On Games and Religion

January 7, 2010 -

As any reader of this website knows full well, videogames and religion tend to mix like oil and water.

Every few weeks, it seems, a story pops up about a religious group expressing dismay or anger over  a videogame. The latest such tale revolved around a Maine Christian group calling for a Modern Warfare 2 ban.

The constant collision of these topics caused a Bitmob contributor to pen a column asking whether or not games and religion are mortal enemies.

Mike Gingras writes from the viewpoint of a religious gamer, noting that players are constantly breaking the Ten Commandments in-game, but he takes a broadminded approach to it all:

My argument is that games, like any art, are a means of authorial expression and participant reaction. In a game, a person can safely dabble in behavior or thoughts that they may not necessarily agree with.

He continues:

As a gamer and a religious person, I believe that virtual worlds with unfixed consequences are a safe way to learn about your own beliefs and values. I remain unconvinced that playing a video game where you can wrestle with your own personal sense of right and wrong is a bad thing.

Gingras ends with the question, “So, which is it? Is gaming a hobby that people of all faiths can enjoy? Or is it something that the faithful should stay away from?”


Comments

Re: On Games and Religion

"'Persecute: 1 : to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief'

Bold mine. How fucking stupid are you? Not being allowed to marry the person you love, like the rest of the "normal", straight people is absolutely a punishment.

"You are a fucking bigot."

"Suffice it to say, "to cause to suffer because of belief" applies here. You and your bigoted beliefs are causing Gays to Suffer because they can't live as full a life as everyone else, because they don't have the same rights. And you have NO problem with it. You are ABSOLUTELY a fucking bigot."

That area you bolded is meant to simplfy the ending; another way to read it therefore is "to harass or punish in a manner to cause to suffer because of belief", with the belief being that of the victim. The victim is harassed or punished because of what the victim believes in. That is persecution. And no, Jack, I'm not stupid. You think you would have learned from a certain attorney that blunt insults don't make for good arguments.

And remember what I keep saying about love? It is simply another thing we believe in. Allow me to put it in a way that I find ironic. Why do you believe in love? There is no proof it exists. To believe in love is to believe in it through, in a non-religous sense, faith. You believe in it with no evidence to support it. And i answered the punishment question already. Check above.

Also, I have a proposition. Give me the definition of a bigot, then match me to the definition. After that, then try to justify the fact that you are a bigot, a fact you admitted yourself. Is your bigotry allowed?

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: On Games and Religion

At least I admit that I hate people like you for the beliefs you hold against people like me. You, on the other hand, believe it's perfectly fine for the church to single out and prevent gays from living the same life as anyone else in this country. That's bigotry, if I've ever seen it.

I can't believe I'm even HAVING this argument, considering ANYONE with half a brain and a good heart would recognize the suffering of the GBLT community at the hands of religious persecution. Not being allowed to marry, not being allowed to fight for thier country, not being allowed to adopt kids and have a family.. On top of that, like I said before, it's still legal to FIRE someone just for the "crime" of being gay, in some states. Those laws have the support of the Catholic Church, as well as other moderate and conservative denominations.

The fact is that gays live a lifestyle filled with doubt and trepidation about thier sexuality. "Can I meet my boyfriend during my lunch break to eat together? What if someone sees me and I get fired?!" "Can I hold my boyfriend's hand when we take a walk? I might be seen!" These kinds of thoughts go through countless gay individuals heads, because they are seen as lesser people. They are seen as abominations, who aren't normal. They are treated, in the law, like they aren't equal to any straight couple. It's sickening that there's ANYONE in this world who doesn't see that. What, were you against interracial marriage, too? You have some pathetically misguided views on the world, and those bigoted beliefs your church shares with you have shaped you into someone who has no problem with the persecution and suffering of a group of people, just because they turned out differently than you. Bigot.

Re: On Games and Religion

"Using your inane logic about laws, it was perfectly fine for black people to be slaves, to not be allowed to vote, and not be allowed to use the same facilities as white people, when those laws were in effect, too, right? I mean, they were law, and the law reflects the people's will, therefore those laws weren't wrong in any way, shape, or form. So, what, you are a racist as well as an anti-gay bigot? Boy, I sure am learning a lot about you."

First, I will ask you again to STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!!! DO NOT DO IT!!!! I AM NOT RACIST NOR HAVE I EVER BEEN RACIST!!!! I NEVER SAID ANYTHING OF THE SORT!!!!! Here are your tactics as I seem them: insult anyone who opposes you, screw the evidence since your logic is "supreme", and make pointless and unfounded name calling until your opponent is so pissed that he leaves. That is really all you have done. I mean, your calling me racist. As for my "inane" logic, it isn't inane, it's how law works. How would you explain law then?  In the race situation, it still makes sense. First, the support of slavery and laws that are racist went against the Bill of Rights due to the fact that both goes against the part about all men being equal. If the Bill of Rights isn't followed, then of course bigotry and other similar things will occur. The laws were wrong. I would also like to repeat, for the sake of reinforcement because you are going way to far, is that I am not racist. Are you now going to say that the catholic church is racist too? Also remember that racism is one of those arguments that is defeated, because common logic could be used to beat it. The logic of those who are racist is that another race is inferior to another. That has been defeated by example (and still is) when those who weren't white could get good jobs requireing intelligence. The fact that people of any race can get anywhere in life that someone of another race can (when all races are given a fair shot). This shows that all races are equal.

"The fact is that they deprived people of thier rights solely because they happen to be different than what was percieved as "normal" back then. Too bad there's no modern fight to compare that to. Wait! There is! The only thing that's changed between then and now is who the victims were. First it was women's rights, then it was Minority rights, and now it is Gay Rights. No matter the victim, restricting someone's rights by law, just because they are different than you is WRONG, no matter who you are. If you don't agree, you are a bigot, plain and simple."

Women's rights is the exact same thing. Women showed that they could do anything a man could do. And the gay rights issue is different, at least for catholics. That will be explained shortly.

"He's a bigot, AE. An eloquent one, no doubt, but definitely a bigot. That's all there is to it. He refuses to acknowledge that there is a large sector of society being treated differently, just because of thier sexuality" 

First, thanks for the complement. Second, you seem to have this problem where you use words with negative connotation and try to attach them to your opponent without actually backing it up. That always struck me as a dirty politics move, the most recent example being calling Obama Hitler, Stalin, or Lenin. I gave you the definition of bigotry. You can't connect me to bigotry. Ditto with "persecution". You call any opposition against you "persecution". I gave you the definition. You can't connect persecution. Also, you still haven't justified your bigotry. Reason: You can't.

"At least I admit that I hate people like you for the beliefs you hold against people like me. You, on the other hand, believe it's perfectly fine for the church to single out and prevent gays from living the same life as anyone else in this country. That's bigotry, if I've ever seen it."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/wordclick.cur), help' : 'default';" style="cursor: default">
Hate: 1 a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b : extreme dislike or antipathy : loathing <had a great hate of hard work>
2 : an object of hatred <a generation whose finest hate had been big business — F. L. Paxson>

 

Well, looks like you've admitted to hate now too. What's next? My money's on intolerance. Or do you mean hate as an exaggerated dislike? If you mean true hate, then it will be interesting to see how you justify that. And I have already told you the catholic church does not believe in hate. We disapprove of hate more than anything else.  I don't approve of hate either. I don't hate anyone, not even you. Not even Kim Jong IL. And I really don't like the North Korean government.  And, since I have a friend who is homosexual and have been well aquainted to gays in the past, it would be a bit hard to hate one and be a friend of one. The same goes for bigotry.

"I can't believe I'm even HAVING this argument, considering ANYONE with half a brain and a good heart would recognize the suffering of the GBLT community at the hands of religious persecution. Not being allowed to marry, not being allowed to fight for thier country, not being allowed to adopt kids and have a family.. On top of that, like I said before, it's still legal to FIRE someone just for the "crime" of being gay, in some states. Those laws have the support of the Catholic Church, as well as other moderate and conservative denominations."

Last I checked, your having this argument offend christians and anyone else who doesn't believe in what you do. Half a brain. Insults. Oh no, what will I do? Your insulting me. That defeats my argument. I am truly beaten by your experience in offending people. Wow. And misuse of the word persecution. Ah, classic Vald. And I already gave my opinion on "don't ask, don't tell". Did you even read it? As for the job laws, the church does not support discrimination of gays and neither do I. The church currently does not support descrimination laws such as the job one. And while I believe you, it wouldn't hurt to bring out some evidence in this case. An article or  just nameing a specific instance perhaps? And I never have condsidered the catholic church really on the left or right. On one hand, we are pro-life and oppose gay marriage. On the other hand, we don't approve of the death penalty or torture. No party really likes us as a whole.

