Same-Sex Marriages

[Ilax]

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.

Same as family sex. Is why i pointed this out, but as i say is all about acceptance and ignorance... Both side could have good argument about it, but not mean acceptance will follow, in this regard i thanks SE to keep they position.

[Arcon]

Marriage was in fact a religious institution, as was mentioned before. It was a permanent band between a man and a woman. Asking for same sex marriage in that fashion is like a dwarf asking to join the Giant's Club, it just doesn't belong in there, per definition.

However, marriage means something different now, on the one hand it's political and married couples have rights and options others don't. For that reason marriage should be allowed between all people, regardless of gender.

On the other hand, it's also a symbol of expressing your feelings, of intending to be with one person permanently. It's the highest culturally recognized expression of love and commitment. And if a same sex couple wants to express their love like that, no one should have the right to stop them.

Now none of this has to do with FFXI. It's a fantasy game, yes, but that doesn't mean same-sex marriage must be allowed. It simply means that the culture can be designed unlike the reality, that's the definition of fantasy. If that culture is one that disapproves of same-sex marriage, then that's that.

However, I doubt that's what this is about and I doubt that that's what SE intended. They simply wanted couples to express their love for each other within the game. (And while we're at it, that's neither dumb nor proof that they are not a real couple 'cause they "need" to express their feelings for each over ingame too. It's simply something they want, and people who disapprove of that for no reason should just keep it to themselves until they find one.) And this is now just a matter of opinion. Should this fantasy world acknowledge same-sex marriage?

This has nothing at all to do with real relationships, seeing how women can play male characters and 90% of Mithras are men anyway.

And yes, it would be easy to code, just remove the male/female only restriction on Matrimony Bands/Rings and remove the gender check line from the Wedding Certificate NPC.

And to those people saying marriage is stupid 'cause we're hard wired to be promiscuous and "want to be with" as many people as possible, that's a completely ridiculous argument. What nature wants for us or even designed us to be is not what makes us human, what makes us people, certainly not what makes us individuals. Nature and evolution are nothing but trial and error games, and as such are both slow and prone to mistakes. People can decide what they want outside of their natural cravings (or in this case, the cravings of our ancestors, which have nothing to do with our current generation). People look for meaning in more than sex and even if they find other individuals of their species attractive, they can reason and decide that it's best for them to ignore that attraction in favor of maintaining a stable relationship.

Maybe people who believe that just haven't met that someone that makes them feel like this yet, someone that makes you wonder whether you ever felt such urges to begin with, 'cause you don't look at anyone else anymore. Which is why I wouldn't blame them, for the longest time I believed that too. I thought "the one" was a childhood fantasy instilled in us by movies and stories and mathematically speaking the chances of finding someone you wanna be with exclusively and forever are close to zero. Thankfully I was proven wrong and I can speak from experience that this is not the case. Some people really do wanna be with one person, and one person only. Maybe that also doesn't extend to everyone, but you shouldn't condemn people to what nature designed them to be just 'cause you don't understand or know their feelings.

[Renesmay]

American parents in particular would be up in arms over a game offering same sex marriage (they would say promoting the idea to minors) will never happen lol It's not worth the fallout.

If I recall even after 6 years of playing there is an age limit 13 if i remember right on this game. Plus this game with same sex marriage is no where near close what kids see/hear at school in public on the news, tv and movies. Maybe even at home even.
I think same sex marriage would be hella awesome! Also for them to add a MALE MITHRA to the game and allow 1 free face change ><

[Xilk]

No, its not all bad motives from homosexuals who want same-sex marriage. It doesn't take bad motives to do something very very destructive, ill-thought out, and wrong.
For most people, simply hearing the line "Equal rights for homosexuals" is enough to convince them. Who can argue against equal rights?
In american social politics, its been popular to start titling MANY things as "RIGHTS" that are not rights. You could say marriage is a 'RITE' but its really not a "RIGHT". Healthcare is not a "RIGHT' its a priveledge. Cars and employment are not RIGHTS. They may be needs, but they are not rights. Marriage is a freedom. Marriage is a privilege.

What homosexual has ever been denied the choice to marry? Any man or woman of legal age is free to marry another. What is contested is forcing everyone else to call a same-gender union a marriage. With that everyone else must respect it the same as they respect a real marriage.

The politics are that the lobby is NOT trying to gain any freedom, they are trying to redefine it as a union between man and man or woman and woman, which is something it has never meant. When you try to use law to redefine what is, then you are most certainly affecting everyone else.

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.

My background experience/information serve my argument by showing that I am not what the accusation stated. The accusation was designed to invalidate my points without addressing them at all. Its not a plea for pity.

More rational than I come off huh? opinions vary widely on that one I should think... With any historical perspective, the idea of same-sex marriage is about as irrational as I can think of.

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.

I'm sorry this is grossly false. If you have no judeochristian background whatsoever, any scholar can point to the bible even in a PURELY historical context which refutes this completely. Marriage predates Western Civilization completely. It is ubiquitous in ALL cultures. All, not some, not most, ALL. I use the bible as an easy source, but really any ancient text or stories, myths, etc. They are married. Indian, Chinese, Persian, Babylonian, Mongolian, African... everyone had marriage, its central to how the tribes, societies, customs, civilizations are organized.

Also, if I made a straw-man, than this certainly is too. Where are your references for this statement? but I don't think its a strawman. you are presenting a premise. A straw-man is arguing against a position that I have neither stated nor agree to at all as if it were my position. It is a distracting technique. I perhaps skipped some steps in the arguments at worst, but I jumped to what I have found to be the heart of the matter. If you disagree about my premises, we can discuss the premises, but its no straw man.

