On the subject of in-game same-sex marriage....Follow

lower again

ill give you two more guesses then ill say it.

lower~ this is your last guess.

17?

Somewhat, and Yeah O_o


Stayed the same


Dropped

I'll never understand you people

It's 3.89 now...

"MarcusD, big big rate up. If all Christians were as peacefully spiritual and as full of love and understanding as you are, a lot more people would be Christian. Thank you for sharing something as important as your religious beliefs with us. And don't worry, I know that there are a lot of Christians who "practise what they preach" and I NEVER hold someone's religious beliefs against them. "

Thanks Sabo, there are a lot of Christians who live a double standard. But there are a LOT of us who aren't like that. :D

Well, the church wouldn't have to marry them anyway even if it were called "marriage". In the modern day, even if the church marries you you still have to have a legal marriage certificate from the government to really be married. And you can be legally married without the churches being involved at all.

Warlord Lefein wrote...


I assume this includes heterosexual sex where contraception is used as well? Or sex between couples where one partner is infertile? My own mother had to have a... surgery-whose-name-I-don't-know-how-to-spell-that-removes-ability-to-reproduce... because becoming pregnant again would probably be life-threatening, but she is still sexually active. (I'd really rather not think about it, but that's an entirely different issue.)

For that to be an argument against anything, you must believe that there is no valid reason for having sex other than producing offspring. I happen to think that sex can be a natural expression of the love you have for someone. Certainly I think it's far more unnatural to have sex with someone you *don't* love, regardless of the genders and reproductive possiblity involved.

You know, I'm probably technically bisexual. The problem is, there's only 4 men I've ever found attractive, one it was because he looks like a girl, and they're all fictional. So I'm kind of stuck. Some psychologists think that *everyone* is bisexual to a certain degree. I'm not too convinced myself. But if every person you meet of the opposite/same gender you find either pysically unattractive or mentally repulsive, how does that make you any different from homosexual/heterosexual? Of course, some people don't think personality matters to homosexuals/heterosexuals in choosing partners. But I'm rarely interested in someone's body at all until I've learned something about their mind. (Exceptions usually involve wings.)



That works about as well as saying there are no women's rights or black's rights... and no, I'm not saying that you're saying that. But the fact is that there are legal protections and things that are allowed to heterosexuals that are not to homosexuals, just as there were ones given to whites and males that were not given to non-whites and females before. Now, as you have said, civil unions would solve this problem. But then I wonder if the same argument that was used against segregated schools might come up. "Seperate but equal isn't."

The cleanest solution might actually be to make marriage the result of a religious ceremony, and civil unions the result of a legal contract. So, you could have the legal contract and get married in a church or whatever (like, say, my parents), and you have both a marriage and a civil union. You could get have an appropriate religous ceremony, but never have the legal contract, and be married but have no civil union. (And thus, would get no protection under the law.) If you have what I think of as a "courthouse marriage", with no religious component, then you have a civil union but are not married. (Yes, even if you are of opposite genders.) Basically, seperating church and state. The laws can be somewhat consistent, and religions can do what they want - long as they don't break the law anyway. It's perfect!

Of course, it'll never happen. *sweatdrop*



The problem is that they *will* be exposed, whether anyone like it or not. The only thing accomplished by trying to shield children from sexuality is losing the opportunity to get to them *first* with what you believe on it. (I think *my* first exposure came from an *encylopedia*. It's kind of hard to get away from sex...)

Now, that certainly doesn't mean you need to go into *detail*. In fact, it'd probably be a bad idea for all sorts of reasons. But not knowing about something at all just makes it more likely that they'll do something incredibly *stupid* when it is brought to their attention.



This I think is basically true, but at the same time isn't really much of an argument. Basically, there are some people on the gay rights side of things who are idiots. But that doesn't make everyone on that side inherently wrong, any more than everyone who is opposed to gay rights is inherently wrong because some of *them* are idiots. (It's pretty safe to say one of these groups *is* wrong, but if they are it's not because of their idiocy ratio.) I personally hate "political correctness", but that doesn't mean everything related to that is wrong. I think a lot of things under it are wrong ("he or she" < "he" || "she"), but I have to evaluate them on their own.

And... that's all. `.`

~sleepygirl, o.O;;;

Sabo, you seem like a really cool guy and it's awesome that you can be so brave as to stand up for yourself against all these flamers and still stay cool about it. If you ever wanna chat sometime, look me up. thefleidur_maus@hotmail.com. I share that email addy with my girlfriend so if you get some weird email back it's probably her. :P


Marcus's Cool-o-meter:
Michel Jackson |-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|Sabo|-| Sean Connory

The comedy Central show Daily Show wraped this up perfectly for me....

A top supporter of the marriage act in congress said this today on the issue. "If a man was allowed to marry a box turtle it wouldnt effect me directly BUT we would have to live in a society with such poor morals that allowed a man to marry a box turtle."

So the response from the shows host was the following...

"So let me get this right:

Man+Woman < Just a Man or Just a Woman < Man and Man or Woman and Woman = Man humping turtle???????

This was just hilarious had to share it. The Congress of today is populated with OLD farts who are stuck in the 50's thats why these issues come up and thats why the abbortion issue is still around. Until our more open acepting generation comes into power these issues will still be here. Its ******** that in a society that claims to be home of the free we are trying to take away a freedom from a group of people.

On the subjects of gay and lesbian discrimanation in the game, these games are a form of art and art reflects the soceity the creates it. Until our soceity and the soceities of the rest of the world accept gays and lesbians as a whole it will not show in mainstream art.

The best part about this whole thing is, even is we strip the "marriage" title from it - when confronted with civil unions, the same people would still throw a hissy-fit and complain about the collapse of society. They are disgusting, bigoted people, and it's clear that as time marches on, they will fall out of favor, along with their ignorant opinions and willingness to make others suffer for their insecurity.
They can't handle the fact that the guy next door likes some other guy, and looks better, makes more money, dresses better, and gives a damn about going to the gym. Do they blame their own laziness for not stacking up? No. They pull out the "I'm doing what's natural," thing, which in a way is true. In most animal kingdoms, a wannabe alpha-male tries to defend his crown. It's too bad he hasn't realized how to think like a human being yet.