Same-Sex Marriages

[Rosalie]

At this point, I wouldn't mind seeing this thread closed either, as it's degenerated from a request to make in-game items and ceremonies that are ALREADY AVAILABLE to ALL types of couples (unless you want to marry your npc whut) slightly more convenient (which, btw, can't be done for political bull**** reasons that are beyond SE's control) into a political argument about sexual preferences and oppression.

I'm just surprised this hasn't turned into a Galkan oppression cryfest already.

Also @Rubeus: (not to be mean, but try editing your post instead of sextuple posting next time?)

[Rubeus]

@Xilk: "marriage is a freedom" "its popular to title things as a right when it's not" "marriage is a privilege" ... hmm.. no. you can't have both. and freedom should belong to everyone, not just who you deem worthy of having it.

Also, the original hebrew bible never mentions homosexuality. soooo again, you're wrong. and Indian culture was very popular with gay relationships before Gandhi destroyed a lot of the evidence, but not all of it. Which is also a fact, btw.

Also, Japan's had christianity since the 1500s. So, how is that not a background?

... @Chrism wow. you really used the earthquake as a reason not to do this. THAT is low. INCREDIBLY low.

@ Rosalie: is this better? ^^ sorry, didn't think of it.

also, LOL @ galkas in dresses and cat on cat, furthermore, it IS just a game and it wouldn't make an OMGHUGE difference but nonetheless.

Yawn and Vivik did all the work for me on explaining how I felt. so, thank you guys.

now if you'll excuse me before this gets 40 pages of DUMB I'm going to RUN AWAY SCREAMING before someone else says something asinine and I feel the intense need to punch them for being a religious zealot, right-wing idiot, troll, or prat. *never reading again*

[Xilk]

Actually, your history of marriage is completely mistaken. Marriage has historically been, and still remains for most people, a means of gaining wealth, status, and/or power; as well as creating offspring to carry that legacy on ad infinitum. Historically, taking one or more lovers onthe side has been completely acceptable as long as you keep it a secret. That way, you don't dishonor or embarass your spouse. In fact, the concept of monogamy is relatively new. ,Marriage is not even a religious thing. Religions use marriage to their own ends, but marriage itself is all about the above.

As for Asians finding homosexuality (or gay marriage) laughable, that is completely untrue. In most of Asia, homosexuality was often called the purest form of love since it was a love that could not give offspring, wealth, or prestige. In fact, homosexuality was widely accepted throughout even the United States until the end of World War 2.

If, as you say, life is about more than sex you should focus on the idea that gay people just want tax breaks. Marriage, for most of its history, has never had anything at all to do with sexual desire or love. Henry the 8th even created his own religion just so he wouldn't have to keep killing his wives off when they wouldn't give him legitimate male heirs. History is full of people who used marriage AND religion for their own selfish designs. He was not an exception. Just look at the concept of a dowrey. If a woman's family was not wealthy enough she could not marry a man. That was true even for peasants. Publicly, we villify the idea. Our entire history as a race is filled with this ,though.

Modern media has actually changed most people's concepts of love and marriage. Shakespeare and Hollywood have done a lot to romanticize the idea of love over responsiblity to one's family. Perhaps this change in the overall view of marriages as an institution of love is exactly the reason same-sex marriages should be allowed.

Wow. a little bit of hyperbole... Sure, there have been economic and political motivations and abuses of marriage for a long time. There are also real economic concerns and demands when it comes to raising a family. In order to have a healthy and safe environment to raise and protect children, you need a certain level of economic protection.

Marriage has been, throughout history, the means of raising a family. This is by far the MOST important, profound, and impacting element of marriage.
Marriage is not easy. Raising children is not easy.
Marriage protects and supports these goals.
It is not JUST economic protection. There is Spiritual and Emotional protection that needs a bond of love between parents to keep a strong and healthy environment to raise children. These are all part of what marriage is.

Same-sex Couples want tax breaks huh? I've already addressed this. This is a political excuse. Tax breaks are offered in the US (I dont' know the tax code in other countries) to married couples because they are in fact providing a great civil service by keeping the customs of the land and raising children within marriage. TAX BREAKS ARE NOT A RIGHT.
Same-sex couples have a weak claim trying to say a same-sex centric family is a better or even just as good environment for child rearing. That would be a social experiment. The burden of proof is in proving the new concept. The stakes of doing so are tremendous.
This is akin to the 'experiment' one US doctor took in the 70s in convincing a couple to raise 1 of their twin sons as a girl after a malpractice circumcision removed the boys genitals. The boy wasn't told the truth until he was 17. Its a horrific story.
This type of experimentation should not be done in my opinion. It infringes upon the freedom of children who have no way to protect themselves.

