·Theme
- Forums
- Final Fantasy XI
- General Discussion
- On the subject of in-game same-sex marriage....
On the subject of in-game same-sex marriage....Follow
#177
Aug 09 2004 at 12:27 PM
A little off topic, I never understood why people think that gays are "disgusting", but lesbians are "hot" or "pretty cool".
#178
Aug 09 2004 at 12:28 PM
GoddessBelldandy wrote:
A little off topic, I never understood why people think that gays are "disgusting", but lesbians are "hot" or "pretty cool".
Good point.
Maybe because nowhere in the bible does it say hot girl on girl action is wrong?
#179
Aug 09 2004 at 12:33 PM
Thanks Manu,
I respect your post. However thats what im saying is that we cant take nature as some rule for how humans should live. A few cases here or there of something is certainly no justification. As you have clearly agreed too. If we do it at least should be of the majority of species. Why? because of natural selection for male and female requires at least at this point heterosexual activity. Even if its done in different fashion amongst species, or they have other side habits, it still comes down to a female/male interaction to procreate and for the species to survive.
We arent discussing murder habits of the spider, or where a female seahorse places her eggs. I think thats out of context to the arguement.
Your right ill probably say just one more, and your right its a weak arguement for any sort of naturalistic justification for homosexuality, which is why I was making the point. Is that it is a weak arguement to try and define how man should exist his life based on nature, and especially in the absense of religion!
I respect your post. However thats what im saying is that we cant take nature as some rule for how humans should live. A few cases here or there of something is certainly no justification. As you have clearly agreed too. If we do it at least should be of the majority of species. Why? because of natural selection for male and female requires at least at this point heterosexual activity. Even if its done in different fashion amongst species, or they have other side habits, it still comes down to a female/male interaction to procreate and for the species to survive.
We arent discussing murder habits of the spider, or where a female seahorse places her eggs. I think thats out of context to the arguement.
Your right ill probably say just one more, and your right its a weak arguement for any sort of naturalistic justification for homosexuality, which is why I was making the point. Is that it is a weak arguement to try and define how man should exist his life based on nature, and especially in the absense of religion!
#180
Aug 09 2004 at 12:35 PM
Quote:
Good point.
Maybe because nowhere in the bible does it say hot girl on girl action is wrong?
(Can i have it?)(please)
#181
Aug 09 2004 at 12:43 PM
Quote:
*My problem isn't in understanding. Believe it or not I am a religious scholar. I have studied Christianity as much, if not more so, than most Christians.
My problem, is that you are arbitrarily condeming people. Well, perhaps not arbitrarily, but you are condeming them nonetheless. Why? Because the only way you can live your life is by rules laid down in a book written by men.
Enjoy.*
Well to be kind, you must have missed 2nd Timothy in all your studying. You know ch 3 where it says that ALL scripture is inspired by God.
Hmmmm, so if the Bible is God's Word, granted he used men to pen it, but still his Word as the bible claims, then it isnt a book of rules laid down by men
I have condemned no one. I have only said that the Bible clearly teaches (even if you wish to think its just men writing it, despite your biblical knowledge), that the human races sits under the wrath of God because of sin. You obviously must have read that, because its all over it. It is also logical to think that if God is Holy and we arent then theres a problem there. Even if we arent sent to a place like hell, we still can never exist with him.
You certainly dont have to believe that what is says is true. But you do have to agree to what it claims to be true. You cant dismiss the ideas of christianity just because you decide to ignore the bibles claims that it is God's word.
*My problem isn't in understanding. Believe it or not I am a religious scholar. I have studied Christianity as much, if not more so, than most Christians.
My problem, is that you are arbitrarily condeming people. Well, perhaps not arbitrarily, but you are condeming them nonetheless. Why? Because the only way you can live your life is by rules laid down in a book written by men.
Enjoy.*
Well to be kind, you must have missed 2nd Timothy in all your studying. You know ch 3 where it says that ALL scripture is inspired by God.
Hmmmm, so if the Bible is God's Word, granted he used men to pen it, but still his Word as the bible claims, then it isnt a book of rules laid down by men
I have condemned no one. I have only said that the Bible clearly teaches (even if you wish to think its just men writing it, despite your biblical knowledge), that the human races sits under the wrath of God because of sin. You obviously must have read that, because its all over it. It is also logical to think that if God is Holy and we arent then theres a problem there. Even if we arent sent to a place like hell, we still can never exist with him.
You certainly dont have to believe that what is says is true. But you do have to agree to what it claims to be true. You cant dismiss the ideas of christianity just because you decide to ignore the bibles claims that it is God's word.
#182
Aug 09 2004 at 12:52 PM
*You've just invalidated your own statement. If the Bible says there's only one way to look at the world if you want to be Saved...then any straying from the 'approved path' leads to condemnation. I am a Christian, and I believe Jesus was sent to Earth by God to redeem us from sin. At the same time, I believe that God is called many other names by many other people on this planet (be it Allah, the state of Nirvana, or whatever) and that he's fine with this. (I believe the commandment "Thou shalt not have other Gods before me" refers to the choosing of vices over a living a godly life, but that's another topic.)
The gospel is *about* salvation, it isn't THE salvation in and of itself. One's salvation is strictly between oneself and the Lord, and what's the correct life path for one person isn't necessarily the correct life path for another.*
Ive only invalidated it to you because of what you believe about the Bible. So where in the Bible does it say take whatever road you chose? Where does it say that as long as you worship something 'Godly' that you will be saved?
Why did God tell the Israelites to kick everyone else out of Canaan?
Did Christ not say he was THE way THE truth and THE life, no one comes to the father but by him?
Did he not also say that narrow is the road to eternal life, but broad is the path to destruction??
The bible is quite clear, that it is THE means of salvation, not one of many means. There are plenty more references in light of Scripture calling itself the only way of salvation.
I would be interested to see if you can even come up with one within context of the Bible that states otherwise.
Dont get offended by what i say, I am not attacking you or your christianity. But I am saying that Scripture points heavily to saying that it is THE means of salvation. And I am also asking for a biblica response from you for why you believe other wise.
The gospel is *about* salvation, it isn't THE salvation in and of itself. One's salvation is strictly between oneself and the Lord, and what's the correct life path for one person isn't necessarily the correct life path for another.*
Ive only invalidated it to you because of what you believe about the Bible. So where in the Bible does it say take whatever road you chose? Where does it say that as long as you worship something 'Godly' that you will be saved?
Why did God tell the Israelites to kick everyone else out of Canaan?
Did Christ not say he was THE way THE truth and THE life, no one comes to the father but by him?
Did he not also say that narrow is the road to eternal life, but broad is the path to destruction??
The bible is quite clear, that it is THE means of salvation, not one of many means. There are plenty more references in light of Scripture calling itself the only way of salvation.
