Gay Marriage Flap Around New Lord of the Rings MMO

April 30, 2007 -
A well-documented Salon piece tracks a bit of controversy surrounding the new Tolkien-esque MMO Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows of Angmar.

It seems that, after a heated in-house debate, LOTRO developer Turbine decided to remove the option for marriage between characters over concerns that same-sex weddings would inevitably take place. Salon's Katherine Glover writes:
Largely due to the uniquely libertarian culture of game design, games are ahead of the real world in terms of acceptance of same-sex marriage... Today, the discussion of same-sex marriage in games redraws the battle lines over the issue, making it not a fight over marriage but an issue of the philosophy of video games themselves.

So, what do gay gamers want? Pretty much the same thing as their straight counterparts: a good game experience. Researcher Jason Rockwood told Glover:
Gay gamers do not want 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy: The Video Game... My research suggests that gay gamers don't want games that are made for a 'gay audience. They simply want to be able to play games that everyone else is playing, but they want to have inclusion; they want the option to have gay characters.

In setting the stage for the LOTRO controversy, Glover recounts a number of games which have allowed gay unions, including The Sims series, Fallout 2, Second Life and Fable. Game designer Timothy Cain spoke about the decision to allow gay relationships in Fallout 2:
A big part of the 'Fallout' series was that we wanted it to be as open-ended as possible. We had no way of knowing whether you were going to be a man or a woman, so we decided to write all the different dialogue combinations... A role-playing game, you invent your character at the beginning, so you should get to determine what they do, and if we're going to put any romantic element in, we should cover all the bases.

Sims exec Rod Humble echoed Cain:
Players should be able to do whatever they want within their own game, and it's not our business to stop them. If you have two regular plastic dolls, you wouldn't expect someone to come along and tell you what positions you could and couldn't put them in.

According to one Turbine developer, the decision to rule out gay marriage came down to toeing the line on Tolkien authenticity. Nik Davidson said:
The rule that we tried to follow across the board was: if there's an example of it in the book, the door is open to explore it. Very rarely will you see an elf and a human hook up, but it does happen; the door is open. Dwarves don't intermarry with hobbits; that door is shut ... Did two male hobbits ever hook up in the shire and have little hobbit civil unions? No. The door is shut.

Tolkien was a conservative Catholic. He went out drinking with C.S. Lewis every night, and the two of them had a worldview that was -- well, let's just say it clashes a little bit with the sensibilities of East Coast liberals who make up the largest population of Turbine.

But sex-in-games expert Brenda Brathwaite was skeptical:
Players are still creating their own experience. In a video game, it's about abdicating authorship and letting a player explore a world.

GayGamer and Water Cooler Games have additional perspective on the controversy.

Comments

I'm not too plussed about this, as a gay gamer. In FFXI, which I play, same sex marriages are not allowed, so if two male avatars want to get married, they gather their friends together, go to their favorite area in game, and have one of their friends carry on the proceedings. In many ways, I like this more than the official weddings, as it allows you to make it more personal and fun. Also, it gives you a chance, once you're done, for the two Grooms to dismember a Dragon, which is the absolute best part of any Wedding Ceremony.

@ Mike:

Probbly not at all

I remember back in my day, we never got married in games (Unless it was an RPG and she wouldn't take NO for an answer five hundred times over).

You know what? Who Cares. I'm straight, have been all my life and always will be, but I also came to grips with the idea that shoving my ideals down someones throat is both wrong and arrogant to the extreme. So, you know what I say, Let them do what they freaking want. I don't care.

This whole Gay marriage BS shows just how narrow minded and dog matic some people can be.

Ok, rant over, I'm gonna go back to watching Jon Stewart and laughing.

Thanks to dennis for funny clip in todays other story. LOL!

the thing is this whole debate is pointless

online games have never to my knowledge had a programed marriage system in them, however, that never stopped people before, and just because this game has no gay marriage system will not stop it from occurring

FF 11

Tons of red tape and it was only available to Japanese players. There were incredibly expensive in game.

wow. oh noes! two gay people want to get married in a virtual world. who the fuck cares and does it really matter to some people? personally i could care less if some dudes, real world or not, want to get hitched and have a night of cheap wine, sodomy and george michael music. if it doesnt hurt anyone then whatever.

