Marriage feedback [inofficial Poll]

[Zyph]

its funny listening to "Answers" while reading this thread... makes it all dramatic like o_o/

anyways can someone explain to me where this topic is at now... I've kind of gotten lost between the realm of reality and make believe...

Topic of the now:

This thread was for discussion but is 57 pages off the rails. There is likely to be no resolution based on this thread, mostly due to SE not caring as much as to what non-JP players say.

[Zantetsuken]

Again, it's a video game. Unless SE decides so implement my TOTALLY AWESOME idea above, the biological bonds you speak of and the idea of procreation are meaningless. Context plays a role in this too.

Its not JUST a video game having gay marriages...

Its a game company that is making a volatile political/cultural statement.


but yeah, I agree with the fact that gay marriage is equal(ly stupid) to straight marriage in FFXIV.

[Talshara_Blade]

Humanity just sucks... it's ashamed that people as a whole can't just keep their nose out of other people's business.

[RosenKreuz]

I am all for equal rights in the real world. However "gay" couples can and do adopt and are viewed as legal parents. Hospitals can be informed of same sex couples legal or otherwise to allow entrance. And medical decisions do not require a marriage, they require a power of attorney which can be sought out from any lawyer for about $100 and it does not matter the relation of the person you are giving power of attorney to.

Since 2009 the marriage system in FFXI has been open and is no longer GM officiated. You can buy rings from a box in the starting cities, as well as the wedding gear. And even then the ability to sign rings means you could pick any ring to craft (permitting you had gold smithing) to sign your name to and give to your spouse to be so you were no longer limited to a wedding band.

But this isn't real life anyway. This is a game. And as I have said if the legalities and sentiments attached to "marriage" are a problem for the general masses, then do away with the idea of it being a marriage. There will be no children, there is no legal ramifications or need for power of attorney in the game (unless you really need a raise and the whm is demanding to know your relationship status to the KO'd).

Which brings us back to same-sex couples still have weddings. A wedding is not a marriage. It is just a ceremony and party celebrating the lives of 2 people and the part of it they share. So why not let all the happy little pixels wear tuxedos and dresses, let those who care to show that they care about another human being have their fun, and call it a day?

[Wynn]

A fine answer...

And it underlines why many people strongly against calling gay-unions 'Marriages'

Marriage (traditionally understood) has long been an institution in which two people agree to sexual excusivity. This can be for romantic reasons, or for the purpose of providing the ideal structure for the propitiation of the species, or both. It creates offspring via the sexual activity of its partners, who are biologically inclined to care for the children more than any others. It also harnesses the complementary attributes of both sexes to create the best and most balanced environment for their offspring to grow and thrive in. The couple's lives are largely dedicated the raising to their offspring. [*all other factors being equal]


Same-Sex Marriage is an agreement of sexual and romantic exclusivity between two people of the same gender. Barring any extra-marital sources of pregnancy, as long as the sexual activity (of any sort) is exclusive between the two partners, there is no chance for offspring. The couple lives are largely focused on each-other. [*all other factors being equal]

Now when an authoritative body declares that same-sex unions believe that a man-man or woman-woman union are "marriages", and therefore EQUAL in all manner to that of a traditional marriage, they have simultaneously also declared that the biological bond between parent and child, the value of procreation, and the complementary nature of the sexes effectively meaningless in the eyes of the law, which means that schools will teach it as such, and religious organizations, businesses are often penalized, fined, or sued if they do not comply with legislation that requires them to act in a certain way in regards to married people.

Even though most people wouldn't be able to describe it this way to you if you asked, intuitively they know it and it calls for gay 'marriage' is a severe affront to them.

Of course, many straight people fail to live up to the ideal, and we all know of cases of abuse, divorce, infidelity, etc.. but gay relationships experience those things just as much - so it's a wash there.

The wider social implications of calling gay unions 'marriages' is the key to the opposition.

You may not agree, but the issue is a very serious one with many people.

This is not valid. You want to know why? A man and woman can get married legally even if one or both of them is infertile or otherwise incapable of having children. The law does not see marriage as a contract, or even an obligation, to breed.

If this is truly the argument against same-sex marriage then all marriages in which no children are produced, or in which the children are no longer living at home or being raised, should be recinded immediately until such time that children are once again being brought forth from the couple. One child a year, no exceptions.

And what about gay people that adopt or have children that came from a former straight marriage or otherwise? They are rearing children but still being denied the right to marry the partner who is also rearing those children. Flawed argument is flawed.

But just to put this back into XIV territory, no children are possible here no matter what genders we are talking about so whatever other ridiculous arguments people are going to come up with here against marriage equality should have a firm basis in the game.

[RosenKreuz]

...so whatever other ridiculous arguments people are going to come up with here against marriage equality should have a firm basis in the game.

Lalafell's aren't boyfriends, they're condoms!

[Wynn]

Lalafell's aren't boyfriends, they're condoms!

This produced an LOL followed by an eww from me :P

Though that does make an interesting side point here. Male Roe/Elezen/Hyur are going to be able to marry female lalas who look exactly like small children but people really are going to be up in arms about two male or female Roe/Elezen/Hyur getting married? That is what is so morally objectionable? Really now...

[RoxyLalonde]

I just find it odd mainly because in XI they allowed galkas to get married... >_>

[RosenKreuz]

Galka's are male and were able to marry female characters of other races. That wasn't so much a sexual preference issue as a racial issue. Which would've been a whole nother can of worms.

[Zyph]

But Galka's didn't have junk and didn't reproduce normally because of it. They just appeared to be male based on their stature.