I would be interested to see if you can even come up with one within context of the Bible that states otherwise.
Dont get offended by what i say, I am not attacking you or your christianity. But I am saying that Scripture points heavily to saying that it is THE means of salvation. And I am also asking for a biblica response from you for why you believe other wise.
#183
Aug 09 2004 at 12:55 PM
Deathreigns, all religious texts claim to be God's word.
The bible was compiled by men. The new testament was put together after Christ died, and they simply chose to leave certain things out.
Certainly all scripture is inspired by God. Its religious writing.
You are willing to believe 100% in one religious text, but not another. All I am really asking, is that you think for yourself, and not back up your argument by quoting what may or may not be the divine word.
And it annoys me that you could condemn a human being who happens to be loving, kind, intelligent and compassionate because of where he choses to stick his di[b][/b]ck.
The bible was compiled by men. The new testament was put together after Christ died, and they simply chose to leave certain things out.
Certainly all scripture is inspired by God. Its religious writing.
You are willing to believe 100% in one religious text, but not another. All I am really asking, is that you think for yourself, and not back up your argument by quoting what may or may not be the divine word.
And it annoys me that you could condemn a human being who happens to be loving, kind, intelligent and compassionate because of where he choses to stick his di[b][/b]ck.
#185
Aug 09 2004 at 1:04 PM
Quote:
Sacrificial laws passed away when Christ died, because he was the ultimate sacrifice. Therefore, they are no longer needed.
Quote:
God's law does not change, it is only clarified when Christ came.
So do God's laws become outdated and unneeded, or do they not? If you say that one verse is no longer needed because of the changing of time (coming of Christ) and then refusing to look at the others is ignorant.
Picking one verse out of a book and saying that it is gods will. You have to take everythings into context. Given time I can go through the bible and make it say just about anything I wanted to. Doesn't mean that's what it really means. Most of the laws given in Leviticus were used as guidelines for people wandering in the desert. Israel was a small group of people in need of greater numbers, so homosexuality was forbidden because of the NEED to procreate. In this day and age that is no longer required, we have quite enough children that we aren't feeding already. Taking these verses into the context of the day and age explains many of the "strange" laws that they were supposed to follow.
Not eating meat with Blood: the cooking and cleaning practices weren't up to the same standards as this day, saying not to eat any bloody meat was to prevent some types of food poisoning.
#186
Aug 09 2004 at 1:06 PM
Amazing how quickly threads on this subject grow. When I went to bed, there was one page. When I woke up, there were three. Wonder how many there'll be when I finish writing this... o.O
blackdelta wrote...
Basically true, though I think I have seen non-RL based arguments here and there. However, neither of those things have stopped people when this topic's been discussed before, and it doesn't seem to be stopping them now either.
The thing that really annoys me about the current marriage situation (as a person who doesn't really want to do it themselves) is that it makes part of the game which is being denied to some and not others basically at random. You and another player are the same gender, but you happened to pick different genders when you created? Congratulations, you can get married! Players different genders, characters same? Too bad, no marriage for you. If people had known about the marriage rules ahead of time, they might have made different choices, but they couldn't, because marriage didn't exist at all for NA player at that point.
If people could change their character gender, maybe it would be okay, but as it is people are being denied the opportunity to experience a part of the game, without having had any warning. There's lots of things in the game that people may choose to not do, but not many things that aren't available to everyone who is willing to put in the effort to do them. Why should this be different?
(That's what they need to do, implement Jusenkyo and make the whole issue moot!)
(And for what it's worth, I would pay good money to see a tarutaru in a tuxedo.)
Now, this is actually the sort of thing that irritates me.
SE may have created the world, but what they did doesn't define everything you can do with your character. SE didn't put gambling, tele-taxis, chocobo racing, or (mithra) (hand) (job)s into the game. A lot of things in the game are there because players did them. And it's what you choose to do with your character that makes them what they are, not what's programmed into the game. Some online games don't even *have* a programmed story the way FFXI does, but that doesn't mean characters can't develop in them. (It doesn't mean they *will*, but it means they can.)
I don't think just because SE made the game that anything they do with it is automatically right. As long as you're paying them 12.95+ a month, they should be trying to make the game *worth* you paying them every month.
And I *still* think that if they changed the code to allow same-sex marriages, and just didn't tell anyone, there wouldn't be any sort of furor about it at all. Someone would eventually try applying for a marriage with two mithra or something, it would work, word would get out to other people who wanted them, people who are opposed wouldn't get invited to the weddings, and the majority of the server population would go on in total ignorance. I have a great faith in the capacity of people to be ignorant.
Now, to get on those religious tangents... I actually consider myself a Christian, but I don't consider the bible a good reason to oppose homosexuality. While I trust God, I do *not* inherently trust every single person that the text of the bible had to pass through to reach my hands, and I would be *very* surprised if some of those people haven't changed it to suit their own agenda. Even just a translation can impart different meanings, something I'm quite familiar with from my own experience. Give two translators a line, you get back two different translations, which may or may not mean the same thing on all levels. All I can do is hope that the fundamental principles came through intact, and trust to my heart for confirmation on the details. And my heart informs me that should homosexuality is a sin, it's an incredibly minor one, no match for rape, murder, mind control, wrongful imprisonment...
The bible may say to hate the sin and not the sinner, but I think there are a lot of people who think it's better to hate the sinner. For that matter, I'm one of them - I think if you choose of your own free will to commit an act of true evil (see above list), you've earned some animosity. But homosexuality is not eligible to be an act of true evil, because you aren't doing it to anyone else.
Deathreigns wrote...
Probably the same reason physicists can't agree on why quantum mechanics work, because they have a lot of ideas but can't find enough evidence to prove anything one way or the other. I personally prefer to take a simpler approach, and say that God created evolution, and obviously however it was done must have done it right.
Deathreigns also wrote...
Well, I can't show that to you, but if it's there I'd kind of like to see it myself. Because I have heard that at least some Christian sects view using contraception as a sin. What I don't know is whether they have anything that would support that. (Personally, I think it's worse to have children that you don't have the resources to support.)
Sercian wrote...
While I can certainly understand this (as there are a lot of values being supported here and there that *I* wouldn't want to pass on to any offspring I ever have), I think this is a bad way of going about it. If just seeing something represented in a game is enough to undo everything you teach your children, then you can't be doing a very good job of it. You can't teach someone right and wrong by keeping them from learning that the wrong exists, because eventually they *will* learn about it no matter what you do, and if they don't already know about and understand it, then none of what you did will amount to anything. If you've actually taught them, then seeing something depicted in a game will have no effect.
And one other thing...
Devils avocate: That means they could introduce anime kiddie "****" and not get in trouble for it yes, or am i wrong?
I saw a tarutaru doing something with one of the younger mithra that made me feel uncomfortable... *whimper*
(Okay, so it didn't make me feel uncomfortable, it made me think "What the heck? Is he standing there on purpose? o.O;;;" But that's close enough.)
