Guild Wars 2

GuzziHero.2467:

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.

As both an extremely religious and extremely queer person, it saddens me how synonymous faith and bigotry have become.

Dyvim.8293:

Vayne.8563:

Dyvim.8293:

Vayne.8563:

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.

We are in the family Hominidae. That’s great apes. Humans ARE apes, actually.

Nyx.7342:

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….

Of course, I said that essentially in another post…that it is a social construct that is in line with our biology.

Actually gay behavior is biological. Biologists observed decades ago that you can increase the incidence of homosexual behavior, aberrant behavior, in a mammalian population (rats in this case) by increasing the stress that a given population was under. Overcrowding, etc. This answers, or at least addresses a very interesting question…how can a behavior that is a biological dead end, persist in a population. I mean if people are born gay, and it is not a choice, then how could that persist when in theory those genes, that DNA, would not get passed on to the next generation, on average?

So, from a population genetics point of view, it makes sense that the gene pool would maintain those genes in order for that population to have a self limiting mechanism in place that would slow down the reproductive rate of a population under distress or resource limitation. Its an interesting theory.

I’m proud to be playing an LGBT supporting game. Good on ANet for speaking out in support.

It’s not politics, it’s supporting basic human rights for all.

See you at the zoo.

Hello,

The sexual preferences of others are none of your kitten business.

Greetings from the other side of the Atlantic, where basic human rights -such as gay marriage- are considered normal.

Be sure to visit sometime.

Why does it bother people what people do with their privates or who they love?
A few comments on this thread from people stating they are against it, that marriage is between man and woman, I believe in God, etc. But how exactly is what other people doing affecting you? You have the right to think how you want, but the majority of people WILL disagree with you.
You guys are CHOOSING to be against the majority who want people to be equal in their lives.

Marthkus.4615:

GuzziHero.2467:

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.

As both an extremely religious and extremely queer person, it saddens me how synonymous faith and bigotry have become.

Religion doesn’t have a great track record on civil/human rights. The only difference is that 50+ years ago, religious bigotry was there, but it was embraced wholesale.

Wait… Marriage is only for having children and love is only for procreation?

Well, let’s ban all asexuals, infertile folk, and post-menopausal women from marrying then. I mean, let’s be consistent.

I love how the intolerant always act like people who disagree with them are THE REAL BIGOTS, and some kind of huge hypocrites for daring to speak out against them. You know what, some things should not be tolerated. I don’t tolerate racists or homophobes any more than I tolerate pedophiles and the Third Reich. As far as I’m concerned, not tolerating some of these viewpoints makes you a good person. I proudly claim my intolerance of the intolerable.

Magicus.4302:

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.

Minor, major, does it make a difference?
I agree with OP, even thought i am in favor of the court decision, because i am tolerant for either case.
If you complain about who does not approve the decision, you show no much different tolerance than them.

The team does well to keep track of what happens in the world, but what would have happened if the proposal was rejected? hashtag #nohomo?

I was not bothered by the Community Team decision at all, but since we are in topic in my opinion politics are a topic that is better left for each own.

Sinikka.2794:

Dyvim.8293:

Vayne.8563:

Dyvim.8293:

Vayne.8563:

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.

We are in the family Hominidae. That’s great apes. Humans ARE apes, actually.

Not in the manner he was referencing. Taxonomy is wonderful, try not to misuse it. He specifically was equating kitten sapiens to apes, as species. He wasn’t going up the taxonomic tree, or maybe you want to bring order, phylum, etc. into this…they would all be as inappropriate to the conversation.

I find it hilarious when people try and claim homosexuality is a “political issue”.

Is heterosexuality considered political? Is issues of race considered political? Gender political?

No one ever complains about the hundreds of heterosexual characters in games but as soon as a single gay couple appears it becomes “political” and “shaving it in our faces”.

Issues surrounding gender, race, sexuality are NOT political.

Now if GW2 made a Tweet supporting a particular presidential candidate THAT would be political and very wrong.

If the OP and others have any issue with homosexuality and marriage equality they have the choice not to play the game if it makes them uncomfortable. Be a mature adult and walk away, there is no need to make hateful comments/threads.