"The fact is that gays live a lifestyle filled with doubt and trepidation about thier sexuality. "Can I meet my boyfriend during my lunch break to eat together? What if someone sees me and I get fired?!" "Can I hold my boyfriend's hand when we take a walk? I might be seen!" These kinds of thoughts go through countless gay individuals heads, because they are seen as lesser people. They are seen as abominations, who aren't normal. They are treated, in the law, like they aren't equal to any straight couple. It's sickening that there's ANYONE in this world who doesn't see that. What, were you against interracial marriage, too? You have some pathetically misguided views on the world, and those bigoted beliefs your church shares with you have shaped you into someone who has no problem with the persecution and suffering of a group of people, just because they turned out differently than you. Bigot."

Like I said, we don't approve of discrimination. Catholics are not supposed to see a sinner as an abomination, especially since, to us, everyone sins. If you see any catholic that does, remind them that for me. Here's the thing about gay marriage. The problem with gay marriage isn't that one group thinks gays deserve a right that anyone else does. It is all about one's view on what marriage is. It is also an issue as to what love is. And as I have said, there is no universally accepted logic that trumps either opinion. Nothing proves love's existence in any way, much less what meets its definition.

Look, allow me to explain the catholic moral opinion. Here's what we oppose that you don't like: gay marriage and gays adopting. Every other thing you could possibly complain about is not true, in those cases we either agree with you or we don't have an official stance for whatever reason. Those stances aren't made easier by the other, less tolerant christians out there. In any case, you certainly can't prove that catholics as a united belief (not one crazy who doesn't represent the whole or a parish that strays) are in anyway intolerant, hateful, or bigoted.

By the way, assuming someone were to admit they were bigoted to you. Then what? You yourself are bigoted.

As for your shoutbox posts, if gay marriage does become legal, I will be a good sport and give my congrats (though saying that "it is creeping across the states" is, well, creepy and gives it a negative tone; try something else) . I will still fight for what I believe in, but I will still fight fairly and without hate or intolerance.

I would like to make something clear. I make my argument on a neutral standpoint. I am not here to argue my belief with yours. I really don't care who is right on these beliefs in this case. I have not promoted my faith in any way. I have not tried to promote the belief that gay marriage or gays having children is wrong. I have only mentioned my beliefs as examples in arguments or when stating exactly what it is we believe. The purpose of my debate is two fold. First, I am debating the fact that all beliefs have the right to influence the laws of their society through fair tactics. Second, I'm defending my faith against the unjustified attacks.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: On Games and Religion

"First, I will ask you again to STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!!! DO NOT DO IT!!!! I AM NOT RACIST NOR HAVE I EVER BEEN RACIST!!!! I NEVER SAID ANYTHING OF THE SORT!!!!!"

Well, don't make such retarded comments that make it so easy to read between the lines. You clearly stated that you think its morally right for ANYONE to pass laws that reflect thier morals. Therefore, if someone passes a law that sends black people back into slavery, by your obviously flawed logic, you would support it, because it was that person's moral right to do so. It's a pretty easy conclusion to come to. Clearly, you are a racist, bigoted, mororn.

"First, the support of slavery and laws that are racist went against the Bill of Rights due to the fact that both goes against the part about all men being equal."

And Gays aren't "all men"? You are just digging yourself a bigger hole. If "All Men" are created equal, and straight men have the right to marry the consenting adult they want, then why can't gays? Clearly it goes against the "All men" are created equal clause. You are only continuing to expose your bigoted beliefs.

"The logic of those who are racist is that another race is inferior to another."

The logic of those against gay marriage is that gays are inferior to straight people. That thier love is somehow inferior to straight love. And don't give me that hackneyed "What is Love?" argument. I know that I love my girlfriend to the extreme, and I also know that my gay friend loves his boyfriend to the extreme. You and your bigoted church view my love as superior to his love, which is absolutely illogical and wrong.

"The fact that people of any race can get anywhere in life that someone of another race can (when all races are given a fair shot). This shows that all races are equal."

Boy, it's too bad the law is preventing Gays from doing the same thing. Gays can be descriminated against and fired from jobs they are perfectly qualified for, just for the crime of being gay. They are often bullied in school, and school administrations look the other way, because it's ok to bully gays. Finally, they aren't allowed to marry someone they love, just because they happened to be born with the same chromosomes. But that's ok, they aren't black, so clearly, they don't deserve equal rights.

"You can't connect me to bigotry. Ditto with "persecution". You call any opposition against you "persecution". I gave you the definition. You can't connect persecution. Also, you still haven't justified your bigotry. Reason: You can't."

Semantics. You stand against equality for gays. Therefore, you are a bigot. And I'm pretty sure I responded to your "persecution" argument before. Whats being done to gays almost EXACTLY fits the definition of persecution. Only your bigoted, ignorant mind can't possibly concieve that these people are being treated poorly, strictly because they are gay.

"Like I said, we don't approve of discrimination."

Yet you sit there and defend Marriage discrimination!! What insane universe do you live in where you can claim, with a straight face, that you "don't approve of discrimination," yet fight FOR discrimination?!

"It is also an issue as to what love is. And as I have said, there is no universally accepted logic that trumps either opinion. Nothing proves love's existence in any way, much less what meets its definition."

What you are really saying here is that you don't believe that the love felt between gay people is "real" love. You think the only acceptable, real love is between a man and a woman. As far as what love is, I can't define it, you are right about that. However, I know it when I feel it, and when I have a shitty day, and I go home to my smiling girlfriend, the shitty day almost completely melts away, and I forget about all of my problems. That's how I know I'm in love. Like I said before, I have a friend who feels the exact same way about his boyfriend. When they are both in the room, it brightens up, and they both are absolutely happy and in love with each other. Who are YOU to say what love is real? Who are YOU to say that thier love isn't as valid as ours? You are disgustingly ignorant of what the real situation is, and you keep making this ignorant, bigoted arguments that make me realize that you have NO IDEA what you are talking about, let alone how offensive and bigoted your arguments are.

Re: On Games and Religion

First, sorry for having this post done so far seperate in completion from my other, more recent response. I've been really busy, and then I couldn't go on gamepolitics for a while.

"Well, don't make such retarded comments that make it so easy to read between the lines. You clearly stated that you think its morally right for ANYONE to pass laws that reflect thier morals. Therefore, if someone passes a law that sends black people back into slavery, by your obviously flawed logic, you would support it, because it was that person's moral right to do so. It's a pretty easy conclusion to come to. Clearly, you are a racist, bigoted, mororn."

I think I will argue this with the exact statement I used to respond to your other claim of racism in your other post, though with a just a little bit added in. First, I think I should clarify in case I was wasn't clear, even though I am more than sure I was. I didn't say that it was alright for someone to make any law. I said it is alright for people to TRY. It is perfectly alright to TRY. Note the emphasis on TRY. Would it succede? No. Why? The people (including you and I) wouldn't allow for it due to moral conviction and the logical fact that race doesn't matter. Both have the same potential. That has already been proven. Also, let's not forget the Bill of Rights, which should immediately shoot down such a TRY. Slavery existed because even with the Bill of Rights before because those who allowed slavery (whether they truly supported it or not) ignored the Bill of Rights. As for me being racist, that is quite the claim. Do you even know my own heritage? Of course not. I'm going to let you guess. Come on. It actually shouldn't be that hard. I'm pretty sure I mentioned it sometime on another subject. Also, how well do you really know me? Do you know who my friends are? What races are my friends? Aw, you don't know, do you? Think about the claim you just made, and see how unfounded it is.

"And Gays aren't "all men"? You are just digging yourself a bigger hole. If "All Men" are created equal, and straight men have the right to marry the consenting adult they want, then why can't gays? Clearly it goes thagainst e "All men" are created equal clause. You are only continuing to expose your bigoted beliefs."

Ah, but then one needs to realize what the marriage issue is. I'll get back to that when I respond to your "love" statements in the end of your post.

"The logic of those against gay marriage is that gays are inferior to straight people. That thier love is somehow inferior to straight love. And don't give me that hackneyed "What is Love?" argument. I know that I love my girlfriend to the extreme, and I also know that my gay friend loves his boyfriend to the extreme. You and your bigoted church view my love as superior to his love, which is absolutely illogical and wrong."

The church doesn't believe that those who are gay aren't automatically inferior to everyone else. Can't say the same for others who oppose gay marriage. Many of those who do oppose gay marriage really do think gays as inferior. I never have. I have and gay friends who are without a doubt smarter than me in certain aspects. The church's reasons for its view on gay marriage isn't about superiority. For one, we would have to support those other laws you mentioned involving such things as firing gays for being gay.

"Boy, it's too bad the law is preventing Gays from doing the same thing. Gays can be descriminated against and fired from jobs they are perfectly qualified for, just for the crime of being gay. They are often bullied in school, and school administrations look the other way, because it's ok to bully gays. Finally, they aren't allowed to marry someone they love, just because they happened to be born with the same chromosomes. But that's ok, they aren't black, so clearly, they don't deserve equal rights."

Yeah, like I said. The laws that don't allow gays a fair chance in the workplace aren't the ones we support. We don't support bullying. Ever. You still can't even give a proof of our support of it either a support of bullying or of the job laws. Actually, I am not fully aware of the those laws. Heard of them, but never have checked. Could you give me an example of a currently passed one?

