Inclusion of any other politics stuff in paizo products intended / planned?

[Cat-thulhu]

TerraNova wrote:

I find Lovecraft reprehensible in some fields, and still I read quite a few of his stories. Howards writing is not only racist in places, but downright misogenic. You can reject parts off or all of these messages for yourself.

Really. You do realise he wrote around 1920ish. While he has been regarded as racist in some research circles, a little behind the times, his mysogeny and racist ideas were far from uncommon for the day. You can't apply modern moral standards to writings made in a day when such standards were not everyday common belief. Women didn't get the right To vote until 1920, the first birth control clinic was shut down 10 days after it opened and the lady behind it arrested. He was writing in an age when women's rights we're being debated wildly so it stands to reason he could come across a little misogenstic in that day and age.

[Kittyburger]

Andrew R wrote:

thejeff wrote:

carn wrote:

thejeff wrote:

carn wrote:

Hitdice wrote:

Well, here in the US there is a (Constitutional) promise of equal protection, which means that heterosexual couples and homosexual couples have the same right to marry.

Rights are not directed at couples but at individual. And one man one woman obviously does limit everybodies right to marry in the same way.

Just like miscegenation laws limited everybody's rights in the same way. Everyone could only marry within the same race.

As far as i know, nobody ever claimed that black + white was not a marriage. It was a marriage, just an illegal one. Even if preformed in secret it was punishable.

If two men exchange vows that is not of anybodys and especially the states concern. Instead of what is asked for, is a change of definition. And the reason given is that not changing the definition causes emotional harm.

Wow. Nice stretch.

A black person and a white person did not have the right to legally marry each other. This did not infringe on their rights because they both could marry people of their own race. Equal protection satisfied.

Two gay people of the same gender do not have the right to legally marry each other. This does not infringe on their rights because they both could marry people of the opposite gender, just like straight people can. Equal protection satisfied.

The details of how the ban was enforced are irrelevant to the argument about rights.

in all fairness cousins cannot legally marry either, is that a violation of rights?

First cousins can legally marry in more states than can gay people, and unlike gay people, their marriages are legally recognized in all fifty states.

[Aotrscommander]

Matt Thomason wrote:

I'm not sure California state laws were ever a part of this discussion - if so I must have missed it. I'm also not entirely sure what you're saying though :( Do you believe what Paizo is doing is right or wrong?

On this page above, a few posts up (and mentioned a few times in the thread prior to that), it has been discussed about California's state laws and how they voted against gay marriage and discussion of US constituions and supreme courts and such, which is a continuation of when carn first mentioned it on the first page.

Andrew R wrote:

California is known to have a large homosexual population so how that state deals with them sets the precedents for the nation in many ways. Outside of that it has no impact on anything outside of it's borders.

Ah, so there is some minimal justification as to why California is specifically singled out as having it's laws of more apparent relevance than any other state or country's.

I presume the logic therein is that if you assume that most other states will follow California's lead and vote against/repeal gay marriage that, because it would then be... socially unacceptable? or somthing that it would become a larger portion of Paizo's customer base that actually care enough about what other people get up to in their own time (other fictional people at that) that they stop buying and Paizo would lose money. Or something.

Seems like a bit of flimsey premise, to me, honestly.

[thejeff]

Aotrscommander wrote:

Matt Thomason wrote:

I'm not sure California state laws were ever a part of this discussion - if so I must have missed it. I'm also not entirely sure what you're saying though :( Do you believe what Paizo is doing is right or wrong?

On this page above, a few posts up (and mentioned a few times in the thread prior to that), it has been discussed about California's state laws and how they voted against gay marriage and discussion of US constituions and supreme courts and such, which is a continuation of when carn first mentioned it on the first page.

Andrew R wrote:

California is known to have a large homosexual population so how that state deals with them sets the precedents for the nation in many ways. Outside of that it has no impact on anything outside of it's borders.

Ah, so there is some minimal justification as to why California is specifically singled out as having it's laws of more apparent relevance than any other state or country's.

I presume the logic therein is that if you assume that most other states will follow California's lead and vote against/repeal gay marriage that, because it would then be... socially unacceptable? or somthing that it would become a larger portion of Paizo's customer base that actually care enough about what other people get up to in their own time (other fictional people at that) that they stop buying and Paizo would lose money. Or something.

Seems like a bit of flimsey premise, to me, honestly.

It was brought up as more of a "Even in liberal California people voted against gay marriage. (Thus by implication even more people in other states oppose it.) That's a lot of people who might object and stop buying Paizo's product if they keep putting the Gay in it."

I don't think it really has anything to do with the actual laws, just that a bunch of people voted for it. The law has since been overturned, by the way. And polls show both California and the rest of the country has moved more towards support of gay marriage and away from prejudice.

So yeah, I think it's pretty flimsy.

[LazarX]

bugleyman wrote:

So it's impossible to censure a bigot without becoming a bigot oneself? Nonsense.

There's nothing gained by censuring a bigot. Or really marginalizing them. Bigotry is is fed by fear, ignorance, and indoctrination. The only long term solution is education and you don't serve that by marginalising or ostracizing people.

You need to teach by example and demonstration.

[Sean K Reynolds]

This has gone on long enough, and now the tired, old pedophilia and bestiality arguments have been brought into the conversation.

Thread closed. I'll let the tech team decide what else they want to do about this on Monday.