Serophous.9085:

Maybe they can start by saying “what would Jesus do?”

Finally manage to self-res from downed after a few days because someone botched the finisher?

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Serophous.9085:

Maybe they can start by saying “what would Jesus do?”

Finally manage to self-res from downed after a few days because someone botched the finisher?

Absolutely!

15CHAR

Arnath.2319:

I find it hilarious when people try and claim homosexuality is a “political issue”.

Is heterosexuality considered political? Is issues of race considered political? Gender political?

No one ever complains about the hundreds of heterosexual characters in games but as soon as a single gay couple appears it becomes “political” and “shaving it in our faces”.

Issues surrounding gender, race, sexuality are NOT political.

Now if GW2 made a Tweet supporting a particular presidential candidate THAT would be political and very wrong.

If the OP and others have any issue with homosexuality and marriage equality they have the choice not to play the game if it makes them uncomfortable. Be a mature adult and walk away, there is no need to make hateful comments/threads.

Homosexuality itself is not political by any means. However, this case is about a political decision, with political weight and so on. The GW2 team did not simply support homosexuality, they already did in many ways, but supported the decision because they had the timing for it.

This means supporting political decision, this support political image and partites and so on and so on…
You might think not, but many others might do. Hell, I tought it that way and since i don’t define myself a special snowflake i can approximate that many other people will think the same as me. Love it or hate it, it happens.

Sinikka.2794:

Serophous.9085:

Khristophoros.7194:

Vayne.8563:

Khristophoros.7194:

Behellagh.1468:

Khristophoros.7194:

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.

There is a pedestal but it’s not ANet putting it up. Like I said, people who do it annoy me.

How is asking the company to refrain from politics hateful? That is what the thread is supposed to be about after all.

GuzziHero.2467:

TheGuy.3568:

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.

I wasn’t “trying”.

I asked you a legit question.

Us and them is literally a poison. We is literally the state we are in. Unless you are willing to eliminate the opposition.

Some people are sheep. The main thing about sheep is not that they follow but they fear anything they view as threatening. They bundle together and stick to their own. What you suggested is that as people you believe to be bigots exit the game you will see a friendlier and more accepting community…………..filled with people that are all the same.

Whether you chose to tell me about your neighbor or not it is still exclusion. Which I find a bit humorous. You think I am trying to “troll” you but you said something that was full of hate and n matter how you try sugar coat it.

If you hate group of people for their beliefs because they differ from yours you are factually a bigot. And in this case a hypocrite too. And these are not insults but facts. Literally bigotry is " intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself" and you applauded their departure. I do not need to “try” but the hate I see here from both sides is laughable.

Instead of saying they should get to know someone from the LGBT community or look at it from their perspective or even to just live with it. You applauded their departure and no more glad to see them gone and even better because they were religious. You can not deny this.

What makes you any better?

hennrick.4623:

Arnath.2319:

I find it hilarious when people try and claim homosexuality is a “political issue”.

Is heterosexuality considered political? Is issues of race considered political? Gender political?

No one ever complains about the hundreds of heterosexual characters in games but as soon as a single gay couple appears it becomes “political” and “shaving it in our faces”.

Issues surrounding gender, race, sexuality are NOT political.

Now if GW2 made a Tweet supporting a particular presidential candidate THAT would be political and very wrong.

If the OP and others have any issue with homosexuality and marriage equality they have the choice not to play the game if it makes them uncomfortable. Be a mature adult and walk away, there is no need to make hateful comments/threads.

Homosexuality itself is not political by any means. However, this case is about a political decision, with political weight and so on. The GW2 team did not simply support homosexuality, they already did in many ways, but supported the decision because they had the timing for it.

This means supporting political decision, this support political image and partites and so on and so on…
You might think not, but many others might do. Hell, I tought it that way and since i don’t define myself a special snowflake i can approximate that many other people will think the same as me. Love it or hate it, it happens.

To be clear, the issue of marriage that was settled today was a legal issue, not a political issue. If it were political it would have been decided upon by legislature, not in a court of law. The issue has been HIGHLY politicized, but at its core it is legal.