Ya know, I think they had same-sex marriages in Gemstone 3 long before EQ even came into existence. Horray for MUDs, heh.

My point is: this ain't new ground for online gaming, and it's been done already.

If Turbine was really that afraid of controversy, then they did the right thing. The could have just removed the ability for the same sexes to marry, but instead they removed the whole marriage system. That seems to me like the rational thing to do to skirt the whole issue.

I think that this decision is also ignoring the realities of the situation. So they outlaw two character of the same sex from marrying. OK, but who says that the people playing the games have to be the same sex as the characters they are playing? After all, they certainly aren't all playing the same species because there aren't all that many elves and hobbits with broadband.

So there will be individuals who are playing a character who is of the opposite sex. So if there is a gay woman playing a man, she will be able to marry another woman playing a woman character. There will be a woman playing a man but she won't be able to marry a man playing a man -- even if that man is her husband in real life.

To use the excuse, "it isn't in the books" is a bit disingenuous. It has been over a decade since I've read the Lord of the Rings but I'm pretty sure there wasn't any mention of hit points or charisma but I'm willing to bet that they put those things into the game...

The funny thing about FF11 is that a character of the asexual race could marry a female character (and only a female character). And a character of the small, childlike race could marry a character of the muscular, 7' tall race. But two male characters or two female characters couldn't get married.

It made no sense and was the subject of much hilarity and frustration.

"Tolkien was a conservative Catholic. He went out drinking with C.S. Lewis every night..."

The whole "in-game" marriage seemed a bit quirky to me.

Players will still find ways to "exchange vows", it just won't be officially sanctioned for any kind of couple. This makes it free for both straight and gay couples to do whatever they want to...

Way back in the days of MUDs, the one I was on didn't have "official" marriage services, so players who got "married" would wear this ring that was really hard to get, but wasn't that powerful. Everyone who played knew what it meant if you checked someone's eq out, and they were wearing that particular ring.
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...

i'm totally str8 and everything but if people want to be gay, then let them!

Couple things on my mind.

I'm worried that SOME gay gamers, not all, but those few who just want to flaunt their sexuality and say "this is me, everybody, and I don't care what you think" on top of their soapbox, are going to start shooting in opinions saying that it's discrimination and all that crap. Yeah, it could be, but besides the point, I'm afraid there's going to be a huge fuss over this like there was in regards to the GBLT slitstorm on WoW. If I had to put my two cents on the matter, I'd say, yeah, let 'em get married, but have them pay for it, like a real marriage, for a seperate area for them and invitees and certain things, rather than a public setting where trouble could start with homophobes or griefers poking fun and stuff. And this isn't just for gay couples, but for straight couples, etc.. They wouldn't say no to gay/straight/polygamic marriages if people had to pay for the ceremony. =D

Marriage in an online isn't new, we all know that. They had a contest on Phantasy Star Online in Japan, where there winning couple got officially married in-game with their relatives watching on characters. Tis weird, I hear. But even so, the world's coming around to the point where nobody's going to care who is married to who. This is another reason they should be able to have fake ceremonies in-game- because people aren't going to care enough about getting hitched, as much as they're going to care about reaching the next level or attaining the best weapon available.

Back to the first thing- yeah, the entire concept of marriage in-game was pulled, so as not to seem as it as pulled simply because of issues concerning homosexuality and eveything. But knowing that this was a particular issue is going to be the only thing running through the minds of those few gay people who WANT to throw a hissy fit because their gay dwarf can't get hitched with a Rohirrim horseman. I'm not saying every gay gamer is going to through on a pink tunic and parade past Bag-End typing up the lyrics of "It's Raining Men", because most gay gamers are just going to go "fine, whatever, let's just run this orc through already," but I can't help but worry that something at LEAST sizeable is going to come of this.

While transgender gaming happens, it's not an issue since all marriage has been removed from the game. Also, being true to the book is important in a licensed game since there is likely some language in the agreement about source material and the ability of the Tolkien folks to revoke the license. Gay or straight, nobody is married LOTRO which, despite the complaints of some people, is equality.

hmmm. I played star wars galaxies and you could get married to anyone. male or female. how come this didn't get any attention when it came out (now its a POS game, thanks sony). I guess maybe because they called it unity instead of marriage, which goes back to when liea and han got married and back to when mara and luke got married... i dunno. i don't see what the big deal is. but if they want to avoid a possible flame war I guess it's their game to do what they wish with.

