nice strawman. Those groups (KKK, NAMBLA, neo-Nazis) tend to encourage and/or participate in illegal behaviour. A GLBT-friendly guild isn't going to be discussing destroying heterosexuals.
And yes, it IS sexual harassment for a GLBT person to run around at work constantly talking about their sex life if they've been asked to stop. Why should it be any different in a MMORPG world?
Another strawman. "I'm recruiting for my GLBT-friendly guild" is not talking about one's sex life.
If people ahd thicker skins, it wouldn't be an issue either.
Um, sure. Everyone should just take their abuse with grace and aplomb. Gotcha.
"This article was listed, and it was the only damn article with a negative spin. Then I see this article here. All the articles to chose, and the slashdot editors of course pick the article which will stir up the most hornets."
.. and traffic is generated. Wee!
You do realize that the best way to get eyeballs to read your site/newspaper/magazine/what-have-you is to publish controversial (and or trollish flamebait) points of view. People take the bait to point out the general bias in the article, emotions run high, impassioned dialogue happens
So, yeah, the guy seems to have missed the point re: Boot Camp, but look at the response! His boss will certainly keep him around!
arf.
I think the OP had it right - the WTO rulings have been ruling in the American's favour, but all the NAFTA rulings have been favourable to Canada. Not that a silly trade treaty will prevent the elephant from doing what it wants.
Yeah no kidding. Even if you fuck someoone bareback who definitely has AIDS, the odds of transmission are still only like 1 in 10,000.
Have they really tested this drug on THAT many accidentally exposed healthcare workers? Isn't it possible that perhaps the people exposed just didn't get the disease?
No, nitwit. "Accidentally exposed healthcare workers" generally means needle pricks and contact with infected blood. Google "post exposure prophylaxis" (PEP) to see what's done now. This treatment would certainly help matters, as I understand the PEP treatment is really harsh on your body.
And my problem with Animal Crossing is that there's no "community" place where you can randomly visit someone else's town... you have to manually put someone else's code in.
;>
That would seem to be design intent. If there were such a space, then Nintendo would have to police it. Communities do exist (eg. see gamefaqs message boards). Having random vistors would be very annoying - there are lots or idiots in the world who will trash your town.
A matching service would be nice - perhaps we'll see it in a sequel.
You (and others making similar purchasing decisions) should really take 15 minutes and write in to Sony to tell them they have lost a sale, and why.
The various factions of Sony need to be made aware that the actions of one business unit (Sony/BMG) is affecting the others (computers, consumer electronics).
A smack-down can come from within, too..
She mentioned the untapped nostalgia market. Well, with MAME, NES emulators, N64 emulators, etc., the "nostalgia" is already there, a click away. The problem is that it's more for quick amusement...doing the remember when. Sure it's fun to fire up some of these games, but I'm not sure I'd want to play all the way through, especially since I did so several times on the original consoles.
;>
You, Sir, are not "average," and not part of the untapped nostalgia market.
I'm pretty sure that the number of people using MAME and other emulators are fairly insignificant compared to the number of casual, non-gamer, "what the heck is a MAME?", non-geek sorts that Nintendo is targetting.
um.. blah blah Blue Ocean blah blah
Now, IANAL, but the laws of Canada do not apply in this situation. Blizzard is located in the US, and a clause in their TOS *explicilty* states that any TOS dispute shall be governed by the laws of the United States (although I forgot the specific state).
My bad - didn't mean to conflate Canada vs US.. the first part of my post was just illustrating a difference between the two. (and what differing opinions on commensense are)
The second bit (the various US laws cited by Lambda) are what's relevant here, re: the right to freely associate on someone's private gaming service. I still contend that it's not about the right to freely associate, rather a business providing a service to the public - all of it.
They advertised for a guild in a public channel where guilds of any political nature are disallowed from recruiting.
I strongly disagree with this - advertising a GLBT-friendly guild itself is not a political act. It would be if I wanted to advertise a Log Cabin Republican friendly guild (A GLBT Republician organization).
That it has become a politicized issue is due to Blizzard's mishandling and bungling..