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.

This is an excuse for some, but its not enough and I don't believe it is the driving reason for people to argue for same-sex marriage. In the US there are certainly economic benefits given to married couples. These are not a right. Married couples have no right to them at all. The tax laws and benefits give to married people are not protected in the Constitution, they are not guarenteed. They are privileges given because some lawmakers actually noticed something in wisdom. (its not really that hard to figure out though). Families, procreation, and marriage are VERY good for a culture and a nation. Economically, culturally and so forth. These benefits were developed because raising children benefits society tremendously, and its very demanding and difficult. Its a kind of 'pay it forward' approach.
A same-sex couple does not procreate. If they try to form a family w/ same-gender parents at the top, it is an experiment, not a proven benefit to society.

This is plenty of legal reasoning for the economic and tax laws not to be extended to homosexual partnerships. Its not a right.
These are the types of arguments that persuade academics and lawmakers. They are general, and ambiguous. The motivating reason for an individual or couple is MUCH more personal. The personal reasons people will most likely want? Well, they've chosen a lifestyle that is certainly not normal. The homosexual politics have largely won. They have made an identity out of this choice and gained many laws and moneys from doing so. However it is not enough. What they really want now is acceptance and vindication. Its really the same thing that many have wanted: Acceptance.
People want a home, a family, a community. You can demand tolerance for things that do not infringe upon the freedoms of others, but you cannot demand acceptance. That is the point where you are infringing upon others rights.
Changing marriage to include same-sex partnerships is requiring the law and the rest of society to accept a belief.
The slippery slope is changing the definitions of things.

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.

It is not tradition for tradition's sake. If a traditions has no more reason that it is tradition, then I believe it is time to cast it aside. Marriage is so much more than that. Marriage is an agreement and a commitment between a man and a woman, god and their society. Marriage has been shown to be the best environment for children to grow up healthy. Marriage shows commitment of love between the partners, yes. However it also tells society what to expect from married persons.

Marriage is useful to all of society even if you are not a direct participant. Marriage forms the family, raises the next generation. This generation provides all the human elements of continuing art, economics, etc. Society does not continue w/out procreation. Children do not grow into healthy productive adults without help. There are exceptions ofcourse, but by and large, this happens in a healthy family headed by a man and woman.

Marriage is under severe threat. This is certainly true. In the US 50% of marriages end in divorce. This is scary for a society and it is very destructive. This does not mean that marriage is meaningless. The very fact we are having this discussion completely counters that idea. If it were meaningless neither of us would discuss it at all. It certainly would not be a political issue. Even if 50% fail, it means 50% succeed. Thats alot. Of the 50% that fail, do you believe all those people feel marriage failed them? The marriage itself was meaningless? Not at all. Most remarry. Most keep trying.

The lack of trust in people keeping commitments is what is hurting society. The lack of faith in the customs and traditions is what causes this deterioration. Saying marriage is meaningless because people break faith, is like saying law is meaningless because people break the law. Is there a different reason one might think marriage is meaningless?

It seems we agree in game same-sex marriage is not going to happen and would not be worth it for SE to make happen.


another side note: In Japan homosexuality is treated much more like a joke than in western counties. They do not have a judeochristian background at all. The overall perspective is quite different regarding religion and it is less accepting of homosexuality and same-sex marriage than the west is. The freedoms we value in Judeochristian society actually give more opportunity for this argument in the first place.

[Ilax]

@Xilk +1 on this post.

[Alhanelem]

You need to respect the cultural differences. SE would likely experience major backlash in japan if it allowed this. I'm all for it, but Japan is not as accepting of this situation as we are in the US, so it will most likely never happen.

That said, as there is no longer an "official" wedding service, you can pretty much do whatever you want, except get your names put on the ring.

This is all aside from the apparent concern that the game's rating might change in some countries if this were allowed.

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.

I must say... it's really great of you to respond on this issue.

[Xilk]

Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian
There is no record of any marriage. They lived together in a relationship. there is nothing suggesting this is more than another homosexual romance in ancient history. This does not suggest a legal or cultural acceptance of marriage between the 2.

Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep
both were married to women and had children and families. They were not married to each other.

but guess you have me on a technicality, I painted the brush a too broadly. Its not completely new idea to have same sex marriage. Guess I was a bit en-passioned about the argument. I really should have known better to think something original was actually thought of.

Apparently Nero thought of it. I wouldn't really want that as my reference though. Thats why it got recorded, there was an insane emperor who thought of it too. There is not clear information on how any practice may have been. Most homosexuality in Rome was for married older men to have younger male 'mistresses' for lack of a better term. (BTW another insane Roman emperor tried to make his horse a Consul and a priest... (Caligula) How can you account for the insanity of Kings and Emperors?)

This rarity hardly gives any credit to the concept.

[Cellsplitter]

All I see here is "It's not natural" or "Bible sais no!" "I don't understand it" "It's icky!". If you say marrige is for the purpouse of having and raising kids then infertile people would then be not allowed to marry?

I'd like to see a argument against gay-marrige that can't be used against straight-marrige. Without invoking riligious, social or personal biases.

P.S. I'm not Gay I just love Yuri <3 w

[Alhanelem]

Without invoking riligious, social or personal biases.

Well the thing is, marraige itself was originally a religious institution long before it had legal ramifications in any government. So it's hard not to bring any such bias to the table.

[Deadvinta]

I can't find it, but I could have sworn someone said there are no gay people in the storyline.

My response to that is "someone hasn't played Wings of the Goddess~~."