Well, it is Turbine's game, so they can do what they want in the end. At least their solution was to rip marriage completely from the game instead of giving in to hate groups.

However, there is a comment that I find most intriguing:
"The rule that we tried to follow across the board was: if there’s an example of it in the book, the door is open to explore it. Very rarely will you see an elf and a human hook up, but it does happen; the door is open. Dwarves don’t intermarry with hobbits; that door is shut … Did two male hobbits ever hook up in the shire and have little hobbit civil unions? No. The door is shut."

The story, while rather long, is also rather specific to the lives of certain individuals.

There is nothing to say that it CAN'T happen, only that it didn't happen in the frame of this story.

Anything not presented within the frame of the stories themselves is up for grabs and interpretation by the reader and/or gamer.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

Kajex Says:
April 30th, 2007 at 11:14 am
I’m worried that SOME gay gamers, not all, but those few who just want to flaunt their sexuality and say “this is me, everybody, and I don’t care what you think” on top of their soapbox, are going to start shooting in opinions saying that it’s discrimination and all that crap.

Purposely excluding it only for "gay" characters sure sounds like discrimination to me.

Honestly, I don't think games should get involved in this at all, although if you're going to bother coding marriage at all, it should allow any two characters to get married; restricting it seems like an unnecessarily complication to the process. (I liked Molyneaux's comment that gay marriage in Fable was just a coincidence they couldn't be bothered taking out.)

I think it depends.
If in LOTR there was NO gay marriage, I wouldn't want it in the game.
if there was, put it in.
if there was NO marriage, I hope to god there is no marriage.


If the GLBT community doesn't like that explanation, too bad.
It's one of those causes that I'd love to rally behind, but most of the people within it I've met are in it for completely self-serving and "look at me!" type reasons.

I'm too straightforward for that crap.

"Did two male hobbits ever hook up in the shire and have little hobbit civil unions? No. "

Obviously he's never seen the movie trilogy. ;)

How big of an impact do in-game marriages have on gameplay anyway? Most MMO players I know don't bother with them at all.

[...] Game Politics has an interesting article about gay marriage in Lord of the Rings, and specifically their decision to disallow it. Choice clip: The rule that we tried to follow across the board was: if there’s an example of it in the book, the door is open to explore it. Very rarely will you see an elf and a human hook up, but it does happen; the door is open. Dwarves don’t intermarry with hobbits; that door is shut … Did two male hobbits ever hook up in the shire and have little hobbit civil unions? No. The door is shut. [...]

Er... Just to mention. They didn't disallow it it JUST for gay gamers.
They removed the option completely, for everyone.
Fair's fair. No one gets it.

They're so afraid of teh gay that they decided to ban it for everyone, but that doesn't mean that RPing affairs between Hobbits and Dwarves and people of the same sex will not happen in the game. It just won't be sanctioned by Turbine. This world doesn't just belong to Turbine. Now that they have let players play their game, the gameworld is composed of the shared experience of its residents. The players are shaping the social environment on their respective servers. There is no way that Turbine will be able to police everyone, unless it becomes a 1984-style world where you have to suspect that you are being watched at all times, and everyone will report you to a GM. As long as Turbine do not ban recruitment for gay-friendly guilds like Blizzard stupidly tried to do, or ban out-of-character talk about real-world issues (the last time I checked, there were no dedicated role-playing servers), then it's a non-issue. Just because it isn't officially sanctioned doesn't mean that role-playing will cease, and that role-playing relationships will also cease.

honestly, i can see both arugments. having that kind of freedom in an mmo is pretty cool, but if it wasn't part of the source material then it shouldn't be inculded.

i'd like to see that in a seperate ip mmo, though. it's a pretty interesting idea.

@ Joe

Hey, that's what I said- they removed the option completely. I'm just against the "Gay Pride" movement where they flaunt their sexuality for acceptance when all it really does is alienate those they're trying to appease. Mind you, I'd say the same thing about a Straight Pride parade too, it's nobody else's business who you rock the casba with, and that was the point I was trying to make in the first paragraph.
In the third paragraph, I was just voicing my concern that the fact that a discussion about gay marriage potentially popping up being one of the factors the removal of marriage completely would be construed would be grounds for a gay person to point and start screeching about discrimination when there's nothing to worry about in the first place, since the ability to get marired in-game was outright removed in the end.