To those saying that marriage needs to be for biological purposes: considering the fact that each generation tends to be larger, it may not be a bad thing for some people to in fact not procreate.

And in my mind, if gays/lesbians/etc were accepted and not forced to pretend they are straight, then fewer will feel the need to get married to someone of the opposite sex and have kids only to realize a few years later that they can’t pretend anymore and divorce. And what does that teach the kid? That it’s ok to lie?

Dashingsteel.3410:

That is not factual biology….. Pure speculation….

Why would someone choose to be gay or lesbian in a culture that would discriminate against them or even kill them? There are still places where it’s deadly be anything but straight.

Dashingsteel.3410:

How is asking the company to refrain from politics hateful? That is what the thread is supposed to be about after all.

Personally, I’d rather everyone stayed out of politics and let it calm back down out of whipping up emotionally-charged discussions like this one any time a whiff of the topic of choice comes up.

And I’d rather the government focus on trying to keep things running and/or improving on infrastructure rather than worrying about things like this.

And I’d really like to enjoy playing my game without having to witness things which really offend me. Yes, I’m talking about that insidious evil . . .

. . . asura.

Dyvim.8293:

Sinikka.2794:

Dyvim.8293:

Vayne.8563:

Dyvim.8293:

Vayne.8563:

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.

We are in the family Hominidae. That’s great apes. Humans ARE apes, actually.

Not in the manner he was referencing. Taxonomy is wonderful, try not to misuse it. He specifically was equating kitten sapiens to apes, as species. He wasn’t going up the taxonomic tree, or maybe you want to bring order, phylum, etc. into this…they would all be as inappropriate to the conversation.

I wasn’t misusing anything. You said “we are not apes”. I merely said, yes, technically, we are.

Your arguments make no sense. “It’s about biology, except when it isn’t and it’s about religion.” … you’re cute. See, I can be condescending too!

Marriage has nothing to do with biology. It never has. Otherwise, we wouldn’t “breed” dogs, we’d give them “marriages”. I mean, we’re talking strictly about procreation, right? Except… when we’re not.

Dyvim.8293:

Marriage is about bringing together a man and a woman, creating a stable, procreating environment.

If this were the case divorce would be disallowed as would marriage of individuals incapable of procreation.

On the other hand a man and a woman can (and frequently do) come together to create a, “stable procreating environment,” without the institution of formalized marriage.

Sinikka.2794:

Marriage has nothing to do with biology. It never has. Otherwise, we wouldn’t “breed” dogs, we’d give them “marriages”.

I suspect fifteen minutes with Google and I could find a canine wedding.

Edit: 10 seconds and yes, it exists.

HAHAHA canine weddings……. still got tears in my eyes from laughing so hard

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Sinikka.2794:

Marriage has nothing to do with biology. It never has. Otherwise, we wouldn’t “breed” dogs, we’d give them “marriages”.

I suspect fifteen minutes with Google and I could find a canine wedding.

Edit: 10 seconds and yes, it exists.

15 mins was pessimistic lol

It saddens me to see how many people are split on this issue of treating people as equal to one another.

Perhaps society hasn’t advanced all too much in the past century, after all. Everyone should have the right to have their love and relationship recognised by society and now, at least in America, that will happen. About bloody time, I say.

As for this being about politics: it isn’t. It’s about narrow religious beliefs and, fundamentally, Church and State are supposed to be separate so let’s be real here; this is not about politics, it’s about people of specific religious views being offended that something that goes against their religious belief system (regardless of how biggoted and narrow minded it is) has been recognised by society and is being supported across the country by a multitude of companies and corporations. Even facebook and twitter are letting you publicly show your support for this great victory in the battle for equality for all.

Now if ANet had tweeted something to do with confederate flag, that’s something I’d be entirely against. As it is, Anet simply tweeted their support of equality for all. Good on them

This is a free society. Same goes for the gaming company. If you don’t agree with something, U either discuss it’s contents first, U tolerare it, or accept it. Mankind hasn’t thrived so well by just putting things back in the closet(yes punt intended) because you don’t like it. that’s chilidish. They are enough traditional families in the game and enough. Man why is it the people who are against gay marriage, or anything that values thier traditional religious, political values, or whatever so, defensive. this right here is absolutely nothing.

