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"
Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do (Score:5, Interesting)
Obplug for my friend's blog, but I think she says it best: [ambernight.org]
"...having spent a little time in World of Warcraft myself, I would have to agree that a large number of WoW players really are poop-flingers who can't even spell tolerance, let alone practice it. But if I were one of the few non-gold-farming players left in WoW, I think I would be insulted by [Blizzards] response, no matter how I felt about GLBT guilds. And what about the Christian WoW guilds? Will Blizzard shut them down too?"
Mox
If the issue is "Mature" (Score:2, Interesting)
different worlds (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Well.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Right, and by letting everyone know about what shit Blizzard is doing they will become less profitable. OMFG capitalism might just work!
Let's get something straight here (Score:2, Interesting)
Interspecies marriage = ???
FFXI has simalar rules (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:They *are* allowed to recruit... (Score:2, Interesting)
I can't really remember what point I was going to make with this post, but I suppose I'll still throw that fact into the fray
Re:Theyre not freebies (Score:5, Interesting)
The REAL reason for marriage licenses goes back to Miscegenation e.g. racial
mixing. [originalintent.org]
Frankly I have always found it offensive that the state thinks it can force you to get permission and pay them in order to marry someone.
Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do (Score:4, Interesting)
In 1995, 4.1 million women [findarticles.com] in America were "voluntarily childless". Double this to get the total number of people. The trend has been continually rising - almost three times the percentage as in 1982. 18.4% of married childbearing-age women have no children. Where's your self-righteous rage at them?
What percentage of Americans are gay? That number is highly contentuous (and partly depends on definitions), but usually ranges between 1% and 10%, usually around 2% of adults in a same sex relationship at a given point in time. Lets say that 1.5% of Americans are in a long-term (marriage-equivalent) same sex relationship. That's 4.2 million people. Hardly a staggering number compared to the 8.2 people in 1995 (probably near 10 million now) who are voluntarily childless, and the many millions more who are involuntarily childless.
At a more fundamental level, "violating its purpose". So, when your children are raised, is it time for a divorce? No? Then it's not solely about raising children. But even if it was, same sex couples who raise children have the exact same *purpose* as straight couples.
Re:It's a GAME!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Verizon own the pipes so they can do what they want with it
Blizzard owns the WoW servers but they . . . can't do what they want with it?
Oh noes, tell me it isn't so Slashdot!!
Re:Nominal libertarian (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not familiar with the LP proposals, but it's quite simple to introduce a wide sweeping libertarian reform in any country's economy without destabilizing it. It was less than a hundred years ago that the USA stopped having a largely libertarian economy to become what it is today. It was only in 1913 that the Constitution was ammended to allow an income tax.
There were no gay marriage proposals in 1913 because the idea of marriage was a religious one. There were no special benefits in the taxes for married people, with or without children. Then things were like they should be, religious matters were not in the legislation.
If you think that some regulation is necessary, think well of the limits: *how* necessary are the rules? The rule that every one should drive on the same side of the road, for instance, seems quite useful to me. But starting from there, almost every law seems to be something we would be better off without. Should we outlaw the use of cocaine? Are you sure? What about alcohol? The unneeded prohibition of alcohol started large scale organized crime going in the USA, the prohibition of other drugs today keep it going.
Coming back to gay marriages, the best solution, IMHO, should be: let them marry, but give them no special benefits for being married. And give no special benefits to married heterosexual couples either, unless the help goes entirely to children who would suffer irreparable harm otherwise. Feed the children, if the parents are too poor to do it, OK, but do not feed parents who have children without having the necessary means.
since rich people are taxed much more than poor, don't you think it would wildly shift the distribution of wealth into the richest hands immediately and do an excellent job of destroying the middle class?
The richest monopolistic tycoon a hundred years ago, before income tax was introduced, was John Rockefeller. His fortune was in the $10 billion order of magnitude, which would be about $100 billion today. The richest monopolistic tycoon today has a fortune in the order of magnitude of $100 billion. So, the answer to your question is "NO".
Re:They *are* allowed to recruit... (Score:3, Interesting)
Not sure if it is allowed, but on WoW / Hyjal / Horde, I saw a guild recruiting, and the advert mentioned that they were a Christian guild. I did't report it to a GM because, despite the fact that I am not Christian and find the religion offensive, I am not a close-minded bigot like the people who deride LGBTs. I guess I should be more intolerant next time.
Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do (Score:2, Interesting)
-If
Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do (Score:3, Interesting)
Corporations do not have a moral right to participate in bigotry.
We have the power of the pure here and damned right we are going to hurt them. As we just showed Ford motors, it is bad business to back hate groups.
Either Blizzard are going to eat humble pie pronto or they are going to face an expensive boycott.
Re:Nominal libertarian (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, it's off topic, but I agree with you about the civil liberties...
Ending the downward redistribution of wealth would certainly change how wealth was distributed. Without some sort of constant downward redistribution, those with wealth ought to be able to easily aquire ever more of it unless they are incompetent, which they aren't. I'll stipulate that that might be in some sense a more fair society, but I suggest it may not be a more healthy one. Historically, it appears to me that insufficient wealth redistribution mechanisms will screw up your society just as surely as excessive ones.
