Same-Sex Marriages

[Canadian]

Hmmm, Can Galkas not marry at all? I was under the impression they were considered Male. And it doesn't matter, no one cares about the Galkas.

There are some females that play as Galka, on my server anyways.

[Fiarlia]

Really? I was hoping it'd be a lot longer before this retarded topic was brought up.

Personally, I have no issue with homosexual men, or bisexual men, or lesbians, or even transsexuals, nor what or who they do in real life. In fact, in real life, I'm in support of gay marriage. Not to say I'm pro-gay, I just don't give a *** and think if someone wants to marry they should be able to.

However, FFXI != real life. It's a video game, and while it's not really marketed or directed at 13 year olds, they are able to play it and would likely be a factor in the decision making process at SE. If you look at the US, it's quite obvious that there's a large amount of people who are against gay marriage. Again, I'm not, and I think people who are are just plain stubborn, bigoted, or an overly religious fanatic, perhaps even stupid. However, I know that I'm not quite in the majority, and I'm sure that anyone who is gay/bi/lesbian/transgender is also aware of this, hence why gay marriage isn't legal in so many states.

Whether or not you want to admit it, SE would receive a ton of backlash if they allowed this. From politicians, to retailers, to parents, to anyone looking for another excuse to criticize the game industry and/or MMO's. Hell, even just criticize SE themselves.

Asking a company that puts out games and content that you love to play to get behind your own views and be publicly liberal and pro-gay-marriage is honestly selfish. This is a video game, not the streets of San Fransisco where you can have your parade. This is not the proper means or outlet to cry out about the injustices you have to suffer at the hands of stubborn politicians, regardless of how much of right you actually have to cry (which I think you do - just not here).

Just because you might be gay does not mean that every facet of you life, online and off, has to be involved with the gay movement.

***, instead of wasting the time of this forums readers and the DEV team (since they addressed this YEARS ago that they would not do this) by posting this, why not write a letter to your Governer or Senator? Or organize a peaceful protest in front of City Hall? Or if you're one of the gay people that happens to be lucky enough to live in a state that accepts you and allows you to marry, write to the heads of other states?

I'm all for gay rights, but come on, people, pick and choose your battles. This one is a lost cause and a waste of energy.

[Alkalinehoe]

Melodicya mentioned the worldwide T rating. While in America it is commonly accepted in video games, there may be other countries that aren't as tolerant on this subject. And adjusting the game for certain country doesn't work, as it's an international MMORPG, and it's not something that can just be censored for certain countries, it's a core game feature.

I get that other countries have different rating systems, but it really isn't a core game feature. It's an event that so little actually take advantage of and really is meant for the few dedicated who actually want to take it up. Heck, I would be fine if the ceremony didn't even involve any kissing (never been to a in game wedding before, so not sure exactly if they kiss, just as long as it's open to other players. It really baffles me that other countries would raise the rating just for that single thing. I recall another MMO that allowed their in game marriages to open up to same sex couples without any ratings scandal (the name escapes me atm) but it shows it can be done.

I don't know anything about Sims 3 that strikes me as "graphic" enough to get worse than a Teen rating. Anything that is "graphic" gets bleeped/blocked out/pixelated so you can't really see it. And Sims 3 as far as I know does not have GLBT marriage.

Not sure about The Sims 3, but in The Sims 2 there were GLBT marriages. And yes, everything is pixelated but they still recieve the same pixelated sex as the straight sims.

There are some females that play as Galka, on my server anyways.

I didn't mean if there were no females playing galkas, I meant that if SE considered the Galkan race males. So if a Galka could marry a female player or could not marry at all.

However, FFXI != real life. It's a video game, and while it's not really marketed or directed at 13 year olds

,

Are you implying 13 year olds can't be gay or know what homosexuality is? I can assure you most know more than you think.

they are able to play it and would likely be a factor in the decision making process at SE. If you look at the US, it's quite obvious that there's a large amount of people who are against gay marriage

Most polls (and elections, Prop 8 for example) show that America is pretty much split down the half on the issue, with just slightly more leaning towards gay marriage. So they are certainly not the majority.

Again, I'm not, and I think people who are are just plain stubborn, bigoted, or an overly religious fanatic, perhaps even stupid. However, I know that I'm not quite in the majority, and I'm sure that anyone who is gay/bi/lesbian/transgender is also aware of this, hence why gay marriage isn't legal in so many states.

From laws that are old and are meant to keep bigotry rampant. Not to mention that there are many republican states and the elected officials (Judges, governors, senators, etc) that are not in favor of gay marriage, however, they do not always do what their people want them to do.

Whether or not you want to admit it, SE would receive a ton of backlash if they allowed this. From politicians, to retailers, to parents, to anyone looking for another excuse to criticize the game industry and/or MMO's. Hell, even just criticize SE themselves.

A ton of backlash from a nearly decade old game that frankly no one but the dedicated players care about? SE has already shown with their lesbian couple in XIII that they aren't opposed to same sex relationships. From what the moderator said earlier (I know, not an official SE statement but I will go with it) they are more concerned about the ratings increase then with the issue itself.

