|
It means what they say it means in the bracketed part of their post, the same bracketed part that you reposted. You did read the part in brackets right?Anti-equality? What the hell does that mean?
"You're not my equal, and don't deserve the same rights and privileges as I do"
Again, in regards to what? Everything or some things? Are we dealing with behavior, wealth, morals, laws, or whatever?
It means that everyone in the world SHOULD be treated equally until they do something to lose that right. Infringing on the rights of others is a biggie, And yes, being a bigot is infringing on the rights of others. Am I bigoted against bigots? Yes I am. I am willing to take the heat for that too.
People used to think that bigots were just misguided and ignorant. Thankfully, those days are rapidly falling behind us. Bigots deserve derision and to be ostracized. Is that clearer?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Abellius, simply because it is a small facet which, if personally offensive enough, can be changed or glossed over. That Paizo may hold opinions contrary to mine is something which pales in comparison to the general quality of their products and the fact that it is their own decision which is not detrimental to me. How can one look at Reign of Winter and say it is not a masterpiece of an AP, just because of the FF and FT relationships, not to mention the whole possibility of unknowingly romancing a polymorphed winter wolf? Like I said before, the author's preferences and personal reasons for making non-traditional characters is irrelevant to me, because if it bothers me I will change it. The quality of the material is what matters to me. People's opinions and preferences are their own and if they hurt no one in holding them, why should I bother taking offense? Besides, human psychology is such that the more you try to dissuade people from a course of action, the tighter they cling to it, so if your goal is to dissuade these things, isn't actively trying to do so counterproductive to your goals anyway.
Abellius, simply because it is a small facet which, if personally offensive enough, can be changed or glossed over. That Paizo may hold opinions contrary to mine is something which pales in comparison to the general quality of their products and the fact that it is their own decision which is not detrimental to me. How can one look at Reign of Winter and say it is not a masterpiece of an AP, just because of the FF and FT relationships, not to mention the whole possibility of unknowingly romancing a polymorphed winter wolf? Like I said before, the author's preferences and personal reasons for making non-traditional characters is irrelevant to me, because if it bothers me I will change it. The quality of the material is what matters to me. People's opinions and preferences are their own and if they hurt no one in holding them, why should I bother taking offense? Besides, human psychology is such that the more you try to dissuade people from a course of action, the tighter they cling to it, so if your goal is to dissuade these things, isn't actively trying to do so counterproductive to your goals anyway.
Again, do you spend your money on companies that you strongly disagree with? Yes or no? If you do, that's silly.
Besides you going off on a tangent that has nothing to do with my initial point to you, all I see in your response to me is justifying that what Paizo is doing is acceptable to you and is worth your money. Nothing more. That's fine with me. However, telling people that do have a problem with a company's actions or products to overlook it so they "don't discourage authors from crafting masterful stories simply because you disagree with the inclusion of personally uncomfortable subject matter" is again silly. Why would someone support a company with their money that do things that they strongly oppose?
Whats wrong with the winter wolf? Its a sentient creature, it can make its own decisions.
And I have a feeling the answer is "Yes"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So it's impossible to censure a bigot without becoming a bigot oneself? Nonsense.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's really sad is that it is 2013 and we are still having these types of conversations. Will the day ever come when bigotry (in sheep's clothing) has gone the way of the dodo bird?Yes. But not while humanity is still alive. Minimised, frowned upon, marginalised, possibly. Gone completely? Not really. A lot of people, even perfectly nice people, will need someone to other.
I disagree. Though I do not doubt that there will always be individuals who "other" people different from themselves, I think society at large will eventually overcome this childish behavior. This may seem naive at first glance, but there are two reasons why I feel this way.
The first is my son and his classmates. This generation of young kids (my son is 13) is amazingly enlightened compared to previous generations of kids. They are amazingly accepting. I get to see their tolerance in action, and it's very encouraging. We are a relatively poor family in a somewhat wealthy area, and our kid is a special needs kid. But these other kids have never bullied him, have always accepted him, and they are a very diverse band of races and backgrounds. They seem to have no fear of "others."
