I am a Juicebox Hero. I poke straws in Risen Eyes.
Can the Community Team Refrain from Politics?
I’m sorry but this is a ridiculous point.
The people against marriage equality aren’t speaking for themselves. They’re saying those people over there, a group I’m not part of, can’t do something.
The people in that group aren’t saying that the first group can’t. One side is speaking for the other. That’s the issue here.
Far as I understand, on the marriage issue the chief argument Christians against gay marriage have is the belief that marriage is a religious thing. A large part of the faith revolves around marriage and it’s very traditional. To me that’s hardly a reason to deny gay people marriage due to marriage hardly being only a religious practice.
However, a church is not a business and not a government program. They can’t “refuse service” because it’s not a service (well, not the business type of service…). A large number of people against gay marriage think one thing will lead to another and eventually they would get in trouble for refusing service. My opinion? Just laws shouldn’t be kept out because they might lead to unjust laws. However, it’s a justified fear given how the LGBT community has acted in the past. Well, that’s my understanding.
The problem is you CAN get married non-religiously, no matter what anyone believes. Factually speaking, you can have a non-religious ceremony. Two atheists can marry. Two atheist can marry, even if neither of them is capable of having children.
I don’t care what anyone believes. But when your beliefs tell you to tell other people how to live or what they can or can’t do, you’ve crossed a line.
I personally hate cigarette smoke. It makes me choke. I hate it. People who smoke in my presence are directly affecting me. People who smoke in the privacy of their own home, I have nothing to say about that. That’s not directly affected me.
Gay people who get married aren’t actually affected anyone but the people getting married. And saying it devalues marriage isn’t an answer either. The divorce rate devalues marriage.
Social progress is not all it’s cracked up to be. For example, the communist revolution in Russia was seen as social progress by it’s adherents. Millions of Russian citizens were killed by their own government. How’s that for social progress?
Just because you are intolerant Magicus,
If their point of view is just as valid as yours, why are they the intolerant one? Just wondering.
I think you’ll find that to most people, an accusation of ‘intolerance’ refers to intolerance without reasonable justification rather than just generally not tolerating something. For instance you likely don’t often come across accusations of being ‘intolerant’ of, say, murder or theft. In a very literal sense a lot of people are intolerant of those, but few would think they deserve a great deal of tolerance in the first place and thus accusing someone of being intolerant of them would get you little more than shrugs and funny looks.
I don’t care how many people agree or disagree with the court’s decision but I do find it annoying when a company takes a position on political issues.
There are a bunch of reasons why and I’d rather not get too deep into it. To keep it simple; just do your job ANet, which is making Guild Wars.
They’re already taken a position with Jory and Kas for years and recently added a transgender NPC.
These things shouldn’t be in the game for the purpose of taking a position. They should be there for the purpose of making characters deeper and more interesting.
Anet never said they were in game for taking a position, even if someone on the forums said. Of course, art of any kind was always meant to challenge preconceptions and stereotypes and that’s as valid a reason for including something in a game as anything else.
What are we doing now? Talking about it. That’s publicity. That’s another reason to put something in a game.
But I don’t see the stuff Anet has put in the game as being there just to take a position. As a writer, I know that characters sometimes just show up, and when they do I welcome them in, unless there’s a compelling reason not to use them.
Now that I think about it, what really annoys me is people like that person I was responding to who get so excited about seeing a token NPC like Sya or a homosexual couple in a story. It makes me think that they are obsessed with these topics and that they put LGBT people on a pedestal.
I grew up in the SF Bay Area. Some of my best friends are gay. They are literally just normal dudes and you wouldn’t think they were gay if you met them. Then you have those guys who do the lisp and dress specifically to make sure everyone knows immediately, and that’s their entire life and identity. Those people make normal gays look bad. I am not gay but it’s an opinion all my gay friends share with me.
So anyway that’s kinda why the obsession annoys me. I think it encourages more tokenism because the unnecessary enthusiasm looks like positive feedback.
I’m with you on this. It’s like someone jumping up and down saying “notice me! I’m different! But treat me like a normal person though I’m making a spectacle!”
If I’m going to treat you like everyone else, then I don’t care. I don’t hate you, I don’t care what you call yourself, your personal life is your personal life, I don’t need to know about it.
Grats on the win, grats if you came out today or whatever. It should’ve happened sooner.
I’m at the point in conversations that if someone interupts me to tell me their gay, I just continue on with the conversation before. It’s no longer an OMG moment to me anymore.
Social progress is not all it’s cracked up to be. For example, the communist revolution in Russia was seen as social progress by it’s adherents. Millions of Russian citizens were killed by their own government. How’s that for social progress?
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. A same-sex couple getting married has nothing in common with the communist revolution. Hardly an apples-to-apples comparison. Let’s keep this in perspective, shall we?
I’m sorry but this is a ridiculous point.
The people against marriage equality aren’t speaking for themselves. They’re saying those people over there, a group I’m not part of, can’t do something.
The people in that group aren’t saying that the first group can’t. One side is speaking for the other. That’s the issue here.
Your oversimplification is amusing. What some people for traditional marriage are saying is that you should not REDEFINE marriage. That redefinition affects everyone. Profoundly. How small to think it doesn’t affect everyone and everything.
Marriage equality as a term is about as accurate and meaningful as climate change. The left realized global warming was a loser, so they had to change it…except that the climate always changes and has historically been both warmer and colder before man came on the scene. So in a similar fashion, the left rebranded gay marriage as marriage equality. The playbook is always the same, redefine terms in order to cheat in any subsequent debate in order to dishonestly claim the high ground.
The gay marriage advocates are demanding that society redefine roles, traditions, and relationships that are based in moral and biological imperatives that are millennia old…or older. They aren’t simply asking for new rights, they are demanding that everyone accept their definition of an institution that many people have very strong feelings about. Some would label that a clear case of tyranny by a tiny minority.
Most people are fair minded. So having couples get equal treatment under the law is beneficial. But no one should kid themselves into thinking gay marriage is marriage. It is fundamentally something else, no matter how many times people want to pull Orwellian rabbits out of their hat and play word games. Certain biological truths cannot be redefined away. Marriage is about bringing together two FUNDAMENTALLY different genders that have fundamentally different roles and capabilities.
