No Same Sex Marriage In World of Warcraft? 820
Previously, we discussed a World of Warcraft guild representative getting reprimanded for mentioning same-sex relationships while advertising their organization. The subject hasn't been dropped in the intervening days, with GamePolitics providing an update to the community's reaction. Additionally, a Cathode Tan post links to a supposed discussion with a GM that kind of wrecks their whole equal treatment statement. From that post: "[GM] Anyone can report and we will take appropriate action. While it may seem ok because they are truly a heterosexual couple in real life, in game they are two females. Please keep in mind, you need to worry about the other players. While I do understand where you are coming from, there are those who do not have the maturity"
This says it all: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. That's almost always the case. Because other people are too sensitive and might get their feelings hurt by seeing/hearing things they object to, it's in Blizzard's best interest to put a muzzle on things that are potentially offensive or would cause other problems ("LOL FAGS").
It's an interesting variation on being politically correct, but that's really all it is.
Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a GAME!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
He's playing a Female character... That's not right!!!
She's playing a Male Orc...
It's a freaking Game. A ROLE playing game. This is insane...
I can't believe this made it onto
Maturity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They *are* allowed to recruit... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well.. (Score:3, Insightful)
What's next? (Score:1, Insightful)
Next, you wanna marry the gold you've farmed.
After that, you'll be bitching that Blizzard is not allowing you to have sexual relations with your gold, despite the fact that you've legally married it. Also, why the hell is Blizzard not allowing gold/player hybrid children? They are very narrow minded.
You people need to shut up and just play the game, not make it a goddamn progressive liberal struggle. You want to change the world? Don't start with a stupid GAME - write your politicians to legalize gay marriage, start petitions, attend rallies and be more proactive in real life. This is only a game.
Re:They *are* allowed to recruit... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, and for good reason. The groups you mention both advocate the hurting others. Aryans advocate violence against others based on skin tone or religious affiliation, while "pedo's" prey on children. GLBT would just like to do their thing without being attacked for it. Huge difference.
A more apt analogy would be, "would a 'Christian-friendly' guild be tolerated that actively recruited Christians?"
Re:They *are* allowed to recruit... (Score:5, Insightful)
However I would support their right to hold their views , so long as they are not forcing their views on others , such as racial intimidation , or grooming children .
The difference between GLBT , Aryan Nations and Pedophiles is simple.
There is no problem with being Gay or Trans-gender .
The other two however are a menace to society who prey on children or try to oppress other people for the way they are born.
Dude, they got a business to run (Score:1, Insightful)
If allowing gay marriage in their game pisses off more people than it pleases, it'd be a bad business decision.
The "Why" of what their game-playing population doesn't matter to them.
There is one simple fair solution (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do (Score:4, Insightful)
The hypocracy here is that men and women who are incapable of producing their own biological offspring are still allowed to get married, even though they are no different (procreatively speaking) from gay couples.
Being a libertarian, of course, I'm all for dropping all those freebies (and slashing everybody's taxes to make up for it) and then letting anybody marry anybody or anything they choose... but alas, libertarian nut-jobs like me never get elected to anything.
Re:They *are* allowed to recruit... (Score:2, Insightful)
Bigots have the "right" to dislike you. What they don't have the right to do is infringe on your rights in expressing their views.
"Harassment for players"?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA:
So punish the harassers . Blizzard should sprout a pair and teach that intolerance will not be tolerated.
Re:This says it all: (Score:5, Insightful)
In some parts of the world, pro-gay propaganda is frowned upon.
The only way to satisfy people globally, is banning such kind of talk -- in a game, it is TOTALLY out-of-character anyway. Thus, while somewhat limitting the freedom of speech, it bans only topics that are not appropiate to the topic of the game. If you want to discuss outside things, nothing can prevent you from using any outside forum.