Laugh it up, but wait until the advocate groups start up about how one dog should be allowed to marry another dog despite gender or breed.

And yes, I know they exist.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Sinikka.2794:

Marriage has nothing to do with biology. It never has. Otherwise, we wouldn’t “breed” dogs, we’d give them “marriages”.

I suspect fifteen minutes with Google and I could find a canine wedding.

Edit: 10 seconds and yes, it exists.

Hahaha! <3

I’m not sure whose point that proves. ;D

Anyway, I think that’s it for me, this thread (and myself) have gone soooo far off topic.

rapthorne.7345:

Now if ANet had tweeted something to do with confederate flag, that’s something I’d be entirely against.

Why? A confederate flag simply stands for the Confederacy, a short-lived and now extinct country, right?

Please remember that a very large portion of your player base doesn’t agree with the court’s decision today.

Please remember that Marjory and Kasmeer don’t agree with that very large portion of the player base!

Some of the posts on the first page of this thread are really disturbing imo.

I am perfectly fine with gay marriage, but do I want it shoved in my face everywhere I turn to, be it reddit or imgur or the TV or facebook or youtube etc? No not really.

Because of that, I cannot help but feel mildly annoyed by this tweet. I have always believed it to be stupid for it to be illegal. It’s basic human rights to me. But regardless of my opinion on the matter, I would prefer not to see anything about it coming from the game that I play.

My opinion is that real life politics shouldn’t be discussed like this on the forums. This isn’t and shouldn’t be permitted on this forum unless they specifically make an “Off-Topic Discussion” subforum.

Celtic Lady.3729:

rapthorne.7345:

Now if ANet had tweeted something to do with confederate flag, that’s something I’d be entirely against.

Why? A confederate flag simply stands for the Confederacy, a short-lived and now extinct country, right?

Almost as much as a certain other flag represents a political party in a European country simply stands for that. Flags are symbols, and thus have more meaning than simply being a flag. That’s the nature of their existence.

Kain Francois.4328:

Please remember that a very large portion of your player base doesn’t agree with the court’s decision today.

Please remember that Marjory and Kasmeer don’t agree with that very large portion of the player base!

. . . the ones who want access to Cantha again?

Seera.5916:

To those saying that marriage needs to be for biological purposes: considering the fact that each generation tends to be larger, it may not be a bad thing for some people to in fact not procreate.

And in my mind, if gays/lesbians/etc were accepted and not forced to pretend they are straight, then fewer will feel the need to get married to someone of the opposite sex and have kids only to realize a few years later that they can’t pretend anymore and divorce. And what does that teach the kid? That it’s ok to lie?

Dashingsteel.3410:

That is not factual biology….. Pure speculation….

Why would someone choose to be gay or lesbian in a culture that would discriminate against them or even kill them? There are still places where it’s deadly be anything but straight.

I think you could take that a step farther. Do you need marriage to have kids? The answer is no. Do you need marriage to live together in the US? No you do not.

Marriage is a funny thing here. It is a public showing of commitment but it does not require that you love each other, have kids, be monogamous, or even live together. What gives marriage it’s value is how people view it. What funny is that over time less people are getting married and far less are doing it without divorce.

There is no strong argument in favor or marriage as a general concept besides creating family units (insurance, inheritance, health issues ie hospital visits, laws preventing testimony). Anything other than that is just individuals placing their own importance on it. And for long time now the importance of marriage at least in this country has been dwindling.

Lets be honest here. This is not the 70s or 60s or even the terrible 80s. Some people do still pretend to get straight to be accepted by society but that like a black person painting their skin white for privilege (ie passing). I think we forget how fearless some people were especially in the mid to late 80s and 90s where there was a terrible stigma against the gay community. The kids are probably happy to exist but with the risk of getting hated here isn’t the message of not being who you are in the face of danger more detrimental than lying might get by.

I think the message I got when I was younger form the openly gay people around me is is be brave in the face of hate vs blame society for not accepting you. Hiding is hiding.

Celtic Lady.3729:

rapthorne.7345:

Now if ANet had tweeted something to do with confederate flag, that’s something I’d be entirely against.