@Kajex

"I’m just against the “Gay Pride” movement where they flaunt their sexuality for acceptance when all it really does is alienate those they’re trying to appease."

Not really. They ARE trying to alienate those opposed to them. It's just like celebrating Civil Rights openly. It's designed to rub it in the face of those who oppose CR.

It's the same reason you don't see "white pride" parades. Whites weren't oppressed for hundreds of years, so they don't really have any "elimination of segregation" of their own to celebrate.

While some people are just growing tired of the whole thing, I find the majority of people I've met who were against the who Gay Pride idea were equally offended by the idea of "coming out of the closet", ie those who were disgusted just at the fact that these people were announcing they were gay, as if that somehow ruined any chance of "normalcy" in theses people's lives. As if somehow shielding themselves from knowing, that it made their lives easier, because they wouldn't have to face up to their being uncomfortable with the whole concept.

It will only end, when "gayness" is considered so normal that the celebrations seems pointless. But as long as there are still people who react to gays as if they'd just encountered a diseased/tainted person, then Gay Pride parades will still exist.

See: Jesus Camps where you "pray the gay out"... THAT's why Gay Pride parades won't go away anytime soon...
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...

@Jabrwock

I can see what you're saying, and I agree to some extent that homophobia doesn't help matters any further, but the fact of the matter is that if they didn't HAVE these parades to express their homosexuality, there wouldn't be as much a problem with it. Who it is you want to bone in the bedroom is nobody's business but you're own, and you're certainly not living a lie if you tell nobody about it.

Think about it- do you believe every gay person fits the stereotype? Out of the 20+ friends I have, 5 of them are gay, and none of them fit any part of the stereotype. Thei're just normal dudes who go to work or college, watch sports, play violent video games and constantly refuse to ask for directions when they're lost. *shot at* But honestly, what they're fighting for isn't going to come to them if they insist on fueling fire to the stereotype to the point where anytime someone admits "yeah, I'm gay, bite me", the first thought is going to be a grown man in a purple shirt singing songs from Avenue Q, when that isn't even close to the case.
Sure yeah, you might be right in saying that homopobia only contributes to unfounded fears that the person they knew isn't him anymore, but flaming around for attention and acceptance isn't going to speed things along, either.

@Kajex
Anyoen who can be arrested or lynched for being who they are deserves to run it in the faces of the opposition.
Actually, they deserve the same rights as everyone else.

In this, I think turbine is going the right way.
You have a problem with someone getting something? Fine, You don't get it either.
That's about as fair as it gets.

I have to ask, as someone who has never played any MMORPG but a decent share of pen and paper RPGs in my youth, how does one go about banning marriage? I mean, can't I just say that my character is married to another character? As long as they go along with it, what stops us? It's not like its a binding union, whether the game engine approves of it or not. Is there some in-game benefit to marriage being a "supported function"?

To compare, there weren't any marriage rules in AD&D (at least when I played), and in theory the DM could say my character wasn't married to some other player's character, but if we were to role-play that way, there's not a lot to be done. Wouldn't an MMORPG be the same? If my character and someone else's character say we're married, then aren't we married, for the purposes of the game? Or do MMOs offer some tangible benefit, similar to real-life marriage?

They havn't so much banned it as removed any official code for it, making it 'not their problem'

@Joe

"Anyoen who can be arrested or lynched for being who they are deserves to run it in the faces of the opposition.
Actually, they deserve the same rights as everyone else."

So everyone except white males can rub problems their great-great grandmother had in another person's face who had nothing to do with their great-great- grandmother's problems.

That sounds like discrimination to me.

I agree with Kajex, though. I don't care about someone's sexual preference, but when it's shoved in my face I can't say it makes me like them any more than I did before. Now I don't hate them because they have a different sexual preference than me, now I hate them because they're standing outside my goddamn door being annoying.

I don't shove my ideals down someone's throat, and for some reason because some other people are close minded, now I have to get other people's ideals shoved down my throat.