Re:It's all fine and dandy (Score:3, Interesting)
Fact is, huge numbers of children already grow up without both a mom and a dad, or with relatives who may or may not be single, and there is NO evidence to suggest that growing up with two dads or moms in any way is worse than many of the alternatives we have no problems accepting.
In other words, it is pure bigotry, no matter how much you pretend otherwise.
Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't really want to go into this again, but the US economy requires roughly 12% of the population below the poverty line. This is hardly enough for a subsistence diet and housing. The next 8% or so above them tend to shift into and out of poverty. The market can't fix it. The market causes it.
Bread is obviously good, but what we're calling circuses are in fact an instance of what Debord calls "the spectacle." He writes:
The spectacle is our collective self-image, divorced from reality. It clouds our minds and keeps us from even realizing that something is wrong. But there's plenty wrong. Indeed, this was the very point the Juvenal, the poet who coined the phrase "bread and circuses", was trying to make.
Re:Nominal libertarian (Score:4, Interesting)
And, moreover, since rich people are taxed much more than poor
Sorry, but that's backwards. Rich people get most of their money from dividends and long-term investments, which are taxed at a lower rate.
Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do (Score:3, Interesting)
And allowing "hetero" marriage of in-game characters, but not "gay" is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Firstly, theres no game mechanic of marriage - it's purely a social event. Secondly, a large proportion of players play differently sexed avatars. Lastly, the appropriate reaction to a player who is offended by this sort of ridiculousness is "shut the hell up you stupid bigot".
For the children. (Score:3, Interesting)
The correlation/causality arguments over what families produce 'better' children are tired. Generally, the more committed and loving adults a child has access to the better they turn out (I don't have to link you to substantiate this), because, generally, more adults equals more time and support and unless you are a sociopath you'd agree that children do better with more adult attention and supervision.
If two available parents is sufficient, would you agree that a child is better off with access to two parents and one or more grandparents? How about two parents, one or more grandparents, and one or more aunts and uncles? How about the addition of adult cousins, committed social groups (e.g., churches) and invested mentors (e.g., teachers)?
If more adults are better-- then two daddies is better than no daddies... But...
We haven't outlawed single-parent families (following my argument, the 'worst' arrangement possible), so why would we outlaw families with even more available adults?
Every time I hear "outlaw gay marriage, for the children!", I have to ask the proponent if they also want to outlaw divorce "for the children" (and widowing, bring on the compulsory marriage/adoption). It's the only consistent position. If you take the argument to the extreme, you'd also have to desire birthrate quotas (so there are suitable, legislated ratios of parents to children in all families).
Of course, libertarians (and I thought "conservatives", too) want the fucking governments out of our lives -- and by extension, out of our familes, and by extension, out of our bedrooms and out of our marriages, etc.
Remember when interracial marriages weren't legal. Disclaimer: I have an interracial marriage.
Re:Sorry Zonk (Score:2, Interesting)
-Cybrex
Why do gays want to marry? Re:Sorry Zonk (Score:2, Interesting)
The Biological foundation of marriage is to identify the father in advance.
The social function of marriage is to identify who is mated to who. Marriage isn't the only way to achieve this. It has been done with tattoos, rings ceremonies of various types. None of which are legally binding but all of which have the full social impact of a marriage.
Legally. That's where it get's interesting. Over the years the US government and it's many state and municipal authorities have built up various programs, and legal structures that amount to an incentive to have people in long term relationships get married and then even more structures to make exiting a marriage time consuming and awkward.
Marriage started out as a religious institution. The government actions mentioned above were mostly in response to this. Those structures have remained in the more secular society of today because research shows that on average children with 2 parents do better academically and socially. (See point 1 above)
So the question for me is WHY do homosexuals want to marry?
Seriously. It doesn't make sense to me. The same mindset that invented marriage also defined heterosexuality and celibacy as the only normal sexual expressions. Is it that gays want to marry just to get in on the free stuff (tm) ?
This reminds me of Seventh Day Adventists who demand to be employed in a supermarket. A bit of clarification SDA followers are not permitted to work on Saturday. Supermarkets are busiest on Saturday so it's the one day NOBODY gets off except in the most dire circumstances.
BTW: WoWC is just a game. If you don't like the rules play something else. I became a bowler instead of a wide reciver because I aplied the same logic.
Re:Blizzard's got some house-cleaning to do (Score:3, Interesting)
Bull fucking shit. The idea of marriage is a bond between people who love each other enough to dedicate the rest of their lives to each other. Children are not required for marriage, and marriage is not some kind of "reward" for having them.
Those rights are given to married couples primarily for the function of helping propagate the society.
Hospital visitation rights have nothing to do with whether two people can have biological children together. My mother and father have such rights and I assure you I'm not planning on having kids with either of them. These rights are given to married couples because it's assumed that people are as close to their spouses as to their biological family members.
it's society's purpose to propagate itself, it's in every culture's root to spread forth and flourish
That will be a valid argument when the US starts having underpopulation problems. As it is, what we need are people willing to take care of the thousands of unwanted children up for adoption or in foster homes. Gay couples are statistically much more likely to adopt, and as such provide far greater benefit to society than the average heterosexual couple.