Why shouldn’t three people be allowed to marry? Or four? Why not allow bigamy, polygamy? Where does marriage equality end? It’s a laughable notion, as laughable as the current notion of tolerance and political correctness, which demands conformity to whatever daily wind is blowing about what might offend some group somewhere. Who cares. No one has a right to not be offended.
But I’m not redefining marriage. Before this decision, right now, at this very moment, two athiests can marry , even if neither can have children and they don’t plan on or what to have kids. That’s marriage. It’s not redefining anything.
The fact is, marriage is only a holy union between to people to people who are religious in the first place. And all words change definition . Even the word gay has changed definition. This is what happens in language.
Anyone who wants to lock language in place, and say it shouldn’t change, should go back to speaking the way we did 400 years ago, or even longer. Again, it’s a ridiculous point.
In the past, marriage wasn’t monogamous and the religious changed it to be this way. King Solomon has 700 hundred wives. So why is it different today? Why was marriage changed by religious people.
Oh, I see, it’s okay for them to change the definition of a word but no one else? Good job if you can get it.
Social progress is not all it’s cracked up to be. For example, the communist revolution in Russia was seen as social progress by it’s adherents. Millions of Russian citizens were killed by their own government. How’s that for social progress?
The Soviets? The kitten’s? Hyperbole better. If you want to disparage social progress let’s look to Sweden. That country seems to be run by Tumblr.
Also, if you are against citizens being killed by their own government, does that mean you are anti death penalty?
I dont care what anet supports, be pedofilia for all i care. Just hope they dont go all bioware of shoving it down our throats at every corner in game*cough*kas/maj*cough*
This is the internet so nobody is going to be changing anyone’s mind on this topic. Usually personal biase is the culprit to such conflicting views and that isn’t something that is easy to change for most people.
But as far as the topic itself goes I think it was a nice tweet. Really nothing to get upset over.
I’m at the point in conversations that if someone interupts me to tell me their gay, I just continue on with the conversation before.
Wouldn’t that be an odd thing to do, though? I’ve never had a convo with someone that made a point of telling me they’re straight or hetero or whatever.
Social progress is not all it’s cracked up to be. For example, the communist revolution in Russia was seen as social progress by it’s adherents. Millions of Russian citizens were killed by their own government. How’s that for social progress?
I, too, can apply terms used for one thing to other completely unrelated things and pretend that this casts doubt on them in some way. Of course, seeing as it doesn’t, probably not worthwhile eh?
A company is not required to be impartial. In general they will go with what is the popular opinion publicly but that is not always the case. If you are upset about the ruling then call your congress person. The only bodies that can change the constitution are the Senate and the House of Representatives. Anet has no control over it and is free to express any opinion they like. They will live with the consequences either way.
That being said politics and religion are thing you formulate an opinion on and usually stick to it. Many people are relatively hard line in those beliefs and are easily offended (I mean everybody). So in many cases for the sake of civility we do not discuss it for the sake of discussing it. Minds usually won’t change and it leads to bitter sentiment and argument.
If you do not like what happened I suggest you look at from this perspective for just a moment. In this country there are many schools of thought. The main thing for a conservative in the classical sense is that the government impede as few right as possible. For a classic democrat its that the minority be protected by a powerful government. If you think about it like this with no religious connotation (this was not a decision for or against religious marriage) the government to the best of its ability should allow you as many rights as you can get. Whether you choose to exercise them or not. At the same time it should protect the right of the minority for the sake of equality. If you think of it like this it is actually a win overall for all sides.
I can understand the elation and anger but for me it didn’t mean much. In a country where marriage is slowly becoming less of the beaten path the groups that support it the most happen to be on the opposite side of the political spectrum. At the very least your children will know one thing. In the eyes of many marriage is still very important.
Kor The Cold Heart War
Wrekkes-Engineer Kore Rok Thief-Asraithe-Ele
Wrekkes-Engineer Kore Rok Thief-Asraithe-Ele
Social progress is not all it’s cracked up to be. For example, the communist revolution in Russia was seen as social progress by it’s adherents. Millions of Russian citizens were killed by their own government. How’s that for social progress?
I, too, can apply terms used for one thing to other completely unrelated things and pretend that this casts doubt on them in some way. Of course, seeing as it doesn’t, probably not worthwhile eh?
You know who also used words? Stalin!
I’m sorry but this is a ridiculous point.
The people against marriage equality aren’t speaking for themselves. They’re saying those people over there, a group I’m not part of, can’t do something.
The people in that group aren’t saying that the first group can’t. One side is speaking for the other. That’s the issue here.
Your oversimplification is amusing. What some people for traditional marriage are saying is that you should not REDEFINE marriage. That redefinition affects everyone. Profoundly. How small to think it doesn’t affect everyone and everything.
Marriage equality as a term is about as accurate and meaningful as climate change. The left realized global warming was a loser, so they had to change it…except that the climate always changes and has historically been both warmer and colder before man came on the scene. So in a similar fashion, the left rebranded gay marriage as marriage equality. The playbook is always the same, redefine terms in order to cheat in any subsequent debate in order to dishonestly claim the high ground.
The gay marriage advocates are demanding that society redefine roles, traditions, and relationships that are based in moral and biological imperatives that are millennia old…or older. They aren’t simply asking for new rights, they are demanding that everyone accept their definition of an institution that many people have very strong feelings about. Some would label that a clear case of tyranny by a tiny minority.
Most people are fair minded. So having couples get equal treatment under the law is beneficial. But no one should kid themselves into thinking gay marriage is marriage. It is fundamentally something else, no matter how many times people want to pull Orwellian rabbits out of their hat and play word games. Certain biological truths cannot be redefined away. Marriage is about bringing together two FUNDAMENTALLY different genders that have fundamentally different roles and capabilities.
Why shouldn’t three people be allowed to marry? Or four? Why not allow bigamy, polygamy? Where does marriage equality end? It’s a laughable notion, as laughable as the current notion of tolerance and political correctness, which demands conformity to whatever daily wind is blowing about what might offend some group somewhere. Who cares. No one has a right to not be offended.