"Semantics. You stand against equality for gays. Therefore, you are a bigot. And I'm pretty sure I responded to your "persecution" argument before. Whats being done to gays almost EXACTLY fits the definition of persecution. Only your bigoted, ignorant mind can't possibly concieve that these people are being treated poorly, strictly because they are gay."

Semantics, nothing. There are definitions that words have. You can't just twist meanings to suit you. In the case of bigot, you see anyone who doesn't agree with you on this issue. There are those on the gay rights issue who oppose all laws that anyone could ever consider a gay right. There are those who do commit acts of bigotry in any ideology. However, both I and the church as an organization are not bigots. You can't connect us to the meaning. It's that simple. Now, even if I were a bigot, or if anyone you opposed was for that matter, what justifies your bigotry over that of another. You've been avoiding that question for awhile. Could you at least answer? I mean, you could at least try to recant what you said. You're already wrong about the bigotry thing. You could at least not also be a hypocrite when it comes to the bigotry thing.

"Yet you sit there and defend Marriage discrimination!! What insane universe do you live in where you can claim, with a straight face, that you "don't approve of discrimination," yet fight FOR discrimination?!"

No, I fight to defend a few things. First and foremost, I defend my belief from undeserved attacks. But I do more than that. I defend other beliefs from such attacks. I also defend the right of any belief, including ones we both agree are wrong, for a chance to try to have a chance in law. I won't help them in passing the law. Hell, I'll oppose it with all my strength. But I will allow them the chance to try. And I will tell you what makes the point of view of gay marriage not always neccesarily descrimination. I'll explain in the end with love.

"What you are really saying here is that you don't believe that the love felt between gay people is "real" love. You think the only acceptable, real love is between a man and a woman. As far as what love is, I can't define it, you are right about that. However, I know it when I feel it, and when I have a shitty day, and I go home to my smiling girlfriend, the shitty day almost completely melts away, and I forget about all of my problems. That's how I know I'm in love. Like I said before, I have a friend who feels the exact same way about his boyfriend. When they are both in the room, it brightens up, and they both are absolutely happy and in love with each other. Who are YOU to say what love is real? Who are YOU to say that thier love isn't as valid as ours? You are disgustingly ignorant of what the real situation is, and you keep making this ignorant, bigoted arguments that make me realize that you have NO IDEA what you are talking about, let alone how offensive and bigoted your arguments are."

What I am saying is that the debate is about love. This whole debate is about love and what it is. Love. It may be the most popular belief that has no evidence in any way. It is a more widely held belief than any other religon. Even atheists such as yourself believe in it. Why? Because we feel it?  Do you know how many people, which you have called stupid, misguided and other things, because they claim to feel God or the holy spirit. I think it is you who are unaware of the situation. Yes, there are those who attack the gay community for what I as a catholic rather dislike greatly, to say the least. There will always be those who fight battles for the wrong reason. And I understand your disgust of such people. But this  argument is on something that really can't be proven. If we argued on the subject of love, what would happen. I really couldn't say. And then, what if someone were to join our argument and then say that we are both wrong? What if he were to say that love is nonexistent? And he could say that too. We have no evidence on love. Love truly is the ultimate, unending moral argument. It has no true logic to even prove it's existence, with nothing more than the word of people who say they "feel it", and has much less reason to say what "true love is". That is what this whole debate on gay marriage is. A love debate.

As for me being offensive, what have I said that is? I haven't attacked your beliefs. I haven't stated they're wrong. All I've done is state the beliefs of catholics, defend it against unfounded accusations and attacks, and explain what the debate is about. Love. That is ultimately what your fighting for when it comes to specifically gay marriage, right? My arguements aren't against you or anyone elses beliefs. My argument is that anyone can TRY to pass a law, that many of your belief of catholics are wrong, and , due to you bringing it up, that the gay marriage debate (not necesarilly all gay rights debates) are about love. I think that's it.

Wait, almost forgot something. What is your problem with law? Democracy is set to the people decide the law through moral conviction. Unless you think you can't get the people on your side, you shouldn't have an issue with it.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: On Games and Religion

"That is what this whole debate on gay marriage is. A love debate."

Can you expand on that?  That doesn't make sense to me unless someone's actually trying to argue that gays shouldn't be able to marry because they can't love.  Also, love is not a required component of marriage so I fail to see what it has to do with the topic at hand.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: On Games and Religion

You are right. Technically, love isn't really a requirement. However, that is the reasons gays want to marry. They are claiming to love. The same is said of those who are religous. Religous people marry for claiming to love. Even those who are atheist or don't care, they marry for love. That is why I say it is a "love" debate. The whole debate is more or less on whether or not two people of the same sex can love.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: On Games and Religion

Huh.  That's just so darn odd to me.  It honestly boggles my mind that there's anyone out there that thinks gays don't have the capability to love.  To me, that's like saying two people of the same hair color can't love.  Now, if someone doesn't believe in love, that's one thing but saying everyone can love but gays, without any supporting evidence whatsoever, is beyond silly.

And you're probably right about the proving love bit; I certainly can't think of any way to do it.  Fortunately, as stated earlier, love isn't a requirement for marriage so that's not a compelling argument for denying gays the ability to marry.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: On Games and Religion

The argument against gay marriage isn't that gays can't love in the sense that anybody can love, so much as the same type of love that a man and a woman supposedly share. No one is saying that gays are incapable of any type of love period.

Remeber, while love isn't a legal requirment, it is a social one. This is an important part of the issue. The primary reason that people marry is love after all. Marriage without love (whatever it is) is not only not as common, but frowned upon.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: On Games and Religion

So, like I said before, your point of views is that MY love between myself and my girlfriend is superior to the love between my friend and his boyfriend. Do you have any idea how offensive and bigoted a belief that is?

Like AE said, it's like you saying two people of different skin colors can't love, or that two people of different religions can't love. It's absolutely insane and has no basis in reality.

Re: On Games and Religion

"Aside from the jobs part, the debate is simply the descrimination of a bunch of intolerant people. The beliefe that Gay love is somehow inferior to straight love is ABSOLUTELY an ignorant, intolerant, bigoted belief, and anyone who carries it is a bigot. There is absolutely NO argument you can make that supports your belief that Gay love is inferior, and you have NO reason to believe it, aside from your ignorance of gays."

"So, like I said before, your point of views is that MY love between myself and my girlfriend is superior to the love between my friend and his boyfriend. Do you have any idea how offensive and bigoted a belief that is?"

And like I'm sure I've said before, the gay marriage issue isn't about inferiority of love. It is about what love is. And there is a considerable difference between the gay marriage issue and the interracial marriage issue (really haven't heard much about intermarriage issues). The problem with the interracial marriage debate was that opponents of it didn't want "superior" races to mix with so called "inferior" races. That was the main issue. With gay marriage, it isn't about "superiority" mixing with "inferiority". It's about what love is, if it exists at all. The whole debate is about something that you can't prove the existence of. Seriously, try to prove love really exists at all. I would actually be happy if you could prove it. Oh, and don't just say it's because you can "feel" it. Many people say they can feel God. You remember God, right. You called him an "imaginary friend". Ironic, isn't it.

"especially the ignorant soft bigotry"

Ok. I'll bite. What in the hell is "soft bigotry". How can someone be more or less bigoted? You already alter or ignore the meanings of words for your own benefit. Are you making up phrases now to? And you still refuse to ignore the fact that you admitted to being bigoted. You are in no position to call anyone bigoted and for them to be wrong in doing so if you are bigoted yourself. I think the reason your ignoring this fact is because you know you are in a corner in that issue.

Vald, you often don't continue smaller arguments within our greater one. I have never had a problem with that before. There are times where you have stopped a continued point on something. I understand that you can't counter every point I make. However, for you have gone too far by calling me racist without knowing really knowing me or who I consider a friend. Then, you just forget about it. You have nothing to say of my challenge to try to say how I am racist. After truly doing something so stupid as to make an attack on me based off of no knowledge of me, you say nothing, not an apology, not anothe attack. Nothing. Why? Because you know you were wrong.  You want to get me mad. Congrats, you've done it. I am pissed!! There are actions in debates that I really don't like. Calling someone racist for no real reason except just to invalidate the argument without actually proving someone wrong is one of them. AND YOU DARED TO COMMIT SUCH AN ACT ON ME?!! YOU DON'T KNOW ME!!! You dared to call me racist on the basis of no knowledge of my own race or the race of my friends!!! So, have you figured it out yet?! My race, the race of my friends?! No?! DIDN'T THINK SO!!!! Here's how it is! I am of brazilian cuban decent. Not exactly a pure race, am I?! And my friends? I have always had a multicultural group of friends. My oldest friends are black. My best friend is white. The rest of my friends are either hispanic, black, some variation of white (italian, german, irish, etc.), or some mix. You have made a lot of unfounded attacks on me before, but this one takes the cake!!!! Do you still have anything to say?! Or are you going to ignore you're little mistake?!!!

