Same-Sex Marriages

[NrvnqsrKhaos]

Dude/tte, I grew up in Kansas. I know these arguments front and back. I know frustration all too well.

I just decided when I was a cool teenager who didn't care about anything that I didn't care about stuff like that.

Now, as a moderately less cool adult, I care about stuff.

[Xilk]

So Gadanae,why do you want to shoot everyone who isn't a christian heterosexual? Cause that's what you were implying.

Now see, this is a strawman. Did anyone advocate depriving people of basic human rights for their choices?

I would be just as offended by someone attacking someone for their choice of homosexuality. In fact, I have gotten into a fight for EXACTLY that. Guess what, I've also fought off a groups of college morons who were picking on another guy because he's Jewish. The conservative Christian "hole-in-their-heads-where-their-brains-should-be" have attacked me for my religious beliefs since before I hit puberty. Ever Since puberty, the So-open-minded-liberal-my-brain-fell-out leftists have done the same since I was a teenager.

If you protect INDIVIDUAL freedoms, then 'demographics' and 'special interest groups' disappear.

People are people FIRST. Sexuality is way down line. The west is FULL of gay identity politics. It hurts everyone who has been convinced that their identity and their personal VALUE is based of their sexuality. I would not reduce a person to this. Do you have any idea how many 'homosexual' men who were pulled in by the identity politics later found they are attracted to women? Do you know how many 'bi-sexual' people are persecuted by the "homosexual community"?

"Here, life is tough, people are mean to you because they are haters. you belong w/ us. We'll give you a home. We'll take you in. ... (just one thing, You better tote the party line, or else)"

It functions like an abusive family, or a cult. Gee so many of those taken in while teen/tweens find later in life that they really are attracted to women! Sure, they have years of sexual association meaning they still find gratification in homosexual activity, but you can build the same associations with most anything. If you imprint in the middle of sexual development you can have someone who thinks there is nothing as drop dead sexy as orange peel or whatever other thing you can condition someone to. It takes YEARS of painful work to change this for those who WANT to.

Look below the surface. Sure, there are plenty of people who will say that "they are homosexual, it was born into them, its there nature and they couldn't be happier" There are also plenty who will say they were confused and upset and really don't know. The ones shouting are making a political move. The quiet ones are usually working on their emotional health.

You paint the issue WAY to small and simple. "haters are all the people on the other side of the argument" Yeah, right. There are haters on both sides. Keeping it reduced to such a simple level is just a way to avoid the DIFFICULT work or examining the issue and one's own feelings.

You can call my statements a straw-man all you want. It won't make it true. Its just an attempt to avoid the gruesome details and invalidate and ignore the items I bring up. Look deeper into it. Homosexuality has existing for a LONG LONG time. No culture has ever tried to make it into marriage. This idea had to be born of the cultural and political contrasts and pressures in the UNITED STATES of AMERICA.

Do you not know that culture, customs and traditions form society at a more profound and deeper level than law? Do you not understand how These are the source of the values and freedoms you enjoy in most developed counties of the world? Do you not understand that marriage is one of these basic, fundamental building pieces of society? Do you not understand that redefining it and changing it is to culture and society like tweaking the value of gravity would be to astronomical physics?

Its reckless and irresponsible at best. Its catastrophic and malicious at worst.

[NrvnqsrKhaos]

Let me start by saying I don't think you're entirely wrong. I disagree with some points, and your ways of making them, but I agree that people who support gay marraige for the reasons you state are not doing it for the right reasons.

Now see, this is a strawman. Did anyone advocate depriving people of basic human rights for their choices?

Yeah. I called her out on this.

I would be just as offended by someone attacking someone for their choice of homosexuality. In fact, I have gotten into a fight for EXACTLY that. Guess what, I've also fought off a groups of college morons who were picking on another guy because he's Jewish. The conservative Christian "hole-in-their-heads-where-their-brains-should-be" have attacked me for my religious beliefs since before I hit puberty. Ever Since puberty, the So-open-minded-liberal-my-brain-fell-out leftists have done the same since I was a teenager.

This serves no purpose to your argument. It's put in here for a pity plea to show that you're more rational and balanced than you come off. I'm not saying you aren't, but if someone's looking for it, it comes across as manipulation.