If you're gay, fine. Be gay, do whatever you want. If someone gives you a hard time about it, argue with them or brush it off because they're not worth the time or effort. Just stop bothering me about how you're different- I don't give a shit, if you want to be different then go be different instead of being like everyone else and bothering the shit out of me.

Christ.

Let me change my question then, slightly. I understand how marriage would work in Fallout 2. Aside from you, it's all scripted NPCs, so knowing that A is married to B is relevant to which script NPC C should use to talk to you. That makes sense.

What's the point of having code to support marriage in a game where almost everyone is a PC? Will the game world stop other people from flirting with my wife? Does it allow for more relationship options? Does that mean you can't have an "affair"?

I suppose my initial question is less about how one bans marriage and more about how one supports it within the rules of a game.

Damn the conservatives win again. *Shakes fist*

@ Scoops

"I have to ask, as someone who has never played any MMORPG but a decent share of pen and paper RPGs in my youth, how does one go about banning marriage?"

They don't ban marriages. They just don't make it some built-in feature. You won't get some GM_FatherPastorMinister presiding over the ceremony (Everquest featured marrages with GM's presiding over them long ago). There won't be some extensive cut-scene (FFXI).

It is likely that you will still have the means to role-play it out with the proper props. Even World of Warcraft, which doesn't support marriages, you could still craft dresses and tux and buy rings and flowers so those that wanted to do it still could. You just won't have any support of the developers in the process beyond this. You won't get banned or anything for doing this sort of role-play event either.

@Yoshiko:

"So everyone except white males can rub problems their great-great grandmother had in another person’s face who had nothing to do with their great-great- grandmother’s problems.

That sounds like discrimination to me."

That's not quite what he said. He was talking about -current- discrimination, not historical discrimination.

This is probably not the place to ask, but i was unable to find a better place.

Who writes these articles and maintains this site? I'd like to cite this website as a source for a research project i am doing in school. I must be able to cite this source if i want to use it.

At least they removed the entire process in general. There would have been a riot outside their building if they only allowed opposite-sex marriage to function.

The whole gays and lesbians thing is just stupid to me. It reminds me of little kids.
Kid 1 - "What's your favorite cartoon to watch?"
Kid 2 - "I like to watch Pokemon!"
Kid 1 - "Ew, Pokemon is for stupid people. I don't like you. Me and my friends won't like you."
Kid 3 - "I like Pokemon too! You should hang out with our friends."

Granted that scenario is a bit far-fetch, but the premise is simplified down enough. People with power who doesn't like something, will use their power to uphold that idea or belief, and maybe force it onto others.

Just an idea though.

While I think it was a bad decision on Turbine's part, I have to disagree with Brenda Brathwaite's statement that the game designer abdicates authorship, as well. The reason games are powerful is because they open up new possibilities with authorship, not shut out authorship altogether. Molding experiences is an important to a meaningful game. That said, is it true to Tolkien's spirit to disallow gay marriages? Perhaps, but by accepting the license and deciding to stay true to that ideal, Turbine has essentially endorsed it and endorses it through their game logic, which is something I know they don't want to do. They needed to have simply stood up and said "look, sometimes what's canon is less important than what's right," and if they'd done that, I don't think anyone would have really had a problem with it except people who don't like gays to start with.

It's an issue only as long as we treat it as one. I await the day that everyone just quits caring.

In a way, they could start making rules saying you could only play the sex you are. Or perhaps, they'll just remove gender from the options. And they'll also remove kiss emotes as well. And clothing. And any type of weaponry that has a phallic shape or is traditionally gifted to a certain sex.

We'll all be the same.

Seriously, why does anyone care who I kiss, in-game or in the real world?

@Vlad

"That’s not quite what he said. He was talking about -current- discrimination, not historical discrimination."

That doesn't make a difference, but just for you:

Everyone except a white male should have the right to rub their problems in someone else's face, regardless if it is the face of the person causing the problems?

Still rings in as discrimination to me. Saying someone has the right to do something because of their race or gender, while a person of another race or gender does not have that same right hits too close to home.

I dunno, I'm a bit divided.

On one hand, this is a game I will probably never play or ever really care about.

