I hope they leave DOMA alone. There's no reason to change an established ruling cause less than 2% of the population wants a social experiment.

@Chris

1) There are a lot of reasons. Constitutionality being one of them.

2) It's much more than 2%. 2% doesn't even cover the homosexuality rate in the US, let alone opponents of DoMA.

3) It's nothing remotely similar to a social experiment.

The irony of your last sentence. Intentional?

No, not irony; I'm just a nice guy like that. :)

I've read research that suggests that as intelligence increases, androgyny increases.

So many things you've said are just flat out wrong. It's actually scary to think some people out there are as misinformed as you are. The statements you have made are ugly and hurtful.

I'm glad to see that those companies are looking out for the well being of their employees in such a great way.

That guy is not related to me.

" The sooner gays stop coming out of the closet, the sooner society can get back to being normal. What's next pedophiles? If you don't think it can happen google "adult child attraction" and see what the pedophiles are trying to change the definition of pedophilia into."

Chris spouting stuff like this makes you look like a biggot. There is a big difference between homosexuality and beign a pedophile.

"Chris spouting stuff like this makes you ... 'A' biggot."

Fixed your comment Josh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

Comparing homosexuality to pedophilia is pretty telling. Since it annoys me when people don't argue for their stance, let me clarify mine.

Just because they both apply to sexual behaviour, does not make them equal. Homosexuality is the sexual relationship between two consensual partners of the same sex.

Pedophilia is an attraction to young, undeveloped children. Undeveloped not just in body, but in mind. Pedophilia, in my mind, is merely taking advantage of this immaturity. Adults are authority figures to a child, and they can easily set themselves up in a position where they can abuse trust. The balance of power in a relationship between an adult and a child grossly skewed towards the adult. As such, it is an abuse.

When it comes to teenagers that might seem physically developed, the mental development is still an issue. They just don't have the same amount of experience, so let them experiment within their own age-group.

Also, because EA funded a game you didn't like for a Microsoft console, you're changing the OS of your computer? What?

Woah Chris, if there was a dislike button.. I'd press it so hard it would cave your skull in.
As people have observed, your statements are so wrong that they almost border on satire. I advise you to please document yourself before you fall into such seeming stupidity.

And btw EA was lost LONG BEFORE Mass effect, and yeah zinga migth be spyware, you could argue that it's too political maybe, I am personally inclined to believe it is a crowd-pleaser move, but it still speaks well of them.

Good day sir.

No one is a born pedophile. It is, however, quite possible to be born gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender. It's all about neural chemistry and protein folding. Oh, how you would love to enforce "corrective" neural grafting, wouldn't you, Chris Redd?

I'm tired of listening to the outright lies of gender multiplicity beyond man and woman. I want proof cited as evidence please.

http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp

Ok found this, ball ~ your court.

Also, while I don't agree with homosexuality. It's homage to this sort of topic that keeps the flames burning.

Marriage is not an issue about homosexuality, it's an issue about following God's given consent ~ 1 Corinthians 7:1-16.

And a design indeed.

Proverbs 31:10
Matthew 19:4-6
Proverbs 20:6-7
Proverbs 18:22
Deuteronomy 24:5
Proverbs 5:18-19

This shows at least in 4 places that marriage is good, and marriage is intended, sex is implied and good and intended. God wants our happiness, and God wants to be a part of that. this goes far beyond monetization or political ideology. And government no matter how arrogant has no right to attempt "correction" these values about God's institute of marriage.

Marriage is a spiritual allowance for joy by our Designer.

Hypocrisy doesn't make allowance either, this isn't an issue about honor. This is an issue about God's commandment, about Law that supercedes our understanding.

If people believe as a whole that it is necessary to have a union of partnership under man's law, by all means follow your heart and vote that way, protest if you must. Make your own rules about what you will and put them to a test. But don't you dare rewrite the Word of God.

I'll respectfully disagree, as marriage bestows certain rights and priveliges to the married couple. If this was a purely theological question, then you'd be right. But as marriage has a lot of legal baggage, this is not the case.

