Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
WoW and Blizzard lack of support for GLBT players.
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
The ACLU is primarily concerned with stupidity by the government, not stupidity by private corporations. Yes, Blizzard's interpretation of its terms of use is nonsense; and yes, it's not clear what part of "offensive" their GM's didn't understand. But you can't sue someone for having their head up their ass. Given the game's primary demographic, it is also pretty much a waste of time trying to stir up media controversy.
Game for ADHD emo children has brainless GLBT policy: "dog bites man."
Ignore the warning, recruit until your account is banned, and if that happens, there are better MMO's to spend money on. WoW basically provides a service by keeping its particular audience where it is - kind of like a lymph gland. If you go in, you have to expect to encounter a certain amount of snot. In contrast, Final Fantasy has GLBT linkshells that managed to recruit without banning, and the fashion statements are substantially more fabulous than those available in the toonish WoW. Of course...
it's better to be GLBT in a Ropongi disco than a Kansas trailer park: "dog bites man."
You're just supporting my contention, the lower the population the greater the number of proportionate injustices.
10% is the most optimistic and would cover the entire GLBT spectrum, it is based on numbers previously promoted by groups that are genuinely advocates/promoters of homosexuality. Even using their inflated statistics (taking into account how many are still in the closet) its not hard to see how, even with less victimisation, it is proportionally similar.
Postmortem Studios
Roleplaying games to DIE for
Shop here
You seem to be having some reading comprehension problems there, so let me help you out.
A poster a short way back tried to rubbish any comparison between the civil rights movement for racial equality and the plight of homosexuals.
However, there is a direct comparison with many similar attitudes expressed towards blacks/hispanics/asian back then and how homosexuals are treated now. Contrary to what the poster was asserting there are a significant number of deaths and hospitalisations of gays due to gay bashing incidents, not altogether dissimilar to the lynchings and so on that happened back in the day.
Homosexuals also suffer prejudice in many other forms, not least of all it seems on this forum, enduring hate speech, job discrimination (particularly in teaching) and many other things that should have left behind when we discovered we could make our own fire.
Again, your counterargument just continues to support my contention of proportionate victimisation. The smaller you assess the homosexual population to be, the greater the proportion of hate killings and victimisation they have recieved.
I used the Stonewall (IIRC) figure of 10%, which I regard as overblown, because that was the most optimistic and large estimate of the population with an alternative sexual preference (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, whatever) and it was STILL lower than the black population.
I am specifically not taking into account people in the closet, though it can be argued that the atmosphere of hate contributes to them being unable to express themselves and be themselves and thus, IS a form of victimisation. The point was that by them remaining in the closet that reduces the population available for hate crimes and murder.
Let's take your 2% then shall we?
Assume (for the sake of easy maths) that a town has a population of 100. Amongst that number, most of whom are straight caucasians, there are 12 blacks and 2 homosexuals.
In a year 3 blacks are subjected to a prejudice-related beating and 1 homosexual suffers the same fate.
As a black in that town you have a 25% chance of being subjected to a prejudice-oriented beating.
As a homosexual in that town you have a 50% chance of being subjected to a prejudice-oriented beating.
Who has it worse?
As to homosexuality being normal, there is some evidence that it is, at least, partially genetic and more evidence that it is an inbuilt pressure-release valve for chronic overpopulation (at least in animal experimentation). As such it is indeed a very normal part of the makeup of our species (and others).
I really, honestly, am surprised to still see such attitudes expressed in this day and age. It's the 21st century for the love of fate! We may not have rocket cars but can we at least start acting like evolved and enlightened beings?
Postmortem Studios
Roleplaying games to DIE for
Shop here
There is a difference in intent. A glbt guild is formed because of a minority that shares the same cultural or social elements and feels it's being discriminated upon. That's not the case with white-only guilds that are formed with the intent to disrupt the activities of non-white races.