~sleepygirl, 16 levels until Opaline Dress...
Rating up GoblinSubligar, just because GoblinSubligar is a git...
"I love, love, love, love, love you, kiss me
Thupa, thupa, antsy, antsy, fall in love, kiss me"
--A song whose name gets censored by the forum code, Steel Angel Kurumi Encore ending theme
blackdelta wrote...
Quote:
Anyone who would disagree with you faces two problems: (1) they have to drag the thead into real-life social/political/moral/religious debate, and away from final fantasy, and (2) will take a MASSIVE karma hit for being an "evil homophobe."
Basically true, though I think I have seen non-RL based arguments here and there. However, neither of those things have stopped people when this topic's been discussed before, and it doesn't seem to be stopping them now either.
The thing that really annoys me about the current marriage situation (as a person who doesn't really want to do it themselves) is that it makes part of the game which is being denied to some and not others basically at random. You and another player are the same gender, but you happened to pick different genders when you created? Congratulations, you can get married! Players different genders, characters same? Too bad, no marriage for you. If people had known about the marriage rules ahead of time, they might have made different choices, but they couldn't, because marriage didn't exist at all for NA player at that point.
If people could change their character gender, maybe it would be okay, but as it is people are being denied the opportunity to experience a part of the game, without having had any warning. There's lots of things in the game that people may choose to not do, but not many things that aren't available to everyone who is willing to put in the effort to do them. Why should this be different?
(That's what they need to do, implement Jusenkyo and make the whole issue moot!)
(And for what it's worth, I would pay good money to see a tarutaru in a tuxedo.)
Quote:
It's not your character! It's not your story! When you made your character, put him in the town, you didn't plan the beginning cutscene and you didn't contribute to the story. The NPCs say the same things to everyone, your character is a product of the world SE created.
Now, this is actually the sort of thing that irritates me.
SE may have created the world, but what they did doesn't define everything you can do with your character. SE didn't put gambling, tele-taxis, chocobo racing, or (mithra) (hand) (job)s into the game. A lot of things in the game are there because players did them. And it's what you choose to do with your character that makes them what they are, not what's programmed into the game. Some online games don't even *have* a programmed story the way FFXI does, but that doesn't mean characters can't develop in them. (It doesn't mean they *will*, but it means they can.)
I don't think just because SE made the game that anything they do with it is automatically right. As long as you're paying them 12.95+ a month, they should be trying to make the game *worth* you paying them every month.
And I *still* think that if they changed the code to allow same-sex marriages, and just didn't tell anyone, there wouldn't be any sort of furor about it at all. Someone would eventually try applying for a marriage with two mithra or something, it would work, word would get out to other people who wanted them, people who are opposed wouldn't get invited to the weddings, and the majority of the server population would go on in total ignorance. I have a great faith in the capacity of people to be ignorant.
Now, to get on those religious tangents... I actually consider myself a Christian, but I don't consider the bible a good reason to oppose homosexuality. While I trust God, I do *not* inherently trust every single person that the text of the bible had to pass through to reach my hands, and I would be *very* surprised if some of those people haven't changed it to suit their own agenda. Even just a translation can impart different meanings, something I'm quite familiar with from my own experience. Give two translators a line, you get back two different translations, which may or may not mean the same thing on all levels. All I can do is hope that the fundamental principles came through intact, and trust to my heart for confirmation on the details. And my heart informs me that should homosexuality is a sin, it's an incredibly minor one, no match for rape, murder, mind control, wrongful imprisonment...
The bible may say to hate the sin and not the sinner, but I think there are a lot of people who think it's better to hate the sinner. For that matter, I'm one of them - I think if you choose of your own free will to commit an act of true evil (see above list), you've earned some animosity. But homosexuality is not eligible to be an act of true evil, because you aren't doing it to anyone else.
Deathreigns wrote...
Quote:
Tell me something why is it that you evolutionists cant ever agree on how evolution occurs?
Probably the same reason physicists can't agree on why quantum mechanics work, because they have a lot of ideas but can't find enough evidence to prove anything one way or the other. I personally prefer to take a simpler approach, and say that God created evolution, and obviously however it was done must have done it right.
Deathreigns also wrote...
Quote:
If you can show me in the bible where it says that non reproductive sex within marriage is wrong in the bible, ill agree with that. However you wont find one passage where God says you cant have sex in marriage unless its for procreation.
Well, I can't show that to you, but if it's there I'd kind of like to see it myself. Because I have heard that at least some Christian sects view using contraception as a sin. What I don't know is whether they have anything that would support that. (Personally, I think it's worse to have children that you don't have the resources to support.)
Sercian wrote...
Quote:
My only concern would be as a parent, though I don't have kids yet but will likely have them in about 2 years (at least that is the plan). I wouldn't want my children to see that in a game, as that is not what I would be teaching them as a value. Now I know you don't agree with me there, but that is my right as an American as much as it is yours to teach the values that you want to teach.
While I can certainly understand this (as there are a lot of values being supported here and there that *I* wouldn't want to pass on to any offspring I ever have), I think this is a bad way of going about it. If just seeing something represented in a game is enough to undo everything you teach your children, then you can't be doing a very good job of it. You can't teach someone right and wrong by keeping them from learning that the wrong exists, because eventually they *will* learn about it no matter what you do, and if they don't already know about and understand it, then none of what you did will amount to anything. If you've actually taught them, then seeing something depicted in a game will have no effect.
And one other thing...
Quote:
Devils avocate: That means they could introduce anime kiddie "****" and not get in trouble for it yes, or am i wrong?
I saw a tarutaru doing something with one of the younger mithra that made me feel uncomfortable... *whimper*
(Okay, so it didn't make me feel uncomfortable, it made me think "What the heck? Is he standing there on purpose? o.O;;;" But that's close enough.)
~sleepygirl, 16 levels until Opaline Dress...
Rating up GoblinSubligar, just because GoblinSubligar is a git...
"I love, love, love, love, love you, kiss me
Thupa, thupa, antsy, antsy, fall in love, kiss me"
--A song whose name gets censored by the forum code, Steel Angel Kurumi Encore ending theme
#187
Aug 09 2004 at 1:09 PM
I have to say my peace here. I find it extremely poor taste to rate someone down for having an opinion that is opposed to your own. If they are being civil and sticking to the topic at hand, then they have done nothing wrong. If you didn't want to read thier words and have you're beliefs challenged, then you didn't have to open this thread. It was you're choice to read this, knowing full well what would be said. Now, onto the topic at hand.