The real motivations people have are not taxes. They are much more personal. The tax benefits are ok in the US for a married couple, but frankly, they are really not much. they are a drop in a bucket for what it takes to raise kids.
Same-sex couples have some shared experiences. Following romance for the same gender has lost them friends, it has lost them respect in some communities, it has lost them acceptance.
Many other things lose people acceptance into a community. In US culture obesity and hygiene can do it. In FFXI culture, not using haste gear can do it.
For example's sake, let suppose the issue is haste gear in FFXI. Lets suppose there was such an outcry from players who will not swap gear or equip haste that they cry out to SE that they are being unfairly discriminated against. SE as the holders of law throughout Vana'diel actually responds and say Non-haste gear users cannot be discriminated against in making parties for events, exp, etc.
First its ridiculous and not enforceable. Second... what happens when you try to enforce the unenforceable?
Most players would leave the game. Non-haste users would abuse the enforced change in status. Some opportunists would stop using haste in order to join the new special demographic.
or more practically, when you try to kick someone from the party who is trying to steal loot, refuses to help, and they would call a GM and the GM would force them back in the party. The party complains? well they are haters, they are breaking policy, there should be some disciplinary action here. Obviously this has become a repressive and abusive authority.

Freedom is not infinite. We love freedom in our country. It is perhaps the highest ideal that is shared so widely around our populous. Some freedoms are promised to all, but don't be mistaken! Freedom requires responsibility. The more responsibility one can maintain, the more powerful and free to act and choose one can become. The more 'freedom' you try to give to one group or another, you will be taking it away from everyone else. The way to avoid this is to keep freedom's for INDIVIDUALS.
Same-sex couples are already free to live together as they like. Taxes are not nearly reason enough. Just because something is tolerated, does not mean it is accepted. You cannot force acceptance.

[Meyi]

I really like Yawn's posts. Thank you, Yawn.

[chrism]

Squre-Enix ninja-added gay marriage in over a year ago with their automated marriage system. They couldn't just come out and say they added it due to political and social pressure, so they stuck it in and just let people figure it out for themselves. Here is a basic rundown on how to marry someone of the same sex:

Step 1: Get a friend of the opposite gender (your best man or maid of honor or witness or whatever) to buy two rings.
Step 2: Use an HQ earth crystal to sign the rings.
Step 3: Exchange the rings (whether through a ceremony or juat right there at the NPC who acts as a justice of the peace.)
Step 4: Buy your friend a ring.
Step 5: Talk to the NPC one at a time while partied with your friend to get your marriage certificates. Marriage certificates aren't actually signed. They're just furnishings. congratulations! You're married.

As for there being no gay NPCs in FFXI, I direct you to WotG's storyline and numerous ToAU quests; most notably Three Men in the (and the?) Closet. There is a gay Tarutaru in the Windurst Woods Clothcraft guild, as well as the Norg NPC who accepts the avatar items for your summoner ring. Also, the male mithra in the Windurst Waters (S) storyline is openly bisexual.

Awh man you shouldn't have told everyone... Now all the trolls have nothing else to feed themselves with :[[[ Poor trollerz, lmao, And I thought I was the only one who knew about this xDDDD

[chrism]

Go outside and discover the real world...

I have the right to complain I pay to play this game tyvm <3

Besides that... wanna get same-sex married? Lmfao

[Xilk]

@Xilk: "marriage is a freedom" "its popular to title things as a right when it's not" "marriage is a privilege" ... hmm.. no. you can't have both. and freedom should belong to everyone, not just who you deem worthy of having it.

Also, the original hebrew bible never mentions homosexuality. soooo again, you're wrong. and Indian culture was very popular with gay relationships before Gandhi destroyed a lot of the evidence, but not all of it. Which is also a fact, btw.

Also, Japan's had christianity since the 1500s. So, how is that not a background?

... @Chrism wow. you really used the earthquake as a reason not to do this. THAT is low. INCREDIBLY low.

@ Rosalie: is this better? ^^ sorry, didn't think of it.

also, LOL @ galkas in dresses and cat on cat, furthermore, it IS just a game and it wouldn't make an OMGHUGE difference but nonetheless.

Yawn and Vivik did all the work for me on explaining how I felt. so, thank you guys.

now if you'll excuse me before this gets 40 pages of DUMB I'm going to RUN AWAY SCREAMING before someone else says something asinine and I feel the intense need to punch them for being a religious zealot, right-wing idiot, troll, or prat. *never reading again*

translation on the end: "I've said a bunch of false, foolish things and I'm going to run away before anyone calls me on them so I can pretend to be above the argument."

Freedom is finite. Asking for all personal freedom is asking for anarchy. People have more freedom because power and freedom grow when we are united. We promise some freedoms to all in our country. This is not a guarentee of all freedoms.