However, in essence, they remain the same. They both are minorities that isolate themselves from the rest of the community instead of being an equal part of it. A glbt guild unintentionally hurts its community by reinforcing the belief that homosexuals are special people who should be treated differently or move in different social circles instead of being a part of the whole community of a virtual world.
Furthermore, an advertisement of a guild as glbt-friendly may imply that other guilds (who do not include sexual orientation in their recruitment process) discriminate upon glbts, which is not the case however, as there are guilds which do have people who openly admit their different sexual orientation.
Currently playing:
* City of Heroes: Deggial, Assault Rifle/Devices Blaster. Server: Defiant.
* City of Villains: Snakeroot, Plant/Thorns Dominator. Server: Defiant.
As for the second paragraph, I cannot see how advertising a guild of one religion can offend another religion. If Blizzard would show bias against other religions, then I'd understand the complaint (for instance, not allowing Wiccan or Buddhist based guilds while Christian ones are allowed).
My point in this regard was simply that Blizzard has no problem with Guilds that are actively forwarding a Christian theme (which, BTW, is against their own ToS), and I wonder how they would react to an 'Alternative' religion (such as Wicca) doing the same thing? I suspect Blizzard would react harshly to the Wiccan Guild, much in the same way as they have reacted to OZ.
Currently playing:
LOTRO, Rift (beta) and WoW (on occasion)
There have been made many fine points here. I would like to say one thing: Some people seem to think that being gay is a choice. You need to realize that that is not the case. I am gay, and I would consider life to be a bit less complex if I were straight. If I had the choice, I would've easily chosen the straight path, considering how the society is built up and how fear and prejudice is so prevalent.
As for the thread topic, enough has been said. I was trying to work my mind around all the different points of view (yes, even the hateful ones), when I suddenly saw the light and everything unravelled:
Blizzard promote murder, blood and violence in the game, and they don't allow people to look for GLBT-friendly players!? That fact alone makes Blizzard's whole case ridiculous. Cheers.
Well, in Blizzard's defense, it is fantasy violence. But the point you make is clear: Blizzard doesn't really have a leg to stand on here. Their own ToS states "Insulting" sexual references are disallowed, which does not include what the members of OZ were doing. It does however include the bigoted trash-talk that gets thrown around so liberally in the General Chat channel, which Blizzard seems to take no actions to stop. Their e-mails with the OP seem to say they are afraid the OZ recruitment posts will incite bigots to start posting hateful messages, and they could be right.
That isn't OZ's fault. That would be the fault of the Bigots posting those messages, and Blizzard should take action if such things occur. But then that would require them to actually enforce their own ToS on everyone else who throws the words "gay" and "fag" around, which they aren't going to do.
The problem isn't OZ, it is Blizzard, and the scumbags they cater to.
Currently playing:
LOTRO, Rift (beta) and WoW (on occasion)
For good reason, it is hardly the same thing.
Discrimination based on unreasoning prejudice? It's exactly the same thing.
Hell...A LARGE, VERY LARGE, majority of violent crimes can be associated with hate crimes. Why? Because crimes are usually...Yes, incidents of hate.
Actually, most violent crime is the result of momentary loss of control amongst people who already know each other, for example spouses, the rest are often drug or alcohol fuelled.
Attacking someone purely for the fact that they are homosexual, black, hispanic or similar is an entirely different thing to starting a fight with someone because they spilled your pint.
Are you a religious man? Or a man of science?
I'm an atheist and a humanist.
If you say the former. Then it's condemned by God. If you say the latter, it's condemned by nature.
Homosexuality is a selfish practice that endangers the society in health, law, and the continuing of the species.
It's a logical evil. No matter how you spin it
Evil is an entirely subjective term which has no real use in a logical argument since it is entirely emotive. Still, for sake of argument let's take it to mean 'only doing harm'.
