Marriage feedback [inofficial Poll]

[Yellow]

I can't help but to laugh at people when they talk about the sanctity of marriage.

That 'sanctity' is long gone in almost every marriage.

Must I remind some people that marriage was primarily used as a way for a man to gain several wives and have ownership of all of their belongings?

It was never this happy-sappy bond which you're told by (assumedly) parents/ministers.

Please keep your indoctrination out of our lives


- Also I really agree with the idea of not calling it marriage, or having a completely different ceremony. Not because I'm against same-sex marriage, but because this tradition shouldn't be the same in Eorzea.

We have twelve gods. Can't we base a ceremony around one, or all of them?

Maybe we can have a 'Priest of the Twelve'.

[Keith_Dragoon]

Live your life not the life of others!

If it offends you to see such a thing there is an unlimited amount of directions you can avert your gaze so you don't have to see it. Stopping the act of marriage won't destroy the love two people feel for each other it just alienates them for no reason.

[Reika]

I think having crafted wedding (or joining) items that one can trade to any gender they want as a marriage (or union) proposal or in the actual marriage (or union) would be a good comprimise to having GM sponsering either opposite or same sex marriages (or unions)

For rings, they are completely statless and the item becomes untradeable after being traded. Clothing and accessories can be made and sold/traded freely. Hopefully with the addition of signatures from the crafter on the crafted item, we can add a few lines of text too, so there can be custom wedding (or joining) vows on them.

This way SE just gives players the choice on what gender they are going to marry (or join with) without being directly involved. Not saying that is the best choice, but I think it is a good alternative. This way the ~vast minority~ wont whine about things that wont even involve them. It would also be easier not involved 'waiting in line' to get married (or joined) by a GM.

[Kye]

During the Valentine's day event, same-sex characters could become the most loving couples on the server. The system didn't differentiate in any way, and Yoshi nor any in-game system acknowledged a "difference" in either way. And because of this, any potential haters either didn't notice or didn't care, because it could be chalked up to "it's just a game"

I wish they could have just quietly added it ; ;

But now that they've publicly stated that they may add it later, they've simultaneously acknowledged a difference, and that is the same as being against it because it places it in a different light and encourages unnecessary debate over whether our fictional sexless Barbie and Ken dolls can get married.

I mean the fact that at least 50% of MMO players play as a different gender than their own already slaps the issue in it's face in a realistic sense. Haters are quick to bash same-sex options, but they conveniently ignore that fact that most of the population (themselves included) is trans-gendered.

[Eagleheart]

q

During the Valentine's day event, same-sex characters could become the most loving couples on the server. The system didn't differentiate in any way, and Yoshi nor any in-game system acknowledged a "difference" in either way. And because of this, any potential haters either didn't notice or didn't care, because it could be chalked up to "it's just a game"

I wish they could have just quietly added it ; ;

But now that they've publicly stated that they may add it later, they've simultaneously acknowledged a difference, and that is the same as being against it because it places it in a different light and encourages unnecessary debate over whether our fictional sexless Barbie and Ken dolls can get married.

I mean the fact that at least 50% of MMO players play as a different gender than their own already slaps the issue in it's face in a realistic sense. Haters are quick to bash same-sex options, but they conveniently ignore that fact that most of the population (themselves included) is trans-gendered.

Invalid and overreaching. The overwhelming majority of men enjoy looking at women. 0.o That is basically normal behavior, nothing transsexual about it. This is simply an attempt to paint dissidents into a corner where a corner does not exist.

I say this as a male playing a male.

[Kye]

Men and woman will play as what they "enjoy looking at". Weither its a woman playing as a man, or a man as a woman, or any combination imaginable. So by your own logic, only allowing opposite sex marriage in an MMO would mess with a lot of people regardless of their orientation.

[Orophin]

I got to this thread a bit late (it was already 47 pages by the time I looked at it!) and tried to go through it all, but it's just more time than I want to invest going through it all. I took a couple earlier posts and quoted them just to give my input on the subject.

First of all, I just want to say I'm neither for or against same-sex marriage. I'm not a religious person and I'm also not a person who even wants to get married. My beliefs on being with someone is at some point you will find someone you will want to spend the rest of your life with, and I think just making that commitment to that person who is also of the same mind should be good enough. You shouldn't have to go through a government facility to make anything "official".

As others have mentioned, with how the shift in views of society are these days, for the sake of fairness if they can't include same-sex marriage in-game they just shouldn't do it at all.

Now to my quotes:

I think they could dodge a lot of bullets if they didn't call it 'marriage' but tried a different name like bonding, handfasting, pairing etc then allowing the same sex union.

I'm not against same sex marriage at all, but it'd kinda shy away from the stigma of folks getting their underwear in a twist over marriage not being shown in a traditional (to them) light.

Personally I would love to see same sex unions, as one poster mentioned earlier; there are a lot of people who play characters that don't properly reflect their r/l gender, so to leave them out of something like this based on aesthetic choice wouldn't be cool.

This might be a compromising way of tackling it, but it kind of seems like a halfway measure to appease the people who are against same-sex marriage.

This is a classic example of making an issue of something that really didn't need to be a issue.

If Yoshi P's answer would have been a nonchalant "Of course you can." we would have no thread no debate no moral righteousness.. everyone would just go on with their day.

If marriage is only limited to M/F pairings i would like a real life gender check... (pics or it didn't happen rules apply) if we are bring real world debates into a virtual one might as well bring it all in or nothing.

Can we talk about cross species marriages now?

The gender check would be kinda interesting, but also invasive at the same time. It could be done, but who's to say someone isn't using their mom's credit card and is getting married to their guy friend? Just what ifs, since I think most of the people that would take part in this are probably older and have their own financials taken care of. You'd be more likely to see a Male Roegadyn and a Female Lalafell getting married than this happening. (to answer your second question)

Im a christian and im also VERY bisexual. I hope im not going to hell D: No one told me this ; ;

It's not my place to judge anyone, but I just wanted to point you in the direction of this, since your question piqued my interest and I wanted to look it up:

The Bible doesn't speak of homosexuality very often, but when it does, it condemns it as sin. Let's take a look.

Lev. 18:22 , "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13 , "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

Cor. 6:9-10 , "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28 , "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

source: http://carm.org/bible-homosexuality

As I mentioned before, I'm not a very religious person so my view on things may not be correct, but is there really any grey area to be had here? I would think a book of words from the God you worship should be black and white. It's one thing to follow everything else to a T but exclude one bit which seems to be damning.

I hope you don't take the above as offensive; I was trying to be objective as possible about it, as religion is a very touchy subject, and is usually one to get a thread locked. I was just hoping to get your view on this.

[Nix]

This might be a compromising way of tackling it, but it kind of seems like a halfway measure to appease the people who are against same-sex marriage.

I see what you mean Oro, but sadly in a perfect world we'd all think the same... but this is earth and people will get bent out of shape when they don't share our views. Sadly things have been way too blown up in a negative light in the media; just as they were when racism/african-american civil rights were really huge back in the 40's~60's(Not to say that they are not huge now, but I'm talkin MLKjr days).
I think it's best all-around to kinda move away from that stigma and create something new, and this feels like the only way it could work for everyone, that way SE could say 'well, yes we support it' without actually having to come out and say it therefore saving a lot of toes from being crushed.

I am all ears (haha get it? I'm elezen... D: ) for more ideas though, let's keep them coming guys!

[Keith_Dragoon]

Eagleheart your point would be valid only if by allowing same sex unions everyone would choose to just marry someone of the same sex. It is not and would never play out that way because people do not choose to be gay they are born that way so while they cannot procreate with their partners they still feel the same love you would for a woman and share all the same bond.

Making it so they cannot wed is also not progressive because the way the world works is by change, NOTHING can progress without change. that's the law of life, if everything stayed the same as it did hundreds of years ago half the stuff we have today whether it be technology or medical advances would be non-existent and maybe just maybe we would not be alive ourselves.

[Eagleheart]

Eagleheart your point would be valid only if by allowing same sex unions everyone would choose to just marry someone of the same sex. It is not and would never play out that way because people do not choose to be gay they are born that way so while they cannot procreate with their partners they still feel the same love you would for a woman and share all the same bond.

Making it so they cannot wed is also not progressive because the way the world works is by change, NOTHING can progress without change. that's the law of life, if everything stayed the same as it did hundreds of years ago half the stuff we have today whether it be technology or medical advances would be non-existent and maybe just maybe we would not be alive ourselves.

The point is still invalid. Much is made nowadays of falling in love, but we see where that's gone.

Astronomical out-of-wedlock birth rates, a generally decaying, corpulent culture, and replacement ratings below maintenance for current populations.

Marriage is supposed to be far more than what Hollywood soaps show. It is to be a permanent union dedicated to maintaining discipline and commitment from the man and woman in question, and to raising children. A biological error in a man or woman that leaves them incapable of having children does not make their relationship invalid, as was accused above - it is an error, an unfortunate mistake, in their biology. They are indeed designed for this coupling - but there is a problem that prevents them from fulfilling this portion of their biological programming.

It is, in no way, the same thing as two men who are incapable of producing children. That is a logical fallacy of astonishing proportions.