Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN BANS ON GAY MARRIAGE IN US
Posts
nhubi
View playlists
CloseCash,
you have the right to your opinion, I don't agree with it, and obviously most of the opinions thus far stated on this thread don't either, but that doesn't invalidate it for you. If you choose to shut yourself off from a section of society simply because of the way they were born then the only person you are hurting is yourself. Your beliefs are personal, not universal and each must live according to the ethics they choose as long as by doing so they cause no harm to others. You have stated an honest viewpoint, this may not have been the best place to state it since everyone else is celebrating how amazing and liberating this is for a group of people who have thus far been oppressed, but it doesn't mean you don't have the right to hold it.
I just feel sorry that you have voluntarily cut yourself off from some of the rich and varied aspects of humanity in this way.
you have the right to your opinion, I don't agree with it, and obviously most of the opinions thus far stated on this thread don't either, but that doesn't invalidate it for you. If you choose to shut yourself off from a section of society simply because of the way they were born then the only person you are hurting is yourself. Your beliefs are personal, not universal and each must live according to the ethics they choose as long as by doing so they cause no harm to others. You have stated an honest viewpoint, this may not have been the best place to state it since everyone else is celebrating how amazing and liberating this is for a group of people who have thus far been oppressed, but it doesn't mean you don't have the right to hold it.
I just feel sorry that you have voluntarily cut yourself off from some of the rich and varied aspects of humanity in this way.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=pianotmauthor=LockeZThis is an extremely weak argument. Christians, Jews, and even Muslims are not the first to participate in marriage, and documentation of the earliest marriages by government predate earliest documentation of marriages by religious institutions. Also, marriage has been most commonly regarded throughout history as a union between families, with the union between husband and wife merely being a contractual stipulation. In fact, there has never been a time in which marriage was not recognized as a contract between two seperate parties. The basic form of marriage regards the woman as property, sold to the husbands family in exchange for goods and longterm support. America is actually rather progressive in that we are one of the few countries that actually gives women a choice in the marriage process. Largely, marriage is typically a prearranged business deal in which the woman has no say or choice.
A lot of people do consider themselves republican or democratic even if they rarely vote.
As a Christian, my own opinion is that the government shouldn't recognize marriage. It's a religious union, performed by a religious official, that means wildly different things in different religions.
Of course, if you prefer marriage as a religious institution, the following are perfectly acceptable examples of marriage in accordance with biblical law:
A woman sold to a man's family for livestock
Selling your daughter as a slave
Being required to marry your rapist
Being required to marry your dead husband's brother
Being forced to give your daughter to your master
Yeah! Let's hear it for Christian values!
Although you're not wrong about your history, it's also true that different belief systems subscribe to the following beliefs:
- Polygamy being allowed
- Marriage having nothing to do with love
- Marriage being a right of anyone who's in love
- Marriage being an outdated practice that we shouldn't participate in
- Marriage being allowed between a person and an inanimate object
These ideas, in addition to the ideas you listed yourself from old testament laws (some of which are even accurate!), are not compatible with each-other. There's no definition of marriage that can accomodate all of these varied meanings, and there's no point in trying. The only possible outcome is that you'll forget some minority group who will feel alienated.
Meanwhile, just letting everyone deal with it on their own, however they want, solves the problem and makes everyone happy. Everyone except the politicians, who have to redraft a bunch of laws to change the wording in them, and the IRS, who have to redo all their paperwork. Those are the only people who would be negatively impacted.
Also, the reason why marriages by governments have been around for so long is because the idea of a government with no religious affiliation is new. There was little difference between religious leaders and government leaders for most of history. It's only in the last couple centuries that true religious freedom has become anything other than a pipe dream with the exception of a few examples of short-lived failures. So of course there was no issue with governements making marriage criteria that were specific to their country's religion.
Ah, so that's why this topic went bananas. I can't think of anything clever to say, so I'll go with this:
I've held shitty opinions before. I still do, y'know. I'm always misinformed, or uninformed, or just horribly obstinate about something. You never really know your opinions are flawed until you dump them, at least, there's nothing more than a little nag in your head that you're doing something awful. Do yourself a favor and don't set anything in stone. We're all tiny human beings who have each individually only seen a nothing of the world we live in and are - or should be, anyway - constantly learning new things. To commit to an unwavering belief is to commit yourself to being wrong.