Why? A confederate flag simply stands for the Confederacy, a short-lived and now extinct country, right?

Because the confederate flag is a political symbol, not just a hot topic about racial equality and racism.

Nice tweet by Anet. Many thanks for posting the link for us twitter-less people.

I was under the impression that flag referred to as, “the confederate flag,” was not the flag of the political entity called the Confederate States of America, but rather was a (not the) battle flag of many military units (fighting for the Confederacy).

Honest question:

Are the colors of the First Infantry considered a political symbol of the United States ? Or are they a symbol of the courage and sacrifices of the men who fought under it ?

TheGuy.3568:

Marriage is a funny thing here. It is a public showing of commitment but it does not require that you love each other, have kids, be monogamous, or even live together.

Historically, marriage has not been about love or commitment at all. Women were married off without their consent for copious amounts of money and/or property. Men were not expected to adhere to fidelity. The only thing you can say for it is that children were generally expected from it regardless and woe to the woman that didn’t deliver (literally.)

Of course, people can have marriages where all these good things are involved (love, kids, fidelity); it just seems rare to me. What I don’t get are the people that marry and then have affairs. It’s like, duh, you could just play the field all your life and save everyone the trouble if that’s what your personality is like.

No wonder I don’t want to get married.

TheGuy.3568:

Seera.5916:

To those saying that marriage needs to be for biological purposes: considering the fact that each generation tends to be larger, it may not be a bad thing for some people to in fact not procreate.

And in my mind, if gays/lesbians/etc were accepted and not forced to pretend they are straight, then fewer will feel the need to get married to someone of the opposite sex and have kids only to realize a few years later that they can’t pretend anymore and divorce. And what does that teach the kid? That it’s ok to lie?

Dashingsteel.3410:

That is not factual biology….. Pure speculation….

Why would someone choose to be gay or lesbian in a culture that would discriminate against them or even kill them? There are still places where it’s deadly be anything but straight.

I think you could take that a step farther. Do you need marriage to have kids? The answer is no. Do you need marriage to live together in the US? No you do not.

Marriage is a funny thing here. It is a public showing of commitment but it does not require that you love each other, have kids, be monogamous, or even live together. What gives marriage it’s value is how people view it. What funny is that over time less people are getting married and far less are doing it without divorce.

There is no strong argument in favor or marriage as a general concept besides creating family units (insurance, inheritance, health issues ie hospital visits, laws preventing testimony). Anything other than that is just individuals placing their own importance on it. And for long time now the importance of marriage at least in this country has been dwindling.

Lets be honest here. This is not the 70s or 60s or even the terrible 80s. Some people do still pretend to get straight to be accepted by society but that like a black person painting their skin white for privilege (ie passing). I think we forget how fearless some people were especially in the mid to late 80s and 90s where there was a terrible stigma against the gay community. The kids are probably happy to exist but with the risk of getting hated here isn’t the message of not being who you are in the face of danger more detrimental than lying might get by.

I think the message I got when I was younger form the openly gay people around me is is be brave in the face of hate vs blame society for not accepting you. Hiding is hiding.

The point is all the legal rights codified by the term marriage in case law in relation to one’s spouse and children, from hospital visitation, to what this case was about, survivor benefits. The case in front of SCOTUS was about how one state wouldn’t issue survivor benefits because they didn’t recognize a legal marriage from another state.

That is one of the reasons behind the 14th Amendment, that all citizens will be granted the same rights across all the states. And while it was ambiguous before, once states started to legalize a ban against same-sex marriage, they hoisted themselves by their own petard by squarely going against the 14th Amendment. It was only a matter of time.

rapthorne.7345:

It saddens me to see how many people are split on this issue of treating people as equal to one another.

Perhaps society hasn’t advanced all too much in the past century, after all. Everyone should have the right to have their love and relationship recognised by society and now, at least in America, that will happen. About bloody time, I say.

As for this being about politics: it isn’t. It’s about narrow religious beliefs and, fundamentally, Church and State are supposed to be separate so let’s be real here; this is not about politics, it’s about people of specific religious views being offended that something that goes against their religious belief system (regardless of how biggoted and narrow minded it is) has been recognised by society and is being supported across the country by a multitude of companies and corporations. Even facebook and twitter are letting you publicly show your support for this great victory in the battle for equality for all.