Second, I believe that humans have demonstrated that whatever we can imagine, we can create and make real, even if it takes us some time to accomplish it. Star Trek is a shining example of ideas, concepts and technology that seemed far-fetched, but of which much has been made real. I think that the idealists who have been raised on these concepts (and are still being raised on them) have taken over a lot of the world, and will continue to do so. I am not saying we don't have a lot of struggle left to get to enlightenment as a species, but I think that because we have imagined it, we have the potential to achieve it.
Edit: Let me add that this thread is another good sign. There is a great amount of tolerance and enlightenment on exhibit here. More of the posts that I have seen are about tolerance than the opposite. I am sure we all come from varying backgrounds, but we seem to be on our way to working things out. That is a very encouraging thing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my view I don't have a problem with Paizo putting these types of things in there material. I think it's generally a good thing. I think it's even better when it happens to support an issue that I think is right.
The only grip I might have with it is that it starting to seem a little forced on their part. As long as they don't start putting social issues in their material just for the sake of doing it I don't have a problem with it. Mostly I don't think they have crossed that line, but some things do make me wonder. As long as those things are the side effects of good plots and world building and not something that's a overriding concern the plots of their stories and the setting are worked around it's alright to me.
There's a long discussion of this topic in this thread. It's generally somewhat civil, as far as these sorts of threads go. You will find people advancing arguments on all sides of the issue.
Ultimately, I buy RPG material from them and others because I want great RPG stuff and not to engage in any form of sociological engineering or to advance social/political statements or agendas. I say that even as somebody that might agree with the issue that material is trying to advance. There are good times and places for intentional social statements, even in, maybe especially in works of art, but I don't think their RPG material is one of those.
Drock11, I understand the view you're putting forth here. I disagree with it, but I understand it.
However, one thing I'd like to respectfully suggest that you consider is that, for LGBT people, a great majority of narrative media in our culture, including RPGs, does, by apparent default, already impose upon us a form of social/political statement and agenda. This is an agenda that says that we shouldn't expect to see ourselves represented in much of the media that we consume, that we should expect to be, to an extent, erased from much of that media. An agenda that says, to all intents and purposes, we do not exist. Again, this includes the majority of RPGs produced in the history of the field.
This is not to say that we cannot engage with or gain something from media (including RPGs) that do not directly reflect our experiences. Quite the contrary, if you're LGBT (or in any underrepresented group, be it a racial minority, women, etc.), you have to learn, by necessity, to engage with stories about people who are nothing like you, whose experiences are different than yours in significant ways. You learn to cross-identify. Otherwise, there's not a whole of lot media we can consume. And while things are gradually improving in that regard (particularly on television), think about the likelihood or frequency of, say, a large budget sci-fi film, or an action franchise, with a gay lead. Or a transgender lead.
The underlying assumptions of the majority of media (including RPGs) is heternormative, and cisnormative. (Though, again, things have gradually begun to improve.) These assumptions and their effects are already imposed upon us, and have been for our entire lives. Their effects can be deleterious. At the very least, they can by wearying. One great description of this that I've seen used by a female comic book fan and cartoonist (referring to having to put up with how women tend to be depicited within the medium she loves) is that this is part of the background radiation of our lives. You deal with it, but you know it'd be nice if you didn't have to.
Given that such is the case (and I think what I'm stating is an accurate description of a major aspect of being an LGBT person who engages with the narrative media produced by our culture, if it's not, I beg everyone's pardon), I find that pretty much any time is a good time, any place is a good place, for intentional social statements about LGBT people. Because, and this is the point I was trying to make to the OP back at the beginning of the thread, that downward, exclusionary pressure is already there as the default. Any time or place is a good time or place to push back against that pressure, and doing so will likely have a positive effect on the LGBT people who interact with such media. Including RPGs, as I noted in one of my replies to Mulgar, above.
I've been on these threads a lot lately, probably annoying some people with these giant posts, because I think what Paizo is doing is kind of amazing. And kind of important. I think what they're doing is going to have a positive impact on a number of young LGBT RPG players, is already having that impact. I think that for older LGBT players it is, at the very least, likely to bring a smile to their faces. And isn't that a nice thing to do? I think, if stuff like this had been common when I was growing up, man, how much time that would have saved me, time spent coming to terms with my gender identity. I'm moved by what they're doing here.
So what I'm asking is that you grant us and our experiences some consideration in your viewpoint on this subject. And what I'd suggest is to have faith that Paizo will continue to produce good products and good stories, and that doing so is not exclusive from or likely to be derailed by any decisions they make about representation of LGBT people within their products.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, do you spend your money on companies that you strongly disagree with? Yes or no? If you do, that's silly.
