Marriage feedback [inofficial Poll]

[EnkiOro]

I don't see how anyone is against this discussion on behalf of "wasting resources". Were those people also complaining when the Firedance (which actually included an emote) was included? If you've been in FFXI you'll know that weddings are ultra-cheesy, and unimportant, but a way to make a linkshell have some fun, be dorky and socialize (a thing that many posters need to try some day).

I never got married in FFXI, like I've said before, SSM wasn't allowed and I kinda found them too cheesy since I never expected them to happen. But now, SE has the chance to make a change, and to stop excluding a segment of players. Marriage will be included, that's not up to discussion, it's just up to SE to continue making a group of players alienated just because of their sexual orientation.

I'm not saying I will get married the very first day it is possible, but if I can't because my boyfriend is playing a male Roegadyn instead of a female, I'll be really disappointed in them.

[Colvin]

I'm not saying I will get married the very first day it is possible, but if I can't because my boyfriend is playing a male Roegadyn instead of a female, I'll be really disappointed in them.

I don't know if you have been reading, but we have kind of moved from a should they/shouldn't they to how they can implement the system so that it is properly inclusive without having to come to some kind of moral epiphany as a business.

[Twiddle]

I don't know if you have been reading, but we have kind of moved from a should they/shouldn't they to how they can implement the system so that it is properly inclusive without having to come to some kind of moral epiphany as a business.

This is my 2c and feel free to throw the flame buckets... But it would sound well if SE called it a partner ship or a union of sorts. For all cases be it of same gender or other wise, that way they would not be in hot water "politically".. Idea being to not step on any toes. Meaning the word marriage should not be used.

What we should really do is come up with a term, other than marriage, that best describes a relationship between two individuals based on love (since that is what people defend as their need to call it a marriage). I mean honestly, there is nothing in the definition of marriage that says ANYTHING about love and if you know anything about history it has CERTAINLY been an optional component.

I couldn't agree more!

[Nix]

This is my 2c and feel free to throw the flame buckets... But it would sound well if SE called it a partner ship or a union of sorts. For all cases be it of same gender or other wise, that way they would not be in hot water "politically".. Idea being to not step on any toes. Meaning the word marriage should not be used.

We've gone over that idea a bunch in this thread and it went down really well, so don't worry, you can unequip that flame shield! Though if there's a name change, it should be the same across the board. Would be much safer to abolish the term 'marriage' altogether.

[EnkiOro]

I don't know if you have been reading, but we have kind of moved from a should they/shouldn't they to how they can implement the system so that it is properly inclusive without having to come to some kind of moral epiphany as a business.

When people argue semantics means there's little to argue about. I honestly don't give a damn what they call it, as long as they use the same word for both unions and hold the same meaning.

Also so far I've only seen a couple of you arguing the word itself, versus the hundreds of posts like mine, showing my support for SSM. Not sure why my post was special, but thanks for the attention!

[Colvin]

When people argue semantics means there's little to argue about. I honestly don't give a damn what they call it, as long as they use the same word for both unions and hold the same meaning.

Also so far I've only seen a couple of you arguing the word itself, versus the hundreds of posts like mine, showing my support for SSM. Not sure why my post was special, but thanks for the attention!

And all the people who happen to be in the forums right now who agree with same sex marriage is great, but down-playing the talk of a real-world solution as applied to a pan-socilological issue is inflamatory, rude, and frankly counter-productive to the solution process.

[Twiddle]

And all the people who happen to be in the forums right now who agree with same sex marriage is great, but down-playing the talk of a real-world solution as applied to a pan-socilological issue is inflamatory, rude, and frankly counter-productive to the solution process.

Can you reword in a manner more easily understood with out me using thesaurus!!!

Anyway i don't think that anyone is "down-playing" anything here, a solution to a "pan-sociological" problem is needed to pacify people who will potentially play this "game".. A solution which will not in any manner of speaking affect anything or any out come in every day culture. You have a problem much older then people alive today, being looked at by people who have never used dial up internet. Best approach is to band aid the issue for the sake of the game launch and move forward. There are factors here at play that many aren't even aware of, as such best solution is to as band aid the topic.

[Colvin]

You have a problem much older then people alive today, being looked at by people who have never used dial up internet.

I don't disagree. However, I think there is some virtue, especially in today's society with presenting a solution that everyone can get behind as far as execution. Macro ideas are always built in a microcosm and if there was a system put forth that really got somewhere, I guarantee you it would be reported on and see some limited traction, if at least in some small internet medium.

I see no reason why the LBGT marriage equality can't be solved in a platform like this.

[Twiddle]

I don't disagree. However, I think there is some virtue, especially in today's society with presenting a solution that everyone can get behind as far as execution. Macro ideas are always built in a microcosm and if there was a system put forth that really got somewhere, I guarantee you it would be reported on and see some limited traction, if at least in some small internet medium.

I see no reason why the LBGT marriage equality can't be solved in a platform like this.

Again use simpler words!!

Any who, to comment on your statement. I don't typically quote movies but I'll do it this time.
"A person is smart, wise, and rational... people are blind, irrational, and stupid" MIB I
Unless you can make people see the BIG picture, what you are thinking is impossible.

The LBGT equality can be addressed, first step being don't use the word marriage after the acronym. What people understand under that word has 0 connection with what a dictionary will read. As well that word does not represent the relation ship a LBGT couple would have to begin with.