On the other hand, eh, it still does sound a little bit like, I don't know...some kind of anti-gayism. Not like, extreme or anything, but still. That fact it causes concern, well, I just find as bullshit. And the excuse doesn't help at all; that's all it sounds like to me, a pitiful attempt to justify it, but it just comes off as the excuse it is.

So, I dunno.

I believe that in a Fantasy MMORPG, the door should be open to anything. I myself am straight, but don't like the idea of removing something because it doesn't seem right. The irony of this is that an orc can split someone open and people are okay with it, but as soon as a few black sheep want one added optional feature that doesn't affect the rest of the world it is wrong. That in itself is hypocracy. I also believe that religious veiws should be place in games but not disrupt it. For example if my World of Warcraft warlock couldn't summon demons because someone at Blizzard found this wrong and disurbing, they just entirely ruined the fun of my character. I have no problem with religion or political views, it is just that people need to realize that if it isn't harming anybody, then you shouldn't try to oppose it. Stopping them from having gay fantasy characters won't stop them from being gay.

the difference in gay marriage in games and killing in games is.....what? its all fantasy get over it if you have to play thought police do it in your own lil gray world....

Huh, that's actually a good reason for the choice. I don't play MMORPGs simply because the presence of other people tends to ruin the suspension of disbelief. This, regardless of the feathers it will ruffle, is a step towards creating a proper world. (Just to be clear, in other RPGs, I could care less about the issue. But they're right - here, it would feel un-Tolkeinesque.)

So basically, as I understand it, all that we're talking about here is not having some NPC and/or staff-run PC there to perform a ceremony?

In that context, I think it's actually a good thing that Turbine isn't "supporting" marriage. I agree with P01s0n, leave it open-ended. Let the player characters sort themselves out. Finding yourself a PC cleric to give you the ceremony you want is probably more fun, in the role-playing context, anyway.

As I said, I don't really go in for MMORPGs (or P&P ones, anymore), but I had thought that a LotR-universe one was kinda cool. Then I read the Salon article and saw that they had been working on rules about who can and cannot get into relationships and such. I think that's pretty weak. Let the people role-play. If some wiener is role-playing in a way others feel is inappropriate, they'll stop playing with them. Saying "it didn't happen in the books" is just being narrow-minded, from a game design stand point. The entire idea behind RPGs is to let people play out things they way they think it should go. If some dwarf finds a hot hobbit-maiden, why can't they hook up? It doesn't happen in any of the books, but I don't remember Tolkien flat out saying that the idea was completely unthinkable either. I mean, if you're being faithful to the books, shouldn't most of the races stay separate from each other anyway? Shouldn't all the Elves be wandering off across the sea, and the Dwarves hiding in their mountains?

Game developers working under a trademarked theme are subject to all sorts of restrictions that are required by the copyright authorization contract that allows them to use the work of the author.
Developers work long hours, sometimes for years to create a product that is built for a target audience in their business model.
It's just a game and a product folks, so if you don't like what they sell, buy something else, or get together and make your own game/mod.

IMHO turning a videogame's gameplay into a platform to promote one's personal political views is just as wrong in this instance as it was for several people who immediately blamed games for a recent tragedy and were proven wrong.

This is a game people and maybe they want kids to buy it and play it and have fun and not be bothered by the obsessive hangups of adults.

If you don't like the rules in checkers, try chess.
OMG the players are black and white; what have I started now?
;p

@Yoshiko:

It does so make a difference, and here's my justification: The argument is that groups who are being discriminated against should have the right to protest against that discrimination for as long as said discrimination persists. You think that that is wrong because it gives one group a right over another group. Does it make sense for a group that is not being discriminated against to have a right to fight against the discrimination against it? No, because there is no discrimination there, so the right doesn't exist.

It's not about color or sex, it's about the presence of discrimination.

"It does so make a difference, and here’s my justification: The argument is that groups who are being discriminated against should have the right to protest against that discrimination for as long as said discrimination persists. You think that that is wrong because it gives one group a right over another group. Does it make sense for a group that is not being discriminated against to have a right to fight against the discrimination against it? No, because there is no discrimination there, so the right doesn’t exist.

It’s not about color or sex, it’s about the presence of discrimination. "

But that wasn't the difference I was talking about. I said it doesn't make a difference whether the discrimination was historical or current.