I am not gay, nor would I ever change sexual preferences. I love women too much for that to change. But for a long time I was amoung the people who was active against gay marriages. It is only until just recently that I've changed my mind about it, mainly due to a very good friend of mine whom I have only just recently, in the past few months, begun to truly know. So, I am going to explain my school of thought on both sides of the fence, going by my personal logic and reasoning. Now, to understand SE's logic on the ingame characters, we must first examine the current trains of thought on RL gay marriages. So here goes.
Against Gay Marriages
Church
First off, it is a long held belief that Marriage is a sanction of the church, and as such the Church should have a say in who can and can't get married in it's halls. It has already been shown in the Bible where it speaks against gay unions, so I won't focus on that. Rather, the more compelling arguements.
Arguement 1: Biology and Tradition
The purpose of marriage, in ancient times, was simple. The man kept and cared for the woman, providing her shelter, food, and clothing though working his trade. The woman, in return, cared for the house and birthed children who would carry the family name to the next generation as well as help out with tasks such as farming. A union of men here is unheard of because that particular branch of the family name would die with that generation. Children would never be able to be born in such a union, and as a consequence as the union of men grew old they would have noone to care for them, as it is customary for children to provide for their elder parents. A union of women would be unheard of, due to the sexism and imagined "weakness" of women. Neither one, in an ancient society, would be able to provide for the other. Another issue is that of respect and honor, as in ancient times these were fairly important. Entering into a gay marriage would shame one's self, one's name, and one's parents. Here, though, pre-arranged marriages were common, which only bolstered the idea of man-woman unions only.
While today is quite different from ancient times, the idea and sentimentality still remains amoung purists. The time-accepted idea of not allowing gay marriages is very potent.
Nature
This ties hand in hand with biology. In nature, animals mate to reproduce, or a bulk of them do. While not all animals are monogamous, they do mate with opposite sexes to reproduce young. This strengthens the arguement of Biology.
Sorry I can't go into more detail, or esp. research and elaborate on some of these points. I'm posting from work, and I've got a lot to do so...on to the rebuttal for gay marraiges.
For Gay Marriages
Biology
Here, there really is no true rebuttal. Male/male and female/female cannot reproduce. However, most male/female couplings are doing more than enough reproducing as is. This is a huge problem, as the number of births is increasing and the world is overpopulated as is, and that's not going to change. So, this should not be a deciding factor in marriages, especially since they are not about to change their sexual preference because they can't get married.
Also, on biology, some people claim that sexual preference is a choice. One choses to be gay or straight. This may be true for some, but for most it seems to be one of genetics. It is decided on a genetic level who one is going to be attracted to. You can't help who you love, whether they are the same sex or not. Who is to say someone is defective or broken because their heart and body love someone who isn't of the "accepted" sex? Life is too short for us to deny someone their happiness.
Tradition
Marriage is not about making kids. If it were, than sterile couples could not marry, yet we allow them to. Marriage is intended to signify that two people will love and be loyal to them for as long as they live. It is meant to be the ultimate bond between two people, and it is meant to show that the people in question is no longer "available" - that they will no longer look for other mates. This is something most straight couples have problems with.
Also, tradition changes with the times. The ancient Mayans held Holy Games traditionally on 4 days of the year, where the leader of the winning team lost his head. Traditionally, no work was allowed on the Sabbath in the Christian religion. Burnt offerings were also offered to God, traditoinally. Traditionally, it is against the rules set forth by the Bible to eat pork and some types of fish. (One of my friends follows the rules. I believe they are in Laviticus?) However, these practices are also seldom used. New times, new understandings, new inventions, and new practices requires that tradition be changed.
Marriage, also, has evolved traditionally. It no longer serves the simple purpose it once did, but rather it carries on whole new weights and meanings. The government allows tax breaks to married couples, and insurance companies allow health benefits to extend to one's spouse. We are denying them these things, so saying simply that they can get by just as easily living together instead of actually being married is an ignorant statement. It punishes them for something they can not control, or for personal choices they make.
Church
Marriage is *not* of the church, no matter what anyone says. Marrige, or the significance of taking one mate in the eyes of society, exists in virtually all cultures, not just Christian ones. If marriage was purely of the church, then it would be unheard of in every other part of the world. This is not a valid. America is not supposed to cater to one specific religion over others, which is what we've done as a society. We follow Christianity, which defeats WHY our forefathers came to America. America is supposed to accept different religions and beliefs, and that doesn't exclude gay marriages.
About Saboruto's Original Statment
Whether you like it or not, gay relationships will exist and that will not change. These people are not bad people, but rather often times some of the nicest and kindest people you will ever meet in life, should you give them the chance. The same can be said for some straight people, just as it can be said not all gays are nice and, otherwise, moral. In relation to the game and society's portrayal of gays, Saboruto is right. We as a society use them more as jokes and objects of laughter and amusement. Is this right? No. We are taking their lifestyle and making it a joke. There is, to my knowledge, nothing on TV that adequately portrays what gay couples go through and experience in life. They have no role models or figures to relate to, and it only hurts society in that we cannot even begin to fathom what they are going through. Even in a game, while in the grand scheme of things it means nothing, it is still a slap in the face to these people. It shows they are not accepted, which is perhaps the one thing every human needs to feel. They are still human, no matter what their sexual preference is.
Closing
How is it that people are so unwilling to accept that which is different from what they believe? Gay relationships exist. Morally right or not by your standards, they do. Personally, I find that the gay couple who is loving and true to each other to be more moral than the straight couple who cheats on each other constantly and ends up divorcing. In the end, we are punishing these people and discriminating against them because of their beliefs. In a country where ***** can parade and march down main streets in D.C., I find it two-faced to believe that gays can not express their love for each other and bond together in the ways allowed to straight couples. If we are truly the land of the Free, then we should be free to love who we wish and to marry that person, regardless of age, creed, and gender. (I however am not in opposition to the age of consent being what it is. That is in place for a reason, which I strongly agree with.) Being gay is not equal to being a bad person, just as being straight isn't the same as being a good person. However, even if you cannot bring yourself to realize this, at least have enough respect for your fellow man (or woman) to respect their decision, even if you do not personally agree with it.
Last thing...
"Why not let gays marry? They have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us." -(Forget which comedian it's from.)
I am not gay, nor would I ever change sexual preferences. I love women too much for that to change. But for a long time I was amoung the people who was active against gay marriages. It is only until just recently that I've changed my mind about it, mainly due to a very good friend of mine whom I have only just recently, in the past few months, begun to truly know. So, I am going to explain my school of thought on both sides of the fence, going by my personal logic and reasoning. Now, to understand SE's logic on the ingame characters, we must first examine the current trains of thought on RL gay marriages. So here goes.
Against Gay Marriages
Church
First off, it is a long held belief that Marriage is a sanction of the church, and as such the Church should have a say in who can and can't get married in it's halls. It has already been shown in the Bible where it speaks against gay unions, so I won't focus on that. Rather, the more compelling arguements.