In the first instance, 'condemned by god' there is a good deal of argument that the New Testament preaches a creed of tolerance and understanding, not of hate and prejudice. It is only selective and very conservative interpretation of the bible, particularly the Old Testament, that lends any support to such prejudice. But then, we don't stone adulteresses to death any more either.
I really don't see what relevence the misinterpreted and made up words of an irrelevent hebrew mountain god have to modern society.
As to 'condemned by nature' - nature is a force without consciousness or emotion, it simply IS, it cannot condemn anything. If homosexuality was against nature then it would likely not exist so prevalently as it does in the animal population (including humans). As to being selfish? Well, just about any form of self gratification is, are you selfish for being monogomous with your girlfriend or wife? Are you selfish for not sharing your meal with the local poor? For trying to avoid paying realistic taxes? From a certain point of view you are. Mutually satisfactory sex (gay or straight) at least _should_ please your partner as well, so isn't entirely selfish.
As to health, I take it you are referring to AIDS and other blood-bourne diseases such as hepatitus? Well, that assumes anal sex to be the only available expression of physical love between same-gendered lovers, which immediately excludes lesbians from condemnation on that basis and also fails to account for the fact that the much larger acceleration of the spread of sexual disease is amongst heterosexuals, the gay community having - by and large - learned sexual safety the hard way. What you're really condemning there is unsafe sex, which isn't limited to the homosexual community.
Laws are human constructs and as such can and do change, such as the new same-sex marriage rights and processes under UK law. Laws develop and change, slowly, to catch up to the wave of progressive human thought. So they are only a threat to law in so much as they provide an engine for progressive change. There are many old laws that no longer make sense and are no longer applied. What's your point?
Finally, when it comes to continuation of the species, yes, homosexuals do not (normally) pass on their genes to the next generation. This is no longer necessarily true in an age of sperm and ova banks, surrogate mothers and, potentially, cloning. For sake of argument, let's treat it like it is still true as it would have been in the days of Ug and Og the cavemen.
Evolutionary psychology is still exploring this point but the current theory is that homosexuality can provide an advantage to the group or tribe into which the homosexual arrives. There is a lessening of sexual tension and competition for available females and, in a climate of scarcity, the homosexual hunter-gatherer gathers more food for the whole tribe, while not having a family of their own to support, thereby increasing the overall chances of survival for the family group without providing a drain on those resources. This helps them maintain their genes through their close relatives - nephews, nieces, brothers and sisters.
So, I'm afraid that there are natural explanations after all.
But my previous argument has nothing to do with your "victimization". It has to do with your false use of numbers. I told you this already.
Save that there was no false use of numbers, I clearly stated where they came from and implied why I used them.
Homosexuals. But what's your point?
That the previous poster's contentions about the similarities and prevalence 'You can only refer me to a single case!' were wide of the mark, and why.
If you're a man that believes in evolution
One doesn't have to 'believe' in Evolution, it isn't a matter of faith, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence.
it takes thousands, even millions of years for it to take place: AND, there has never been a case of overpopulation.
Yes it does, but we also inherit characteristics and genes from right the way back down our 'family tree' right the way back to the symbiotic relationship with mitochondria and before. That's an enormous amount of time for such failsafes to become part of our makeup. Also overpopulation is a matter of available resources and crowding, not just of sheer numbers. Humanity now lives at one of its greatest, overall, population densities ever but that is not the only factor.
There was a rather telling experiment done with mice, which is referenced in Sagan's 'Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors' in which mice were sealed in closed environment and given as much food and water as they needed. The only thing that was limited was space.
Sure enough, they bred, and bred and bred and bred. After a time certain behaviours were noticed. Increased aggression in some, excessive preening in others. Some just lay down and let themselves die. Through the whole experiment as the population went up, so did the incidence of homosexuality amongst the mice - which does support the contention that it is, at least partially, an overpopulation brake. There were other, confirming experiments also made.
As to it being a genetic dead end, IF it is a genetic trigger then it can be carried recessively so that even if the individual homosexual does not breed, in those tribal circumstances mentioned earlier, it increases the chances of success and survival for the extended family group, which also carries that gene.