I still firmly stand that one group should not have a right over another group. Maybe that's just because I was raised with no hostility towards any specific group with regard to colour, beliefs, sex and so forth. I was raised with hostility towards EVERYONE! =D (I.E. "I'm not a racist, I hate everyone!")

I understand your point, I'm just trying to make mine clearer for you. If Gay Rights activists have the right to parade around me telling just how gay they really are, then I, a white female, should have the right to parade around a college protesting against the quota telling them just how unfair it is that a C-B student got into the college over me, a straight A student (just an example, I'm not a straight-A student) because they had a different ethnicity. But I don't have that right, because I'm white.

See where I'm going?

Hmm... I'm pro-gay marriage and all that, but I can see where the company is coming from. Realistically, despite the overt homoeroticism of the movies, there probably wasn't any gay marriage in Tolkien's world, and... well... there's something to be said for staying true to the source material. Similarly, I wouldn't have a problem with a historically accurate game where women just sew and have babies, or a game based on Lovecraft's work where all the good guys are white American men and all the bad guys have dark skin or are of mixed race. When you're trying to adapt any piece of old literature, there will be attitudes presented therein that aren't politically correct, and it bothers me when people pretend otherwise.
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Who's responsible for crappy Netflix performance on Verizon?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenThe Steam controller may have changed again. http://www.vg247.com/2014/07/23/steam-controller-valve/07/23/2014 - 6:46pm
james_fudgePlease use the comments section for bitching about specific articles :) We do read them, after all.07/23/2014 - 10:52am
Andrew EisenThat's unfair but thank you for the tip on the Reddit thread containing the Kickstarter message to backers. The article has been updated.07/23/2014 - 10:50am
SleakerHere's the message Areal backers recieved from Kickstarter: http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2beqlc/areal_kickstarter_suspended/07/23/2014 - 8:52am
Sleaker@MW - I still think Cogent/Level3 hookups were lacking prior to the comcast switch, but I do think verizon is being dumb here.07/23/2014 - 12:06am
Andrew EisenOf course it's a question. It's got a question mark and everything!07/22/2014 - 6:43pm
Matthew WilsonHate to say it, but that poll is not even a question. there is too much evidence that points to Verizon. http://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-throttling-netflix-traffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth07/22/2014 - 6:23pm
Andrew EisenHuh. The new Battlefield has been delayed to early next year. Are you feeling okay, EA? http://blogs.battlefield.com/2014/07/bfh-will-launch-2015/07/22/2014 - 6:11pm
SleakerWest End Games - Areal developers just got their Kickstarter suspended. Might want to dump that 'fully funded' status.07/22/2014 - 12:08pm
MaskedPixelanteHas anyone who bought it gotten their Sims 2 Ultimate Edition upgrade yet? Still waiting on mine, especially since they're supposed to be out by today.07/22/2014 - 10:45am
IanCDynasty Warriors 8 for the PS4 finally has the option to turn off the OTT depth of field that made the game look like a blurry mess. Only a few months behind the JP version patch...07/22/2014 - 10:17am
NeenekoI see nothing in Section 111 that would exclude IP transmission. It even explicitly includes 'other transmission methods'07/22/2014 - 9:28am
ZippyDSMleehttp://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2014/07/19/ruling_aereo_is_not_a_cable_company07/22/2014 - 8:13am
ZippyDSMleelul what?07/22/2014 - 7:53am
ZippyDSMleehttp://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/07/bungie-cross-generation-destiny-wouldnt-be-fair-to-low-res-players/07/22/2014 - 7:53am
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/07/22/wii-u-update-adds-system-to-system-transfers/ The latest Wii U update allows you to do the system transfer between two Wii Us. Still not true accounts, but getting there.07/22/2014 - 7:39am
Papa MidnightSpeculation from PC Gamer. Don't hold your breath. http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/07/21/microsoft-job-listing-says-nice-things-about-pc-gaming-isnt-clear-if-it-means-them/07/21/2014 - 5:58pm
MaskedPixelanteI dunno, it's probably Vevo powertripping.07/21/2014 - 5:52pm
Andrew EisenMP - Makes you wonder what the intention behind the removal was. Stop the RickRolls? Yeah, like removing that one video is going to make a difference.07/21/2014 - 3:27pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician