Marriage feedback [inofficial Poll]

[Wynn]

Damn, I guess I'll shoot for a parrot then.

There are no parrots in XIV, sorry.

[Zyph]

Everyone, read this thread while listening to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBISfv-6hfo

or this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfT4_fsuzMo

[Kaldaka]

In this game, I don't think, since most guys end up playing female characters anyway, that same sex marriage is necessary.
So personally I vote no, But really don't care either way.

[Arcell]

I'm specifically talking about a straight voyeur who is able to view women in a locker room without them realizing it - thus they are not harassed.

I'll ask again:

If a man disguises himself as a woman and hangs out in a woman's locker room - unbeknownst to them - what is he guilty of?

That has no bearing on same sex marriages in FFXIV/Eorzea. Please make your point clearly if you have one pertaining to the thread.

Things this thread is about:

Equal use of the marriage feature of Final Fantasy XIV regardless of character gender.

[Zantetsuken]

You are moving the goalposts. They are committing a crime of sexual harassment, even if they are Solid Snake.

Unless you have a point to this, stop. This has nothing to do with marriage equality or even this game, where there are no restrooms or a necessity to go to them.

I most certainly have a point...

But you are wrong. A voyeur is NOT committing any crime of sexual harassment. Sexual Harassment REQUIRES the victim to be aware of being harassed.
More info here and here if you need further clarification.

It is a crime. But the point he's making is, I believe, "Why is it a crime?" If your filming them because your sexual desires cause the urges to do so, but it doesn't affect anyone, and they don't know, and you're not distributing it, or selling it, then why is it illegal?

Exactly, what is he guilty of?

[Wynn]

It is a crime. But the point he's making is, I believe, "Why is it a crime?" If your filming them because your sexual desires cause the urges to do so, but it doesn't affect anyone, and they don't know, and you're not distributing it, or selling it, then why is it illegal?

Because as soon as you're caught, the very inciting incident that would cause you to be arrested in the first place, you'd done harm to the person who now realizes their privacy has been invaded without their knowledge. It is a distraction argument. It has no place here and is not valid in any way. It is just more slippery slope nonsense.

[Kallera]

It is a crime. But the point he's making is, I believe, "Why is it a crime?" If your filming them because your sexual desires cause the urges to do so, but it doesn't affect anyone, and they don't know, and you're not distributing it, or selling it, then why is it illegal?

It is a crime because you are violating the privacy and restrictions of a marked public restroom.

Sexual harassment is a crime because those acts are taken without the consent of the affected party.

This has nothing to do with marriage equality!

[Huginn]

I would argue that while a fundamental shift in a personal belief system isn't taken on whimsy, it's a hell of a lot easier to accomplish than actively fighting against a biological urge fueled by naturally produced mind controlling drugs. You learn (and unlearn) religion, no one is born with the base line beliefs and/or dogmatic knowledge. Taking a step back from religion, you can look at the societal norms that aren't based on biological imperatives. Anyone who's raised a 3-year-old will tell you that we aren't born with modesty in either speech or appearance, just as no one is born a patriot (or an anarchist). Granted, it's a lot easier to teach a child to put on pants and not scream at people all the time than it is to make the transition from theist to atheist, but you can't unlearn hunger, thirst or the need for oxygen (you can only be born with or without them).
Why do you think the "it's a choice" argument is so popular for opponents of homosexuality? If sexuality is a choice, then - like religion - you can be taught to act in one way or another, and you can be punished for a wrong choice if it is against the law. If sexuality isn't a choice, however; the waters become far more murky, not only can you not teach someone to be sexual one way or another and have it stick without any long term psychological ramifications should it go against their nature, but passing laws against fundamental sexuality (not overt private/public sexual behavior) are no different than the Jim Crow laws of late 1800's early 1900's USA (or Apartheid etc.).
tl;dr (if you really want one): fundamental beliefs vs biological urges = apples vs oranges
PS: I don't like boys, boys are yucky

Thank you, this is a well thought out post with which i agree. Your comment has mostly explained what i was getting at on the choice issue. The only reason i said that sexuality was a choice was in comparison to faith, to show someone who has heard the "gay is a choice" thing said to them over and over and show them that they were doing the same absurdity to someone else on a different subject.

It is probably time for me to eject from this thread. have fun all.

oh and i agree, boys are yucky, as to why anyone likes them is beyond me. I think my wife has some sort of psychological problem that lead her to marrying me.

[MashaLinna]

it doesnt matter to me, i just wanna play

[Psion]

In this game, I don't think, since most guys end up playing female characters anyway, that same sex marriage is necessary.
So personally I vote no, But really don't care either way.

I am confused. you say most guys end up playing female characters anyways, yet females also tend to play females, so that would mean a lot of straight males are excluded from marrying their girlfriends. And yet you think same sex marriage isn't necessary because of this?

Unless you meant that most gay guys play women characters, in which case you're dead wrong. I've met 0 gay guys who've played a female character, for the same reason so many straight guys play female characters: we like our eye candy.

And if you don't care either way, doesn't it make sense to vote yes, as same-sex marriage being allowed means that more people get to enjoy content, instead of less? Why vote no when your vote could potentially affect thousands of others?

If you really don't care, vote yes, not no. Because by voting no, you're saying you care enough to take people's right to enjoy the same content you can away, not letting it stay.