Arguement 1: Biology and Tradition
The purpose of marriage, in ancient times, was simple. The man kept and cared for the woman, providing her shelter, food, and clothing though working his trade. The woman, in return, cared for the house and birthed children who would carry the family name to the next generation as well as help out with tasks such as farming. A union of men here is unheard of because that particular branch of the family name would die with that generation. Children would never be able to be born in such a union, and as a consequence as the union of men grew old they would have noone to care for them, as it is customary for children to provide for their elder parents. A union of women would be unheard of, due to the sexism and imagined "weakness" of women. Neither one, in an ancient society, would be able to provide for the other. Another issue is that of respect and honor, as in ancient times these were fairly important. Entering into a gay marriage would shame one's self, one's name, and one's parents. Here, though, pre-arranged marriages were common, which only bolstered the idea of man-woman unions only.
While today is quite different from ancient times, the idea and sentimentality still remains amoung purists. The time-accepted idea of not allowing gay marriages is very potent.
Nature
This ties hand in hand with biology. In nature, animals mate to reproduce, or a bulk of them do. While not all animals are monogamous, they do mate with opposite sexes to reproduce young. This strengthens the arguement of Biology.
Sorry I can't go into more detail, or esp. research and elaborate on some of these points. I'm posting from work, and I've got a lot to do so...on to the rebuttal for gay marraiges.
For Gay Marriages
Biology
Here, there really is no true rebuttal. Male/male and female/female cannot reproduce. However, most male/female couplings are doing more than enough reproducing as is. This is a huge problem, as the number of births is increasing and the world is overpopulated as is, and that's not going to change. So, this should not be a deciding factor in marriages, especially since they are not about to change their sexual preference because they can't get married.
Also, on biology, some people claim that sexual preference is a choice. One choses to be gay or straight. This may be true for some, but for most it seems to be one of genetics. It is decided on a genetic level who one is going to be attracted to. You can't help who you love, whether they are the same sex or not. Who is to say someone is defective or broken because their heart and body love someone who isn't of the "accepted" sex? Life is too short for us to deny someone their happiness.
Tradition
Marriage is not about making kids. If it were, than sterile couples could not marry, yet we allow them to. Marriage is intended to signify that two people will love and be loyal to them for as long as they live. It is meant to be the ultimate bond between two people, and it is meant to show that the people in question is no longer "available" - that they will no longer look for other mates. This is something most straight couples have problems with.
Also, tradition changes with the times. The ancient Mayans held Holy Games traditionally on 4 days of the year, where the leader of the winning team lost his head. Traditionally, no work was allowed on the Sabbath in the Christian religion. Burnt offerings were also offered to God, traditoinally. Traditionally, it is against the rules set forth by the Bible to eat pork and some types of fish. (One of my friends follows the rules. I believe they are in Laviticus?) However, these practices are also seldom used. New times, new understandings, new inventions, and new practices requires that tradition be changed.
Marriage, also, has evolved traditionally. It no longer serves the simple purpose it once did, but rather it carries on whole new weights and meanings. The government allows tax breaks to married couples, and insurance companies allow health benefits to extend to one's spouse. We are denying them these things, so saying simply that they can get by just as easily living together instead of actually being married is an ignorant statement. It punishes them for something they can not control, or for personal choices they make.
Church
Marriage is *not* of the church, no matter what anyone says. Marrige, or the significance of taking one mate in the eyes of society, exists in virtually all cultures, not just Christian ones. If marriage was purely of the church, then it would be unheard of in every other part of the world. This is not a valid. America is not supposed to cater to one specific religion over others, which is what we've done as a society. We follow Christianity, which defeats WHY our forefathers came to America. America is supposed to accept different religions and beliefs, and that doesn't exclude gay marriages.
About Saboruto's Original Statment
Whether you like it or not, gay relationships will exist and that will not change. These people are not bad people, but rather often times some of the nicest and kindest people you will ever meet in life, should you give them the chance. The same can be said for some straight people, just as it can be said not all gays are nice and, otherwise, moral. In relation to the game and society's portrayal of gays, Saboruto is right. We as a society use them more as jokes and objects of laughter and amusement. Is this right? No. We are taking their lifestyle and making it a joke. There is, to my knowledge, nothing on TV that adequately portrays what gay couples go through and experience in life. They have no role models or figures to relate to, and it only hurts society in that we cannot even begin to fathom what they are going through. Even in a game, while in the grand scheme of things it means nothing, it is still a slap in the face to these people. It shows they are not accepted, which is perhaps the one thing every human needs to feel. They are still human, no matter what their sexual preference is.
Closing
How is it that people are so unwilling to accept that which is different from what they believe? Gay relationships exist. Morally right or not by your standards, they do. Personally, I find that the gay couple who is loving and true to each other to be more moral than the straight couple who cheats on each other constantly and ends up divorcing. In the end, we are punishing these people and discriminating against them because of their beliefs. In a country where ***** can parade and march down main streets in D.C., I find it two-faced to believe that gays can not express their love for each other and bond together in the ways allowed to straight couples. If we are truly the land of the Free, then we should be free to love who we wish and to marry that person, regardless of age, creed, and gender. (I however am not in opposition to the age of consent being what it is. That is in place for a reason, which I strongly agree with.) Being gay is not equal to being a bad person, just as being straight isn't the same as being a good person. However, even if you cannot bring yourself to realize this, at least have enough respect for your fellow man (or woman) to respect their decision, even if you do not personally agree with it.
Last thing...
"Why not let gays marry? They have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us." -(Forget which comedian it's from.)
#188
Aug 09 2004 at 1:10 PM
ok im not sure if this has been said before but i cant scroll through 4 pages of long posts:
but i did already notice on the first page some people trying to turn this into a religious argument, and i have to say i try to stay out of these arguments unto someone brings up religion. the first thing you while always hear from a politician is that the union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman is written against in the bible. i hate this comment no matter how many times i have to hear it. not everyone reads the bible let alone practices christianity. why are other cultures forced to live by the way of god when they may not even believe in him? yes i realize this is mainly a christian population, but that doesnt give other people the right to force their beliefs down someones throat.
lets take my school for instance for another topic. we have some gay people in my school and when ever i see 2 walking in the hall holding hands everyone feels a need to stare at them when their backs or turned or tlak about them in class one thing that always makes me mad is one of the guys is named antone with the same name as this real prick and i always hear this question: "hey did u hear what antone did today?" "which one the *** or the actual ***?"
its stupid **** like this that make people think its ok to call gay people "****" which i think is a hateful term no matter how its used.
ok, the next thing i would like to talk about are shows like will & Grace i cant stand shows like these because they make the public think that gay people have sex with any gay person they see. ive only seen a few episodes but thats all i could stand, it seems like every 5 minutes jack(right person?) is telling the other main people how he had sex with a total stranger last night. i mean come on! you cant actually expect someone to be like this... this kinda life would make a hooker look like a virgin, i dont ever expect to see a gay person act like this and i feel sorry for the people that do and with that......
im done remember these are just my 2 cents and no one should get pissed over anyone else's opinion and just in case anyone who actually read this (2 people?) is wondering (1 person?) im a straight catholic
but i did already notice on the first page some people trying to turn this into a religious argument, and i have to say i try to stay out of these arguments unto someone brings up religion. the first thing you while always hear from a politician is that the union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman is written against in the bible. i hate this comment no matter how many times i have to hear it. not everyone reads the bible let alone practices christianity. why are other cultures forced to live by the way of god when they may not even believe in him? yes i realize this is mainly a christian population, but that doesnt give other people the right to force their beliefs down someones throat.
lets take my school for instance for another topic. we have some gay people in my school and when ever i see 2 walking in the hall holding hands everyone feels a need to stare at them when their backs or turned or tlak about them in class one thing that always makes me mad is one of the guys is named antone with the same name as this real prick and i always hear this question: "hey did u hear what antone did today?" "which one the *** or the actual ***?"
its stupid **** like this that make people think its ok to call gay people "****" which i think is a hateful term no matter how its used.
ok, the next thing i would like to talk about are shows like will & Grace i cant stand shows like these because they make the public think that gay people have sex with any gay person they see. ive only seen a few episodes but thats all i could stand, it seems like every 5 minutes jack(right person?) is telling the other main people how he had sex with a total stranger last night. i mean come on! you cant actually expect someone to be like this... this kinda life would make a hooker look like a virgin, i dont ever expect to see a gay person act like this and i feel sorry for the people that do and with that......
im done remember these are just my 2 cents and no one should get pissed over anyone else's opinion and just in case anyone who actually read this (2 people?) is wondering (1 person?) im a straight catholic
#189
Aug 09 2004 at 1:22 PM
Waka wrote:
I want to marry my cat in rl so i can get him on my insurance and file as head of household.
right now we just have a civil union. I fill the food and water bowls and he stops by and sits on my book or keyboard when he has time between naps.
right now we just have a civil union. I fill the food and water bowls and he stops by and sits on my book or keyboard when he has time between naps.
Let's put it this way. Suppose you are in a gay couple, and you get hit by a car. Your partner can't come see you in the hospital because you're not married. You're stuck there, suffering. Then you die. Alone.
Your partner has been with you for say...10 years. You're not married, so your siblings or family challenge your will because they "know what God wants" or some other bullsh*t, and your partner ends up with nothing, despite having built a house and a life together. This life that you built had nothing to do with anyone else, you didn't bother anyone, and it was no one else's business.
Civil unions are not legal except in 2 states at all. These are human beings, not animals, and your comment is beyond disrespectful and immature, and is insulting to anyone who takes the time to think before they speak.
#190
Aug 09 2004 at 1:28 PM
Quote:
Your right ill probably say just one more, and your right its a weak arguement for any sort of naturalistic justification for homosexuality, which is why I was making the point. Is that it is a weak arguement to try and define how man should exist his life based on nature, and especially in the absense of religion!
Errr... it was you who brought it up at first. Also,
"La religion est l'opium du peuple" - Karl Marx
I live in Quebec within Canada. For those who don't know, this used to be a very religious place. Religion did grant us some benefit as their protectionism allowed us to keep our native language. That being said, religion is not needed and can actually be a danger. Why?
1) Danger of assuming that his own religion is better than the others. This one is obvious, but led and still lead some wars today.
2) Given you think that all religions are equals to your then lead to contradiction, is divorce ok or not, should we lapidate the women who got raped (Charia rule)?
Now let take the christianity itself in history:
The bad:
- There was the crusade (god this was good for humanity)
- Nazism was based on some christian thoughts (even if condemned by the pope). See danger 1.
- There was also the Holy Inquisition... another benefit.
- Yet claiming as an accepting religion, it continue to judge and sicriminate people.
- Set some bases for the KKK.
etc (and there's alot)
The good:
- Created schools in underdevelopped countries as well as hospitals.
- Mother Theresa
- Many other charity services.
However, for all of the good, there's a laic version of it (except for Mother Theresa), where people do it for the good of mankind rather than doing it for the reward of going to the Heaven.
I don't think the humanity need the religion to survive and even less to evolve. I give much more credit to people helping their kind out of kind heart (altruitist actions), and I don't give much credit to rewarding actions, nor do I give any morality to duty actions (thus I'm against Kant on this peticular point).
For a reference, try googling about gay villafge and their criminality level (check only the crimes done by gays though as crime done by heterosexual against them are numerous) and you'll see that maybe gay people are not that bad and don't deserve to be wrongly judged or discriminated because it is what you're doing. If you're unable to admit that then you greatly lack of objectivity as all your posts say that homosexuality is bad and should be condemned. "Everyone is born equals", not in your eyes it seem. Thinking as you do make some young people suicide because they cannot stands the pressure (it's actually the most common suicide reason amond gays where I live). What will yo udo if one of your children or grand children is (take a look at the verb *is* and not *choose to be* please) gay? Stop loving them, if so then I'm sorry to say it, but you're a very bad Christian. There was a young deputee here who worked on the street to help the fugitive and homeless for a while who said (This was about the adoption right for homosexual couple, answering to a religious group aginst it): "I saw many young men who were thown in the street with nothing left by their heterosexual parents because they were gay, but I never saw a single one who got because his parent were gay".
That being said, conservative peoples are needed as morality guard dog against too much liberalism. However condemning someone else of your kind because he loves another person, also part of the mankind, in the name of a book written by man hands (and men that died a way back from now).
Christian religion is a great religion, as many other, that teach us about love of the others as they're all children of God. Yet, using a the Bible, or any other holy book, to justify any action is just wrong and lead to abberations. Human interpretation of it, as human is imperfect, bring inperfect behavior. If you are against homosexuality because you feel that it is bad within yourself then say so and admit it. It will be very subjective but at least this will be the truth, as none can truly understand the Bible if it is realy the words of God and none should really justify anything with it if it contains only men thoughts. Homophobia exists because people are not informed enough on a given subject and thus fear what they don't understand, what is different.
Utilitarism and humanism, which is more like me, would say that the best for the mankind is that everyones can be what they are, freely and without any segregation made as it will lead to harmony and best global happiness level. A society where you strengthen your bonds with others through your resemblences and grow up from your differences.
Regards
#191
Aug 09 2004 at 1:31 PM
Quote:
*Deathreigns, all religious texts claim to be God's word.
The bible was compiled by men. The new testament was put together after Christ died, and they simply chose to leave certain things out.
Certainly all scripture is inspired by God. Its religious writing.
You are willing to believe 100% in one religious text, but not another. All I am really asking, is that you think for yourself, and not back up your argument by quoting what may or may not be the divine word.