Religions don’t own marriage. Besides, marriage differs between different religions.
The mistake you make is thinking that the government legally allowing a different type of marriage changes your version of marriage.
How does that make any sense if they already allow different forms of marriage from other cultures? The vows are different, the traditional clothes and ceremonies are different, and the cultural understanding of married life is different.
By your logic, those types of marriage being allowed already ruins your version of marriage.
There is no official state religion. So the laws on anything including marriage are not, and should not be determined by the standards of any religion’s standards of marriage. With that established, what argument do you have against gay marriage?
To post on this forum you have to use words.
To post on this forum you have to use words.
I was very tempted just to post a picture in response to this. I didn’t do it, though. Sorry. lol
lol…. that did make me laugh
I don’t know where you live, but where I am, the term marriage is not a term that’s exclusively religious. Even the dictionary definition of “marriage” is one that includes a union by state. You can call my marriage what you want, but as far as I and the US government is concerned I am married.
The discussion may then be whether or not “marriage” has been watered down as a term, but, alas, this is how it is.
Again, you may support the distinction between a civil union and a marriage, but where I live this distinction does not really exist as you state it.
Okay, now I am getting very confused here… specially as the heat in this debate appears to be based on a decision by the US Supreme Court.
So here is my question, I am not going to simply discuss the word, as you seem adamant in using the word marriage and there may be so meaning to this in the context of the US which I simply don’t get and translations do not always carry the details forward, so I will discuss merely the focus of my confusion rather than derail this into a discussion of terminology and translations.
Based on what you are saying, I am understanding that the US Supreme Court deemed that religious institutions are forced to perform same sex marriages (let’s call it religious marriage – which is what I meant by marriage / religious union), in addition to state authorities doing marriages of same sex people for civil law purposes, let’s call these ones civil marriages (which is what I meant by civil union).
If this is true I am very shocked at such a decision. I thought that the US had religious tolerance and accepted that when talking about religion, it is the religious institution that is free to decide its dogmas as long as they not violate the law (i.e., you may not approve religious same sex marriage, but you must accept if a gay person writes down that it is under a civil marriage and recognize the effects thereof).
So right now I am quite negatively surprised with the US Supreme Court for basically cracking down on freedom of belief and religious institutions. I honestly don’t know what propelled such decision.
And quite frankly, at first I thought that ANET’s post was simply a support of civil same sex marriage – which is ok in my book – , but if the post had an underlying reason of the decision above, I am very taken aback at ANET’s post for the part where it is being supportive of what I deem a crackdown on freedom of belief.
However, if what you meant to say is that the US Supreme Court decided that same sex marriage can occur under civil law, i.e., what we called a civil marriage, before what ever state authority does marriages recognized by the US Government, but a religious marriage is still free choice of religious institutions, then I am glad that was the decision of the US Supreme Court – which is pretty much what we have here – and I would have no qualms with what ANET posted.
Can anyone elucidate this?
Based on what you are saying, I am understanding that the US Supreme Court deemed that religious institutions are forced to perform same sex marriages
Churches that don’t want to perform same-sex marriages aren’t going to be “forced” to. Couples will simply choose a church that supports their views.
Lmao, the world is a sad place when people still can’t accept that everyone is entitled to love who they want to love.
… Among many other sad things.
Necromancer, Ranger, Warrior, Engineer
Champion: Phantom, Hunter, Legionnaire, Genius
WvW rank: Diamond Colonel | Maguuma
Champion: Phantom, Hunter, Legionnaire, Genius
WvW rank: Diamond Colonel | Maguuma
I’m at the point in conversations that if someone interupts me to tell me their gay, I just continue on with the conversation before.
Wouldn’t that be an odd thing to do, though? I’ve never had a convo with someone that made a point of telling me they’re straight or hetero or whatever.
Here’s a part of the conversation that it did happen.
Me: “…so this gay guy was talking to his boyfriend-”
Friend: “oh, I’m gay too”
Me: “about how he thought the last airbender wasn’t that bad of a movie. I started to feel my brain melt”
True conversation, just cleaned up because I do have a potty mouth.
And looking at those tweets. Did I seriously read a guy defending his parenting by denying his kids a game cause of the same sex and trans stuff? Alcohol, violence, hostile threats, swearing, those are OK.
Kids learning bout same sex stuff? Whoa whoa whoa! Let’s not get crazy here!
My brain is melting again.
I’m at the point in conversations that if someone interupts me to tell me their gay, I just continue on with the conversation before.
Wouldn’t that be an odd thing to do, though? I’ve never had a convo with someone that made a point of telling me they’re straight or hetero or whatever.
Here’s a part of the conversation that it did happen.
Me: “…so this gay guy was talking to his boyfriend-”
Friend: “oh, I’m gay too”
Me: “about how he thought the last airbender wasn’t that bad of a movie. I started to feel my brain melt”True conversation, just cleaned up because I do have a potty mouth.
And looking at those tweets. Did I seriously read a guy defending his parenting by denying his kids a game cause of the same sex and trans stuff? Alcohol, violence, hostile threats, swearing, those are OK.
Kids learning bout same sex stuff? Whoa whoa whoa! Let’s not get crazy here!
My brain is melting again.
Maybe the guy was saying he’s gay because sometimes people start saying stuff and what they’re going to say could easily become offensive, and thus he’s giving people warning that they might get a reaction. However, if the conversation were like this:
Party 1: So anyway this guy is a huge Yankee fan and he said…
Party 2: Oh I love the Yankees.
No one would have said anything about it.
Based on what you are saying, I am understanding that the US Supreme Court deemed that religious institutions are forced to perform same sex marriages
Churches that don’t want to perform same-sex marriages aren’t going to be “forced” to. Couples will simply choose a church that supports their views.
Oh, ok then. Then I don’t see the big issue on this.
I don’t care how many people agree or disagree with the court’s decision but I do find it annoying when a company takes a position on political issues.
There are a bunch of reasons why and I’d rather not get too deep into it. To keep it simple; just do your job ANet, which is making Guild Wars.