Read through the thread. The consensus seems to be, if you disagree with what Paizo is doing, and you feel strongly about it, you do not need to purchase their products.
Besides you going off on a tangent that has nothing to do with my initial point to you, all I see in your response to me is justifying that what Paizo is doing is acceptable to you and is worth your money. Nothing more.
He's reiterating his original post, which is on-topic for this thread, and serves as a response to the original poster.
|
|
It means that everyone in the world SHOULD be treated equally until they do something to lose that right. Infringing on the rights of others is a biggie, And yes, being a bigot is infringing on the rights of others. Am I bigoted against bigots? Yes I am. I am willing to take the heat for that too.
People used to think that bigots were just misguided and ignorant. Thankfully, those days are rapidly falling behind us. Bigots deserve derision and to be ostracized. Is that clearer?
By your own statements you are a bigot and part of the anti-equality crowd. Gotcha.
I said I am bigoted against bigots. I am totally IN the equality crowd. Everyone is equal. Unless they consider other humans to be unequal because of race, gender, creed, alternate lifestyle, age or weight. Some would say that is a form of bigotry. If so, I can live with that.
Are you bigoted against a group of people?
Anti-equality? What the hell does that mean?
It means opposing equal rights for everyone. Don't be obtuse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3 replies of stuff
My stance on gay marriage or what sexual behavior Paizo puts in its APs is irrelevant to the points I originally made.
Anyone that goes around in a public forum and mentions that they expect anyone with an opposing view that they consider offense, bad, bigoted, etc to keep them to themselves and labels that person as an anti-equality or anti-whatever is being a jerk and a intolerant person.
Yes, I did read the whole thread. All I see is a lot of intolerance, ignorance, and bigotry responses from people who should know better. I also see from a few responses that Paizo may be wearing their politics on their sleeve and it may be impacting some of their customer base when it comes to sales.
Btw, I'm a Voltaire free speech kind of guy and it irks me when people try to silence opposing views with attack responses in public forum threads like this one.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Btw, I'm a Voltaire free speech kind of guy and it irks me when people try to silence opposing views with attack responses in public forum threads like this one.
Silenced? You mean 'asked to back their argument' in a put up/shut up kinda way?
Freedom of speech =/= freedom from consequence.
|
|
For the record; I don't want to silence the bigoted folks. I like for them to speak out loud and proud. Makes it easier for the rest of us to identify them and bring them out into the light.
We may criticize and show derision towards their mindset; but I don't think anyone has tried to silence them.
Free speech is one thing; delegitimizing someone for being unlike what you consider the norm is another. 10 years ago, we tended to look the other way. Some of us have chosen another path recently.
Again, do you spend your money on companies that you strongly disagree with? Yes or no? If you do, that's silly.Read through the thread. The consensus seems to be, if you disagree with what Paizo is doing, and you feel strongly about it, you do not need to purchase their products.
Besides you going off on a tangent that has nothing to do with my initial point to you, all I see in your response to me is justifying that what Paizo is doing is acceptable to you and is worth your money. Nothing more.He's reiterating his original post, which is on-topic for this thread, and serves as a response to the original poster.
It appears you totally missed my initial points so maybe you need to read through the thread again! Also, please don't tell me what you think this thread's consensus is for it will be biased to what you want it to be. I was responding to two specific statements made in this thread and I will keep my focus on them and my original points.
Also, please stop telling me to read through the thread and don't interpret what my conversation with Silver Prince is suppose to be according to you. I think he can handle responding to me just fine on his own.
Btw, I'm a Voltaire free speech kind of guy and it irks me when people try to silence opposing views with attack responses in public forum threads like this one.Silenced? You mean 'asked to back their argument' in a put up/shut up kinda way?
Freedom of speech =/= freedom from consequence.
And your point is to my original post? It seems you are going off on a tangent.
3 replies of stuffMy stance on gay marriage or what sexual behavior Paizo puts in its APs is irrelevant to the points I originally made.
Sure. I was just curious. I find, in discussions like these, it helps me better understand where people are coming from. I will not ask you such again if you don't wish to discuss it.