Christianity in Japan at its peek is a small sliver. It does not form the core values, beliefs or customs of the civilization like it does in many nations in the west. the difference is ubiquitous and obvious. Go there sometime or somewhere else. Make a comparative study and 1st hand observation of what things are common amongst humans and what things are common only among cultures.

The Hebrew bible does specifically list homosexuality in many places the mosiac law in exodus for one example... Sodomy is mentioned in Genesis in the practice of the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah for which the practice was named... I don't understand your point here though. My only reference to the bible was as an example that marriage clearly predates Western Civilization. I find it mildly surprising and irritating that someone can persist in ignorance of this.

Freedom comes as a result of choice and how power is exercised. More people united results in more freedom for all. When you break people into groups to separate and distinct them, then they compete for freedom and power. This is simply how it works. Its not even a matter of beliefs or moral judgment.

Marriage entails a great deal of responsibility. with that comes freedom, yes, but also agreement to restriction in freedom. One door opens, another door closes. It is a privilege in that you need to convince someone to marry you. I feel quite privileged when someone gives a gift especially such a gift as the commitment of marriage.

I agreed from the start that this thread would not be a great place. I saw only contention possible to come from it. I don't think it is needed for the game. However, I feel very strongly about this topic and I will not stay silent if the debate is here. I feel a responsibility to give fair response to the issue. If it goes completely uncontested, then readers will have no options by which to judge their beliefs and feelings.

All my arguments in this thread have been against same-sex marriage. I have made no accusations against homosexuality directly. I have also made it quite clear that I do not agree with it. I do not believe it is a good thing. I would not take personal offense at anyone stating they are gay. I do not believe homosexuality is as simple as "born that way". I cannot say it is as simple as a choice either, although this is what I believe is more prevalent. However, our choices form who we are and who we become much more than our natures. Of this, I do not doubt. I do not want to presume to judge why anyone is individually homosexual. I do not have the benefit of omniscience which is prerequisite for a good judgment in such a matter. I am convinced that their are many who are NOT born that way. I am quite confident that there are many who are driven to homosexuality through social pressures. Homosexuality itself however has not been a point of my argument in this forum at all however. It has been about law and same-sex marriage.

Your accusations are exactly what I do not like. "Religious Zealot" , "right-wing idiot"

This tells me you do not look at the ideas. You are applying derogatory labels to "the other side" of the argument. You are reducing it to "my group vs any other group, and forget the details!" Perhaps you have encountered zealots and idiots opposing and offending you. its not exactly rare... You should recognize there are plenty of zealots and idiots on both sides of the argument. They do not help the issue at all. You sound rather zealotous yourself.

Demonizing and name calling are not at all conducive to a meaningful discussion. They only purpose as an attempt to embarrass, shame and ultimately SILENCE your opposition without respecting their right freedom of speech or belief. it is a weasel tactic of one who would deny them such freedom if they could.

A few other posts use the term "Homophobic" for exactly this purpose as well. It is applied to anyone who does not believe homosexuality is right and just as good (read better) than heterosexuality. The term itself tries to be ambiguous by having several levels of meaning and application, none of which quite fit.
One level of meaning is it implies one has an irrational and unexplainable fear of homosexuality.

I do not fear homosexuality. It is not scary.. I find the thought of engaging in homosexual acts rather repulsive, but this is not fear. I believe I could recover from the emotional trauma I believe I would encounter if i participated (willfully or unwillfully) in such an act.

On another level it is used to depict someone as a hater. Someone so full of hate for homosexuals that it overrides all other judgments. Again I cannot feel this applies to me. I have known homosexuals. I do not believe it is the definition of a person. I believe it may be one part of someone's life, and I do not agree with it.

Homophobe is a very derogatory term. It is too broadly applied and it only serves to marginalize and ignore those who do not share a view about homosexuality.

I have consistently argued against same-sex marriage in this thread because I believe it is a real threat to Marriage, freedom and family. I believe it is a destructive thing for our society.

[Xilk]

I have the right to complain I pay to play this game tyvm <3

Besides that... wanna get same-sex married? Lmfao

I feel like quibbling at the moment.

You have the privilege and freedom to complain on this forum because SE allows it for subscribing players.
it is not a right.

[NrvnqsrKhaos]

translation on the end: "I've said a bunch of false, foolish things and I'm going to run away before anyone calls me on them so I can pretend to be above the argument."

Freedom is finite. Asking for all personal freedom is asking for anarchy. People have more freedom because power and freedom grow when we are united. We promise some freedoms to all in our country. This is not a guarentee of all freedoms.

Christianity in Japan at its peek is a small sliver. It does not form the core values, beliefs or customs of the civilization like it does in many nations in the west. the difference is ubiquitous and obvious. Go there sometime or somewhere else. Make a comparative study and 1st hand observation of what things are common amongst humans and what things are common only among cultures.