And it annoys me that you could condemn a human being who happens to be loving, kind, intelligent and compassionate because of where he choses to stick his ****.*
The fact in one of your previous posts that you didnt have a clue about female on female relations kinda discourages me from evening listening to any comments about you being a great religious scholar. Why? Because Romans Ch 1 discusses that issue.
Even if men *put* it together, that doesnt make it necessarily any less inspired by God or his Word. If God has chosen to use men's hands in writing then that doesnt make it any less his Word or less being right. In his Sovereign providence that is how He chose to do it.
Once again, I am saying from a biblical standpoint. If the bible is true, then all those beliefs must follow.
Naturally if you dont believe the bible, then you wont look at life from that standpoint. Which is why it is silly for you to try and discredit it based on ideas that other religions claim to have God's word, or that the bible is put together by men amongst the claims i was making.
That hasnt been under debate. I fully defined on what i was basing the arguement of morality and homosexuality on. I have only debated such other ideas about homosexuality from a biblical standpoint. Assuming the bible IS true.
Now you want me to consider if its not. Well lets see, other religions all say you can gain acceptance to heaven based on how good you are. (For the most part). Well if I am a christian I am at least good according to at least a man's point of view, right? So well not believing in those other religions seems mute. I mean im in already ive been a good kid.
But if God is a real God and he is holy, then how can I be in his presence since im not holy, but obviously in an imperfect form.
I also see the world, and realize that for every painting there is a painter. I have long sought who this painter would be. Some come to other conclusions that this world somehow evolved. However even if evolution on such a scale exists, it still cannot disprove God's existance, for God could simply have painted in such a way.
Now when considering any religion you have to examine what it says. You couldnt make a decision on the Bible without actually knowing what it says at least to some fundamental degree. So naturally I have read, and learned, and listened and I have put my faith in what I believe to be true. That the bible claims to have the only means of salvation, that even while i was yet a sinner, Christ died for me.
I am in no way condemning gays, I am no way condemning liars or theifs. However, if the bible is true, then it does condemn sinners..As a religious scholar you should at least know that! but it also has provided the means of salvation for a fallen world. Take your issue of condemnation up with God, for he is your judge if the bible is true. Loving, kind? We are all sinners, by the common grace of God can we be any sort of loving or kind. What is considered good, or kind by man's standard, falls very short on what God requires of perfection. Once again if it is true.
I have faith that it is. That faith is my own. You hold a faith that it isnt true. For your sake, may you be right, for if you are wrong you are without excuse. For the bible says that as well.
*Deathreigns, all religious texts claim to be God's word.
The bible was compiled by men. The new testament was put together after Christ died, and they simply chose to leave certain things out.
Certainly all scripture is inspired by God. Its religious writing.
You are willing to believe 100% in one religious text, but not another. All I am really asking, is that you think for yourself, and not back up your argument by quoting what may or may not be the divine word.
And it annoys me that you could condemn a human being who happens to be loving, kind, intelligent and compassionate because of where he choses to stick his ****.*
The fact in one of your previous posts that you didnt have a clue about female on female relations kinda discourages me from evening listening to any comments about you being a great religious scholar. Why? Because Romans Ch 1 discusses that issue.
Even if men *put* it together, that doesnt make it necessarily any less inspired by God or his Word. If God has chosen to use men's hands in writing then that doesnt make it any less his Word or less being right. In his Sovereign providence that is how He chose to do it.
Once again, I am saying from a biblical standpoint. If the bible is true, then all those beliefs must follow.
Naturally if you dont believe the bible, then you wont look at life from that standpoint. Which is why it is silly for you to try and discredit it based on ideas that other religions claim to have God's word, or that the bible is put together by men amongst the claims i was making.
That hasnt been under debate. I fully defined on what i was basing the arguement of morality and homosexuality on. I have only debated such other ideas about homosexuality from a biblical standpoint. Assuming the bible IS true.
Now you want me to consider if its not. Well lets see, other religions all say you can gain acceptance to heaven based on how good you are. (For the most part). Well if I am a christian I am at least good according to at least a man's point of view, right? So well not believing in those other religions seems mute. I mean im in already ive been a good kid.
But if God is a real God and he is holy, then how can I be in his presence since im not holy, but obviously in an imperfect form.
I also see the world, and realize that for every painting there is a painter. I have long sought who this painter would be. Some come to other conclusions that this world somehow evolved. However even if evolution on such a scale exists, it still cannot disprove God's existance, for God could simply have painted in such a way.
Now when considering any religion you have to examine what it says. You couldnt make a decision on the Bible without actually knowing what it says at least to some fundamental degree. So naturally I have read, and learned, and listened and I have put my faith in what I believe to be true. That the bible claims to have the only means of salvation, that even while i was yet a sinner, Christ died for me.
I am in no way condemning gays, I am no way condemning liars or theifs. However, if the bible is true, then it does condemn sinners..As a religious scholar you should at least know that! but it also has provided the means of salvation for a fallen world. Take your issue of condemnation up with God, for he is your judge if the bible is true. Loving, kind? We are all sinners, by the common grace of God can we be any sort of loving or kind. What is considered good, or kind by man's standard, falls very short on what God requires of perfection. Once again if it is true.
I have faith that it is. That faith is my own. You hold a faith that it isnt true. For your sake, may you be right, for if you are wrong you are without excuse. For the bible says that as well.
#192
Aug 09 2004 at 1:32 PM
Trinitee wrote:
I don't condone gay/lesbians, as a matter of fact... it honestly makes my stomach turn. I feel that it is not natural. I feel that it is fundamentally wrong. I am Christian, but by no means am I a bible thumper.
Most of those molesting priests are Christians too. Either way, if you think it's fundamentally, wrong, and God's will, then why don't you let GOD tend to the business, instead of making other people live a way that YOU think is right? That is, unless you are so arrogant as to think that you have the right to carry out any divine will? I'm curious, with all of these people who are willing to not be friends with people who are gay, and yet go on and try to force them to pretend they AREN'T, how many of them actually believe, in ANY world, real OR fantasy, that they are somehow entitled to do that. I for one think they should mind their own damn business and get a life of their own to worry about, rather than policing the bedrooms of others.
#193
Aug 09 2004 at 1:37 PM
Quote:
I am in no way condemning gays, I am no way condemning liars or theifs. However, if the bible is true, then it does condemn sinners..As a religious scholar you should at least know that! but it also has provided the means of salvation for a fallen world. Take your issue of condemnation up with God, for he is your judge if the bible is true. Loving, kind? We are all sinners, by the common grace of God can we be any sort of loving or kind. What is considered good, or kind by man's standard, falls very short on what God requires of perfection. Once again if it is true.
I have faith that it is. That faith is my own. You hold a faith that it isnt true. For your sake, may you be right, for if you are wrong you are without excuse. For the bible says that as well.