Now if ANet had tweeted something to do with confederate flag, that’s something I’d be entirely against. As it is, Anet simply tweeted their support of equality for all. Good on them

Society doesn ot have ot recognize anybodies love. I undersatnd the ideal but i nrelaity society with time chooses whats ok and whats not.

Right now there are a few religious sects that are applauding this decision. Because it opens up a door for polygamy (though a ruling a few years ago sort of helped it along too). The logic being that if a group not following a traditional definition of marriage can get the US government to recognize their unions why not us? And they have more than a leg to stand on as most marriages throughout the world cross culture and been polygamist in nature (classically not currently). The question is will society or the majority say ok we will fight for this?

Society makes the decision but not all love and unions will be considered equal. Not all l will be recognized.

this is political in nature because it is all political. I mean literally. If it deals with your governance by you country or whatever power that be that ensure or denies your right its literally political. Church is political (see Frontline Gene Robinson). If you go to one when they make a decision its political. So is school. This is a very political issue just like civil rights. While it may seem intrinsic its because politicians 240 years ago removing the yoke of their parent country said something. This is politics. From getting it to pass to the shift in perception over the past 40 years its been politics. And when you ignore that you miss the big picture.

So you know in general businesses know their customer base and goes with the wind. It doesn’t mean individuals within an organization do not have their own opinions but in general they go with where the support is. Just like politicians.

I have been laughed at for being a believer and told I was going to hell for being catholic. Narrow minds are everywhere luckily I had some good people teach me to love folks despite that. My first religious teacher thought women should be priest and gays should not be excluded from the church and she was one of the most faithful people I ever knew. My second taught me to open my mind and see it fro the other perspective. Even if that means stepping into the shoes of someone you disagree with.

In my eyes speaking truthfully most of you are actually pretty narrow minded.

I’m not against anything, BUT, a COMPANY should never make releases like this.

Yes, devs can have their own opinions on their personal Facebook page or Twitter, but not on the oficial company one. It’s just something you don’t do if you care about the image of your company.

What if someone is muslim? Their religion does not allow gay marriage and it’s a serious offense. You praise equality in your EULA and yet you kitten all over other religions or other cultures with this tweet.

Think about the consequences for once Anet…

Game uninstalled. Goodbye kitten enablers.

VaLee.5102:

What if someone is muslim? Their religion does not allow gay marriage and it’s a serious offense.

I’m guessing from what I’ve read in this thread so far, the majority would simply say that some opinions are right and some are wrong, so being a Muslim is just wrong.

narwhalsbend.7059:

While reading this thread, please stop to enjoy this screenshot of a female tourist without any clothes on flirting with my female character instead of giving me the speed boost she is advertising above her head.

Show Spoiler

hide spoiler

This post is a joke. Also, I just saw that I already had it on my bar already. Oops.

Thank you for the much needed laugh.

VaLee.5102:

What if someone is muslim? Their religion does not allow gay marriage and it’s a serious offense. You praise equality in your EULA and yet you kitten all over other religions or other cultures with this tweet.

Think about the consequences for once Anet…

Just because someone holds a certain religious view does not mean they are against equal marriage etc. They are not mutually exclusive.
You can be devout Christian and still believe LGBT has exactly the same rights as Hetero people, which they do because we are all equal, no matter what religion. Any half decent person thinks like this.

Yes, I believe they were tolerantly referred to as religious bigots.

Celtic Lady.3729:

VaLee.5102:

What if someone is muslim? Their religion does not allow gay marriage and it’s a serious offense.

I’m guessing from what I’ve read in this thread so far, the majority would simply say that some opinions are right and some are wrong, so being a Muslim is just wrong.

Everyone’s entitled to their religious beliefs, but that doesn’t mean everyone else should dance around them for the pure sake of not offending them. If that was the way the world worked, a vast amount of everyday things would be off-limits.

I respect people’s personal religious beliefs, but religious people should respect that not everyone believes as they do, it’s quite simple really