 

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: On Games and Religion

Hahaha.. I still love how pissed you are at the racist comment.. The point of the comment flew SO FAR above your head you'd have needed a telescope to see it. Suffice it to say, the fact that I'm explaining it to you is farther than I'd usually go, but you seem so absolutely LOST in the irony of my claim, I actually feel a little sorry for you.

Your logic involving laws and morality was flawed, I used that flawed logic to make a rediculous claim about you, in order to show you how retarded your logic was. I don't know if you are racist or not, and frankly, I don't care. The larger point in the matter was to point out the flaws in your logic, mainly that you claimed to support ANYONE attempting to pass thier beliefs into law, because it's thier moral right. Therefore, you'd support a racist attempting to reinstate slavery. Clearly, anyone who would support such an attempt is racist! Did you follow the logic, there, or do I need to hold your hand more? The fact is, I was turning your logic against you in an attempt for you to see how absolutely retarded it actually was. Unfortunately, you COMPLETELY missed the point.

Not every law is "Moral" and not every person attempting to pass thier beliefs into law is doing a good thing. In fact, I'd argue that while everyone has the LEGAL right to do so, it's absolutely wrong for them to do it, if thier goal is to oppress or persecute individuals for thier completely harmless sexual choices. There is NO argument against that point of view that isn't based in ignorance or bigotry.

Re: On Games and Religion

"While I would still argue that there is NO difference between gay love and straight love, let's take love out of it, then."

And continue arguing that when someone challenges your belief. Hell, do me a favor and really stick it to the people we both belief are bigots. Thank you understanding the love thing.(I think). Remember, I am not trying to prove you wrong in your beliefs. I haven't said you were wrong or in anyway show how you are wrong. My point of view in this argument is neutral, so to speak.

"At it's base, Marriage is recognized by the government as a Legal Contract between two consenting adults, giving each other the benefits of mutual bank accounts, tax breaks, mutual property ownership, and the other various benefits (and risks) that come with it. It's basically two people telling the government that they plan on spending the rest of thier lives together, and that it's ok for the government to recognize these people as a legal pair."

Actually, our government has way too many views. Different states have different meaings for what it is and different wording. Which is why I say what said about law: Everyone can TRY to pass their beliefs unto law. The laws change due to the people. What law do you want to use? And before you say a federal law, I should tell you about the "Defense of Marriage Act". It basically says too things (thank you wiki for the simple version),

  1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
  2. The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

Hmm, what a problem for you, eh? Hmm, there seems to be a law you don't like. Oh, if only you could get laws to follow your moral conviction. Oh, wait, that's how law works!

"Now, given that definition of marriage, why shouldn't gay people be allowed to marry? To tell one pair of consenting adults it's cool for them to become a legal pair, while telling another pair of consenting adults that they can't, for no good reason, is discrimination, and discrimination is wrong. Also, before you go in on that old "They have Unions!!" argument, Civil Unions are not equal under the law, and implying that there should be a difference between the two contracts, just because you want to keep "Marriage" for the straights is a discriminatory and bigoted point of view."

Which definition? Marriage's definition varies by state. It's very definition is the whole debate. Your fighting to change that definition (or keep it, depends on the state). It isn't discrimination. You see it as discrimination because it is against your belief. Your whole argument is that gay marriage is like any other marriage. Your opposition's marriage is that it isn't the same. You can't just say it's discrimination until you prove it is the same. And, as I have stated, no one can say either is right.

"Hahaha.. I still love how pissed you are at the racist comment.. The point of the comment flew SO FAR above your head you'd have needed a telescope to see it. Suffice it to say, the fact that I'm explaining it to you is farther than I'd usually go, but you seem so absolutely LOST in the irony of my claim, I actually feel a little sorry for you."

Glad to see your happy to have offended someone. Yeah, that's shows a lot about you. Seriously, how does anyone on the pro-gay marriage side like you? People like you are probably the reason a lot of states haven't legalized it yet. Offend someone, then accuse someone of being offensive. Same with the bigotry thing. Have you heard of "double standard"?

"Your logic involving laws and morality was flawed, I used that flawed logic to make a rediculous claim about you, in order to show you how retarded your logic was. I don't know if you are racist or not, and frankly, I don't care. The larger point in the matter was to point out the flaws in your logic, mainly that you claimed to support ANYONE attempting to pass thier beliefs into law, because it's thier moral right. Therefore, you'd support a racist attempting to reinstate slavery. Clearly, anyone who would support such an attempt is racist! Did you follow the logic, there, or do I need to hold your hand more? The fact is, I was turning your logic against you in an attempt for you to see how absolutely retarded it actually was. Unfortunately, you COMPLETELY missed the point."

It isn't flawed. It is how law works. And it's your point that is flawed. I am not saying anyone can pass a law based upon moral belief. I'm saying that anyone can TRY. Your point didn't go over my head.. It crashed and burned. That's why I didn't see it. No, it's my point that went way over yours. I mean, how could you miss the word "TRY" with the many times I put it down. I am saying that everyone has the right to TRY and make laws the way they want. Let's use that racism example, shall we? So, first a bunch of racist guys TRY to get people who believe in what they do into congress. They would fail on that first hurdle. The people (with their moral conviction against racism) won't vote for the congressmen. But then let's assume that they all hide their intentions and racist beliefs. They come together and TRY to write the law. Now, if you paid attention in your politics class, you'll know that it will take most of congress to pass the bill. Racists would have to take up most of congress. That, with the chances that every state some how vote for the racist guys, makes that feat near impossible. Now lets assume that this impossible act of getting a bunch of racist guys into senate somehow works. Then they would get to the president, who could veto it. What if there was a racist president? Impossible. If there is one thing I know about elections, it's that the opposition would dig into the racist guys past, and find out that he was racist. So, the president, who couldn't be racist, would veto the bill. Oh, that congress (you know, the one that could never exist) could try to override it. But, then one last thing would without a doubt shoot it down. The Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights, saying all people are born equal and without one being superior over another, would immediately shoot it down like flak to a large, yet still very fragile, paper plane. It would crash, burn, and no doubt we would both dance around the burning piece of crap, laughing all the while. So, yeah, law works well. That is why I am right about how law works. Both the people and the bill of rights, decide what laws come into place. Now the only way I can see you against this idea is if somehow you thought there is no way you could get your beliefs into law. Remember this, since this went over your head several times. Everyone has the right to TRY.

"Not every law is "Moral" and not every person attempting to pass thier beliefs into law is doing a good thing. In fact, I'd argue that while everyone has the LEGAL right to do so, it's absolutely wrong for them to do it, if thier goal is to oppress or persecute individuals for thier completely harmless sexual choices. There is NO argument against that point of view that isn't based in ignorance or bigotry."

Well actually, to some degree, every law has some kind of "moral conviction" behind it. However, most laws do follow logic and aren't entirely based on moral conviction or opinion. So why can't everyone try to influence where they live based on their beliefs? You're doing it. And, as I have already stated, opposition to gay marriage isn't oppression. It's a moral argument. What is it oppressing. Let me guess, love? And I already gave the definition of persecution.

And there's a serious problem with your "bigot" argument that make it is seriously flawed. Actually, a couple of things.

1. You haven't matched catholic belief with bigotry. I already said how I wasn't. You have to counter that. And you can't just say "because you are" or something that is just as unfounded. Show the same definition of bigotry I showed you, then match me to the defintion. If you don't do that, or something similar, you have nothing.

2. And here's your bigger problem. You admitted to being a bigot. You are now accusing me of being a bigot without any proof or evidence. Even if you were to prove I was (which you can't because I am not), what then? If you are a bigot too, what makes you any better? You can try to justify it, but how? Can you justify bigotry? If you can, then anyone can. From the moment you admitted to being a bigot, then started accusing me of being it with nothing to back it up, you lost the bigot argument. And you will continue to have lost until deal with the issue of you being a bigot.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: On Games and Religion

"The Bill of Rights, saying all people are born equal and without one being superior over another, would immediately shoot it down like flak to a large, yet still very fragile, paper plane. It would crash, burn, and no doubt we would both dance around the burning piece of crap, laughing all the while. So, yeah, law works well."

If that was true, how have unconstitutional or discriminatory laws repeatedly ended up on the books?

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: On Games and Religion

Thank you for reminding me of something and helping me correct my mistake. To say the law works "well" would be wrong. The problem is man itself. For laws to change or to be prevented from becoming unconstitutional, the people must become involved. Slavery and racial discrimination took a while to become rooted out because people were ignoring the Bill of Rights. If people don't take notice of the law or get involved, then such laws can become active, so to speak.

I would respond in better detail, but you would have to tell me which laws you are talking about for a more complete response.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: On Games and Religion

You know you make some pretty good arguments.