If you protect INDIVIDUAL freedoms, then 'demographics' and 'special interest groups' disappear.

This is true. No argument here.

People are people FIRST. Sexuality is way down line. The west is FULL of gay identity politics. It hurts everyone who has been convinced that their identity and their personal VALUE is based of their sexuality. I would not reduce a person to this. Do you have any idea how many 'homosexual' men who were pulled in by the identity politics later found they are attracted to women? Do you know how many 'bi-sexual' people are persecuted by the "homosexual community"?

"Here, life is tough, people are mean to you because they are haters. you belong w/ us. We'll give you a home. We'll take you in. ... (just one thing, You better tote the party line, or else)"

Where is this quote from? You're pulling an example from no where. People are certainly more than just a series of yes/no questions, and certainly, politics seems to revolve around pushing folks into specially designed holes that don't quite fit them. But I'm again having a hard time understanding your point. There are evil, self serving gay people who mislead others? Okay. I knew that, cause they're people, and it's not like we heteros have a monopoly on the jerk department.

It functions like an abusive family, or a cult. Gee so many of those taken in while teen/tweens find later in life that they really are attracted to women! Sure, they have years of sexual association meaning they still find gratification in homosexual activity, but you can build the same associations with most anything. If you imprint in the middle of sexual development you can have someone who thinks there is nothing as drop dead sexy as orange peel or whatever other thing you can condition someone to. It takes YEARS of painful work to change this for those who WANT to.

Scientifically true, and quite a compelling argument. But it reads like you assume this happens in the majority of cases where homosexuality is involved. If that is so, I have to respectfully disagree. This seems like a specialized case due to the work of the kind of assholes you mentioned in the preceeding paragraph, with no indication of how many gay (or supposedly gay) people actually have these problems. Furthermore, if a person is naturally gay, as is argued by many, then that sort of imprinting wouldn't change them.

Look below the surface. Sure, there are plenty of people who will say that "they are homosexual, it was born into them, its there nature and they couldn't be happier" There are also plenty who will say they were confused and upset and really don't know. The ones shouting are making a political move. The quiet ones are usually working on their emotional health.

I agree with the fact that the shouters are the ones who are looking to gain something from the legalization. But I think that the quiet ones mainly just want some peace. Maybe that counts as working on their emotional health? And what about this is looking deeper?

You paint the issue WAY to small and simple. "haters are all the people on the other side of the argument" Yeah, right. There are haters on both sides. Keeping it reduced to such a simple level is just a way to avoid the DIFFICULT work or examining the issue and one's own feelings.

Haters gonna hate, whether it be Orignal Recipe Hate or Crispy Counter Hatred. Hating for no sake other than other people be hating gets society nowhere. But on the other hand, I think that the homosexual community has plenty of reasons to be peeved about their rights and what not, and the issue should be examined in a level more substantial than the bickering of said haters.

You can call my statements a straw-man all you want. It won't make it true. Its just an attempt to avoid the gruesome details and invalidate and ignore the items I bring up. Look deeper into it. Homosexuality has existing for a LONG LONG time. No culture has ever tried to make it into marriage. This idea had to be born of the cultural and political contrasts and pressures in the UNITED STATES of AMERICA.

True. I call your arguments strawmen when they are; both your recent post and previous one pulled quotes from the nether, using them to substantiate your arguments as the "voice of the opposition". That's... pretty much a strawman, dude.

Marriage actually wasn't such a big deal in non-western societies, before western society brought everyone into it's euro centric mindset. Before the USA, I'd assume people were too scared to have the gay beaten out of them to think about marriage. Before the beatings and such, or outside of where said beatings occurred, there wasn't as much of a focus on the whole monogamy thing.

If there wasn't a clear economic advantage to marriage in the form of taxes, insurance, and other legal stuff, it wouldn't be an issue. If civil unions between gay people can give them the same rights, Let's go with that instead, cause it saves the whole "definition of marriage" debate from becoming a clustercluck of angry hens. But from experience, the US has learned "Seperate but Equal" doesn't work so well, and thus here we are.