Darwinism isn't necessarily as straightforward and simplistic as you make you.
All of which, other than refuting bullshit anti-gay arguments, is almost entirely irrelevent.
Such discrimination and puritan attitudes should no longer be acceptable in this day and age.
Postmortem Studios
Roleplaying games to DIE for
Shop here
And you think gays weren't? You want a list of all of the gays who were viciously murdered JUST for being gay?
Instead of reading the entire 12 pages I'm going to post my opions on the intitial post, since they will not change after rading the whole thread. Also I have a feeling that this has turned into a flame war by now(due to the two VERY polar viewpoints that exist in this county/world on this subject), and I do my best to stay out of that kind of crap.
First off, I feel that the way Blizzard handled this is not right. Yet, at the same time I feel that this is a private matter. So technically, I feel the way that the said recruiter handled this was innapropriate. Why?, I don't know it's just my opinion. If a guild wants to have a recruiting policy as such(be it heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual or even age, race, or creed), it should be done in private, ie. /tells/private messages. For example, a guild that I was part of in the past had an age rule, the rule was 18 and up could join. We did not go around shouting this, we mentioned it in the private messaged that we sent to people that asked to join or people that we asked to join.
I have nothing against gays or lesbians. I know some, but not many, and they are all great people. Personaly, I feel that recruiting for a guild in this manner will bring about un-wanted attention, mockery, and other unnessicary actions(such as blizzards response). And yes, I do understand the meaning of a guild, to bring together like minded players.
This is a different issue than the tv comercials that you see late at nite advertising for a gay/lesbian gatherings or organization(as to why they only come on late nite is a whole nother issue and I will not go into it due to the fact that it does not aply to mmorpg's). The main point here is the fact that World of Warcraft is not "society" that partakes in freedom of speech. As a matter of fact no MMORPG advocates freedom of speech, and If you can find one that does post the link to the EULA and I will pay-pal you 20$(i'd have to set it up first hehe). The game WoW is owned by a private company, and the case is(like it or not) Blizzard dictates what goes and what doesn't. Now, DO NOT attack me for stating this, it is not my opinion, it is fact. I'm truelly sorry to say this, but If you do not agree with that, then you are shit out of luck, there's nothing you can do about it. Argueing with a corporation will get you no where. Unless you convinced the 5 million subscribers to boycot them for their stance on this matter, and that's not possible it's literaly a pipedream. It's impossible because, we do not live in what socialy evolved people consider a perfect/ideal world. One could also start a mmorpg game concept based upon freedom of speech, but we all know where that will go if it flies(a virtual civil/gay,lesbian/women/religious rights experiance LOL, with faaction for and against going at each others throats).
Feel free to comment on my first two paragraphs, as I will mostlikely have a logical rebutle. BUT my third paragraph is not my opinion, once again it's how things are.
PS. If everyone agreed on everything we would live in a boring world
Just another gamer...
A quick update for those of you curious as to how this case is panning out. . .
It's AMAZING to me how many forums to which this story has spread! Thanks sooo much for all of your help and support! I've been contacted by a number of people regarding this issue.
A law student from one of the Top 20 law schools contacted me, and has given advice on the situation. He suggests that, while I probably can't take legal action based on civil rights, I CAN take legal action based on the fact that they have violated their own contract. This is actually what I figured, but hearing it from someone who is educated on law makes me feel MUCH better about the situation! I'm hoping to find actual legal representation soon.
The author of this article (http://www.innewsweekly.com/innews/?class_code=Ga&article_code=941) has contacted representatives with Blizzard and is awaiting their comments on the situation. He is writing a follow up article on MY situation over the weekend.
Another individual has contacted me, asking permission to give the story and emails to a close friend who works for ABC News! It's all about the connections. . . so hopefully this will come through for us!