 

 

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

Re: On Games and Religion

I'm just going to ignore your whole "TRY" argument, because that doesn't respond at ALL to the point I was making. I get what you are saying, but it's ultimately pointless, because I wasn't saying they don't have the right. I was stating that while they have the legal right, it is ABSOLUTELY WRONG from a human rights standpoint for ANYONE to try to oppress and persecute individuals for personal choices they make that have NO effect on anyone else. You see, I stand for human rights, and clearly, you dont.

As for your Bigotry arguments;

1: A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

The church refuses to acknowledge that Gays have the same rights as straight people, and supports many different forms of discrimination against gays based on intolerant and ignorant ideas that stem from an illogical being. Sounds to me like they are intolerantly devoted to thier opinion and prejudices about gays, despite the fact that gays suffer under that discrimination daily.

2: I've already said, I certainly fit the definition of a bigot, just like you do, since what I said about the church, above, can almost certainly mirror your opinions, based on the conversation we've had. However, where YOU are bigoted against a completely innocent, harmless sector of the human population, who have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to deserve it, I am bigoted against people who would descriminate or punish gays for the "crime" of being gay. I am bigoted against people who would attempt to legislate thier oppressive, fake morality on those who have no effect on you. I am bigoted against your bigotry.

Where you stand for oppression, persecution, and suppression, I stand for FREEDOM and expression. I stand for keeping your oppressive ideas out of my life, and I stand for each and every person doing what they want, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

Freedom always trumps oppression, so you can't possibly win this fight. On top of that, the ONLY reason I'm bigoted against people like you in the first place (People like you being Oppressive persecutors), is because you and your beliefs were bigoted against me in the first place. It's very difficult to tolerate bigory from people like you without becoming bigoted against your bigotry.

 

Re: On Games and Religion

First, I'd like to say sorry for taking so long. I was gone for a bit, but I'm back! With a vengance! Seriously, though, sorry if my shoutbox statement didn't really imply how long it would be until I responded.

"I'm just going to ignore your whole "TRY" argument, because that doesn't respond at ALL to the point I was making. I get what you are saying, but it's ultimately pointless, because I wasn't saying they don't have the right. I was stating that while they have the legal right, it is ABSOLUTELY WRONG from a human rights standpoint for ANYONE to try to oppress and persecute individuals for personal choices they make that have NO effect on anyone else. You see, I stand for human rights, and clearly, you dont."

Hm, it looks as though your point and mine seem to have nothing to do with each other in this case. I'm talking about law, your talking about trying to take direct action against another group. We're trying to make two different points to each other.

"The church refuses to acknowledge that Gays have the same rights as straight people, and supports many different forms of discrimination against gays based on intolerant and ignorant ideas that stem from an illogical being. Sounds to me like they are intolerantly devoted to thier opinion and prejudices about gays, despite the fact that gays suffer under that discrimination daily."

Ok, I have said this many times, but you seem to be ignoring it. Allow me to repeat: The catholic church has only two beliefs that you shouldn't like. The first is that we don't believe in homosexuality being right in general. However, it isn't a policy or belief of ours to make laws that stop homosexual activity or make it illegal. So you really shouldn't care about that anyway. The second, which is related to the first, is the gay marriage issue. This is, again, a moral issue that neither side can be proven right or wrong. This is the only legal issue that you can accuse of oppression. Anything else that you consider violating gay rights doesn't involve us. Yes, there may be some dick who came from one of our churches who goes all crazy on us and I'm sorry if that happens, but let face facts. Crazies come from any ideology or idea. They come out, they yell crap, and give a bad name to whatever group they come from. So it comes down to gay marriage. Like I said, it's a moral issue. There is nothing in the past that gives it universal precedent to make it a right, not that it can't be changed to be so. The gay marriage issue isn't about discrimination, it's about what love is and what the official definition of marriage is. If you're going to say we support many different forms of discrimination, back it up. Name instances, give me an article. As for our intolerant opinions and prejudices, name them and back it up.

"I've already said, I certainly fit the definition of a bigot, just like you do, since what I said about the church, above, can almost certainly mirror your opinions, based on the conversation we've had. However, where YOU are bigoted against a completely innocent, harmless sector of the human population, who have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to deserve it, I am bigoted against people who would descriminate or punish gays for the "crime" of being gay. I am bigoted against people who would attempt to legislate thier oppressive, fake morality on those who have no effect on you. I am bigoted against your bigotry."

You haven't fit the description to me yet. You have probably read my counter to this point and have seen why by the time you have read to this point. And now you have just crossed a line. You are justifying bigotry, something you can't justify. Ask anyone on this site, and they will say the same thing: Bigotry is wrong, no matter what. You are not bigoted against bigotry, your bigoted against anyone who disagrees with you. Oh, and how our conversations? You're the one who can't help but be bluntly offensive. You're the only one trying to promote your beliefs. You're the one who can't seem to make friends with someone who doesn't believe in what you do.

"Where you stand for oppression, persecution, and suppression, I stand for FREEDOM and expression. I stand for keeping your oppressive ideas out of my life, and I stand for each and every person doing what they want, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else."

"Freedom always trumps oppression, so you can't possibly win this fight. On top of that, the ONLY reason I'm bigoted against people like you in the first place (People like you being Oppressive persecutors), is because you and your beliefs were bigoted against me in the first place. It's very difficult to tolerate bigory from people like you without becoming bigoted against your bigotry."

Wow. In almost all of that first paragraph I quoted and some of that second one, you just spoke a lot of nothing, similar to what you see in propoganda. You basically just yelled out that I was evil, you are good, and with no reasoning, especially that first sentance. It was a lot like the crap religious extremists say. Ironic. Ever considered writing propoganda? You do have the skill to write a lot of nothing. Try asking some extreme left or right to hire you. They'd pay good money to have their ideas shown with no reasoning to support it in a quick sentance to put on a poster. And today seems like the perfect day to remind you that MLK, a great man in the race issue that you so love to pull out, wasn't a bigot against his opponents or anyone else. So one can oppose another group without bigotry.

 

 

 

 

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: On Games and Religion

Meh. You've done nothing in your last few responses but try to squirm around the "bigot" tag and play semantics with me. You've not disproven any of my comments, and you've not provided anything new to this argument. You've repeated your idiotic talking point about laws, which, frankly, I've already proven the holes in, and keep trying to squirm away from giving me a REAL reason why you don't think Gays should marry, aside from "God says it's wrong," which is absolutely retarded, especially when you stop to think that no everyone believes in God, therefore, not all of us should be subject to his whim.

You clearly don't have an open mind, and certainly never will, if you continue to let your religion do your thinking for you. As far as I'm concerned, you are a bigot. I've proven that above, as well. Your counterpoint to that was nothing but "Nuh-uh!! You admitted you were! Therefore you are CLEARLY the wrong one!" As for THAT rediculous argument, my admitting that I am bigoted against oppression doesn't automatically disqualify my argument.

Oh, and you bring up MLK.

Lets look at that definition, again.

"1: A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices."

MLK was obstinately and intolerantly devoted to his opinion that black people were equal to white people, and deserved the same treatment. He also fits the definition of Bigot. He was Bigoted against racial intolerence and oppression. I am Bigoted against Sexual intolerance and oppression. You see the comparison? There are differing levels of guilt, here. Where MLK was bigoted against oppression, just like I am, you are bigoted against a specific group of people for no other reason than your fake religion. Who is more guilty here? MLK and myself? Or You and your bigoted religion?

Re: On Games and Religion

"Meh. You've done nothing in your last few responses but try to squirm around the "bigot" tag and play semantics with me. You've not disproven any of my comments, and you've not provided anything new to this argument. You've repeated your idiotic talking point about laws, which, frankly, I've already proven the holes in, and keep trying to squirm away from giving me a REAL reason why you don't think Gays should marry, aside from "God says it's wrong," which is absolutely retarded, especially when you stop to think that no everyone believes in God, therefore, not all of us should be subject to his whim."

I've done plenty more than get into the bigotry argument. As for the "semantics" claim, you're the one who misused such words as bigotry then falsly tried to label you opposition as such. I simply countered it in a basic way by showing the meaning of the words compared to your bad use of them. If you have a better way of countering such claims, tell me how. And what is the problem with laws then? If my explaination of law is flawed, then you explain it. Also, it isn't as simple as "God says it's wrong". On a side note, it's kind of funny that you mock the belief of God, yet you so easily believe in love with out a second thought, all without evidence. Ironic, to say the least. Actually, I already explained the basic catholic argument earlier. In fact, I explained the basic belief of both sides of the argument If you choose to ignore what I said, then claim I haven't said anything on it, then there is nothing I can do.

"You clearly don't have an open mind, and certainly never will, if you continue to let your religion do your thinking for you. As far as I'm concerned, you are a bigot. I've proven that above, as well. Your counterpoint to that was nothing but "Nuh-uh!! You admitted you were! Therefore you are CLEARLY the wrong one!" As for THAT rediculous argument, my admitting that I am bigoted against oppression doesn't automatically disqualify my argument."