Oh, and I don't think it's at all bad motives for gays to want marraige to be legalized so that they can enjoy the same benefits as straight couples. As it is now, they have to make due without said benefits, or be someone they're not to have equal treatment. You yourself claimed that people not being who they are is bad, right?

If you imprint in the middle of sexual development you can have someone who thinks there is nothing as drop dead sexy as orange peel or whatever other thing you can condition someone to. It takes YEARS of painful work to change this for those who WANT to.

Just making sure.

Do you not know that culture, customs and traditions form society at a more profound and deeper level than law? Do you not understand how These are the source of the values and freedoms you enjoy in most developed counties of the world? Do you not understand that marriage is one of these basic, fundamental building pieces of society? Do you not understand that redefining it and changing it is to culture and society like tweaking the value of gravity would be to astronomical physics?

Its reckless and irresponsible at best. Its catastrophic and malicious at worst.

And now the drama starts. This is not a strawman, it's a slippery slope with a strawman trap imbedded in it. I'll deftly avoid the trap of comparing man-made law to natural law and simply say that traditions mean absolutely nothing if they aren't currently useful to humanity. Because the tradition of marriage is not useful to some humans, they are looking to abandon the traditional description of it. The changed tradition doesn't mean that the old marriage doesn't exist anymore; nor will changing it somehow undo all of society in a earth shaking global orgy of decadence. The source of something becomes less important as the resulting whatever gains a shape of it's own, which is why vegetarians don't blame grass (Well, okay, corn) for making cows delicious.

So yeah. In game marriage no, cause it's not worth the crapstorm. Out of game marriage, probably, cause the benefits are more important and reasonable for all people to demand.

Then again, if out of game marriage becomes okay, I guess it'd be okay for in game marriage too.

This is getting confusing.

[Venat]

Square Enix already tould players they werent gonna do it cus they feel its just werid. Plus Gay's or Lesbains dont exsist in Vana'diel. Only on Planet Earth.

[Ilax]

People lost they mind for sure... As much i respect gay people, i still don't think is NORMAL or let say not natural.

Is maybe normal to have gay experience as every 'animal' in nature do, but to quote the union 'normal' i think some of you just lost they mind. As i say, i respect gay people since is freedom to everyone to choose they sexuality orientation, but at the point to show it publicly and try spread the word: Let all be gay, that to me is wrong.

You have to realize the difference between acceptance and expose everyone to something that is 'not normal' from base. I doubt anyone have realize yet that are kid looking at news, playing this game, see gay parade, and what you think they see into it? They have no clue yet about they sexuality and they are exposed to this.

Is even more shocking to see no hetero doing parade in the street that news can show at TV. So in the end figure the idea child make over they sexuality. For who still don't understand the point of all this, is also acceptable that someone have sex with someone from his family, animal do it, human always did it in many generation, do you really think that would be right to also show this in media everyday?

In the end what i am saying, even if you like do sex with dead people, love have gold shower, and i skip every other 'not normal' sex, i do not care, and i am respecting it, but that do not mean i wan to see it, or wan my kid see it as 'is normal'.

*Edit: I thanks SE to not support gay union, as i thanks canadian govement to have accept gay union. Some might say: WTF?... Think about it, SE gay marriage is symbolic, Canadian Gay marriage is to protect they right, reduce tax they have to pay, and so on, is way more then just spread the word: Let all be gay. But some just never make difference between acceptance and ignorance.

If there wasn't a clear economic advantage to marriage in the form of taxes, insurance, and other legal stuff, it wouldn't be an issue. If civil unions between gay people can give them the same rights, Let's go with that instead, cause it saves the whole "definition of marriage" debate from becoming a clustercluck of angry hens. But from experience, the US has learned "Seperate but Equal" doesn't work so well, and thus here we are

I agree with that, but people have to wake up, game union don't offer such of thing, but more symbolic that expose people/kid to it, that is by far over the acceptance. I am sure no one wan expose they kid to be gay just because is 'cool'...

[Mirage]

Of course it's not normal, only about 10-15% of the population is homosexual or bisexual. Doesn't really matter though, them getting married still doesn't really affect the rest of the world.

Who's talking about a "gay parade" in the game? Do you really think that would be the effects of allowing same sex marriage? In a game where 90% of the girls are actually guys?