They’re already taken a position with Jory and Kas for years and recently added a transgender NPC.
These things shouldn’t be in the game for the purpose of taking a position. They should be there for the purpose of making characters deeper and more interesting.
Anet never said they were in game for taking a position, even if someone on the forums said. Of course, art of any kind was always meant to challenge preconceptions and stereotypes and that’s as valid a reason for including something in a game as anything else.
What are we doing now? Talking about it. That’s publicity. That’s another reason to put something in a game.
But I don’t see the stuff Anet has put in the game as being there just to take a position. As a writer, I know that characters sometimes just show up, and when they do I welcome them in, unless there’s a compelling reason not to use them.
Now that I think about it, what really annoys me is people like that person I was responding to who get so excited about seeing a token NPC like Sya or a homosexual couple in a story. It makes me think that they are obsessed with these topics and that they put LGBT people on a pedestal.
I grew up in the SF Bay Area. Some of my best friends are gay. They are literally just normal dudes and you wouldn’t think they were gay if you met them. Then you have those guys who do the lisp and dress specifically to make sure everyone knows immediately, and that’s their entire life and identity. Those people make normal gays look bad. I am not gay but it’s an opinion all my gay friends share with me.
So anyway that’s kinda why the obsession annoys me. I think it encourages more tokenism because the unnecessary enthusiasm looks like positive feedback.
I’m with you on this. It’s like someone jumping up and down saying “notice me! I’m different! But treat me like a normal person though I’m making a spectacle!”
If I’m going to treat you like everyone else, then I don’t care. I don’t hate you, I don’t care what you call yourself, your personal life is your personal life, I don’t need to know about it.
Grats on the win, grats if you came out today or whatever. It should’ve happened sooner.
I’m at the point in conversations that if someone interupts me to tell me their gay, I just continue on with the conversation before. It’s no longer an OMG moment to me anymore.
Interestingly, in Sya’s case, she doesn’t tell you she’s gay or straight or anything like that. She basically says “Oh yeah, by the way, you knew me as Symon before. I go by something else now.” Kind of like me going up to people and saying “Oh yeah, by the way, my name used to be Smith and now it’s Jones.” and someone responding “Oh yeah, why’d you change it?” and myself replying “Oh, I got married/adopted/hated my name.” She mentions her orientation no more than I would be mentioning mine in that situation.
There is no jumping up and down. There is no pedestal. There is just a person telling you her name. Just existing. And people are just so angry about that.
I don’t know where you live, but where I am, the term marriage is not a term that’s exclusively religious. Even the dictionary definition of “marriage” is one that includes a union by state. You can call my marriage what you want, but as far as I and the US government is concerned I am married.
The discussion may then be whether or not “marriage” has been watered down as a term, but, alas, this is how it is.
Again, you may support the distinction between a civil union and a marriage, but where I live this distinction does not really exist as you state it.
Okay, now I am getting very confused here… specially as the heat in this debate appears to be based on a decision by the US Supreme Court.
So here is my question, I am not going to simply discuss the word, as you seem adamant in using the word marriage and there may be so meaning to this in the context of the US which I simply don’t get and translations do not always carry the details forward, so I will discuss merely the focus of my confusion rather than derail this into a discussion of terminology and translations.
Based on what you are saying, I am understanding that the US Supreme Court deemed that religious institutions are forced to perform same sex marriages (let’s call it religious marriage – which is what I meant by marriage / religious union), in addition to state authorities doing marriages of same sex people for civil law purposes, let’s call these ones civil marriages (which is what I meant by civil union).
If this is true I am very shocked at such a decision. I thought that the US had religious tolerance and accepted that when talking about religion, it is the religious institution that is free to decide its dogmas as long as they not violate the law (i.e., you may not approve religious same sex marriage, but you must accept if a gay person writes down that it is under a civil marriage and recognize the effects thereof).
So right now I am quite negatively surprised with the US Supreme Court for basically cracking down on freedom of belief and religious institutions. I honestly don’t know what propelled such decision.
And quite frankly, at first I thought that ANET’s post was simply a support of civil same sex marriage – which is ok in my book – , but if the post had an underlying reason of the decision above, I am very taken aback at ANET’s post for the part where it is being supportive of what I deem a crackdown on freedom of belief.
However, if what you meant to say is that the US Supreme Court decided that same sex marriage can occur under civil law, i.e., what we called a civil marriage, before what ever state authority does marriages recognized by the US Government, but a religious marriage is still free choice of religious institutions, then I am glad that was the decision of the US Supreme Court – which is pretty much what we have here – and I would have no qualms with what ANET posted.
Can anyone elucidate this?
Not arguing with you but clarifying. In this nation there is a near absolute (on paper) gap between church and state. Any church could have performed a marriage between same sex couples up to this point but to get it legally recognized by the State (the church already recognizes it) it would have to be in their confines ie when you have a marriage you still have to take it to county clerks office and apply for a license. We clear so far?
What this decision does is make it legal for same sex couples to be bound (trick term) in marriage in the states eyes but any church that does not follow this is same belief does not have to marry same sex couples. We still clear?
For example a mixed race couple wanted to get married in a church in Alabama but the pastor refused. There was a big hub bub and protest but the state could not force him to marry them.
The real question comes to religious objection (Think Hobby lobby). Lets say a county clerk did not agree with gay marriage should they be forced to give the license? That’s the question. It has come up over pharmacist giving the morning after pill and other issues. Any other questions are really down to church and state separations.
Hope that clears things up.
Kor The Cold Heart War
Wrekkes-Engineer Kore Rok Thief-Asraithe-Ele
Wrekkes-Engineer Kore Rok Thief-Asraithe-Ele
Woohoo! The more bigots (better still, religious bigots) that quit GW2 over this stuff, the better! We will have a more tolerant, more loving and friendly community full of people who accept or just don’t care about who loves who.
Religions don’t own marriage. Besides, marriage differs between different religions.
The mistake you make is thinking that the government legally allowing a different type of marriage changes your version of marriage.