I used to be a high-ranking but sub-admin coder on a MUD. We enforced PG13 rules (no swearing, etc), and, while allowing OOC talk in general, we stopped (first by a verbal warning, then another one on the record, then a ban from global comm channels, and in egregious cases with a removal of the character) some topics that are grossly out-of-place. Such topics included talks about someone's sexual exploits, racial and sexual harassment, and yeah, pro-gay and anti-gay propaganda.
You are free to talk about any topic you want, but you are not free to talk about them everywhere. On private property (like a game), the game admins have the right to remove you for not complying with the rules.
Re:They *are* allowed to recruit... (Score:5, Insightful)
Being attracted to children is not a crime. Acting on it is in some countries.
Believing yourself to be superior to others is not a crime. Hurting others in an attempt to express that view or make that view a reality is a crime in some countries.
Being attracted to the same sex is not a crime. Acting on it is in some countries.
Be careful what labels you use. I'm only trying to point out the fact that it is a person's ACTIONS, not their BELIEFS or FEELINGS that are the issue here. However, there are people out there who will attempt to persecute you for your beliefs if they do not agree with them. The belief could be racial superiority, sexual attraction, spiritual, etc.
Re:They *are* allowed to recruit... (Score:5, Insightful)
I perfectly accept those views , but GLBT people are just people who either happen to fall in love with those of the same gender , or are people who were unfortunately born into the wrong gender due to some fluke of biology(in the case of the Trans-gender folks) .
The Aryan Nations however espouse violence and hatred , pedophiles whilst not all active are fixated on sexual desire which can never be legal and is very hurtful.
People who look down upon the Pedophiles or the Aryan nations are basing this on solid evidence , as opposed to views on homosexuality which are based on very little.
Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do (Score:3, Insightful)
Not so fast! I've made my platform on the fact that people should not be allowed to marry earthworms!
Now on the more serious side, the real problem is that most people have no idea what they want. All they know is that they like bread and circuses* and that so long as the party(ies) in power provide that they are not inclined to change. I agree that the Libertarian way is better in many respects, but it can not happen without social change. The problem with our country is not the politicians, it is with the people. Lousy politicians and pork are the symptom, not the cause. Win the people and you will win the election. Joe Sixpack individually is a great guy, wants things to change, etc. but put 100 of them in a group and you now have the epitomy of "sheeple".
My 2c FWIW
-nB
*the bread and circuses reference is from "Take Back your Government" by RAH. A+++ reading for Poly Sci types, A reading for everyone else. On another note, glad I previewed.. anyone know why
-nB
Re:Dude, they got a business to run (Score:5, Insightful)
"And, like it or not, 60-70% of the South Carolina public is against negroes being in the same movie theaters as whites. If allowing negroes in the theaters pisses off more people than it pleases, it'd be a bad business decision. The "Why" of what their movie-watching population doesn't matter to them."
It would undoubtedly go on to argue that imposing restrictions that prevent the majority from being offended (separate theaters) is perfectly reasonable, and that the black patrons can still watch movies and have a good time.
Theyre not freebies (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason you can move your deductions onto your partners return and vice-versa, to get the tax breaks, is because even if there was no law allowing it **you could do it anyway**, because they would never be able to prove whose actual deduction it was in the first place, since you likely have joint accounts etc etc.
Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do (Score:1, Insightful)
Are there couples out there who, despite being married, violate its very purpose? Yes.
Does that make marriage worthless and defeat its purpose? Nope, because there is still a significant percentage of folks to whom it still has value and who raise children in such environments.
Gay and lesbian marriages largely ignore this, and concentrate only on the first. Exceptions don't make rules. Anybody marrying anything does not exactly speak well of us as a people or as a civilization.
Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do (Score:5, Insightful)
I am sorry, but that's just bigotry.
Re:This says it all: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do (Score:3, Insightful)
Or it might be a tad older [mclink.it]
Re:This says it all: (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I have this diner, and we only serve white people. Because since it's private property, we can chose to deny service to anyone we want!
Um... (Score:2, Insightful)
In short, WoW GM's are in no position of authority and/or capable and/or have the right to judge your life style. If the people engaging in the open display of homosexuality are mature about it, then I say let them be.
Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do (Score:5, Insightful)
So sorry, but your claim is nonsense. Gays want to get married because they want to make the formal commitment that is recognized by society, and "freebies" like right of inheritance, next of kin status for medical issues, etc. that don't cost the rest of us a dime (save possibly in estate taxes.)
* In the mid-90's, I was working a job with no retirement benefits. I could not open a traditional IRA because my wife had retirement benefits from her job. Those benefits were in no way larger because she was married.
A real-world example:
"Roth IRA Income Limits
You can contribute to a Roth IRA if your adjusted gross income is below these limits:
Full $2,000 contribution
Single/Head of household Up to $95,000
Married filing jointly Up to $150,000" -- from quicken.com
Got a couple where one earns $90K, one $80K? Single, they could both do full Roth contributions. Married? $0.
Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:They *are* allowed to recruit... (Score:5, Insightful)
What a fetid load of dingo's kidneys.
zoophilia: sex with an animal (that can't give consent)
necrophilia: there are public health issues as to what you do with dead bodies, not to mention your going against the wishes of the deceased or their families
group marriages: I have no problem with those whatsoever... if the group is willing to live up to the economic and social responsibilities of marriage, more power to them
cannibalism: you must be a troll
"This is a slippery path on which I wouldn't want to tread."
By your "logic", we can't raise the speed limit by 5 MPH, because then we won't be able to stop until we reach the speed of light.
We have an institution of marriage for a number of reasons. We don't restrict it to only fertile heterosexual couples, or two couples who are or guarantee they will raise children. We open marriage to all heterosexual couples.
Homosexual couples do all, all of the things that heterosexual couples do, including raise children (and bear and raise children in the case of lesbian couples). Why prevent them from marrying as well? There are good reasons for allowing same-sex marriage. If you have equally good arguments for allowing necrophilia, bestiality, cannibalism (I gotta hand it to you... that's a new one), etc., then present them.
The only reason we forbid homosexual couples from marrying is simple knuckle-dragging bigotry, nothing more.
"Making concensual sex legal..."
If this is all you think marriage is, then you are deeply, profoundly ignorant of the matters of which you speak.
"... is fine _as long_ as it doesn't give one extra rights: the right to adopt children, marry and receive tax exemptions."
So, it isn't about marriage after all... just money.
"Otherwise, I demand a tax refund for the time I lived together with several male friends: we didn't have sex with each other, but you can't discriminate against platonic relationships, can you? If the rights you are promoting would be applied, we could have made a fake group marriage"
If you are willing to live up to the legal, economic and social obligations of marriage with your roommate or a group, then get married, with my blessing.
TO HELL with 'em all! (Score:4, Insightful)
TO HELL with immature intolerant WoW players who can't be bothered to live and let live and allow people to make whatever choices they wish without ridiculing, tormenting, and otherwise being assholes toward people who happen to think or act differently from your perverted view of the normal world.
TO HELL with pathetic lifeless types who have to bring real life into a fantasy game. It's fantasy for a reason - it shouldn't be like real life. Role-playing has its uses and applications, but in the end, it's pretending and doesn't mean anything in the real world. Your avatar in WoW shouldn't be an exact extension of you in an online game anyway - that's what role-playing is: being someone you aren't.
TO HELL with people trying to insert sexuality (hetero, homo, or otherwise) into a situation that has no place for it. Can you give birth to little Taurens/Undeads/Orcs/Trolls/Humans/Dwarves/Gnomes
TO HELL with people forgetting that World of Warcraft is privately owned, privately operated, and they can choose whatever the hell they god damn jolly well please to have going on in their game. If they choose not to allow certain things, they are within their rights to do so. If you have a problem with it, LEAVE! Don't give them your money. But for the love of God, let us other less-finicky souls choose what we will and will not do with our time and money. Consumerism is a choice - take responsibility for your purchases and don't expect the manufacturers to tailor a wide-ranged product to your narrow views.