Reread:
Blizzard's actions were to allow hatred to go unchecked (using "fag"/"gay" in the perjorative is the behaviour that's creating a more hostile environment, which is what Blizzard claims to condemn), and spanking GLBT folk for wanting to group together to improve their WoW experience.
Blizzard's TOS claims that they don't want to have a hostile player environment vis-a-vis sexual orientation, race, religion, etc.
This has fuck all to do with civil rights (Blizzard != the state), but rather Blizzard not enforcing their TOS on their property. That's the point.
Calling someone a fag in an insult runs counter to that TOS, yet Blizzard does nothing.
You can still hate whomever you like, for whatever reason. Again, this isn't a civil rights crusade, it's the misguided application of their own freaking policies.
What are you trying to say? That AIDS is only a gay disease, and every time someone mentions it they're specifically talking about GAY people with AIDS? I think all the straight AIDS victims would like some honorable mention too.
True enough - I let my cynicism get the better of me there I guess. At the same time, I suspect that those making those comments aren't as nuanced in their thinking. I just ran with the stereotype (or.. stereotype of a stereotype).
News flash, you don't have a right to avoid being offended, or even avoid being called names.
Well, duh. (ergo fuck-tards!)
Blizzard's actions were to allow hatred to go unchecked (using "fag"/"gay" in the perjorative is the behaviour that's creating a more hostile environment, which is what Blizzard claims to condemn), and spanking GLBT folk for wanting to group together to improve their WoW experience.
And it's funny how you disparage the "fuck-tards" for name calling. I have to assume that while you seem open to homosexuality, you're a raging bigot when it comes to mental disability.
Self-hatred can be a bitch.
'K, that was funny. Honestly, I giggled out loud.
(To me, fuck-tard != mentally handicapped, but your mileage clearly varies)
If you take raising children out of the question - why have marriage as a contract at all?
;>
That one's easy - division of property and pooled resources and inheritence.
The marriage license is a general tool for general use.
Agreed. It's a general tool for general use. Not just for the kids, but for the social declaration that a couple is bonded in a more "serious way", and the tax/estate/power-of-attorney benefits.
(To obtain the benefits heterosexuals get for free when they marry, GLBT have to spend a lot of money on various contracts and legal documents, which may end up being contested. That sucks)
The rest of your comment was entirely agreeable. Now, just allow it apply it to every pair of consenting adults and we're done!
These votes did not come from the Religious Right. Sure - the entire Religious Right voted for the bans, but the Religious Right is not 57% of Oregon. It's not 59% of Michigan. It's not 73% of North Dakota or 62% of Ohio.
Your mistake here is that you're assuming 100% of the population votes...
The conservative elements got their vote out - adding gay marriage to the ballots further fomented that righteous indignation that God is love, except for those pesky ass-bandits.
Also:
Because marriage is traditionally the basis for a family, and families are the conduits for bringing new lives into the nation and raising and nurturing them to be productive citizens.
While this has some merit, marriage is not only about procreation. The state does not require a pregnancy to validate the union, nor does the state invalidate unions that are childless. Clearly marriage is not just about propagating the species (and looking at the middle ages, it never was).
Pair-bonding, mating, and rearing young has gone one for millenia.
"Marriage" is a relatively recent invention and does not have the "weight of 1,000's of years of history."
And finally, I don't give a rat's ass whether practically every major world religion feels that homos are icky. Religious freedom includes the freedom from religion. They can sanctify whatever relationships they want - they don't have the right to dictate what the state does (ie. civil marriage).
In Canada, that sort of behaviour is illegal. A business cannot refuse service to someone soley based on gender, race, religion, sexuality, etc.
(google "CGLA Canadian Gay and Lesbian Archive printer lawsuit")
That refusing service to someone 'cause their skin's funny looking, or they might take-it-up-the-bum-and-God-told-me-that's-wrong is wrong just seems commonsense.
I'm fairly sure your right to freely associate does not extend to a right to freely associate on someone's private gaming service.
It's not a freedom to associate thing, rather it's providing a service to the public. And as such, there's some laws Blizzard must adhere to.
From TFA:
So, there you go.