[Ilax]

Of course it's not normal, only about 10-15% of the population is homosexual or bisexual. Doesn't really matter though, them getting married still doesn't really affect the rest of the world.

Getting married in RL is more then symbolic, but in game is just to expose other to it, same as do a GAY parade.

[Melodicya]

Hello Everyone!

Whatever your personal opinions on Same-Sex marriage, both sides can agree that it is a controversial topic world-wide. Because of its controversial nature, Same-Gender marriages are not currently available in Vana'diel in order to ensure the game is rated "T" (or its equivalent) worldwide.

We do appreciate to continue hearing your feedback on this, as policies are ever evolving and do change, and I'd like to add I personally do appreciate everyone that has particpated in this debate without flaming or being offensive, since it can be a very volatile subject. I do hope we can keep the conversation going if possible.

[Sagian]

the idea of 'same-sex marriage' is pretty ridiculous in the first place. Put it in historical context. It has never come up in any culture before the last few decades. Japan is actually more sane than the west regarding this. It is not taken seriously in Asia at all. Marriage has been a religious institution far longer than a legal one, and even longer than cultural one. 'Same-sex marriage' is a farce. Its an attempt to force everyone to believe that homosexuality is better than the heterosexual marriage that has existed for all human history and nurtured and educated all members of the human family. You can believe whatever you want to believe, but so can I. Don't try to force me to believe this. This is an attack on freedom, NOT a fight for it.

"here lets flip the history of human-kind on its head to do a little experiment! Who cares about the lives that will be shattered in the process! I just want to see what will happen...." ... The more radical you try to shove the pendulum over, the harder it will swing back...

Homosexuality is a sexual deviance like any other fetish. If you want to go for it, more power to you, I really don't care. However, the concept of 'same-sex marriage' is a political contrivance for most and a personal grudge for the rest. Its an attempt to shove a lifestyle choice of a relatively small group of people down the throats of anyone who does not believe as they do.

I think it is sad that people want to reduce their entire lives down to a sexual interest. Life is more than sex! This is true for EVERYONE. If you reduce yourself to this I feel sorry for you. If you want to shove your sexual lifestyle in stranger's and everyone's face, then you are a perpetrator of sexual harassment, NOT a victim.

There is absolutely no reason to shove this into the game. SE should not even respond to these inquiries and demands. They have no responsibility to jump into this deceptive political game. I hope this thread and any thread about same-sex marriage in game gets NUKED.

This post is so patently wrong, I don't even know where to begin.

Same-sex marriages have a very long and ancient history. You would do well to research the subject instead of parroting what you've been told.

In ancient China, through the Ming Dynasty, same-sex marriages were commonplace. An example of this, from the Zhou Dynasty, is recorded in the story of "Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian".

Ancient Eqypt allowed same-sex marriages as evidenced by the union of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep, two Royal Manuscripts to Pharaoh Niuserre during Egypt’s Fifth Dynasty.

Classical Europe allowed same-sex marriages until it was outlawed In 342 AD in Theodesian Code by Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. The penalty for violating this code was execution.

That last bit is the source of so-called 'traditional' marriage. Marriage hijacked from same-sex couples 1600 years ago by two religious fanatics under the threat of murder should anyone defy the law.

If you want to look at the historical context of something, you have to look at the whole history, not just the parts that suit your position.

I will also point out that it is individuals such as yourself that want to reduce this issue to sexual interest. That, after all, is what your entire argument is based on. Proponents of marriage equality are the ones stating that the gender of one's marriage interest (and the sex they have) is, and should be, irrelevant.

[Ilax]

Hello Everyone!

Whatever your personal opinions on Same-Sex marriage, both sides can agree that it is a controversial topic world-wide. Because of its controversial nature, Same-Gender marriages are not currently available in Vana'diel in order to ensure the game is rated "T" (or its equivalent) worldwide.

We do appreciate to continue hearing your feedback on this, as policies are ever evolving and do change, and I'd like to add I personally do appreciate everyone that has particpated in this debate without flaming or being offensive, since it can be a very volatile subject. I do hope we can keep the conversation going if possible.

Thanks Melodicya for giving us feed back =)