Anyway, cheers \o/ it was a very very good daye, and it's kind of nice to sit there and be happy about something. We still gotta get up and go to work tomorrow, but at least we know that work can pay off, sometimes!
I've held shitty opinions before. I still do, y'know. I'm always misinformed, or uninformed, or just horribly obstinate about something. You never really know your opinions are flawed until you dump them, at least, there's nothing more than a little nag in your head that you're doing something awful. Do yourself a favor and don't set anything in stone. We're all tiny human beings who have each individually only seen a nothing of the world we live in and are - or should be, anyway - constantly learning new things. To commit to an unwavering belief is to commit yourself to being wrong.
Anyway, cheers \o/ it was a very very good daye, and it's kind of nice to sit there and be happy about something. We still gotta get up and go to work tomorrow, but at least we know that work can pay off, sometimes!
Please please please let's not let this happy cheerful topic get dragged into a debate on ethics/morality/etc.
Nobody do this either.
author=EdgeOfChaos
I think Cashmere just nominated himself for the guy who RPGMaker gangs up on and flames the shit out of for the next week. So soon after the last one too.
Nobody do this either.
author=CashmereCatI don't hate you for this, because as my parents are fairly traditional Muslims who almost get physically sick at the thought of homosexuality, I can understand where this viewpoint comes from.
I know you guys are gonna hate me for this, but I'm a Christian and I believe homosexuality is a sin, so I'm against the institutionalization and normalization of it.
author=SolitayreI don't recall the original post in this topic having the words "HAPPY CHEERFUL POSTS ONLY". CashmereCat had every right to make that post and we shouldn't let topics about issues that even morally 'good' people feel strongly about be so one-sided. Plus, dialogue is the only thing that will bring about change.
Please please please let's not let this happy cheerful topic get dragged into a debate on ethics/morality/etc.
It will be pretty interesting to see how this will all play out in the long run. Freedom of belief versus freedom of sexuality...
author=Solitayre
Please please please let's not let this happy cheerful topic get dragged into a debate on ethics/morality/etc.
In light of this comment I'm going to try not to spark any further argument on this. I will try to explain my motivations, though, in the following spoiler box, even though I feel that this may be a very weak wall for my emotions. If the mods seek me to remove it, then I will, out of respect.
I'll start by saying that overall it stems from the fact that I love people. That if I deny every opportunity to persuade them that what they're doing is wrong, if this practice can send them to Hell, then in my worldview, I am allowing them to walk straight into a burning hell without any of my convincing, or any of my persuasion. Because I love people, I refuse to watch someone choose what I see to be sin because, in my mind, they are only hurting themselves. What I see is a massive institutionalization of sin, according to what I believe. Romans 1:29-32 implies that one is not approve that those who practice a deed that you believe is wrong. And I need to be willing to state this dissatisfaction, even in spite of what kind of hatred I may receive for it, because it is what I believe to be right. If I didn't do this, my Christian faith would be meaningless because it would mean I don't care for people with God's love.
I get the feeling that will make people hate me and what are essentially what I believe to be Christ's ideals even more, but I'm not doing this for myself. I'm doing this at pains of myself but for the love of God, trusting that it is the right thing to do. And I'm not going to apologize for it.
I still associate and am friends with homosexuals/bisexuals/every other kind of -sexual there is, but I do not claim to be tolerant of their behaviour, much like I am not tolerant of deceit, or unrighteous anger, or any other thing I see to be sin. I see these sins in myself as well as every other human being, but that does not mean I reckon to institutionalize it.
I get the feeling that will make people hate me and what are essentially what I believe to be Christ's ideals even more, but I'm not doing this for myself. I'm doing this at pains of myself but for the love of God, trusting that it is the right thing to do. And I'm not going to apologize for it.
I still associate and am friends with homosexuals/bisexuals/every other kind of -sexual there is, but I do not claim to be tolerant of their behaviour, much like I am not tolerant of deceit, or unrighteous anger, or any other thing I see to be sin. I see these sins in myself as well as every other human being, but that does not mean I reckon to institutionalize it.