The Hebrew bible does specifically list homosexuality in many places the mosiac law in exodus for one example... Sodomy is mentioned in Genesis in the practice of the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah for which the practice was named... I don't understand your point here though. My only reference to the bible was as an example that marriage clearly predates Western Civilization. I find it mildly surprising and irritating that someone can persist in ignorance of this.

Freedom comes as a result of choice and how power is exercised. More people united results in more freedom for all. When you break people into groups to separate and distinct them, then they compete for freedom and power. This is simply how it works. Its not even a matter of beliefs or moral judgment.

Marriage entails a great deal of responsibility. with that comes freedom, yes, but also agreement to restriction in freedom. One door opens, another door closes. It is a privilege in that you need to convince someone to marry you. I feel quite privileged when someone gives a gift especially such a gift as the commitment of marriage.

I agreed from the start that this thread would not be a great place. I saw only contention possible to come from it. I don't think it is needed for the game. However, I feel very strongly about this topic and I will not stay silent if the debate is here. I feel a responsibility to give fair response to the issue. If it goes completely uncontested, then readers will have no options by which to judge their beliefs and feelings.

All my arguments in this thread have been against same-sex marriage. I have made no accusations against homosexuality directly. I have also made it quite clear that I do not agree with it. I do not believe it is a good thing. I would not take personal offense at anyone stating they are gay. I do not believe homosexuality is as simple as "born that way". I cannot say it is as simple as a choice either, although this is what I believe is more prevalent. However, our choices form who we are and who we become much more than our natures. Of this, I do not doubt. I do not want to presume to judge why anyone is individually homosexual. I do not have the benefit of omniscience which is prerequisite for a good judgment in such a matter. I am convinced that their are many who are NOT born that way. I am quite confident that there are many who are driven to homosexuality through social pressures. Homosexuality itself however has not been a point of my argument in this forum at all however. It has been about law and same-sex marriage.

Your accusations are exactly what I do not like. "Religious Zealot" , "right-wing idiot"

This tells me you do not look at the ideas. You are applying derogatory labels to "the other side" of the argument. You are reducing it to "my group vs any other group, and forget the details!" Perhaps you have encountered zealots and idiots opposing and offending you. its not exactly rare... You should recognize there are plenty of zealots and idiots on both sides of the argument. They do not help the issue at all. You sound rather zealotous yourself.

Demonizing and name calling are not at all conducive to a meaningful discussion. They only purpose as an attempt to embarrass, shame and ultimately SILENCE your opposition without respecting their right freedom of speech or belief. it is a weasel tactic of one who would deny them such freedom if they could.

A few other posts use the term "Homophobic" for exactly this purpose as well. It is applied to anyone who does not believe homosexuality is right and just as good (read better) than heterosexuality. The term itself tries to be ambiguous by having several levels of meaning and application, none of which quite fit.
One level of meaning is it implies one has an irrational and unexplainable fear of homosexuality.

I do not fear homosexuality. It is not scary.. I find the thought of engaging in homosexual acts rather repulsive, but this is not fear. I believe I could recover from the emotional trauma I believe I would encounter if i participated (willfully or unwillfully) in such an act.

On another level it is used to depict someone as a hater. Someone so full of hate for homosexuals that it overrides all other judgments. Again I cannot feel this applies to me. I have known homosexuals. I do not believe it is the definition of a person. I believe it may be one part of someone's life, and I do not agree with it.

Homophobe is a very derogatory term. It is too broadly applied and it only serves to marginalize and ignore those who do not share a view about homosexuality.

I have consistently argued against same-sex marriage in this thread because I believe it is a real threat to Marriage, freedom and family. I believe it is a destructive thing for our society.

You know, I can't say I disagree with your premise here. People are bloody hypocrites very often; Name calling isn't reserved to those who are in the majority.

I respectfully disagree with your stated purpose of marriage, and it's significance in our society. I also believe that the current economic benefits for marriage are not based on it's usefulness to society, but rather a simple economic tool to be utilized for businesses and governments. I say this because there are many reasons that a couple could not fit the standards you specified for the marriage to be helpful to society: Sterility is a prime example. And yet, sterile straight couples, who cannot produce a family, have those benefits.

But that's really it. I'm honestly getting sick of the name calling of this thread, especially from the "yay to gay" side, because that's really just putting you down on the same level as those "Nay to gay"s you're criticizing. Way to go!

We already answered the actual question of the topic: Same Sex Marriages aren't in the game, but if you reeeeaallly want to marry a person who's the same in-game sex as you, there's a method. End of discussion.

The rest of this junk is just rants. Hell, I've done my own share of ranting. I'm ranting right now!

Peace out, people. I'm done here.

[Xilk]

Peace out, people. I'm done here.

Peace out, NrvnqsrKhaos. You certainly have my respect. You approached the arguments and the ideas consistently and respectfully. Its not an easy thing to do when you have strong feelings for a subject.