I was also asking in an attempt to keep the thread on-topic, which is often thought of as a good thing to do.
Anyone that goes around in a public forum and mentions that they expect anyone with an opposing view that they consider offense, bad, bigoted, etc to keep them to themselves and labels that person as an anti-equality or anti-whatever is being a jerk and a intolerant person.
Again, you're missing the context in which he was making that post.
Yes, I did read the whole thread. All I see is a lot of intolerance, ignorance, and bigotry responses from people who should know better. I also see from a few responses that Paizo may be wearing their politics on their sleeve and it may be impacting some of their customer base when it comes to sales.
Let me counter that last one by saying I became a customer because of their views and their approach on these matters. I'd also bet that their approach is having as much of a positive effect on their customer base as it is a negative one. (That is, I'd bet the overall negative impact is negligible.)
Btw, I'm a Voltaire free speech kind of guy and it irks me when people try to silence opposing views with attack responses in public forum threads like this one.
I'm looking at the thread, and I'm generally seeing a lot of people engaging in civil discussion rather than using attack responses. I do see some people using the word "bigot" occasionally, but "bigot" is generally considered an apt description for one who discriminates based on sexual orientation.
I do think some of your responses to people are harsh, angry and accusatory. If that's the way you want to treat people, that's your choice.
And if that's not your intent, I apologize, but that is, to me, how you're coming across in your posts.
Also, please don't tell me what you think this thread's consensus is for it will be biased to what you want it to be.
Okay. Just saying that several people have said, in this thread and elsewhere, that if you don't like what Paizo is doing, don't buy their stuff.
don't interpret what my conversation with Silver Prince is suppose to be according to you. I think he can handle responding to me just fine on his own.
Okay. Usually, when one posts in a thread on a discussion board like this one, one expects that other people will join in on whatever conversation you're having. Sometimes people will attempt to alleviate possible misunderstanding as well, which was my intent.
If you don't want anyone else to get involved in your discussion with Silver Prince, maybe it'd be better to take that conversation over to PM?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the record; I don't want to silence the bigoted folks. I like for them to speak out loud and proud. Makes it easier for the rest of us to identify them and bring them out into the light.
We may criticize and show derision towards their mindset; but I don't think anyone has tried to silence them.
Free speech is one thing; delegitimizing someone for being unlike what you consider the norm is another. 10 years ago, we tended to look the other way. Some of us have chosen another path recently.
Do what you got to do. Fine by me. However, don't make yourself become as bad or worse than the people you are criticizing by labeling them anti-equality or anti-X and-or mention that you expect them to keep their opinions to themselves.
My original post was to a specific statement that was said, which I found hypocritical and not good if that person is supposedly for equal rights.
And your point is to my original post?
I would have thought it was pretty self explanatory really, perhaps you might need to consider your original post and then consider how mine might apply.
And your point is to my original post?I would have thought it was pretty self explanatory really, perhaps you might need to consider your original post and then consider how mine might apply.
Maybe you should first and we can work from there.
My original post was to a specific statement that was said, which I found hypocritical and not good if that person is supposedly for equal rights
Then I put it to you that you don't understand 'rights' or 'hypocrisy'.
|
|
For the record; I don't want to silence the bigoted folks. I like for them to speak out loud and proud. Makes it easier for the rest of us to identify them and bring them out into the light.
We may criticize and show derision towards their mindset; but I don't think anyone has tried to silence them.
Free speech is one thing; delegitimizing someone for being unlike what you consider the norm is another. 10 years ago, we tended to look the other way. Some of us have chosen another path recently.
Do what you got to do. Fine by me. However, don't make yourself become as bad or worse than the people you are criticizing by labeling them anti-equality or anti-X and-or mention that you expect them to keep their opinions to themselves.
My original post was to a specific statement that was said, which I found hypocritical and not good if that person is supposedly for equal rights.
You seem more concerned with fighting for tolerance and less a "veiled attacks against LGBT" type poster so it's all good.
Peace out.
Maybe you should first and we can work from there.
Seriously?
Abellius, truth be told it is somewhat naive to say that if one disagrees with one thing a company does, then you should essentially boycott it. Perfect example: if you are opposed to slavery, which you should be, boycott your phone or computer, whichever you post from, because the parts are made and put together by workers who are slaves in everything but name. You see my point?