I don't disagree, LockeZ, but at this point, you have to realize that basic necessity has always come before ritualistic tradition, and marriage is one of those things in which the basic practicality of such practices remains more apparent than the canonized dogma. In other words, marriage has historically had such a useful place in society that such practical function far overshadows any religious implications, a function which we see repeated throughout spectrum of social interaction, from corporate mergers, to community incorporations, to partnerships, and even to commitees. All of these have functions that echo the mechanics of marriage. The marriage ceremony even borrows the word "bridal" from basic machinery, the bridal being a cable or strap that connects two moving parts.
Throughout history, many business arrangements have been accomplished through marriage, whether it's two nations ratifying a peace treaty, or two families merging their assets into a single company, marriage is a crucial mechanic in society. It would be prudent to abolish various terms and codifications to maximize people's marital freedom, but to abolish government recognition would be a social and economic disaster.
EDIT: @Cash...how do I say this? If you really love someone, you don't demand that they follow certain preconscribed notions. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no foundation for the claim that if people don't do it your way, they will go to Hell. You and I can believe in our various gods all we want but nothing we do will change the fact that they are mythological constructs whose reality is entirely subjective. You're asking people to conform to someone else's spiritual beliefs. When you put forth these terms, you are placing restrictions on love. Love with conditions isn't love at all. I believe Jesus was a man who found his own truth. You can use his word as a guide, but ultimately if you only follow his word, you will never find the truth, because you can never know what he knew, even if it stares you in the face, and if that truth does stare you in the face, you will see something different regardless. Love must always be unconditional, and it must always be given. A Christian should let Jesus be his guide. Would Jesus place limits on his love?
Throughout history, many business arrangements have been accomplished through marriage, whether it's two nations ratifying a peace treaty, or two families merging their assets into a single company, marriage is a crucial mechanic in society. It would be prudent to abolish various terms and codifications to maximize people's marital freedom, but to abolish government recognition would be a social and economic disaster.
EDIT: @Cash...how do I say this? If you really love someone, you don't demand that they follow certain preconscribed notions. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no foundation for the claim that if people don't do it your way, they will go to Hell. You and I can believe in our various gods all we want but nothing we do will change the fact that they are mythological constructs whose reality is entirely subjective. You're asking people to conform to someone else's spiritual beliefs. When you put forth these terms, you are placing restrictions on love. Love with conditions isn't love at all. I believe Jesus was a man who found his own truth. You can use his word as a guide, but ultimately if you only follow his word, you will never find the truth, because you can never know what he knew, even if it stares you in the face, and if that truth does stare you in the face, you will see something different regardless. Love must always be unconditional, and it must always be given. A Christian should let Jesus be his guide. Would Jesus place limits on his love?
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Jesus never placed limits on love, but he did tell people when they were wrong. Telling someone you think they're wrong and they need to change isn't the same as telling them you don't love them.
Anyway, I vote we ban slash for starting a politics topic that was only ever going to get people to fight. Bad slash.
Anyway, I vote we ban slash for starting a politics topic that was only ever going to get people to fight. Bad slash.
Yes, but telling some they're wrong and that you support forcing them to act the way you think they should act is definitely not compatible with love.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Yeah, it is. If you loved someone, you'd never let them continue to do what's wrong.
Edit: Well, I won't say never. I often let myself continue to do things I know are wrong. But it's, obviously, wrong to do so, and demonstrates both a lack of respect for that person and a lack of really caring about them on more than a surface level.
Edit: Well, I won't say never. I often let myself continue to do things I know are wrong. But it's, obviously, wrong to do so, and demonstrates both a lack of respect for that person and a lack of really caring about them on more than a surface level.
THIS IS BIG!
(I don't agree with it being established by the supreme court as it may build up some serious bigot troubles and every state should be reasonable on its own, but hey it's better than not).
(I don't agree with it being established by the supreme court as it may build up some serious bigot troubles and every state should be reasonable on its own, but hey it's better than not).
That's tricky.
Love is about trying to make the best happen and to be supporting to the best of your abilities. You must also accept what happiness is for the other person, not what you think it is for you. Some people even choose to be unhappy, and you have to accept that as well - you cann still try to influence them to a healthier approach, but you cannot in your life force them.