The story has ACTUALLY spread to Canada, where an individual has asked for copies of the emails and comments from me on the situation, so that he could translate it into French and publish it in the Candian Media!
Aside from this, I've sent emails to EVERY possible media outlet. . . including MTVNews, Rolling Stone, NY Times, PC Gamer, The Advocate, OUT Magazine, and a LONG list of others. If any of you would like to help, please feel free to send emails regarding the issue to EVERY source of media you can think of. You also have my permission to send copies of my email correspondences with Blizzard. I'm sure they would be more likely to publish the story if multiple people contact them about the situation. I've also contacted HRC, GLAAD, and the ACLU (by snail mail, which was unfortunately the only way to contact them). I am awaiting replies. Keep your fingers crossed! I'll update you guys as more unravels. . .
~
Sara E Andrews
http://guilduniverse.com/oz
http://hometown.aol.com/prismaticecho
Wow...I'm not sure how to put this. Look up the word theory in the dictionary, the word faith(in it's most widely accepted meaning) has no relation what so ever to the word theory. Plain and simple. The theory of evolution is not a matter of faith, as you and billions of others, think of the word faith. Allthough for the sake of arguement you will state that you ment faith in the transitive verb sense(which would be, believe/trust), which indeed you did :-). Here's the defenition of faith and then you might see my point:
Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
Quoted directly and without change from Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary.
Now look up the word theory in the same Dictionary, words like speculation and conjecture come up.
Here it is:
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonym see HYPOTHESIS
Quoted directly and without change from Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary.
Anyway, as you can tell, I think that some of your replies in that last thread were not very good.(up until the response to the caveman thing I was so on your side LOL, as of that point on you didn't even try)
By the way, I'm not gay, I don't believe 100% in evolution, and I'm not an athiest(yet I do not believe in god in any one of the popular senses, I believe in my self in a spiritual manner, yes very egotistical indeed).
I guess with this post all I'm really doing is playing the
Just another gamer...
Now, I'm assuming that you can't answer this right away, but i'm gonna ask it anyway
.
When you say "violated their own contract" what do you mean? As in violated the contract that you virtualy sign when you buy an account, and every time you log onto WoW?
If so, did this law student read Blizzard's EULA? Last question, lol.
If he did read this consumer agreement, can you tell us which clasue or section that Blizzard is or might be in violation of?
I understand if you cannot answer this anytime soon, or at all for that matter, thank you anyways.
Just another gamer...
Now, I'm assuming that you can't answer this right away, but i'm gonna ask it anyway
.
When you say "violated their own contract" what do you mean? As in violated the contract that you virtualy sign when you buy an account, and every time you log onto WoW?
If so, did this law student read Blizzard's EULA? Last question, lol.
If he did read this consumer agreement, can you tell us which clasue or section that Blizzard is or might be in violation of?
I understand if you cannot answer this anytime soon, or at all for that matter, thank you anyways.
Yes, the ToS that you virtually sign when you log onto WoW. And yes he did read their EULA. . . he's also a WoW subscriber.
He said that they are in violation of their contract for punishing me, because nothing in their language as posted says that I can't use words that are inoffensive. They mean only offensive words. He says that I can EASILY argue in a court of law that my words were inoffensive and thus does not fall under the restraint of my contract with Blizzard. THUS, they are in violation of the contract for punishing me. He says that case could stand easily and that they would have the weaker ground.
Now, I'm assuming that you can't answer this right away, but i'm gonna ask it anyway
.
When you say "violated their own contract" what do you mean? As in violated the contract that you virtualy sign when you buy an account, and every time you log onto WoW?
If so, did this law student read Blizzard's EULA? Last question, lol.
If he did read this consumer agreement, can you tell us which clasue or section that Blizzard is or might be in violation of?
I understand if you cannot answer this anytime soon, or at all for that matter, thank you anyways.
Yes, the ToS that you virtually sign when you log onto WoW. And yes he did read their EULA. . . he's also a WoW subscriber.