The point I was trying to make was derailed by unrelated questions posed, but I feel it necessary to address the question asked of me and offer some exposition on my point.
Okay. Just saying that several people have said, in this thread and elsewhere, that if you don't like what Paizo is doing, don't buy their stuff.
Again, my initial points was to a statement that was made regardless what you think the consensus of this thread is. Ok?
Okay. Usually, when one posts in a thread on a discussion board like this one, one expects that other people will join in on whatever conversation you're having. Sometimes people will attempt to alleviate possible misunderstanding as well, which was my intent.
If you don't want anyone else to get involved in your discussion with Silver Prince, maybe it'd be better to take that conversation over to PM?
I agree with you that you can join in my conversation with Silver Prince since this is a public thread and I have no problems with it, but he is doing fine explaining his position to me and I'm replying back based on what he specifically said. It is coming across that you are putting words in his mouth to defend him where you don't need to.
Even though people here are being hostile towards me for what I have said, though most of them don't really understand my points or really care to, I'm trying not to be rude or hostile towards you. I made some points and I'm not going to deviate from them by answering tangents or strawman arguments.
Like you said, Paizo as a company can do whatever they want with the design and sale of their products. If you don't like that, then don't buy them. Not a big deal. However, that wasn't my original points to two different people.
Even though people here are being hostile towards me for what I have said, though most of them don't really understand my points or really care to, I'm trying not to be rude or hostile towards you. I made some points and I'm not going to deviate from them by answering tangents or strawman arguments.
My observation is that you are good at broadcasting, but not so flash at communicating. What you call 'tangents and strawmen' seems to consist of rebuttal and disagreement. If you aren't wishing to project as rude and hostile then perhaps you need to rethink your approach.
Abellius, what I was saying is that basically despite not holding a particular view, I can respect other peoples' views, not run them through the mud. I advocate acceptance of those beliefs, though I will not indulge in them. Does that clarify my statement somewhat? If my wording was the source of your offense, I apologize for not being clear.
stuff
Okay, I was not looking to fight. I was trying to facilitate understanding. I'm generally happy when people do the same with my posts (as happened near the beginning of this thread).
I still think you're misunderstanding the post you originally responded to, but I don't think I'll be able to convince you of that, as you seem to have made up your mind in that matter.
Have yourself a good evening.
Abellius, truth be told it is somewhat naive to say that if one disagrees with one thing a company does, then you should essentially boycott it. Perfect example: if you are opposed to slavery, which you should be, boycott your phone or computer, whichever you post from, because the parts are made and put together by workers who are slaves in everything but name. You see my point?
The point I was trying to make was derailed by unrelated questions posed, but I feel it necessary to address the question asked of me and offer some exposition on my point.
I totally disagree. People boycott businesses all the time for numerous reasons. You saying that it is naive may show your naivety. One of my fellow gay gamers has told me repeatably which stores he will never shop at due to their anti-gay positions, so please don't tell me you can't boycott businesses.
You are right about boycotting computer components for there isn't many alternatives at this point in time, but it's easy to boycott certain computer manufacturers. It's not hard to boycott restaurants, books, movies, RPG books, computer games, etc, and people do it all the time.
I responded to a particular sentence you said and I got my answer. You have no problems spending money on a company's products that you disagree with, but I don't agree with your original reason ("overlook"). Now, if you new position is that there is no other choices or the alternatives are worse, then that is different reason from what you originally said.
stuffOkay, I was not looking to fight. I was trying to facilitate understanding. I'm generally happy when people do the same with my posts (as happened near the beginning of this thread).
I still think you're misunderstanding the post you originally responded to, but I don't think I'll be able to convince you of that, as you seem to have made up your mind in that matter.
Have yourself a good evening.
I read what was written and quoted it. There is no doubt what the words say. Now, if the poster meant something different from what he wrote, then he needs to change it.
You have a good evening yourself.
Abellius, what I was saying is that basically despite not holding a particular view, I can respect other peoples' views, not run them through the mud. I advocate acceptance of those beliefs, though I will not indulge in them. Does that clarify my statement somewhat? If my wording was the source of your offense, I apologize for not being clear.
Nah, nonthingt you wrote offended me. Actually, I appreciate what you have written for I found it mature and interesting.
I just questioned one sentence you wrote where people should "overlook" the authors at Paizo about things that offend them. That grab my interest and made me ask you my original question - Why support a company that you disagree with based on this "overlook" reason? I didn't ask it for yucks. I was actually curious to see your reasoning behind it for everyone I know don't support companies that they disagree with unless they don't have a choice or the "free" factor is applied.
Even though people here are being hostile towards me for what I have said, though most of them don't really understand my points or really care to, I'm trying not to be rude or hostile towards you. I made some points and I'm not going to deviate from them by answering tangents or strawman arguments.My observation is that you are good at broadcasting, but not so flash at communicating. What you call 'tangents and strawmen' seems to consist of rebuttal and disagreement. If you aren't wishing to project as rude and hostile then perhaps you need to rethink your approach.
Until you address my original points we have nothing to discuss I guess.
You seem more concerned with fighting for tolerance and less a "veiled attacks against LGBT" type poster so it's all good.
Peace out.
Ditto!
Abellius, my position has not changed. You seem to have acceptance and advocation confused. With acceptance, a person recognizes another person's opinion has worth and tries to ensure that opinion is treated with respect and worth. Advocation is making a personal endorsement towards a particular cause. Those are two completely different things.
In regards to the 'boycott is not impossible in most cases' argument, consider the level of exploitation in almost every industry: food (Ever been to a sugar cane harvesting community in Florida?), entertainment (Previous post example.), clothing (Exploitation.), medicine (Outrageous and immoral fees for life-saving medicines.), automobiles (Unsafe factory conditions paired with the dangers of chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing that is utilized to acquire the oil used in cars.), and other examples.
As for the 'overlook' statement, I was merely offering that as a solution to some of the people who were getting offended by the inclusion solely because of their own preferences. As I stated, my home group and I do not care about such distinctions and will include these things in a game without batting an eye. Do you understand better now?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My original post was to a specific statement that was said, which I found hypocritical and not good if that person is supposedly for equal rightsThen I put it to you that you don't understand 'rights' or 'hypocrisy'.
I definitely think that the definition of 'rights' needs to be revisted. Many, many people mistake privileges for rights. For instance, you have the God-given, inalienable right to love anyone you wish to love. You have the right to stand up in front of your friends and family and by whatever means you wish express that love and commitment, and you have the right to do so without persecution or or interference from others.
You are not born with the God-given inalienable right to have tax exemptions nor the God-given inalienable right to healthcare provided by another person's employer. Those are privileges. Its all well and good to want those privileges and to work to get them, but that doesn't automatically make them a 'right'.
I'm just using marriage as one example here. You don't have the 'right' to the fruits of another's labor through social programs, don't have the 'right' to a good-paying job at conveniant hours and pleasant conditions... these are again privileges. We've gotten into the terrible habit of identifying anything someone else has that we want and stamping 'right' on it - and that needs to stop.
Personally, I think the government needs to get out of the marriage business entirely. Marriage should be a arrangement between the individuals concerned, be they straight, gay, polyamorous or whatever. Ceremonies can be performed on as grand or intimate a scale as they wish. Power of Attorney, Medical Power of Attorney, Wills, named benefeciaries and so forth are all available to people from every walk of life to customize the legal aspects of their relationship as they see fit. People don't have the 'right' for someone else to pay their share of the tax burden because they choose to get married or to procreate, and private businesses (like Paizo) should be allowed to define whatever parameters they wish regarding compensation and benefits. If one company makes the business decision to deny benefits to same-sex partners, well they will miss out on that individual's talents and skills, presumably losing them out to a more generous or open-minded competitor, just as they might with inequal pay or poor working conditions. In such a way do enlightened philosophies ensure primacy.
Gay marriage - again, in my opinion - shouldn't be an issue because marriage shouldn't be an issue. Nothing prevents formal expressions of love and commitment between two people, legal options exist for the majority of marriage aspects and the government simply needs to stay the hell out of it, one way or another. Effectively, by no longer granting 'privileges' to hetero-sexual couples, they remove the fallacy of rights being denied to gay couples and consequently end the debate.
Abellius, I offer my apologies for me misconstruing what you said as attacking my position on tolerance. I just now read your post. When I started typing the post, I did not see the posts. Took me about 15 minutes, as I was posting from my phone and I took the time to address the points listed, during which time you made posts you explained your reasoning in, which I did not see. With that, I respectfully now out of the discussion.
Abellius, I offer my apologies for me misconstruing what you said as attacking my position on tolerance. I just now read your post. When I started typing the post, I did not see the posts. Took me about 15 minutes, as I was posting from my phone and I took the time to address the points listed, during which time you made posts you explained your reasoning in, which I did not see. With that, I respectfully now out of the discussion.
No problem. I just wanted to understand your reasoning on the "overlook" statement and you answered it in your previous response. Thank you.
Abellius, misconstruction of intent is a problem, but one I blame myself for in this case. I sent you a PM a few minutes ago in case you did not come back to the thread. I bid you a good day or night and offer you thanks for being tolerant.
I just noted a difference. Whether that difference is relevant enough to justify differing legal/custom treatment would be a matter of political debate.Why does the child necessarily need to be the biological child of both parents? And you realize that kids with gay parents grow up just fine, right?
The truth of the matter is that there's really no fundamental difference between a married homosexual couple and a married heterosexual couple. Both couples live together, love each other, share their lives and their possessions, and may choose to raise children if they so desire.Probability of a child living with married heterosexual couple to be biological child of the two is (as far as i guess from what little i know about statistics) about 50-90%.
Probability of a child living with a married homosexual couple to be biological child of the two is about 0%.
Thats a difference.
Would you accept that whatever relevance that statistical fact has also applies to a heterosexual couple, one or both of whome are unable to have kids?
If the difference you point out is an argument against recognising gay marriage, it's also an argument against the marriages of sterile, heterosexual couples.
As long as they don't start putting social issues in their material just for the sake of doing it I don't have a problem with it.
Which is mostly the thought behind the second question i wrote in the OP. is more to come?
After this thread i expect no.
Really? I expect yes.
Paizo will continue to apply their own judgements as to what constitutes "Lawful" and "Good" acts within the game. How else can they include issues of alignment?
For example: AP #1 included, in addition to a gay paladin, a CG brothel owner and a NG herbalist who (amongst other things) helps people end pregnancies. By your definitions, those are as much "political messages" as the current issue under discussion, arent they?
I just noted a difference. Whether that difference is relevant enough to justify differing legal/custom treatment would be a matter of political debate.Why does the child necessarily need to be the biological child of both parents? And you realize that kids with gay parents grow up just fine, right?
The truth of the matter is that there's really no fundamental difference between a married homosexual couple and a married heterosexual couple. Both couples live together, love each other, share their lives and their possessions, and may choose to raise children if they so desire.Probability of a child living with married heterosexual couple to be biological child of the two is (as far as i guess from what little i know about statistics) about 50-90%.
Probability of a child living with a married homosexual couple to be biological child of the two is about 0%.
Thats a difference.
Would you accept that whatever relevance that statistical fact has also applies to a heterosexual couple, one or both of whome are unable to have kids?
If the difference you point out is an argument against recognising gay marriage, it's also an argument against the marriages of sterile, heterosexual couples.
If sterile couples could be with absolute certainty be reliable identified without any incursion into their privacy, then yes, it would be an argument.
But when two men show up before a marriage official, the official gains the information "they will never have biological kids together" without doing anything.
If a man and a woman show up before a marriage official, the official at most gains very imprecise information about the probability that the two will have biological kids together (derived from their age and outwwrad visible health and maybe indirect information about their intent in regard to having kids). And he could only by forcing them to take tests and inform him...
But if they volunteer the information? Suppose my wife and I can't have kids and never will be able to. If we make that public, do you think our marriage should now be considered as illegitimate as a gay married couple?
Also, bear in mind that the 'will never be able to have kids together' may soon be rendered untrue via technology. It's pretty much technically possible now for two women to have a child together (although as far as I know it's not a service currently being offered anywhere).
a NG herbalist who (amongst other things) helps people end pregnancies. By your definitions, those are as much "political messages" as the current issue under discussion, arent they?Yes, that is also one.
Not the CG brothel owner?
To be clear, I'm not really interested in arguing morality with you - I'm just trying to point out that by your definitions of political statements it is necessarily true that any producer of an RPG (which includes concepts like alignment) will have to make political statements. I think you're noticing some specific ones (like homosexual marriage and abortion being consistent with LG and G alignments respectively) because they bother you, but glossing over others which dont.