Showing Posts For Muzicman.9741:
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.
I just want to make sure that it’s not an issue, when I give it a name that parades my sexual views.
If you are, indeed, parading your “sexual” views, I imagine your guild won’t have a very long shelf life.
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?
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.
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.
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 don’t think religious institutions should be forced to marry anyone against the wishes of its leadership, precepts, congregation, or what have you. I do think that anyone deserves the have the right to marry whomever they please, within the confines of the law.
Okay, I will copy only this part because it seems where the largest misunderstanding is happening and will explain this in a bit more detail on how it works where I am from.
If you have a “marriage” (or the equivalent word in your religion) you have a religious union before whoever is capable of doing so in your religion . If you go to anywhere – even abroad – and you have to right down if you are single or “married” what do you write?
Single. You can not write “married”.
Why? I had a marriage! I did everything that religion states that I should do! I spent a ton of money to do it! So how come I can’t say I am married??
Because a religious union is not recognized by the state and thus, for all legal purposes, you are still very much single.
The State only recognizes civil unions. So if you want to be able to write down and have the full legal implications of being “married” you have to do a civil union before the state.
If you go and have a civil union before the state and you go anywhere and have to say your civil status what do you write? “Married”.
Having a religious union is entirely up to the religious institution to decide who can or can not do a religious union. Having a civil union is entirely up to the Government to say who can or can not have a civil union. And here a civil union can occur freely – same sex or different sexes – but you can only have one civil union (whereas you can have as many religious unions your religion allows).
So at the end of the day what I say is that I don’t support the government going and telling the religious institutions what they must do. If a religion does not allow same sex marriage, that is the religious institution who has a right to say.
But on the state side, I very much support the position of our government in treating all equally.
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.
In order to get into a map that has enough players/organization to kill teq I have to show up an hour early and usually I walk away with some greens and a spoon. Now I get to show up an hour early, spend twice as much time trying to kill him, and still get a spoon.
Assuming you can even kill him. I walked away today with 4 greens. After getting into an organized map 45 minutes early. I don’t understand why they would think teq would need 2x the health. I can only imagine the wurm…
After the first patch when Teq melted like butter I suggested maybe doubling his health.
…
I TAKE IT BACK! Haha. I know this will eventually get sorted out but whoo boy. Balance team needs to take lighter touches instead of coming in with a sledge hammer. :P
You’d think their sledgehammer would be falling apart at this point. I love this game, but man Anet really has serious trouble with game balance.
But what if they don’t want a civil union? A civil union doesn’t include all the rights that a normal marriage does. I think it’s kind of selfish to tell someone they can’t have a marriage because it’s against your beliefs. Two gay guys wanting to get married literally has no effects on you. None.
Trust me, you are far from being persecuted. ANet is allowing you to post on this forums, to play their game, and by golly as a Christian you have more power than those who you claim to be oppressing you. Does it not occur to you that LGBTQ+ people have been persecuted by almost everyone since…forever? In some countries, you get imprisoned or stoned to death just for loving the opposite sex. That’s persecution. Having people disagree with your beliefs and feeling offended is not.
You believe what you want, I’m just pointing out your religion doesn’t get to dictate the government or how people want to live their lives.
Okay, let me clarify this before we go too deep here. This may be a language/ country problem.
When I say civil union I mean the exact same thing a straight couple does if they are no religious and go to church to get a religious marriage.
I only ask that you do not force churches to make same sex union if the religion does not allow it. On the civil side, full equal treatment – meaning full equal rights of the union, whatever the most complete type of civil union civil “marriage” you get in your country.
Hope this clears the discussion, because I think we might be supporting the same thing, but the language barrier is keeping the message from getting across.
It’s the word “marriage” that you seem to have quarrel with. I understand that from your point of view it is strictly a religious term and ritual, but according to the government and society at large, it is not. I’m married, and got married at a court house, as we are not a religious family. We did not have a civil union, as we wanted there to be no doubt in anyone’s mind, be it people we meet or organizations we become a part of that we are joined wholly.
I don’t think you seem like a bad person or that you are trying to harm anyone, but I do think that it’s a bit disingenuous to call someone your close friend, but in the same breath say you do not want them to have the same rights as you. I can’t imagine trying to maintain a friendship like that. I know people that I’m friendly with that I see on a regular basis, but would not call my friend because I disagree with something or other about them or their lives. It does not mean I hate them. I think this is really the kind of relationship you describe.
I don’t think religious institutions should be forced to marry anyone against the wishes of its leadership, precepts, congregation, or what have you. I do think that anyone deserves the have the right to marry whomever they please, within the confines of the law.
As stated before, separate but equal is not equal. Obviously what we call marriage matters, or we would not be having this discussion. How would you feel if you were defending your right to a have a “Christian” marriage?
Just failed teq with an organized group that would have succeeded last week. If teq is able to be critted outside of cannon phase, I don’t think anyone realized it. I know that I only saw crits during the burn phases.
Shadow Behemoth took like 10 minutes to finish, which felt forever. My guild was doing Jormag before Teq and it took half an hour once the boss appeared. I think the buff was too much, or the ability to crit needs to be more obvious.