Not open minded? This coming from the guy who has it against all religions, even the ones that might side with you? The funny thing is, you're all for someone being open minded to your beliefs, not any other. As for my argument, that isn't it. My argument on bigotry is two fold: 1. I am not a bigot, nor is my faith as an organization. You can't attach the definition to me. 2. You admitted to being bigoted. That put you in an interesting position, as it is hardly right for someone who is bigoted to complain about bigotry.

"MLK was obstinately and intolerantly devoted to his opinion that black people were equal to white people, and deserved the same treatment. He also fits the definition of Bigot. He was Bigoted against racial intolerence and oppression. I am Bigoted against Sexual intolerance and oppression. You see the comparison? There are differing levels of guilt, here. Where MLK was bigoted against oppression, just like I am, you are bigoted against a specific group of people for no other reason than your fake religion. Who is more guilty here? MLK and myself? Or You and your bigoted religion?"

Actually, both MLK and catholic church were/are not bigoted.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/wordclick.cur), help' : 'default';" id="wordclickDiv" itxtvisited="1" style="cursor: default">
Intolerant 1: unable or unwilling to endure
2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or . professional rights : bigoted
3 : exhibiting physiological intolerance <lactose intolerant>
 
obstinate:1 : perversely adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion <obstinate resistance to change>
2 : not easily subdued, remedied, or removed <obstinate fever>

 

Note that the meaning of intolerance when involving bigotry is the second definition as shown. As for obstinate, it's obvious that the first one is the one involving bigotry.

(I should state that I copy and paste these meanings from Merriam-Webster, sorry I didn't mention it earlier).

MLK did not try to limit the rights of his opponents in any way. He didn't commit a or b. As for the church, lets use the gay issue. The church doesn't stop anyone's freedom of expression. So that knocks down "a". As for unwilling to share social rights, I have already explained that the whole issue is on what marriage and love is, which in turn would define to what degree it is a right. Politically and professionally, the church isn't trying to limit the rights of gays in that part for sure, as I have already explained. In fact, wasn't it I who said that anyone has the right to TRY politically? That certainly includes those who support gay marriage.

Then we get to obstinate. MLK was not perversly adhering to his opinion. He kept on to his opinion because it was the logically the right one. There was no logical reason, argument or form of persuasion that could trumph his, therefore make him obstinate to the logic that beat his. As for the catholic church, our issues are moral. There is no logical argument that can logically beat us, just as there aren't any logical arguments we can win with most of the time either. So, we're out of that to. So, yeah, neither we or MLK are bigoted. Keep note, I certainly can't compare myself to MLK. He was a great man who neither I nor most (I say "most" because I can only assume so much, I don't know every catholic on the planet) catholics can't come close to in greatness. And I have a dare for you. I would like you to go out and tell people that MLK was bigoted. See what happens. You certainly wouldn't say it in the shoutbox. I could do it myself, but that would be wrong and unneccesary. I don't need to put you on the spot like that. It would be funny though.

And while I would never compare myself to MLK, it seems as though you would. Real modest. Really though, to compare you to MLK is laughable to say the least.

Oh, and as usual, you have no evidence to back up any claims. You just label and name call. At this point, I really am not expecting anything else anyway.

 

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: On Games and Religion

"With gay marriage, it isn't about "superiority" mixing with "inferiority". It's about what love is, if it exists at all. The whole debate is about something that you can't prove the existence of."

But, as mentioned, love is not a requirement for marriage so that's still not a compelling reason to restrict the ability of gays to marry.  Can straights marry even if they're not in love?  Yes, they can.  So there's no reason gays shouldn't be able to marry even if their love is different (something there's no evidence to support anyway).

This is why I just don't understand why anyone would be against gay marriage as there just doesn't seem to be a compelling argument supporting that stance.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: On Games and Religion

Yeah, well, try telling that to either side. They won't hear it. As for the love thing, I am just trying to tell Vald that love, as much as we would want it to be, isn't really a valid argument for anything. Everyone matches love with marriage. Love is the main issue. No one will want to win the argument without including love, especially the pro-marriage side, since the basis of the argument is that they can love like straight couples can. Love, the ultimate moral argument.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: On Games and Religion

While I would still argue that there is NO difference between gay love and straight love, let's take love out of it, then.

While Marriage is, Symbolically, a bond of love, and the indication that you absolutely want to spend the rest of your life connected to the individual you are marrying, it's not always that. And while I would argue that the vast majority of marriages are the result of a serious emotional attachment to the person you are marrying, so much so that you can't imagine life without them, lets examine Marriage as recognized by the government, without love.

At it's base, Marriage is recognized by the government as a Legal Contract between two consenting adults, giving each other the benefits of mutual bank accounts, tax breaks, mutual property ownership, and the other various benefits (and risks) that come with it. It's basically two people telling the government that they plan on spending the rest of thier lives together, and that it's ok for the government to recognize these people as a legal pair.

Now, given that definition of marriage, why shouldn't gay people be allowed to marry? To tell one pair of consenting adults it's cool for them to become a legal pair, while telling another pair of consenting adults that they can't, for no good reason, is discrimination, and discrimination is wrong. Also, before you go in on that old "They have Unions!!" argument, Civil Unions are not equal under the law, and implying that there should be a difference between the two contracts, just because you want to keep "Marriage" for the straights is a discriminatory and bigoted point of view.

Re: On Games and Religion

Ah, interesting.  So, the argument isn't gays can't love but that the love between two people of the same gender just isn't in the same league as those of opposite gender.

"Marriage without love (whatever it is) is not only not as common, but frowned upon."

Maybe so but a lack of love is still not a compelling reason to deny anyone (gay or straight) the ability to marry.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: On Games and Religion

"Ah, interesting.  So, the argument isn't gays can't love but that the love between two people of the same gender just isn't in the same league as those of opposite gender."

Something like that. Keep note, I am no expert on the debate, but I do understand it is not so simple as discrimination of a bunch of intolerant people who don't want gays to get jobs.

"Maybe so but a lack of love is still not a compelling reason to deny anyone (gay or straight) the ability to marry."

I wouldn't say that to either side of the debate, especially the pro gay marriage side. They are trying to marry for "love".  The side against gay marriage wouldn't like that insinuation much better.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: On Games and Religion

"Something like that. Keep note, I am no expert on the debate, but I do understand it is not so simple as discrimination of a bunch of intolerant people who don't want gays to get jobs."

Aside from the jobs part, the debate is simply the descrimination of a bunch of intolerant people. The beliefe that Gay love is somehow inferior to straight love is ABSOLUTELY an ignorant, intolerant, bigoted belief, and anyone who carries it is a bigot. There is absolutely NO argument you can make that supports your belief that Gay love is inferior, and you have NO reason to believe it, aside from your ignorance of gays.

Tell you what, you should go to a civil union/gay marriage (in the states where it's legal) ceremony, sometime. The love between those two people being bonded is in NO WAY inferior to the love of straight people. In fact, considering that in many states where Gay Marriage is actually legal, the divorce rate has actually gone DOWN, indicating that the vast majority of Gays are actually truly in love before marrying, unlike many straight people.

Once you realize that there is NO difference between straight love and gay love, and NO difference between straight people and gay people, you'll understand why I get so angry at the intolerence and bigotry, especially the ignorant soft bigotry, like you hold, with your belief that somehow, gay love is inferior.

Re: On Games and Religion

Actually, yes. Those laws aren't meant to punish. They are the moral beliefs of people being put into law. See my explainations of law a little lower (or see one of the many other posts I have made with other articles.

 

Continuing the conversation:

Doesn't matter if that's the intent or not, that's the result.  Thanks to these laws, there are many people who do not get to enjoy the rights and privilages of their peers because of their sexual orientation.

However you want to classify it (punishment, moral beliefs put into law, whatever), squelching the rights of a particular group of people is wrong.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: On Games and Religion

Ah, that's the question, isn't it? What makes it a right? The people do. Remember the quote from The Bear and the Dragon? It may have been in another post, so here it is:

"What we call law is nothing more or less than the public's collective belief, their conviction of what right and wrong is. Whether it is about murder, kidnapping, or running a red light, society decides what the rules are. In a democratic republic, we do that through legislature by electing people who share our views. That's how laws happen. We also set up a constitution, the supreme law of the land, which is very carefully considered because it decides what the other laws may or may not do, and therefore it protects us against transitory passions." chp. 12

The people decide what right and wrong is. And yet there are many people with many different views and moral feelings. So, some people believe in gay marriage. What of those people who think differently? To you, the laws are punishment. They are no such thing. They are simply law. If you don't like it, guess whose responsiblity it is to try to change it. Gay marriage, what makes it right? Making abortional illegal, what makes that right? Truly, no actual logic can either verify or nullify them. That is what I mean by moral arguments.

Of course, there are moral beliefs that are shared and absolute (more or less) that make up our society agrees on that we all must help defend against. Our society is mostly in agreement in the fight against hate and intolerence. We have no doubt that most cases of murder have no excuse.