How does that make any sense if they already allow different forms of marriage from other cultures? The vows are different, the traditional clothes and ceremonies are different, and the cultural understanding of married life is different.
By your logic, those types of marriage being allowed already ruins your version of marriage.
There is no official state religion. So the laws on anything including marriage are not, and should not be determined by the standards of any religion’s standards of marriage. With that established, what argument do you have against gay marriage?
Where did I use the word religion in my post? Citing different forms of marriage is not the same thing as fundamentally changing what marriage is…most religions don’t do that…but again, I didn’t bring religion into this, you did.
Marriage is about bringing together a man and a woman, creating a stable, procreating environment. This benefits society, as it provides continuity of that society and falls in line with our biological imperative of reproduction. In other words, it made sense, and took into account our nature and biology. Few would argue that a stable home is best for child rearing, and it is inarguable that without a man and a woman you wont be producing children. Biology is simple that way. Gay marriage does not meet those criteria. The gay lifestyle, by definition, is a biological dead end.
Thinking you can change that definition, without ramifications throughout a society, is ridiculous. So the argument that gay marriage doesn’t represent change for virtually every part of our society, is just as ridiculous. Change can be good, can be bad. Time has a way of illuminating such things.
(edited by Dyvim.8293)
Religions don’t own marriage. Besides, marriage differs between different religions.
The mistake you make is thinking that the government legally allowing a different type of marriage changes your version of marriage.
How does that make any sense if they already allow different forms of marriage from other cultures? The vows are different, the traditional clothes and ceremonies are different, and the cultural understanding of married life is different.
By your logic, those types of marriage being allowed already ruins your version of marriage.
There is no official state religion. So the laws on anything including marriage are not, and should not be determined by the standards of any religion’s standards of marriage. With that established, what argument do you have against gay marriage?
Where did I use the word religion in my post? Citing different forms of marriage is not the same thing as fundamentally changing what marriage is…most religions don’t do that…but again, I didn’t bring religion into this, you did.
Marriage is about bringing together a man and a woman, creating a stable, procreating environment. This benefits society, as it provides continuity of that society and falls in line with our biological imperative of reproduction. In other words, it made sense, and took into account our nature and biology. Few would argue that a stable home is best for child rearing, and it is inarguable that without a man and a woman you wont be producing children. Biology is simple that way. Gay marriage does not meet those criteria. The gay lifestyle, by definition, is a biological dead end.
Thinking you can change that definition, without ramifications throughout a society, is ridiculous. So the argument that gay marriage doesn’t represent change for virtually every part of our society, is just as ridiculous.
You can change that definition without ramifications. There are plenty of heterosexual couples who are married and abuse their kids, or who are married and neglect their kids, or who are married and don’t have kids. There are divorced couples and plenty of single parents. There are kids who are orphans and not enough people to adopt them.
By making marriage more inclusive, increase the number of families out there that might take some of those orphans and raise them in a loving environment. Sure things might change. They might change for the better.
Not arguing with you but clarifying. In this nation there is a near absolute (on paper) gap between church and state. Any church could have performed a marriage between same sex couples up to this point but to get it legally recognized by the State (the church already recognizes it) it would have to be in their confines ie when you have a marriage you still have to take it to county clerks office and apply for a license. We clear so far?
What this decision does is make it legal for same sex couples to be bound (trick term) in marriage in the states eyes but any church that does not follow this is same belief does not have to marry same sex couples. We still clear?
For example a mixed race couple wanted to get married in a church in Alabama but the pastor refused. There was a big hub bub and protest but the state could not force him to marry them.
The real question comes to religious objection (Think Hobby lobby). Lets say a county clerk did not agree with gay marriage should they be forced to give the license? That’s the question. It has come up over pharmacist giving the morning after pill and other issues. Any other questions are really down to church and state separations.
Hope that clears things up.
It certainly does and it is exactly the system I have in my country – which I guess make the whole confusion be blamed solely in the terminology differences that are not captured by translation.
Quite frankly what then was decided is it should be from the start – religion has it say and if you want to follow you follow or if you don’t you don’t. Society must follow the laws made by man, which must be dictated by all the principles we have developed over the years, one of which being human rights and in those equality.
I am actually surprised now that deciding that had to seriously go to your Supreme Court… but I guess everyone country has its culture and its barriers to overcome. We certainly had our fair share of things that shouldn’t have but had to go to our Supreme Court.
The word bigot being thrown around by more bigots again…… Political correctness strikes again…… Very tolerant and loving of you to try to smear people with your biased claims
I’m at the point in conversations that if someone interupts me to tell me their gay, I just continue on with the conversation before.
Wouldn’t that be an odd thing to do, though? I’ve never had a convo with someone that made a point of telling me they’re straight or hetero or whatever.
Here’s a part of the conversation that it did happen.
Me: “…so this gay guy was talking to his boyfriend-”
Friend: “oh, I’m gay too”
Me: “about how he thought the last airbender wasn’t that bad of a movie. I started to feel my brain melt”True conversation, just cleaned up because I do have a potty mouth.
And looking at those tweets. Did I seriously read a guy defending his parenting by denying his kids a game cause of the same sex and trans stuff? Alcohol, violence, hostile threats, swearing, those are OK.
Kids learning bout same sex stuff? Whoa whoa whoa! Let’s not get crazy here!
My brain is melting again.
Maybe the guy was saying he’s gay because sometimes people start saying stuff and what they’re going to say could easily become offensive, and thus he’s giving people warning that they might get a reaction. However, if the conversation were like this:
Party 1: So anyway this guy is a huge Yankee fan and he said…
Party 2: Oh I love the Yankees.No one would have said anything about it.
And that’s how I treat it. I just keep going. Because once you announce that as the warning, and the first party shuts up, then something offensive was going to be said. It’s a lose lose for party one. Whatever would have been said, the tone would have to be taken into account. Was it said as a jest or a joke? Or with hate?
And yes, I have made jabs at him for being gay, only as a joke. He’s done the same back to me for things I’m part of. We’re still good friends!
Woohoo! The more bigots (better still, religious bigots) that quit GW2 over this stuff, the better! We will have a more tolerant, more loving and friendly community full of people who accept or just don’t care about who loves who.