As long as the term of marriage is bonded to these rights and priveliges, there is a distinct discrimination happening at the governmental level. If you want to reserve the word "marriage" for your chosen god's definition of it, then you'll have to remove these rights that are implicit. Redefine the legal term of marriage as a union between two people and call it Partnership (or something), and bestow all legal rights and priveliges to them. Then you can have your "marriage", and use it to describe the distinct union between a man and a woman.

Your implied threat at the end applies to a slew of denominations within Christianity who would disagree with your interpretation of the Bible at some level. If there was a general agreement, then there would be no denominations. The two biggest are Protestants and Catholics, and Ireland is a great example as to how inciteful these spiritual differences can be. These differences might not be the actual cause for the conflict, but they're obviously not helping the issue.

phew! thank god I dont care about the bible as more than a historical fiction document then.

Ok im gonna say this, as much as it migth be denied, the Church has always been a political organism, marriage as it was, responded to religion a long time ago because Church was a pillar of laws, politics and state. Problem is today, religion has lost its political standpoint since most thinking people (even believers) understand that honouring a belief is an option, and this is given by personal choice.

Marriage is no longer solely a costruct for religious purposes, that is only a semantic concept. There are far more important factors in the technical aspect of marriage unrelated to spiritual matters. Of course I suppose no homosexual really expects to be married by a church. I as a straight man don't care at all to be united by a church since I see no validity in their union, although I do respect someone seeking their espiritual validation.

So I don't know why a civil union should attack the religious union, or viceversa. one thing doesn't invalidate the other. However if this is a "just don't call it that" discussion, I don't really see the point either, since many other terms that are used not solely for christian /catholic / religious. I christened my sailboat, I confessed to my psychologist, and Zeus is a God, none of that is really intended to undermine your particular faith or your rites.

I personally do not feel that there is a god that has established a law that supercedes our understanding, but I won't stop you from going to church, or taking your communion, or doing the most catholic / christian /religious things you want to do, as long as you don't enforce it upon people that don't share your views.

Evidently to rewrite the word of God, you have to believe there is a word of God. Now, is there a God? does it speak in words? and does it judge a grown up decision that makes all involved party members happy?

I have my doubts.

@Ole Berg Leren

By your argumentation marriage has no concern where those who do not have theological argumention to consider really at all, aside from legal matters of state. In which case I would suggest the argument to change marriage isn't about marriage at all. And again we see this isn't an issue about right and wrong, but acceptance ~ fairness if you will. But fairness the only supportive argumentation for trying to affix religious promise ~ marriage to an argument about a belief in the state of humanity is just as spiritual in it's want, and yet has no Maker or spiritual designation. But marriage is not the gift of men to mankind but God to man and woman. If God is not considered in the affairs of men and women, then marriage is a moot point.

@Bernardo

God has never instituted a members only club, the division you feel is all about desire.

Or maybe the unification you feel is all about desire, I don't see any proof other than your will.
Instead I see hundreds of others that claim the same unification under a different flag.
Unlike your assesment, desire has nothing to do, because in all honesty I dont think the world works according to my desires.
I wish I could fly and live happily forever, but that would be a silly fantasy, right?

@Bernardo

Wanting to fly a silly fantasy? Well, in humanistic terms? Ok, silly.
In reality? I believe in heaven, transcending. Foolishness from man's perspective a natural reality for the christian, and that's not even doing justice to an introduction of heaven.

The unification I feel isn't about being justified by men. It's a relationship to our creator.

Today I got up, went out to live my workaday life. But when I am truly happy and I'm not talking about some "emotional high" is when my worries aren't set upon my shoulders. Do I live it evry day nope, can I fix my problems through 'just believing" nope.

But it is exactly as the Word of God says it is, "You must lose your life to find it."

why? I don't know why. I just know it works.

Not everything requires a perfectly empirical justification, not everything is designed to be understood by everyone, some things are purposed to not be understood. that I do know, and it stands up very well against reason.

We say "pain is bad", "comfort is good". We justify this because of our desire. I'm not trying say back is white and up is down, I'm saying were finite, we see hear taste touch and smell.