I have faith that it is. That faith is my own. You hold a faith that it isnt true. For your sake, may you be right, for if you are wrong you are without excuse. For the bible says that as well.
So if I understand well you say that Bible condemn gays and that you believe in Bible, yet you're not condemning gays?
Regards
#195
Aug 09 2004 at 1:39 PM
Quote:
But Kaibelf, why examine your own issues and try to fix them, when you can bash the lifestyles of others, thus making yourself feel better, like you are doing a good work?
Let me see here...
"Let he who hath no sin throw the first stone."
I see that happening well here. :/
Let me see here...
"Let he who hath no sin throw the first stone."
I see that happening well here. :/
too true
Edited, Mon Aug 9 14:39:37 2004 by TDarkmoon
#196
Aug 09 2004 at 1:40 PM
Laurenthasala wrote:
But Kaibelf, why examine your own issues and try to fix them, when you can bash the lifestyles of others, thus making yourself feel better, like you are doing a good work?
Let me see here...
"Let he who hath no sin throw the first stone."
I see that happening well here. :/
Let me see here...
"Let he who hath no sin throw the first stone."
I see that happening well here. :/
Exactly. I rest easy knowing that 99.9% of these gay-bashers are going to burn in hell for spreading hate in God's name.
#197
Aug 09 2004 at 1:40 PM
Quote:
et me see here...
"Let he who hath no sin throw the first stone."
I see that happening well here. :/
"Let he who hath no sin throw the first stone."
I see that happening well here. :/
Wow, good one.
#198
Aug 09 2004 at 1:43 PM
Quote:
Let's put it this way. Suppose you are in a gay couple, and you get hit by a car. Your partner can't come see you in the hospital because you're not married. You're stuck there, suffering. Then you die. Alone.
This is the problem me and my boyfriend are going to have to face. We have been together for almost 7 years and plan to live the rest of our lives together and we realise that this is something that we are going to have to face. It is not going to be an easy thing to deal with.
Edited, Mon Aug 9 14:47:04 2004 by Pulseczar
#199
Aug 09 2004 at 2:37 PM
12 posts
Quote:
As for whether or not people are making too much out of it (because I know a common argument is "Why do you care? It's only a game!"), look at it this way... Try very hard for a moment to put yourself in the shoes of a lesbian or gay man. Everywhere we look, there are images of things we simply can't identify with. In almost every movie, every TV show, every book or magazine story or song or advertisement, there are images of men and women in love. Holding hands, kissing, having sex, flirting, dating, going out together, getting married, having kids, building a life. Now, how many images can you think of in popular media that involve serious homosexual content? There's the quirky, goody-two-shoes TV-fluffy lesbianism-obsessed Ellen. There's the chronically disfunctional, neurotic characters of Will & Grace. There's the self-obsessed, narcissistic, nightclub-hopping, drug-abusing, hypersexed gay men of ***** as Folk. There's the effiminate stereotyped gay men and the trashy glam-girl drag queens of The Birdcage and Priscilla, Queen of the Desert and To Wong Fu: Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar. And that's it. What amongst that can I identify with? In what of those characters can I see something of myself? Where is MY sense of belonging and acceptance? Everyone needs to see a reflection of themselves in others. It's part of our self-validation and a large part of our sense of self-esteem. We NEED to see others like ourselves so that we know we're not alone in the world, so that we know we're not outcasts or freaks or unwanted by society. Why do you think people campaign so hard to get a gay character onto a Star Trek show? Star Trek is supposed to be representative of mankind, it's supposed to be a multicultural show that represents the harmony and peace and acceptance mankind will achieve in the future. But where are all the gay people?
Ha, you think you have a problem. Try being an atheist (if you are a gay atheist, well damn you got me ;) I actually know of some on a messageboard I visit often, infidels.org). We are the last group of people it is ok to joke/make fun of in main-stream um... EVERYTHING.
We try to uphold the first amendment (example: the pledge of allegiance) and we are immediately labeled as un-american, god-fearing/hating, devil worshipping (we'd have to first believe in god first) individuals. People always seem to forget about the fact that the pledge of allegiance was altered in 1954 to add "in god" because of the extremely irrational Red Scare (wide spread scare of communism).
Well, I'm going into a whole different subject.
I don't mean to say your fight isn't right.
I believe gays should be able to get civil unions but to make sure they get ALL the rights that marriages have (which in game is basically nothing). The reason being is that marriage is defined as an union between man and women. Of course, we could just alter the definition, but the religious nuts will most likely not let that happen; so you are better off just getting "civil-unions" (which is basically what marriage is).
Anyways, people have a weird way of forgetting parts of the bible that they don't like and quote other parts to support their behaviour. Multiple parts of the bible was used in defense of slave owning, becuase why would the bible make rules on it, if it didn't think it was right? For example "A slave owner is to be punished if he strikes his slave and the slave dies shortly thereafter. If the slave lives a day or to and then dies, the slave owner is not to be punished. A slave is the same as money to his owner.." (Exodus 21:20-21)
Also some other questionable guidelines:
For example:
1. Divorce is wrong, and to remarry is to commit adultery
(Mark 10:2-12 & Luke 16:18)
2. The eating of blood and fat are prohibited forever (Leviticus 3:17)
3. Eating pork is prohibited
(Leviticus 11:7 & Deuteronomy 14:8)
4. Eating shellfish is prohibited
(Leviticus 11:10)
5. Pray in private
(Matthew 6:6)
6. It is a shame for a man to have long hair. (Note: Why is it, then, that most portrayals of Jesus show him with long hair?)
(1 Corinthians 11:14)
And that is just whats off the top of my head at the moment.
*shrug* I was bored at work.
#200
Aug 09 2004 at 2:42 PM
Atheist get discriminated?!?!? Where do you live?
Now I'm even happier to be Canadian than any time before.
Edited, Mon Aug 9 15:44:26 2004 by Manukiriki
Now I'm even happier to be Canadian than any time before.
Edited, Mon Aug 9 15:44:26 2004 by Manukiriki
#201
Aug 09 2004 at 2:44 PM
I don't understand why parents would have a problem with letting their children see same-sex couples in a game. I am a parent, and I am going to expose my child to as much culture as I can, all around the world. If your values are that shaky, you better keep your children in your house forever, with no radio, internet, phone, or TV for the rest of their lives. It's a big world out there, and there are same sex couples in it. All the hating in the world isn't going to make them go away.
Edited, Mon Aug 9 15:45:26 2004 by GoddessBelldandy
Edited, Mon Aug 9 15:45:26 2004 by GoddessBelldandy
You cannot post in a locked topic!
Recent Visitors: 50
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (50)
- Forums
- Final Fantasy XI
- General Discussion
- On the subject of in-game same-sex marriage....
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC