EA, Microsoft, and Zynga Oppose Defense of Marriage Act
- Thread starter Marshall Honorof
- Start date
I have to wonder if had companies like Valve or Obsidian signed this, whether people would be just as dismissive and apathetic.
I'm gonna lean towards no. In fact, I think people would be singing their praises from the rooftops for 'taking a stand for equality'.
Long story short, these companies made a motion to oppose an obviously stupid law, while the more favoured ones on this site did not. Quit making excuses for them just because you hate the former's business practices.
I'm gonna lean towards no. In fact, I think people would be singing their praises from the rooftops for 'taking a stand for equality'.
Long story short, these companies made a motion to oppose an obviously stupid law, while the more favoured ones on this site did not. Quit making excuses for them just because you hate the former's business practices.
However, there are no arguments against gay-marriage that hold any water, and don't amount just to 'my god doesn't like it'.Nicolaus99 said:
Whether you consider something a 'perversion' or not, it's not a good enough reason to use law to either outlaw it or make those people's lives more difficult. For example, most people probably think sexual scatology is icky, but it's legal in most countries, and if it isn't it should be, because it hurts no-one, and the government doesn't have the right to judge what goes on between consenting adults, where no-one even gets hurt.
There are laws against murder, so there's laws against snuff films, pedophilia and bestiality (or at least the abuse of children and animals) are outlawed because those who have no power need to be protected.
Why would the law treat homosexual people differently than heterosexuals? Who does it protect? Or is it really a good idea to base your laws on what's 'icky'?
So they are pro gay marriage... great.
This doesn't change the fact they are scummy money grabbing thieves.
This doesn't change the fact they are scummy money grabbing thieves.
Thinly veiled PR move go!
I mean it's good that the community is getting support I suppose...but I can't get this image of three kids writing on the blackboard at the front of the room after class, finishing and going 'Okay, can we go home now?'.
Now waiting for angry replies, getting ignored and so forth.
I mean it's good that the community is getting support I suppose...but I can't get this image of three kids writing on the blackboard at the front of the room after class, finishing and going 'Okay, can we go home now?'.
Now waiting for angry replies, getting ignored and so forth.
I did notice that the one "perversion" Lieju included but you didn't mention is Polygamy... does that mean you're in favour of Polygamy? And if not I challenge you to give one good arguement against it that can't be used to argue against gay marriage.Lieju said:
Fun Fact for Lieju... in 1880 the average life expectancy in America was roughly half what it is today, so that along with social conditions and the expectations of women had alot to do with age of consent. Give anything context and you'll likely find that it's not as incredible as imagined.
OT: So it's a PR move, but it's still the right move and unlike any other game companies that refused to sign the brief these 3 had the balls to accept that while they'll lose some support by people against gay marriage its worth it to support equal rights.
I didn't mention polygamy because I felt it would have made the post too long and even more off-topic.MagunBFP said:
I have no issue with polyamorous relationships, and as long as no-one is deceived, it should not be illegal, at least.
And the big issue in cultures that tend to have polygamy is sexism; it's okay for men to have several wives, but not the other way around. If it exists, it needs to be equal.
But, as for it being legal practise, we'd need to define what it is and what complications rise from it.
For example, let's say a man marries two women. Are those two women then married to each other and should receive the same benefits? Or can those women then be married to some other person, and if they do, is the first man married to that person? What if one partner divorces, what happens to the property and children? how many people can be included in the marriage?
Gay marriage is no different from hetero-sexual marriage, structure-wise.
But polygamy would work differently legally, and it would pose new problems. It doesn't mean it shouldn't exist, but that anyone who advocates it would have to first define what kind of arrangement they are advocating, and how they wish for it to work.
Generally girls started menstruating later, though, than these days.MagunBFP said:
But women were not expected to grow up and become adults the same way men were, they never had the same rights, their 'career' was just to get a man and have kids, so usually they were married off earlier.
I can't remember the source right now, but I was reading this stuff by some learned guy in Middle ages how you should marry your wife as young as possible so you can raise her yourself to be the kind of wife you want. The extension of the idea that the husband replaces the father as the woman's guardian.
Anyway, what was your point?
And now comes the 5+ year knock about as the right-wingers try to make the attack on the DOMA into a bigger thing than it is. No, gay marriage isn't an attack on religion. Neither is it forcing people to do anything, in fact it does the opposite.
Not to spark up anti-Americanism, especially a "nation vs nation" flame war, and a religious argument but a Western country that uses religious reasons to settle debate? I believe America may be one of the very few countries, if not the only one, who is in that mode of thinking.
Not to spark up anti-Americanism, especially a "nation vs nation" flame war, and a religious argument but a Western country that uses religious reasons to settle debate? I believe America may be one of the very few countries, if not the only one, who is in that mode of thinking.