Dude you are the same. You just spewed hate and expect a more tolerant community (ie segregation). Them and us logic is as poisonous as bigotry. “If this person doesn’t agree with me I should force them to leave.” is a very dangerous thought. You see a tolerant community lets those that disagree stay in their ranks and tries to come to peaceful resolutions. If you kick players out or try to get them to quit what makes you any better?
The fact you mention religion might make a believer no matter how accepting they are feel they aren’t welcome here. Does that really make you any better because the tide shifted in your favor? It is a real question. Should hate be accepted as long as it is pointed toward those with the minority opinion?
Additionally this is game where players will tea bag each other jump and send nasty tells. Its a mmo so …../shrug
Kor The Cold Heart War
Wrekkes-Engineer Kore Rok Thief-Asraithe-Ele
Wrekkes-Engineer Kore Rok Thief-Asraithe-Ele
Religions don’t own marriage. Besides, marriage differs between different religions.
The mistake you make is thinking that the government legally allowing a different type of marriage changes your version of marriage.
How does that make any sense if they already allow different forms of marriage from other cultures? The vows are different, the traditional clothes and ceremonies are different, and the cultural understanding of married life is different.
By your logic, those types of marriage being allowed already ruins your version of marriage.
There is no official state religion. So the laws on anything including marriage are not, and should not be determined by the standards of any religion’s standards of marriage. With that established, what argument do you have against gay marriage?
Where did I use the word religion in my post? Citing different forms of marriage is not the same thing as fundamentally changing what marriage is…most religions don’t do that…but again, I didn’t bring religion into this, you did.
Marriage is about bringing together a man and a woman, creating a stable, procreating environment. This benefits society, as it provides continuity of that society and falls in line with our biological imperative of reproduction. In other words, it made sense, and took into account our nature and biology. Few would argue that a stable home is best for child rearing, and it is inarguable that without a man and a woman you wont be producing children. Biology is simple that way. Gay marriage does not meet those criteria. The gay lifestyle, by definition, is a biological dead end.
Thinking you can change that definition, without ramifications throughout a society, is ridiculous. So the argument that gay marriage doesn’t represent change for virtually every part of our society, is just as ridiculous.
You can change that definition without ramifications. There are plenty of heterosexual couples who are married and abuse their kids, or who are married and neglect their kids, or who are married and don’t have kids. There are divorced couples and plenty of single parents. There are kids who are orphans and not enough people to adopt them.
By making marriage more inclusive, increase the number of families out there that might take some of those orphans and raise them in a loving environment. Sure things might change. They might change for the better.
As an adoptive mother, as of this summer: Yes, this. More loving families for kids is always a good thing.
You can change that definition without ramifications. There are plenty of heterosexual couples who are married and abuse their kids, or who are married and neglect their kids, or who are married and don’t have kids. There are divorced couples and plenty of single parents. There are kids who are orphans and not enough people to adopt them.
By making marriage more inclusive, increase the number of families out there that might take some of those orphans and raise them in a loving environment. Sure things might change. They might change for the better.
How naïve, of course there are massive ramifications in this case…but yes we agree, change is both good and bad. The equal rights under the law portion of this, IMO, is good. But the use of the term marriage…no. The redefinition of marriage in stark contrast with tradition and basic biology is illogical.
I don’t know where you live, but where I am, the term marriage is not a term that’s exclusively religious. Even the dictionary definition of “marriage” is one that includes a union by state. You can call my marriage what you want, but as far as I and the US government is concerned I am married.
The discussion may then be whether or not “marriage” has been watered down as a term, but, alas, this is how it is.
Again, you may support the distinction between a civil union and a marriage, but where I live this distinction does not really exist as you state it.
Okay, now I am getting very confused here… specially as the heat in this debate appears to be based on a decision by the US Supreme Court.
So here is my question, I am not going to simply discuss the word, as you seem adamant in using the word marriage and there may be so meaning to this in the context of the US which I simply don’t get and translations do not always carry the details forward, so I will discuss merely the focus of my confusion rather than derail this into a discussion of terminology and translations.
Based on what you are saying, I am understanding that the US Supreme Court deemed that religious institutions are forced to perform same sex marriages (let’s call it religious marriage – which is what I meant by marriage / religious union), in addition to state authorities doing marriages of same sex people for civil law purposes, let’s call these ones civil marriages (which is what I meant by civil union).
If this is true I am very shocked at such a decision. I thought that the US had religious tolerance and accepted that when talking about religion, it is the religious institution that is free to decide its dogmas as long as they not violate the law (i.e., you may not approve religious same sex marriage, but you must accept if a gay person writes down that it is under a civil marriage and recognize the effects thereof).
So right now I am quite negatively surprised with the US Supreme Court for basically cracking down on freedom of belief and religious institutions. I honestly don’t know what propelled such decision.
And quite frankly, at first I thought that ANET’s post was simply a support of civil same sex marriage – which is ok in my book – , but if the post had an underlying reason of the decision above, I am very taken aback at ANET’s post for the part where it is being supportive of what I deem a crackdown on freedom of belief.
However, if what you meant to say is that the US Supreme Court decided that same sex marriage can occur under civil law, i.e., what we called a civil marriage, before what ever state authority does marriages recognized by the US Government, but a religious marriage is still free choice of religious institutions, then I am glad that was the decision of the US Supreme Court – which is pretty much what we have here – and I would have no qualms with what ANET posted.
Can anyone elucidate this?
So in the US there is no class of “religious marriage.” You are married, or you are not. It is fundamentally, under the law, a secular joining. You may get married in a religious ceremony, or in a courthouse, or wherever. It is not the church that issues marriage licenses, it is the state.
The government cannot force a pastor to marry two same-sex people. A judge, however, cannot deny the marriage of it is legal. So where you are making a distinction between a religious marriage and a civil union, in the US there is no such thing, legally, as a “religious” marriage.
A civil union or domestic partnership is a limited union, the rights of which differ from state to state. It is sometimes something people will use when they want tax or other legal benefits, but they don’t necessarily have any romantic relations with one another.