For the record, I am on these post not to promote my faith, but to defend it. I really have no intention to promote them on these posts. I may describe beliefs for one reason or another, but that's it.

Oh, and intent is very important. It defines the very meaning of an action.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: On Games and Religion

I'm not interested in arguing the semantics of the word "punishment" but surely you can agree that these laws strip the rights that you and I enjoy from our peers solely due to their sexual orientation?  I fail to see how anyone, regardless of their faith, could see that as anything but wrong.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: On Games and Religion

He's a bigot, AE. An eloquent one, no doubt, but definitely a bigot. That's all there is to it. He refuses to acknowledge that there is a large sector of society being treated differently, just because of thier sexuality.

Re: On Games and Religion

I don't think you read my last post or you don't understand it. You think that the law strips a right, that marriage can be between those of the same sex and that homosexuality is right (not a right, just right). Someone else thinks the law is right, that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is wrong. Who is right? Why? That is what is called a moral belief. You say you "fail to see how anyone, regardless of their faith, could see that as anything but wrong." If so, then you need to see the point of view of your opposition and understand it. As for semantics, you are the one who brought punishment up. I just saw the error in use of the term.

Look, already told Vald this, allow me to tell you the same thing. I do not get into moral arguments, at least not here. Moral arguments never end. They have no logic that either validates or nullifies the logic of either. Both sides may have good points, but neither are proven one way or the other. I do not post on religous articles to advocate my faith, only to defend it. In fact, I'll defend any ideology from an unfair attack if I see one.

Everyone has an ideology. Everyone wants their ideology made into law. To have opposition who succede in making their belief into law while you don't isn't punishment. It's law. Don't like it. Try to get the law taken down while getting your belief up.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: On Games and Religion

"You think that the law strips a right, that marriage can be between those of the same sex and that homosexuality is right (not a right, just right)."

You don't agree that marriage is a right?

"Someone else thinks the law is right, that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is wrong. Who is right? Why?"

That "someone else" is wrong.  Here's why: because homosexuality in no way infringes on the rights of others, it is not wrong.  Rights (such as marriage) should be extended to everyone regardless of their religion, ethnic background, hair color, and yes, sexual orientation.

"If so, then you need to see the point of view of your opposition and understand it."

Hey, I'm trying but those who see differently from myself have given me nothing to work with.  Those who are against gay marriage have (far as I've seen) come up with zero to support their position other than inconsequential arguments like: God says it's a sin, gay sex grosses me out, etc. (or flat-out lies such as they'll force my church to marry gays or they'll teach my kid to be gay in school).  Why should gay people not be extended the rights that you and I enjoy?  I've yet to see a compelling reason.

"As for semantics, you are the one who brought punishment up. I just saw the error in use of the term."

No, I wasn't.

And you didn't answer my question.  I'll rephrase it:

"Surely you can see that these laws prevent a certain group of people from enjoying everyone else's ability to marry the concenting adult of their choice solely due to said group's sexual orientation?"

Whether you personally define that as punishment or not, is immaterial.  Those are the type of laws that Valdearg and I are talking about.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: On Games and Religion

"You don't agree that marriage is a right?"

My point isn't whether or not it is a right. What I was trying to say was that everyone has their own beliefs as what a right is. And everyone has the right to make laws that do so, all while not trampling on the rights that are in the Bill of Rights. And whether or not marriage is a right isn't really the main point. The real issue is what I said in respond to Vald's comment.  The gay marriage issue is based on love and what real love is. There is no logical proof in love. You cannot prove or measure love. Love is that one thing that even a lot of atheists simply believe in. So one group has a position on love that is different from another. Who is right? How do you find the answer? There really isn't one, other than the ones that a person has through a belief.

"That "someone else" is wrong.  Here's why: because homosexuality in no way infringes on the rights of others, it is not wrong.  Rights (such as marriage) should be extended to everyone regardless of their religion, ethnic background, hair color, and yes, sexual orientation."

What makes them wrong? What logic of yours ultimatly trumps theirs? What logic of theirs defeats yours? Neither really defeats the other by logic. Look, I am not trying to get into a moral debate between two opposing ideas. I am simply trying to argue that everyone has the right to try to put their belief into law, since law itself is largly just moral conviction. And what defines a right? Moral conviction.

"Hey, I'm trying but those who see differently from myself have given me nothing to work with.  Those who are against gay marriage have (far as I've seen) come up with zero to support their position other than inconsequential arguments like: God says it's a sin, gay sex grosses me out, etc. (or flat-out lies such as they'll force my church to marry gays or they'll teach my kid to be gay in school).  Why should gay people not be extended the rights that you and I enjoy?  I've yet to see a compelling reason."

No, I don't think you are. That, or you're meeting the wrong people on these issues. Remember Frumpy Mom. If you read the posts against her and her responses, you'll notice she seemed to only pay attention to articles that were rude, illogical, and represented the worst. Allow me to comment on each opposing argument. The first, "God says it's a sin", is not going far enough. As a christian myself, we don't simply say because God says so. Even our God has some sort of reasoning. Look into it.  Then there's "gay sex grosses me out". This isn't even an argument. This is some person who just feels "gross" due to what I will hazard to guess as homophobia. As long as I'm mentioning it, I should note that just because someone is against gay marriage, doesn't mean they are homophobic. And the last, the lies, happen all the time, not just with gay issues. These are made up of the less tolerant and/or more paranoid churches. They often don't even represent the denomination. I say this with the knowledge that at least one catholic parish has taken this paranoid point of view. Mostly, it is made up of fundementalists, though I have already shown that it varies. If this is literally all you have heard, then no wonder you have neve heard a compelling reasons.

"No, I wasn't."

"And you didn't answer my question.  I'll rephrase it:

"Surely you can see that these laws prevent a certain group of people from enjoying everyone else's ability to marry the concenting adult of their choice solely due to said group's sexual orientation?""

"Whether you personally define that as punishment or not, is immaterial.  Those are the type of laws that Valdearg and I are talking about."

First off, my mistake. It was Vald who brought it up first. Now, I will tell you right now that I will not answer the question or any question similar and here is why. I have said repeatedly more than once (and once is enough) that I WILL NOT GET INTO A MORAL DEBATE. Here's why: Moral debates like this cannot be solve by universally accepted logic. The two points are based off of opinion. While the two points from a neutral standpoint may see that both have good points, neither can really beat the other. While there are exceptions, the major moral debates of today are not generally one of them. Do you know what would happen if we got into a debate? I see you as a guy set in his beliefs, as I know I am. It would never end.

What I will argue are two general things: First, that all people have the right to have civil discussions withing legal context and to try to make a belief into law, since law is largly moral belief anyway. Second, I defend my faith from attacks uncalled for and defend it against intolerance and bigotry. Hell, I'll defend other beliefs, even athesim.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: On Games and Religion

Well, you and I don't seem to be interested in discussing the same thing so I'm going to take my leave of this conversation (unless something interesting pops up) but at least you now know what Valdearg was referring to when he mentioned laws that literally punish gays.

Play nice, folks.  I'd hate to have to bust back in here with my mighty blue pen of moderation.

 

Andrew Eisen

P.S. - I'm seriously interested in hearing a compelling argument for preventing gays from marrying (or adopting) so if you feel like providing some or linking to someone else that has, please do.

Re: On Games and Religion

AE, thank you for your respect. You are certainly a guy to be respected. Thank you for understanding. As for that argument, sorry, moral arguments of my faith are not my thing. I'm more of the defensive type. I always say: Never attack, Defend with a fury. Here's a tip, find a priest if your looking for a talk specifically with catholics. With anyone else, I really don't know. My knowledge on other denomination's exact beliefs isn't that great.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: On Games and Religion

"What makes them wrong? What logic of yours ultimatly trumps theirs? What logic of theirs defeats yours? Neither really defeats the other by logic. Look, I am not trying to get into a moral debate between two opposing ideas. I am simply trying to argue that everyone has the right to try to put their belief into law, since law itself is largly just moral conviction. And what defines a right? Moral conviction."

So you see it as perfectly fine and moral if someone was trying to pass a law that put black people back into slavery. It's thier right to pass a law that reflects their morals, after all. Like I said, you are clearly a racist, as well as a bigot. Needless to say, your logic on laws is a crock of shit. Laws can be passed that are morally wrong. You support laws that restrict gays from enjoying the same benefits that straight people do. Thats discrimination and bigotry, and It's wrong, no matter how you spin it

"Now, I will tell you right now that I will not answer the question or any question similar and here is why. I have said repeatedly more than once (and once is enough) that I WILL NOT GET INTO A MORAL DEBATE."

No, you have NO GOOD ARGUMENT against it, other than the bigoted belief that you think it's wrong, therefore it's ok for you to support a restriction of gay rights. You are a bigot.