He said that they are in violation of their contract for punishing me, because nothing in their language as posted says that I can't use words that are inoffensive. They mean only offensive words. He says that I can EASILY argue in a court of law that my words were inoffensive and thus does not fall under the restraint of my contract with Blizzard. THUS, they are in violation of the contract for punishing me. He says that case could stand easily and that they would have the weaker ground.
That's excellent to hear.
Blizzard doesn't stand a chance, unless the judge was to be senile or something. 
And sorry to trail off the subject here, but I wanted to say I love that the EULA in WoW very probably doesn't apply in Norway, just like most other EULAs don't.
Now, I'm assuming that you can't answer this right away, but i'm gonna ask it anyway
.
When you say "violated their own contract" what do you mean? As in violated the contract that you virtualy sign when you buy an account, and every time you log onto WoW?
If so, did this law student read Blizzard's EULA? Last question, lol.
If he did read this consumer agreement, can you tell us which clasue or section that Blizzard is or might be in violation of?
I understand if you cannot answer this anytime soon, or at all for that matter, thank you anyways.
Yes, the ToS that you virtually sign when you log onto WoW. And yes he did read their EULA. . . he's also a WoW subscriber.
He said that they are in violation of their contract for punishing me, because nothing in their language as posted says that I can't use words that are inoffensive. They mean only offensive words. He says that I can EASILY argue in a court of law that my words were inoffensive and thus does not fall under the restraint of my contract with Blizzard. THUS, they are in violation of the contract for punishing me. He says that case could stand easily and that they would have the weaker ground.
Well more power to you then!
That's pretty crazy to think about it(the fact that Blizzard doesn't think about thier actions). You would think that everytime blizzard takes action(on this sort of subject matter) that they would have atleast one person that is schooled in law review the course of action and the case in it's entirety. Perplexing to say the least.
Once again, if what you say is true(which i'll bet it is
) then ya'll are set! This might even see the supreme court. I hope ya'll have some seriuos backing on this(financial too), big corporations know the nastiest of all lawyers.
All I can say is, the best of luck to you and the rest that are involved in this case.
Just another gamer...
One is based on a man's skin colour. Another is based on a man's actions (or simply his desires, sometimes suppressed for reasons you might guess). (The use of the word "man" in this case is not chosen with the purpose of excluding women in any way)
Look at what is said!
It is agreed, it seems, that being black is not wrong, or being of any other colour. I agree. Colour is generally irrelevant when it comes to "being good" or "right". However, the distinction between action and colour here implies that the action concerned is worse than the colour implied, namely that homosexuality (and some "variations") is worse, bad.
Basically I read this as: Colour is irrelevant while sexuality is not, because a homosexual might at one point have had sex with a member of the same gender.
And those who require more examples of gay hatred / persecution: Where is your history?
Pink triangles. I shouldn't need to say more, but I'll give it to you upfront: World war 2.
Another thing: How could anyone take offense at religious views?
Look to France. No religious tokens in school. None. At all. Law.
Also, I've far often been "assailed" by people trying to turn me into a christian than I've been similarly approached by people trying to make a homosexual out of me.
But when it comes to Blizzard's approach to this:
They have two viable paths to go, that I would respect
They've chosen to do neither.
I would prefer option 2, so that there would be no need for option 1.
I've seen one or two anti GLBT posts here that were sickening/shocking, the quoted one being slightly capable of shocking me. I simply wasn't prepared to find that implication.
What is the purpose of guilds in WoW? I hear such things as: To find people with similar interests as yourself. Of course, GLBT isn't a theme that would fall in under this because as a guild theme it would be sexual content. But it is about tolerance of GBLT. That is not the guild theme. The only sexual implication / message given is: You will not be stompted, thrashed and flamed, or inadvertedly insulted in this guild, and if you are, you will have protection against it.