But we are also conscious. I don't need evidence for this. It's a self evident realization. Were also conscious that some things are good and bad. Are we not also conscious enough to realize we cannot understand more than this?

There is an undeniable personal design behind our very nature and that of the world around us. From our ability to communicate, our ability to think to the fruit on the branches of trees to pain we feel. That's the idea of creation, and it makes far more sense than generating something to the end resulting in nothing.

the fact that I'm chatting with you, should tell you that we exist for more than generating and procreating. There exists about us an author. and actually an Author.

I believe it when people tell me they don't want to believe in Jesus Christ, I understand their doubt. But God is Love, men discriminate not God. God designs, and He allows pain, fear, anger, hate, humiliation, lust and death.

We bite from the tree of good and evil, we have proven to be worthy of death time and time again. And those things which we do not like are there for our benefit to reprove time and time again that peace isn't found alone, seeking our desires. It's found through sacrificing our will to the will of the Designer.

It may sound awful to you, but honestly ask yourself? What do you really know? You believe as much as I with faith in what you know.

I've seen the evidence of the good from this design, and I have with great scrutiny questioned it time and time again. But I have never once consider the fairytale of the big bang a positive outlook on life. There is nothing to be gained there, there is no wisdom to be gleaned or learned. there is ultimately a limitless dark hole to explore for which no joy has ever been attributed to it, but much has been tacked on to.

And all of this joy is copy pasted of that which we already known through the Word of God.

So, you're advocating censorship?

Instead of adressing their views with reasoned arguments to try to sway them to your side of the issue, you'd rather drive them away? If you simply censor people, you will not give them any reason to rethink their beliefs. It degrades your own position, because it makes it seem like you have no response other than to censor.

And why shouldn't Gamasutra be a part of this discussion? I doubt random people come flocking to Gamasutra once there's an article regarding homosexuality, but it might bring out the people in the community that need to have some beliefs opposed. I see nothing wrong with that.

There is no Human Right To Not Be Offended, as far as I know.

"There is no Human Right To Not Be Offended, as far as I know."

We're getting there in a hurry, though. I suspect the desire to protect the feelings of certain groups of people (noble though that intention may be) will soon be codified into law, and making any statement or remark that is deemed offensive will get you into trouble.

I sort of understand Joe tbh..

Censorship is not cool in my books, but nothing stops someone from just coming in trolling with no other than hurtfull or plain destructive intentions.

I respect the right of people to speak their mind, but when there is no depth or purpose other than to destroy, and slander, should it be allowed? I hope the audience is informed enough to despise this and defuse the situation.

But I've been online, and it seems rather sad that the only way to survive is through bulletproof cynicism. Even when perfected we all have our weak spots, and while I'm sure we are open to dialogue, I don't condone gratuituous inflamatory attacks and cyber bullying.

Observing and commenting on the conflict from a safe distance is comfortably neutral and self assuring, but I wonder what happens when a stone hits you where it hurts?

No human right not to be offended... true.. but then does this mean I can offend back? Where do we want this to end?

@Ole,

Gamasutra shouldn't be part of this discussion because it's not a site about marriage. It's a site about game development.

If you want to wade in with statistics about how gay people being able to get married has a negative impact on the industry, that's "okay". You'll still be a bigot but it's on-topic at least. If you want to talk about issues of discrimination in the industry, or in the medium, that's on-topic.

There's no reason to allow comments that are the intellectual equivalent of "gays suck because {god said so, i think it's gross, PEDOPHILES, etc.}".

And no, I'm not advocating censorship. It's not censorship if Gamasutra doesn't allow off-topic comments. It's not censorship if Gamasutra does just about *anything* because it's by no measure a public space.

There's no human right not to be offended. I'm expressly not talking about human rights - Chris and Joshua are the ones that want to have that conversation. I'm just talking about what makes the site better - what makes it more useful to more game developers. Drive-by bigotry does not make the site better.

Do what you will Greg, but if we are going to postulate human rights, lets start with sharing your stuff.