If in your world the suffering caused by sin in the afterlife is far greater than any "mortal" sorrow could ever be, then it's a notion I can understand.
But the thing is, at the end of the day one must live his own life, according to one's own will. The one taking responsibility will be oneself. Trying to take responsibility for someone else is a dangerous approach.
I feel attempting to change a person in a way that would cause him great grief, deny basic human rights as well as the experience of love with a partner is simply a pointless effort, even with all moralities aside. It's a lose-lose situation.
Love is about trying to make the best happen and to be supporting to the best of your abilities. You must also accept what happiness is for the other person, not what you think it is for you. Some people even choose to be unhappy, and you have to accept that as well - you cann still try to influence them to a healthier approach, but you cannot in your life force them.
If in your world the suffering caused by sin in the afterlife is far greater than any "mortal" sorrow could ever be, then it's a notion I can understand.
But the thing is, at the end of the day one must live his own life, according to one's own will. The one taking responsibility will be oneself. Trying to take responsibility for someone else is a dangerous approach.
I feel attempting to change a person in a way that would cause him great grief, deny basic human rights as well as the experience of love with a partner is simply a pointless effort, even with all moralities aside. It's a lose-lose situation.
I think you're a good person in principle, Cashmere, and I can respect you for who you are, but I think you are making a fundamental mistake here.
As an atheist, my point of view on religious morals obviously doesn't hold that much weight, but I think there's a rather simple rule of thumb one can follow, no matter what any kind of book or dogma says:
If your deity genuinely cares about its creations and wants them to be happy, it makes no sense to assume it is opposed to any kind of mutual love. And if your deity does want to deprive its creations of mutual love and wants them to be unhappy, that deity does not deserve to be worshipped to begin with. Period.
As an atheist, my point of view on religious morals obviously doesn't hold that much weight, but I think there's a rather simple rule of thumb one can follow, no matter what any kind of book or dogma says:
If your deity genuinely cares about its creations and wants them to be happy, it makes no sense to assume it is opposed to any kind of mutual love. And if your deity does want to deprive its creations of mutual love and wants them to be unhappy, that deity does not deserve to be worshipped to begin with. Period.
author=CashmereCat
I know you guys are gonna hate me for this, but I'm a Christian and I believe homosexuality is a sin, so I'm against the institutionalization and normalization of it.
This is quite a shock to me, as I believe any love between two consenting adults is sacred, no matter the arrangement of their chromosomes or what's in their pants. I also know plenty of Christians who are cool with gay marriage, as the actual biblical doctrine on it is extremely weak and seems to be often cherry-picked by agenda-driven people who ignore other things that the bible also says are wrong (I don't see a huge campaign against polyester and tattoos, for example, which should be just as damning as same-sex love if you're going by the source material).
I have a ton of respect for you, Cash, so I'm not going to argue with you about this, nor does this lessen my opinion of you as a developer and a person. Frankly, I'm just shocked you could enjoy Luxaren Allure at all, as the whole thing centers around lesbian romance, aka what you've defined as "sin."
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
I mean, a lot of like Game of Thrones even though they're not in favor of war. A lot of people like Harry Potter even though they're not in favor of the occult. A lot of people like Duck Dynasty even though they're not in favor of rednecks. Something you wouldn't want to do in real life can still make a good story.
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
author=unity
I have a ton of respect for you, Cash, so I'm not going to argue with you about this, nor does this lessen my opinion of you as a developer and a person. Frankly, I'm just shocked you could enjoy Luxaren Allure at all, as the whole thing centers around lesbian romance, aka what you've defined as "sin."
Well, I think it's because the yuri theme is handled tastefully in LA. If it got to preaching why yuri is the one and only way and that all naysayers should be burned at the stake, then I think something would have been said.
Anyway, Cash, I'm personally fine with your opinion as long as you respect those that don't share it. Like EdgeofChaos said, nothing is being institutionalized. Rather, a restriction has just been lifted, so people are free to marry the person they love.
Now, because I'll never get a chance to make this joke again: I'm not gay. Worrying about what other men do with their penises is perhaps one of the gayest thought processes you can have.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Joke's on you, he's only worrying about the lesbians.