Asking a company that puts out games and content that you love to play to get behind your own views and be publicly liberal and pro-gay-marriage is honestly selfish.

Really? Cause honestly, most of the straight people who were in here said they SE shouldn't because of their religious/political views. I guess everyone is a little selfish which comes to my next comment,

This is a video game, not the streets of San Fransisco where you can have your parade.

No matter how much you claim to agree with gay marriage advocates, with your pointless stereotypes you aren't helping the situation nor are you contributing. It just makes you look like an ill informed man.

Just because you might be gay does not mean that every facet of you life, online and off, has to be involved with the gay movement.

Then why did SE include the marriage in the first place? Obviously straight people need to be 100% straight 100% of the time.

***, instead of wasting the time of this forums readers and the DEV team (since they addressed this YEARS ago that they would not do this) by posting this, why not write a letter to your Governer or Senator? Or organize a peaceful protest in front of City Hall? Or if you're one of the gay people that happens to be lucky enough to live in a state that accepts you and allows you to marry, write to the heads of other states?

I fail to see this thread any less worthy then any other thread in the forum. I was unaware this issue was brought up in the past with SE, however, what is wrong with trying to improve upon a game you play? Yes it's a game, but it's also something many people invest a lot of time in, straight or gay, so any suggestion a player has (within reason, and this request is) is valid.

[Csitri]

This response is to Xilk’s post, which was a well-stated and conscientious addition to the discussion. Quoted sections are from his post.

You could say marriage is a 'RITE' but its really not a "RIGHT". … Marriage is a freedom. Marriage is a privilege. [sic]

What is the difference between a freedom and a right? Can we agree that a right is a freedom with Constitutional backing?

Who gets to decide what is a right? You? Me? I'm not a constitutional scholar, yet I believe marriage is a right. Is there a reason one of our beliefs should be given more credibility?

We have differing opinions, but the legal standard lies with the United States Supreme Court. They haven't yet ruled on same-sex marriage, but they have ruled on interracial marriage. In this ruling they applied a passage of the fourteenth amendment of the US Constitution to marriage, and wrote that … the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men … and that … To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

This ruling struck down the ban on interracial marriage. I am not claiming here that it should apply to same-sex marriage—that is a separate argument entirely. However, it shows that the US Supreme Court has in the past considered marriage a vital personal right and a fundamental freedom. It's unlikely they would overturn this in future rulings.

What homosexual has ever been denied the choice to marry? Any man or woman of legal age is free to marry another.

In 1967, prior to Loving v. Virginia, a black woman could marry a black man and a white woman could marry a white man. Today, a gay woman can marry a man and a gay man can marry a woman. In both cases you can ask, who is being denied the choice to marry?

Loving, a black woman, asked, "Why can a white woman marry a white man, but not I?" Today, the gay woman asks, "Why can a man marry a woman, but not I?" The Supreme Court declared marriage was a "vital personal right essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." Loving’s happiness was a white man. A gay woman’s happiness is a woman. Neither was being denied the ability to marry, but the ability to marry the person who would make them happy.

The Supreme court ruled that limiting a person’s options by racial classification subverted the principle of equality in the fourteenth amendment. They have not yet ruled on whether limiting a person’s options by sex classification does the same.

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.

Redefinitions are a byproduct of human society. Language, and law, evolve as we grow and learn. Marriage law has undergone changes in the past, and it will undoubtedly undergo changes in the future. Public perception, depiction, and understanding of gay relationships have shifted over time. Human beings have a tremendous capacity to learn, to adapt.

Many people would dislike this change. And there would be a great deal of change, if there were not marriage and same-sex marriage, but only marriage. Dictionaries would be reprinted. Wikipedia would update pages. Countless legal forms would be redesigned. Database tables would be restructured. Language and conversational assumptions would shift, realign. There would be a long period of adjustment both in infrastructure and social discourse.

However, the role of the court is not to make sure people are happy with every change. The role of the court is to act as a check on executive and congressional power, to ensure that the passage of new laws, or alterations to existing ones, adhere to the principles of the Constitution.

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.

edit: I reread Xilk's post and saw this section was a quote. My response therefore is not to Xilk but to the quoted passage

The economic advantages of marriage certainly are an incentive, and I don’t doubt they played a part in speeding along the challenges to marriage laws. However, I disagree that without them the issue would not exist. If we accept that the ability to marry a person we love is fundamental to the pursuit of happiness—as discussed, this fundamental right business is for the court to decide—then it should be an issue even without the financial benefits. People marry for many other reasons—religious, social, spiritual, and emotional—and having your friends, your community, your laws, your society, your country backing your relationship, saying, “This is a good thing. We support this,” is a big part of it.

In the US there are certainly economic benefits given to married couples. These are not a right. ... These benefits were developed because raising children benefits society tremendously, and its very demanding and difficult. Its a kind of 'pay it forward' approach. [sic]

I agree with everything you say here.

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.