Re:That guild was discriminating based on orientat (Score:2, Insightful)
Umm, maybe you don't exactly understand what "GLBT friendly" means. It is not a sexual orientation.
Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do (Score:3, Insightful)
I personally know lesbian couples who have had children through artificial insemination and a gay couple that is fostering 5 HIV positive kids that nobody else wanted -- but they are not allowed to adopt! Why are these children being punished for the sexual preferences of their parents?
Back to the original issue, the game appears to be punishing one group of people because another group of people has a problem with tolerance. Even a small child's conception of fairness would tell you that it would be better to punish the people with the problem. Blizzard is not making an ethical desision, it is making business decision based on the assumption that they have more homophobic customers than queer-friendly ones. The only rational reaction I can think of to this policy is for anybody that cares about human rights to boycott the game, and leave the bigots to call each other dirty names, if that's what they enjoy doing.
It's very simple, but not insignificant. (Score:5, Insightful)
But, it's not a race, or a religion, things which were at one time the basis of persecution and by many, thought acceptable. Now people have moved on to hate based on sexual orientation, or any cultural movement perceived by many to be unworthy. Take the emo stereotype as an example. I posted on a forum something that was deeply emotional, and in retrospect I can see how it could be perceived as melodramatic, because as I posted it, I was in a temporary state of depression. Many of the comments called me 'emo' as if it were an insult, and then wished my death. People always search for something to hate and there are justifications for just about anything, whether or not they are reasonable.
Back to the topic. Blizzard is interested in making money, if they were to ban everyone who said 'gay' or 'fag' as a response to any instance of such words used with derogatory intent, they would lose a lot of money. I would predict that if the number of GLBT players deeply offended (and would thus boycott) by Blizzard's current policy was greater than the number that using such hate speech, they would have a different policy. Unfortunately, there's no way to replicate the WoW experience without using illegal player-run servers, which, if they gained popularity (deemed necessary to the success of an MMORPG by most) and cost Blizzard money, they would be shut-down. It is a certified monopoly and thus has power to spare and abuse for one motive: profit.
I think we can all agree that the use of censorship is potentially dangerous, but when there are a large number of minors playing, it's entirely unacceptable to expose them to such hate-speech, or allow them to participate in it, which at the very least forms negative habits. The right solution is to ban those who use hate speech, but nobody who would use the language in a discussion that does not dissolve into harassment.
GLBT is a reality just like any other quality or quantity we can observe, and to shun its existence in any medium it will propagate is an abhorrent abuse of power. To say there would be no homosexuals in a world with 'humans' or other intelligent beings is against the evidence we have today. Thus, it must be accepted and if there are those who would undermine its acceptance without reason, the harm they cause must be prohibited.
To punish those who advertise as GLBT-friendly because of the irrational responses others might have is tantamount to punishing someone for making a mistake in a party raid that causes everyone to lose their temper and succumb to anger and abusive language when a GM gets wind of the chat filter working over-time. With a reasonable GM, I don't see the second scenario ever occuring, but profits motivates the first.
Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do (Score:2, Insightful)
I am sorry, but that's just bigotry.
Only if you subscribe to the notion that a parent of one gender or the other is not particularily important.
A second mom can love her daughter very dearly, but (unless the difference between genders is far more superficial than commonly-accepted evidence seems to indicate) she can never be the girl's father.
If you believe fathers are not particularilly important to a child, then there's no problem, but that seems to be a point which is still open to debate.
Likewise, a second dad, no matter how fantastic of a parent he is, isn't really a mom. Same arguments apply.
I'm not saying the grandparent post is correct. I actually disagree with it, and think kids are far more robust about family structures than what sociologists like to claim.
I'm just saying one shouldn't throw around a word as strong as "bigot" so carelessly, simply because somebody disagrees with you on a civil liberties issue. It dilutes the meaning and power of the word, leaving us with nothing to say when we want to describe genuine bigotry.
Re:This says it all: (Score:3, Insightful)
Looking [worldofwarcraft.com] at the girl on the left I wouldn't get the idea that in-game characters do not have or talk about their sexuality.