Part of the argument against allowing same-sex marriage is that a “marriage” can be considered a religious institution, but that’s not legally true. Marriage is, by law, secular. So when you say in the US something like “but you have civil unions – isn’t that enough?” I would say that no, it isn’t. Even if in the state you currently live civil unions and marriages contain the same set of rights, it may not be so in another state. That’s one of many reasons same-sex couples have been fighting for full blown marriage all over the country.
You can change that definition without ramifications. There are plenty of heterosexual couples who are married and abuse their kids, or who are married and neglect their kids, or who are married and don’t have kids. There are divorced couples and plenty of single parents. There are kids who are orphans and not enough people to adopt them.
By making marriage more inclusive, increase the number of families out there that might take some of those orphans and raise them in a loving environment. Sure things might change. They might change for the better.
How naïve, of course there are massive ramifications in this case…but yes we agree, change is both good and bad. The equal rights under the law portion of this, IMO, is good. But the use of the term marriage…no. The redefinition of marriage in stark contrast with tradition and basic biology is illogical.
Basic biology is a funny thing. Because trying to use it prove stuff gets in the way of other stuff. For example, primates are biologically not monogamous in nature. We’re primates. Therefore it is biologically unnatural for us to be monogamous. So the old “definition” of marriage goes against biology, and should be thrown out.
And you know, what we see going on around us tends to confirm the idea that monogamy is an artificial construct.
But the use of the term marriage…no. The redefinition of marriage in stark contrast with tradition and basic biology is illogical.
Through this logic are we also supposed to disallow infertile men and women to be married under the same definition fertile couples are?
You can change that definition without ramifications. There are plenty of heterosexual couples who are married and abuse their kids, or who are married and neglect their kids, or who are married and don’t have kids. There are divorced couples and plenty of single parents. There are kids who are orphans and not enough people to adopt them.
By making marriage more inclusive, increase the number of families out there that might take some of those orphans and raise them in a loving environment. Sure things might change. They might change for the better.
How naïve, of course there are massive ramifications in this case…but yes we agree, change is both good and bad. The equal rights under the law portion of this, IMO, is good. But the use of the term marriage…no. The redefinition of marriage in stark contrast with tradition and basic biology is illogical.
You do realize that marriage is a social construct not a biological one? How many species of animals stick to one partner for life. Marriage can be defined by whatever a society wants it to be, just like a society can persuade people to buy diamond rings instead of saving for important expenses.
Basic biology would also say that being gay is biological so….
That is not factual biology….. Pure speculation….
I’m referring to this: https://twitter.com/GuildWars2/status/614560129573351424
Please remember that a very large portion of your player base doesn’t agree with the court’s decision today.
Speak for your self. It has no affect on you what so ever. You want to avoid politics? Don’t bring them up.
i5 4690K @ 3.5Mhz|8GB HyperX Savage 1600mHz|MSI H81M-E34|MSI GTX 960 Gaming 2GB|
|Seasonic S12G 650W|Win10 Pro X64| Corsair Spec 03 Case|
|Seasonic S12G 650W|Win10 Pro X64| Corsair Spec 03 Case|
I’m at the point in conversations that if someone interupts me to tell me their gay, I just continue on with the conversation before.
Wouldn’t that be an odd thing to do, though? I’ve never had a convo with someone that made a point of telling me they’re straight or hetero or whatever.
Here’s a part of the conversation that it did happen.
Me: “…so this gay guy was talking to his boyfriend-”
Friend: “oh, I’m gay too”
Me: “about how he thought the last airbender wasn’t that bad of a movie. I started to feel my brain melt”True conversation, just cleaned up because I do have a potty mouth.
And looking at those tweets. Did I seriously read a guy defending his parenting by denying his kids a game cause of the same sex and trans stuff? Alcohol, violence, hostile threats, swearing, those are OK.
Kids learning bout same sex stuff? Whoa whoa whoa! Let’s not get crazy here!
My brain is melting again.
Maybe the guy was saying he’s gay because sometimes people start saying stuff and what they’re going to say could easily become offensive, and thus he’s giving people warning that they might get a reaction. However, if the conversation were like this:
Party 1: So anyway this guy is a huge Yankee fan and he said…
Party 2: Oh I love the Yankees.No one would have said anything about it.
And that’s how I treat it. I just keep going. Because once you announce that as the warning, and the first party shuts up, then something offensive was going to be said. It’s a lose lose for party one. Whatever would have been said, the tone would have to be taken into account. Was it said as a jest or a joke? Or with hate?
And yes, I have made jabs at him for being gay, only as a joke. He’s done the same back to me for things I’m part of. We’re still good friends!
From experience – I make sure I let whatever friend or acquaintance I’m with know early on, because I know how big of a deal it can be to some people. I need to know whether or not I’m wasting my time getting to know this person. In this specific instance, yes, his outburst is intrusive. However, I totally understand where this guy was coming from.
And feel free to joke about being gay, or whatever. That’s just part of camaraderie, and it builds friendships.
You can change that definition without ramifications. There are plenty of heterosexual couples who are married and abuse their kids, or who are married and neglect their kids, or who are married and don’t have kids. There are divorced couples and plenty of single parents. There are kids who are orphans and not enough people to adopt them.
By making marriage more inclusive, increase the number of families out there that might take some of those orphans and raise them in a loving environment. Sure things might change. They might change for the better.
How naïve, of course there are massive ramifications in this case…but yes we agree, change is both good and bad. The equal rights under the law portion of this, IMO, is good. But the use of the term marriage…no. The redefinition of marriage in stark contrast with tradition and basic biology is illogical.
Basic biology is a funny thing. Because trying to use it prove stuff gets in the way of other stuff. For example, primates are biologically not monogamous in nature. We’re primates. Therefore it is biologically unnatural for us to be monogamous. So the old “definition” of marriage goes against biology, and should be thrown out.
And you know, what we see going on around us tends to confirm the idea that monogamy is an artificial construct.
We are not apes, making that straight jump kills your argument. Also, many species are monogamous. And there are many different species of primates. Equating us to apes because we are both primates is idiotic.