Same-sex couples have been raising children via adoption, surrogate pregnancies, sperm or egg donation, or past or transsexual partnerships, for many years. The 2000 Census figures reveal a third of gay women-headed households, and a quarter of gay male ones, were raising children at that time. Undoubtedly these rates would go up if same-sex marriage were legal.

At what point does the experiment end? What is the definition of proven benefit? Clarification on these points is necessary for your argument to hold. I argue that children raised in same-sex parent households grow up and contribute to society just as do those raised in opposite-sex parent households, and thereby benefit society.

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.

You are right. You cannot demand acceptance, only tolerance. The court can pass a law that allows gay people to marry each other. It cannot make people like it. That attitude, that perception, that belief, that personal acceptance will only happen as society evolves over time.

However, passing a law does not require every person to accept a belief. When Loving v. Virginia was passed, a huge portion of the country continued to believe that marriage between blacks and whites was wrong. There are people today who believe this. Changing a law changes a law. People change at their own pace.

Marriage is so much more than that. Marriage is an agreement and a commitment between a man and a woman, god and their society.

God only comes into the picture if the couple desires. The distinction of man and woman in your definition is the issue on the table, and so must be omitted; the argument “marriage can’t be between two women because marriage is between a man and a woman” is like saying “women can’t vote because voting is something only men do.”

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.

If marriage strengthens the family, benefits children, and helps them grow into healthy, productive members of society, why should we bar same-sex parents from marrying? Do you believe that a partner or child in a same-sex household is better off unmarried? That the rank ordering of “healthiness” is (child in opposite-sex household) > (child in unmarried household) > (child in same-sex household)? Every relevant accredited organization, such as the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association, has concluded otherwise—they support same-sex couples raising children, and have found no evidence that same-sex parenting causes harm, that this belief is merely a social prejudice.

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.

I would love to see them implement it, but I’m not holding my breath. In any case, this discussion is healthy, and I thank you for adding to it a thoughtful and considerate contribution.

[Alhanelem]

but it really isn't a core game feature.

It doesn't have to be a core game feature for the rating to be affected. if there is sex, or violence, or alcohol anywhere in a game, even if it's in some side quest minigame, it will affect the rating.

Marriage is an agreement and a commitment between a man and a woman, god and their society.

This statement is currently in dispute across the US and other places, so I do not consider it in discussing this topic. People can get a marriage license and marry without ever saying anything about God, and people who don't believe in god or believe in some other deity can still get married.

A same-sex couple does not procreate.

Sometimes I get the feeling that people in general are afraid that GLBT folks will take over the world and become the norm or something. But this simple fact prevents that from happening. Some of them do raise children, but they are never entirely biologically the product of the couple.

[hollowsgrief]

Really? So is that why in many manga there are gays and lesbians? You are aware of the fact that Japan believes in homosexual love, right? This was put to make sure that their consumers for the game are not offended. This way they make money, without having to deal with unnecessary lawsuits and politics about an MMO where lesbians and gays are in it. Besides, it's an online GAME. Get out into the real world if you want to do something with the same sex. You're fussing over the fact that 1's and 0's can't "legally" get digitally married. And you are aware that Japan is a completely different Country, and has entirely different laws, yes? So you saying "Unconstitutional" is completely irrelevant, the U.S. constitution has absolutely nothing to do with them.

[Alhanelem]

You're fussing over the fact that 1's and 0's can't "legally" get digitally married.

it's not about the 1s and 0s, it's about the symbolic connection between the people behind those 1s and 0s.

[Alkalinehoe]

/Snip

Amazing post.

It doesn't have to be a core game feature for the rating to be affected. if there is sex, or violence, or alcohol anywhere in a game, even if it's in some side quest minigame, it will affect the rating.

I only said it wasn't a core game feature because the person i was quoting claimed it was. Obviously anything in a game, weather it be obscure or blatant, is subject to ratings. However, to equate gay marriage with a graphic depiction of shooting another person in the head (found in most FPS games and most tend to be M-rated) is extremely childish and depressing.

Really? So is that why in many manga there are gays and lesbians? You are aware of the fact that Japan believes in homosexual love, right? This was put to make sure that their consumers for the game are not offended. This way they make money, without having to deal with unnecessary lawsuits and politics about an MMO where lesbians and gays are in it. Besides, it's an online GAME. Get out into the real world if you want to do something with the same sex.

A game is a game is a game. I wish people would stop pulling out the real life card and actually contribute some worthwhile discussion.

You're fussing over the fact that 1's and 0's can't "legally" get digitally married. And you are aware that Japan is a completely different Country, and has entirely different laws, yes? So you saying "Unconstitutional" is completely irrelevant, the U.S. constitution has absolutely nothing to do with them.

That was the joke.

[Bahamut]

F*x N*ws would have a fielday on same sex marriages in a online video game, I can see the headlines now. Demonic Addictive Online game turning kids into evil gays. Well I say screw them, lets move into the 22 century aready and regonize human rights in all aspects of life, including online videogames.

[Lollerblades]

Oh i'd love this
LGBT Weddings ftw \o/ /waves a pride flag