Re:They *are* allowed to recruit... (Score:1, Insightful)
No, people who sexually abuse children damage them physically and psychologically. There's a big difference. People have just about as much choice whether to be pedophiles or not as they do to be homosexuals.
Whats the big deal? (Score:1, Insightful)
1. Its just a game.
2. Role playing lets you do what ever you want, if I (a guy) want to be a lesbian in game what does it matter?
3. Its rated Teen for a reason. If you haven't been exposed to the homosexual lifestyle by this time or can't handle it you should get used to it. Chances are, its not going anywhere.
4. It's the internet, since the beginning people have been hiding their real identities and role playing as other personalities, what makes this so different?
Leave the issue alone.
Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do (Score:2, Insightful)
That said, anybody marrying anything has a few problems - for instance, I could marry Liz Hurley, without her having to marry me. Extending this further, an American citizen could marry a Chinese pig. Does the pig get the status of a citizen?
Basically, as you mentioned in your original post, it introduces some serious legal complications that need to be tackled. As a people, we are not ready for that yet.
I'm all for open-mindedness, but only if the social, economic and political structure can handle it. Civilization is defined not by what you think, but also by what others think of your thoughts. Ergo, while there maybe a percentage of people who are fairly open about things, not everybody is. And you would be stepping on a lot of toes (and quite honestly, offending just about every major religion and faith out there) by doing so.
It's unfortunate, but it's also the truth. There are a lot of things a lot of people would like to do, however society does not accept those, and you have to adhere. This is one such example, that is all.
And your final statement is exactly the kind of bone I have to pick - marriage is more than a social contract. It is unfortunate that it has been reduced to one, but there is still a very large percentage of people to whom it means a lot. Anybody marrying anything would only make it worse, ergo my reluctance at making that happen.
Hardly... (Score:3, Insightful)
People often in a fury of over-emotional reactions blur the line behind accepting of the individual and condemning of their actions. Just like I can accept my friend for who he is as a person I don't have to accept what he does or condone his own beliefs. You can care and love for someone without accepting some of their choices as correct or right despite what people think.
Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do (Score:2, Insightful)
That means that WoW must actively work to shut down All-Christian Guilds (which don't allow.. for the sake of argument, satanists in), All-Women guilds (which would likely remove a member entirely becuase he revealed he was a male.)
This policy, like dozens of policies which have come since WoWs launch is absurd and is only going to net Blizzard bad publicity and dissastisfied customers.
What freebies for being married? (Score:2, Insightful)
My wife's really good at finding us tax deductions and such, particularly with her running her own business. However, I don't recall her ever mentioning a deduction that we get just because we're married.
We get credits for the children, but one of us or the other would get that as a single parent as well. I don't know if it's ever been corrected, but if anything, we get penalized for being married. The standard deduction for a married couple is less than twice that of a single person. The thought process behind this little gem was that women stay home and raise kids while men go to work. Since the women had no income, they had nothing to apply a standard deduction against. This made it a tax benefit for a man to marry. Now that we have two income families, the standard deduction for a married couple becomes a penalty instead for the majority of families.
And what keeps parents together for the sake of children (assuming they no longer love each other) is more likely a fear of child support payments and possibly alimony (though alimony is less likely with the two income reality). Nothing like getting behind in your payments and instead of getting a car repossessed, the government wants to repossess your freedom (jail time).
To get back to the topic of the article however...
As far as WoW is concerned, I think it quite wrong-headed for them to deny a guild's existence based on sexual orientation. If they're concern is that there are kids playing, they better be prepared to remove guilds based on swingers, swappers, bi-curious, racially exclusive, religiously exclusive, or gender exclusive guilds as well.
Marriage (hetero / homo, catholic / bhuddist / hindu / muslim / protestant / wiccan / scientolocult / druidic, democrat / green / libertarian / communist / nazi / republican / socialist / anarchist) is a serious thing and should be treated as such (even if there aren't going to be kids). I suppose it's no worse than little kids playing house, but that usually dies down with adolescense. While it would be interesting to see an actual marriage status in a game, worked into the game mechanics in some way, I think it would be the wrong lesson to send to children (marriage being entered into lightly or equating it to being part of some big people game).
Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do (Score:5, Insightful)
This requires that you believe that abstract properties like the sexuality of the partners are more important than the concrete properties of the individuals involved.
This seems to me to be absurd. Two loving, caring parents of the same sex are surely better than two nasty, cruel parents of opposite sexes. I once naively assumed that everyone agrees on this, but I now know for a fact that many Bible-believing Christians do not. Instead, they believe that homosexuality is akin to drug abuse in terms of the harm it does to individuals and their children, although when pressed on the nature of the harm they retreat into abstract, unprovable, or provably false claims.
The very language of the GM reaks of homophobia: "Anyone can report and we will take appropriate action. While it may seem ok because they are truly a heterosexual couple in real life, in game they are two females. Please keep in mind, you need to worry about the other players. While I do understand where you are coming from, there are those who do not have the maturity"
What is "appropriate action"? Sending gifts and good wishes? Isn't that what you do when you hear people are happily married?
What is "ok" about being "a heterosexual couple in real life"? And what is wrong with being two females in-game? Sounds kinda hot to me.
Can someone explain to me in a way that someone who does not believe that the Bible is anything more than a collection of human literature why any of this is a problem? I'm looking for concrete terms that I can understand--if you were to explain why murder was bad it wouldn't be too hard to give concrete details that are true in the case of virtually all murders that I can easily understand are bad because they do concrete, obvious harm to a human being. I just can't see the harm in homosexuality, and despite years of asking no one has ever been able to demonstrate what is harmful without lapsing either into Bible-speak or into claims that are demonstrably false.
And why is it a matter of "maturity" to accept marriage between people who love each other? In my experience homophobia usually hits around adolesence. Small children, who are less mature, don't have anything like the problems with same-sex marriage that many adults do.
Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do (Score:5, Insightful)
In particular, same-sex couples who want children would seem the idea group of people to help take up the slack for all those unwanted children that heterosexuals seem to be constantly producing and putting up for adoption. It would seem the Religious Right, who wants to ban abortion and force all pregnancies to come to term and result in children should be pushing FOR gay marriage and gay adoption, to help take care of all those unwanted children that would result.
Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, if everybody has bread and circuses, it's a pretty good indicator that our system is mostly working. Even 90% of civil liberties issues come about as a result of people being denied equal opportunity to access one or the other.
Which begs the question of what our system is trying to do in the first place - is it intended to placate us enough that we don't notice the small number of people at the top (wherever they are) doing whatever the hell we want and running roughshod over is to get it?
Re:It's all fine and dandy (Score:5, Insightful)
The rest of your post appears to contradict this statement.
"If gays want to fuck each other in the ass - that's their business."
Sigh... Anal Sex 101: Some heterosexual couples engage in anal sex, and like it. Some same-sex couples don't engage in anal sex, because they don't like it. Marriage is about far more than one's preferred sexual activity.
"My only issue with the whole thing is that I think same sex couples should not be allowed to adopt/raise kids. A kid needs both mother and father, IMO. Otherwise you're just messing him/her up."
All of the research to date directly contradicts your assumptions. From a scientific standpoint, you don't have a leg to stand on.
"Once we close this threshold - I will do whatever I can to help ban gay marriage for this reason alone."
Your reason has just evaporated in a puff of logic. Now what?
Re:They *are* allowed to recruit... (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't it interesting how the trolls like the one you're replying to never seem to notice how trivializing of marriage their focus on the sex is, as if the only thing that distinguished marriage from other relationships is the fact that the parties to it get to have sex with each other with the blessing of the law, the church, god, and everybody.
Marriage is not just--or even primarily--about sex! It is about mutual aid and care, and taking shared responsibility, including shared responsibility for children. How one is wired up sexually is not an issue. That hardly describes a relationship between room-mates.