The future: Adellion
Common flaw in MMORPGs: The ability to die casually
Advantages of Adellion: Dynamic world (affected by its inhabitants)
Player-driven world (beasts won't be an endless supply of mighty swords, gold will come from mines, not dragonly dens)
Player-driven world (Leadership is the privilege of a player, not an npc)
Sorry for the double, but: (Quote from same statement / answer post)
As to 'condemned by nature' - nature is a force without consciousness or emotion, it simply IS, it cannot condemn anything.
Naturally...Thing's are bad for well, nature. Thus, condemned by nature.
You wouldn't happen to know what's bad for nature, would you? There have been some good theories (supported by research / experiments) posted about how homosexuality is an integral part of nature, developed by nature.
Furthermore: Cities. Factories. What we call pollution. What used to be the rainforest.
Condemned by nature? Even if you elevate nature to a superior order that defines right and wrong (which is the only way its condemning anything makes sense to me) it should really wipe out all mankind in that case, or we should at least all be very sorry for what we've done.
Now this became slightly religious, which I am not. I attribute to nature no right or will to condemn anything. And the statement that GLBT is condemned by nature: I know a few GLBT who would have been less offended than me.
The future: Adellion
Common flaw in MMORPGs: The ability to die casually
Advantages of Adellion: Dynamic world (affected by its inhabitants)
Player-driven world (beasts won't be an endless supply of mighty swords, gold will come from mines, not dragonly dens)
Player-driven world (Leadership is the privilege of a player, not an npc)
Honestly, who cares. It wouldnt have been an issue if they didnt want to make a point out of naming themselves GBLT something or other. If they would have jsut called themselves Pink Pussycats and then only invited other GBLTs no one would have cared. Or known.
I dont flaunt my sexuality around, why? Because NO ONE CARES. And why should they, why should it even be mentioned in game?
That people find sexual prefrence one way or the other offensive or disturbing is something Ill never understand but that they do is a fact of life.
Having said that World of Warcraft is a FAMILY game. Children play, sexual talk is wholly inappropriate. You wouldnt do it in a public venue or a playground why do it ingame? What people /whisper or speak of in their own ingame communities is thier perogitive, but in spatial or general chat it is wholly un-necessary.
-Gooney
Gooney, they didn't. Their guild name was not GBLT.
Concluding a paragraph about what the guild will be about they said: This guild will not be GBLT ony, but GBLT friendly.
The intention being:
To let people know where they can go without being harrassed. Some say you should use tells and all that, but: If you approach people one at a time, most of them will be offended. And if you approach guilds one at a time, odds are you will have to wade through a lot of intolerance before you get where you want to be. Because tolerance is not the common case, tolerance must be specified.
My advice would be to change the line slightly (while I still hold Blizzard and intolerance responsible for this problem to begin with): Tolerance is a requirement, and extends as far as it is not fit to harm others, or reduce any rights they are seen to have.
Some such wording. Not explicityly mentioning GBLT, but necessarily including them.
Note: My wording isn't perfect, not even that good. But the emphasis should be on tolerance, and only acts limiting people's freedom beyond the rights they have should be met without tolerance.
The future: Adellion
Common flaw in MMORPGs: The ability to die casually
Advantages of Adellion: Dynamic world (affected by its inhabitants)
Player-driven world (beasts won't be an endless supply of mighty swords, gold will come from mines, not dragonly dens)
Player-driven world (Leadership is the privilege of a player, not an npc)
Heh, knew I shouldnt have chimed in on this topic. According to the OP they did use the initials GBLT, and while its doubtful that a child would know what that means you can bet some of the Bible Thumpers do. (oh great now the Fans o Christ) will be flaming me, oh wait...I didnt mean to use the term flame, Im sure Ill get blacklisted by the Jehovas Witness's now...aaaaahhh I said the word "black", ahh there it is again.
Bugger it all. I repeat. Who cares. People more or less choose to be offended by the others, simply choose not to be offended, or choose if thats a battle you really want to wage.
-Gooney