Basic biology is, as I stated it, the need for a species to procreate to continue the species. This benefits societies as well, as it continues them and prevents them from perishing. Gay behavior is a biological dead end.
Dude you are the same. You just spewed hate and expect a more tolerant community (ie segregation). Them and us logic is as poisonous as bigotry. “If this person doesn’t agree with me I should force them to leave.” is a very dangerous thought. You see a tolerant community lets those that disagree stay in their ranks and tries to come to peaceful resolutions. If you kick players out or try to get them to quit what makes you any better?
The fact you mention religion might make a believer no matter how accepting they are feel they aren’t welcome here. Does that really make you any better because the tide shifted in your favor? It is a real question. Should hate be accepted as long as it is pointed toward those with the minority opinion?
Additionally this is game where players will tea bag each other jump and send nasty tells. Its a mmo so …../shrug
No. Us and them is not as poisonous as bigotry. I can love my neighbour even though I am me and she is her. Or the family of a different ethnic background that lives opposite me. Their culture (them) is different than mine (us). We are different but equal. I do not despise them or their culture, therefore am not bigoted towards them. But thanks so much for trying.
As for religion, I do not feel that religious people should be hated or shunned. I do think that many of them require treatment for their unfortunate delusional state that restricts their ability to think and act of their own free will.
And where did I say that anyone should be forced to do anything?
Again, thanks for trying.
Just because you are intolerant Magicus,
If their point of view is just as valid as yours, why are they the intolerant one? Just wondering.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But sometimes there’s a right opinion and a wrong opinion.
Dude you are the same. You just spewed hate and expect a more tolerant community (ie segregation). Them and us logic is as poisonous as bigotry. “If this person doesn’t agree with me I should force them to leave.” is a very dangerous thought. You see a tolerant community lets those that disagree stay in their ranks and tries to come to peaceful resolutions. If you kick players out or try to get them to quit what makes you any better?
The fact you mention religion might make a believer no matter how accepting they are feel they aren’t welcome here. Does that really make you any better because the tide shifted in your favor? It is a real question. Should hate be accepted as long as it is pointed toward those with the minority opinion?
Additionally this is game where players will tea bag each other jump and send nasty tells. Its a mmo so …../shrugNo. Us and them is not as poisonous as bigotry. I can love my neighbour even though I am me and she is her. Or the family of a different ethnic background that lives opposite me. Their culture (them) is different than mine (us). We are different but equal. I do not despise them or their culture, therefore am not bigoted towards them. But thanks so much for trying.
As for religion, I do not feel that religious people should be hated or shunned. I do think that many of them require treatment for their unfortunate delusional state that restricts their ability to think and act of their own free will.
And where did I say that anyone should be forced to do anything?
Again, thanks for trying.
Maybe they can start by saying “what would Jesus do?”
You can change that definition without ramifications. There are plenty of heterosexual couples who are married and abuse their kids, or who are married and neglect their kids, or who are married and don’t have kids. There are divorced couples and plenty of single parents. There are kids who are orphans and not enough people to adopt them.
By making marriage more inclusive, increase the number of families out there that might take some of those orphans and raise them in a loving environment. Sure things might change. They might change for the better.
How naïve, of course there are massive ramifications in this case…but yes we agree, change is both good and bad. The equal rights under the law portion of this, IMO, is good. But the use of the term marriage…no. The redefinition of marriage in stark contrast with tradition and basic biology is illogical.
Basic biology is a funny thing. Because trying to use it prove stuff gets in the way of other stuff. For example, primates are biologically not monogamous in nature. We’re primates. Therefore it is biologically unnatural for us to be monogamous. So the old “definition” of marriage goes against biology, and should be thrown out.
And you know, what we see going on around us tends to confirm the idea that monogamy is an artificial construct.
We are not apes, making that straight jump kills your argument. Also, many species are monogamous. And there are many different species of primates. Equating us to apes because we are both primates is idiotic.
Basic biology is, as I stated it, the need for a species to procreate to continue the species. This benefits societies as well, as it continues them and prevents them from perishing. Gay behavior is a biological dead end.
I never said we were apes. I said we were primates. And if you really think monagmy is natural, you’re just not paying attention. The divorce rate alone should clue you in, and that doesn’t even begin to delve into the number of married people who have affairs.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But sometimes there’s a right opinion and a wrong opinion.
I thought “right” and “wrong” were more or less outdated views? Doesn’t everyone just do what they want?
You can change that definition without ramifications. There are plenty of heterosexual couples who are married and abuse their kids, or who are married and neglect their kids, or who are married and don’t have kids. There are divorced couples and plenty of single parents. There are kids who are orphans and not enough people to adopt them.
By making marriage more inclusive, increase the number of families out there that might take some of those orphans and raise them in a loving environment. Sure things might change. They might change for the better.
How naïve, of course there are massive ramifications in this case…but yes we agree, change is both good and bad. The equal rights under the law portion of this, IMO, is good. But the use of the term marriage…no. The redefinition of marriage in stark contrast with tradition and basic biology is illogical.
Basic biology is a funny thing. Because trying to use it prove stuff gets in the way of other stuff. For example, primates are biologically not monogamous in nature. We’re primates. Therefore it is biologically unnatural for us to be monogamous. So the old “definition” of marriage goes against biology, and should be thrown out.
And you know, what we see going on around us tends to confirm the idea that monogamy is an artificial construct.
We are not apes, making that straight jump kills your argument. Also, many species are monogamous. And there are many different species of primates. Equating us to apes because we are both primates is idiotic.
Basic biology is, as I stated it, the need for a species to procreate to continue the species. This benefits societies as well, as it continues them and prevents them from perishing. Gay behavior is a biological dead end.
My adoptive parents could not conceive. Was their marriage a dead end? If so, that’s a pretty harsh judgement. I will one day adopt and raise a child of my own. I see no difference between my and my parents’ marriage.
You do not need marriage to procreate. You do not need to procreate if you are married. Should post-menopausal women not be allowed to marry? They also, as you have put it, have behavior that is in a biological dead end. This line of thinking is full of holes. Why are you so afraid that a loving couple might lead a long, fulfilling life?