So here's a guide for trolls: if the only distinguishing feature of a relationship is sex, it's a hookup. If the distinguishing feature of a relationship is an openly-stated intent to help each other and enjoy each other's company through good times and bad for the rest of your lives, it's a marriage. See how the sex of the parties involved just doesn't come into it?
Re:This says it all: (Score:3, Insightful)
The correct analogy is this- I have this diner. Anyone is allowed to eat there, we welcome all races and sexual preferences. However, if either a white supremacist or a civil rights worker starts inviting people to their table based on their views, we'll ask them to leave. This is a place to eat, and interacting with our patrons concerning a potentially divisive issue is not welcome, regardless of which side of the issue people fall on.
Re:This says it all: (Score:3, Insightful)
pffft - find something else to whinge about (Score:4, Insightful)
It's "legal" to "kill" people there, unlike in reality, but same sex marriage is not - unlike here.
Don't like it? Don't play.
End of story.
I'm all for equal rights, but this is not reality we're talking about - it's an alternative game world with it's own physics, laws, customs, etc - if you desperately want to be married in game but can't be due to the law or whatever, then *roleplay* that oppressed minority group in game.
smash.
Let's take an even closer look... (Score:2, Insightful)
A child can't consent to sex because their minds aren't ready for the concept that is sexual intercourse. The effects of forcing sex on someone who isn't ready can be disasterous.
A person getting beat up or possibly murdered because of their skin tone, I would bet, doesn't like the fact that they're getting pummeled.
The other person in a homosexual relationship is aware of what they're doing, and they feel pleasure and possibly *love* for the person they're having sex with.
Two of these have undesirable outcomes for one or both of the parties involved. The third one doesn't.
The three aren't comparable.
Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do (Score:4, Insightful)
So it is a good thing that no one here or anywhere else is advocating "anybody marrying anything." [wikipedia.org]
Marriage as conceived in the modern world is fundamentally about mutual aid. This is a new, radical idea, at most a few hundred years old and probably a good deal less than that. There have been at various times and places in history a huge range of marriage arrangements, from arranged marriages to plural marriages to things that to a modern eye look far more like concubinage than marriage. Yet no where did this diversity wind up with "anybody marrying anything."
Homosexual marriage is based on an even more radical variant of the modern idea of marraige: that it is a relationship of mutual aid between equals. Once this definition of marriage is admited, and to many of us it seems like quite a healthy and positive thing, it is obvious that homosexual marriages ought to have the same status in law as heterosexual ones.
You know... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They *are* allowed to recruit... (Score:1, Insightful)
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions." - G.K. Chesterton
Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do (Score:3, Insightful)
Fact: these people do not have the same protection under the law that heterosexual couples have.
You think because "people think it is icky" those people don't deserve legal protection. If they have conflicts over custody or property you think that they should be treated differently because they aren't straight. This has nothing to do with how people feel about marriage. The law doesn't care about your feelings. Marriage came BEFORE the law. The law exists to provide a framework to handle the inevitable conflicts that come from such relationships. Law, as in the Lockian ideal of law that exists in the US, is not supposed to be religion. It doesn't tell you how to feel about marriage. It just acknowledges that people want to get married, that people who are married treat their belongings differently and that the conflicts between married and divorced people are different and need a framework to handle them.
As other posters have mentioned this includes joint property, etc. The law isn't there to make hetero married couples "feel good" about their situation. And we are talking about the law here, not religion. You may think the law is more than a social contract. But the law disagrees. The law thinks marriage is a legal contract, nothing more. It never felt differently either. You seem to think that somehow the law defines how people think of marriage, and somehow you think that when we talk about the laws of marriage we should act as if they are special and sacred because some people think they are. Some people think a lot of things are special and sacred, but the law doesn't have anything to do with it.
Re:They *are* allowed to recruit... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice. These comparisons of GLBT players wanting to be free from harassment from the immature players, to white supremacists and child predators, are not winning you any friends on the other side of the debate. Do you think you could come up with something a little less insulting, or do you just want to piss people off?
Your Choice (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod Parent Down (Score:3, Insightful)
A more accurate comparison to the diner example would be. You have a table with 3 gay peoples. They decide to stand up on their chair and SCREAM so that everyone in the vicinity can hear them to join their table of gay people. Most guild recruiters don't advertise once on the general channels in the game. As it'd be lost pretty fast. The gays in your diner would be annoying your other patrons once every minute.
Would you kick them out if they didn't stop then?
Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sorry Zonk (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Sorry Zonk (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sorry Zonk (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My Karma can afford this! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Sorry Zonk (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it's pretty sad that so much brainpower has been wasted through mankind's history on a meme which, almost by definition, can never be connected with any kind of objective reality..
About the only thing that such thought has been good for is occasionally coming up with some simple rules on how people should treat each other to try and improve the human condition, but those rules could have easily been arrived at without the need to invoke anything supernatural as motivation - just plain old common sense and an appreciation for history.
Re:My Karma can afford this! (Score:5, Insightful)
So, by the same logic, you must be saying straight people bring their "drama" into everything from dating games on TV to online games, too. You're amazingly blind to how pervasive heterosexism is in your culture if you think gay marriage in an online game is "shoving" an ideology down your throat but that straight marriage in the same environment is a given.
Re:TO HELL with 'em all! (Score:3, Insightful)
TO HELL with people forgetting that World of Warcraft is privately owned, privately operated
TO HELL with people who possess the courage to damn the same people you're paying $15/mo -- and continuing to pay $15/mo. Or have you already quit? If so, this was misleading:
let us other less-finicky souls choose what we will and will not do with our time and money.
Oh, and
TO HELL with those who can't tell the difference between "finicky" and "outraged at the sheer bigotry of it all".
In short, while you had some good points,
TO HELL with you.
Re:Sorry Zonk (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nominal libertarian (Score:3, Insightful)
YES. This I completely agree with. The government should not be involved in the concept of "marriage" at all.
Re:Sorry Zonk (Score:2, Insightful)
More importantly, in the context of the video game, which is based largely on medieval lore, does it make sense to turn the game into a battleground for homosexual relationships? I mean, people play games to escape real life, not to have 21st-century politics brought into the game. If the GMs allow this kind of thing to creep in and take over the game, the company is ultimately going to lose participants and money. It isn't that people hate or even disagree with a lifestyle, it's just that most people want to play a game without turning it into an afternoon on talk radio.
Not everything has to be about sexuality. There's much more to life.
Homosexual moves from an act to an identity (Score:2, Insightful)
The bad part of this trend (act -> identity) is that gay people are themselves victims of their own propaganda. The Onion got it spot on with their satirical article [theonion.com]. The gay community is so anxious to be given equal rights that they're actively labelling themselves. They are no longer regular people who have sex with same-gender partners. They are people who have sex with same-gender partners who also happen to have jobs, etc.
Just as I don't walk around telling everyong I prefer brunettes to blondes, I don't walk around telling people I prefer women to men for sexual relationships. It's a private part of my life. While important to me and whomever I am going out with at the time, it is no-one else's business. I also have a job, I go to the gym, and have a number of hobbies. There is plenty of other, non-intensely personal subjects on which to discourse.
Why people can't keep their sexual lives to themselves is a bit of a mystery. You wouldn't think it would be that hard . . .
Re:My Karma can afford this! (Score:3, Insightful)
If so, then congratulations - you've just brought your drama into a place that is not appropriate, according to your statement. The entire world doesn't need to see you parading about your heterosexuality, you drama queen!
Have you ever engaged in a public display of affection - holding hands, a hug, kiss, or other activity while out and about doing something completely unrelated to sex?
If so, then congratulations - you've just brought your drama into a place that is not appropriate, according to your statement. The entire world doesn't need to see you parading about your heterosexuality, you drama queen!
I'm kind of torn - should I look down on you because, like you said, you bring your drama into inappropriate places, or should I look down on you because you do it and you don't have enough personal insight to realize that you're doing it?