Re: On Games and Religion

"So you see it as perfectly fine and moral if someone was trying to pass a law that put black people back into slavery. It's thier right to pass a law that reflects their morals, after all. Like I said, you are clearly a racist, as well as a bigot. Needless to say, your logic on laws is a crock of shit. Laws can be passed that are morally wrong. You support laws that restrict gays from enjoying the same benefits that straight people do. Thats discrimination and bigotry, and It's wrong, no matter how you spin it"

Actually, yes. It is perfectly alright to TRY. Note the emphasis on TRY. Would it succede? No. Why? The people (including you and I) wouldn't allow for it due to moral conviction and the logical fact that race doesn't matter. Both have the same potential. That has already been proven. Also, let's not forget the Bill of Rights, which should immediately shoot down such a TRY. Slavery existed because even with the Bill of Rights before because those who allowed slavery (whether they truly supported it or not) ignored the Bill of Rights. As for me being racist, that is quite the claim. Do you even know my own heritage? Of course not. I'm going to let you guess. Come on. It actually shouldn't be that hard. I'm pretty sure I mentioned it sometime on another subject. Also, how well do you really know me? Do you know who my friends are? What races are my friends? Aw, you don't know, do you? Think about the claim you just made, and see how unfounded it is.

"No, you have NO GOOD ARGUMENT against it, other than the bigoted belief that you think it's wrong, therefore it's ok for you to support a restriction of gay rights. You are a bigot."

Look, I have no problem with you not quoting everything I say. However, when you do I would prefer you include parts of my statement that you seem to chose to avoid. I mean, you seem to be ignoring the parts where I give my reasoning, such as in this situation. You certainly didn't include it in your quote. The section you quoted continues like so:

"Here's why: Moral debates like this cannot be solve by universally accepted logic. The two points are based off of opinion. While the two points from a neutral standpoint may see that both have good points, neither can really beat the other. While there are exceptions, the major moral debates of today are not generally one of them."

No, it is not because my side doesn't have what could be called a "good argument". Both of us no doubt have good arguments. For each side. The problem is that because both are good and that neither could be beaten by logic that isn't moral logic or opinion, neither of us would really be beaten. Do you know what would happen? It would never end. Check that, it would end, just not with either one of us conceding to the other. Neither of us would give up on our point. It would probably end with one of us being sick of the argument for whatever reason and maybe with us pissed at each other. 

 

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: On Games and Religion

"No, it is not because my side doesn't have what could be called a "good argument". Both of us no doubt have good arguments. For each side."

No. You have no good argument as to why gays can't marry. AE's asked for a legitimate argument, and so have I. You refuse to give us one, because there isn't a SINGLE argument against gay marriage that is based in realistic, non-bigoted ideas. You can continue to hide behind your "I won't debate Morals!" facade all you want, because we all know you really just don't want to admit you have no reason to oppose it, other than your own bigoted morals.

You've yet to prove to me that you aren't an ignorant bigot. In fact, all of your comments up to this point pretty much support my claim. Pathetic.

Re: On Games and Religion

"No. You have no good argument as to why gays can't marry. AE's asked for a legitimate argument, and so have I. You refuse to give us one, because there isn't a SINGLE argument against gay marriage that is based in realistic, non-bigoted ideas. You can continue to hide behind your "I won't debate Morals!" facade all you want, because we all know you really just don't want to admit you have no reason to oppose it, other than your own bigoted morals."

There are arguments against gay marriage and I choose not to describe them on my time. Do you know why? Let's say I do. You'll just attack that and insist on an argument, even though neither of us would win due to the reason I have repeated again and again. Admit it, you would attack the view, instigating a debate, one that wouldn't end in a victory for either of us. I really don't feel like wasting my time. In fact the only way we could possible end the debate well is if, by some chance, we just made peace and had a truce. And there is no way in hell you would accept a truce. Face it, one of us would just leave the debate, sick of the whole thing.  You want to find a good argument? Look for it yourself. I have no obligation to do so, especially if I don't want to debate something. You will not muscle me into one either. And as for hiding behind a facade, I will not be brought out into a debate by the equivalent of, but still just as childish, "you're a chicken" tactic. You telling me I'm afraid. That's the tactics you use? That show your maturity level. Oh, and AE may be willing to have a legitmate debate, but you sure aren't! You can't have a legitmate debate without civility and respect for your opposition's belief on the subject. You lack both. Actually, the idea of you in a legitimate debate is actually kind of funny.

"You've yet to prove to me that you aren't an ignorant bigot. In fact, all of your comments up to this point pretty much support my claim. Pathetic."

I'm pretty sure I did quite a while back, but I'm willing to do it again.

bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

First, I don't let my beliefs or opinions make me intolerant to that of another. I hold no prejudices to any group. And to cover the ending, I don't have feelings of hate against anyone, nor intolerance. Certainly not to people who simply don't share my belief.

And don't forget the little issue about you being bigoted out of your own admitance.

 

 

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: On Games and Religion

Using your inane logic about laws, it was perfectly fine for black people to be slaves, to not be allowed to vote, and not be allowed to use the same facilities as white people, when those laws were in effect, too, right? I mean, they were law, and the law reflects the people's will, therefore those laws weren't wrong in any way, shape, or form. So, what, you are a racist as well as an anti-gay bigot? Boy, I sure am learning a lot about you.

The fact is that they deprived people of thier rights solely because they happen to be different than what was percieved as "normal" back then. Too bad there's no modern fight to compare that to. Wait! There is! The only thing that's changed between then and now is who the victims were. First it was women's rights, then it was Minority rights, and now it is Gay Rights. No matter the victim, restricting someone's rights by law, just because they are different than you is WRONG, no matter who you are. If you don't agree, you are a bigot, plain and simple.

Re: On Games and Religion

Edit: Whoops wrong reply.

My thoughts on this. I say you can be both. While I'm not religious, I've learned that you can't label something because of a negatve minorty. I think you can be a simple mix of both (gamer and religous) if you don't let one or the other be a majority. I see often that people who have major problems with games are those who tend to go a bit overboard with thier religion. The same goes for a gamer though, if you hold onto the beliefs that what one small group might say or do means that everyone eles is the same.

Does anyone eles understand my point?

 

Re: On Games and Religion

"Mike Gingras writes from the viewpoint of a religious gamer, noting that players are constantly breaking the Ten Commandments in-game, but he takes a broadminded approach to it all"

Wow, who knew the Ten Commandments applied to fictional characters? Doesn't this mean that you're breaking the Ten Commandments when you read the Holy Bible? If religious people want to be taken seriously they need to decided exactly what they make believe in and stop changing their minds.

Re: On Games and Religion

The problem isn't religous people changing their minds, it's about the many different religous types that have different opinions, even within the same religon.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: On Games and Religion

Attention all, Valdearg has admitted to his bigotry. Check around for his post. It's way above where we are now, but he said it.  It's the one shortly after the "whining" pic. Thank you, and good night.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: On Games and Religion

That's messed up.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: On Games and Religion

"Probably not; it sounds like he simply doesn't belong to a fundamentalist group. Quite a few religious groups are fairly open-minded and have no problem with their members playing video games or watching movies. The real problem here is that the stereotype of religious people is based on the foaming-at-the-mouth fundamentalists, so when someone says he's religious, people automatically assume he's one of the nutters."

 

Pretty much yep.  I was raised Christian in a very small town.  I played D&D when I was a kid.  The pastor of the church I went to was a pretty level headed guy, as was most of the congregation from what I remember.  My stepmom kept an eye on what I was doing and everything was OK.  A friend of mine, however, went to a church a few miles away, and his pastor was one who thought D&D was directly from hell.  This friend of mine would get visibly shaken when I and the other players would break out the game stuff.  He had been told that we would sit and do actual spells and incantations, and that the game figures would become animated and move around on their own.  It took a lot of convincing from the rest of that his pastor was nuts.

Having spent a good deal of my life on the wrong end of so much hatred and misunderstanding has taught me to take a breath and be very careful about generalizing and *always* seeking the truth before running off at the mouth.  Unfortunately, it is a lesson most people seem never to learn.

 

 

Your Yak is Weak!

Your Yak is Weak!

Re: On Games and Religion

Exactly. My hometown (which isn't huge but isn't small either) has more churches than I can to count. I'm good friends with the family of one of the pastors in town (he's the pastor of a fairly conservatice church--organ music, psalter hymnal, that sort of thing) and I just spent the better part of the night playing video games with him and his 5th grade son. We also have one (and it's the only one out of something like two dozen total) ultra-conservative church in town that hates pretty much anything non-churchy and even disowns any "Christian" music that isn't found in their hymnal. There are some crazies out there, but (at least around here in the midwest) they aren't that prominent.

The stereotypes are ridiculous. Most Christians aren't fundamentalist nuts. They play the same video games, read the same books, and watch the same movies as everyone else. The problem is that these peoplare are not as vocal or confrontational about their beliefs, so others aren't likely to recognize them as Christians without getting to know them well. People carrying around "God hates you" signs are much more obviously identifying themselves as "Christian," so I think the stereotype is based off the most conspicious element of the group even if it isn't representative. And, no matter how many level-headed Christians some people meet, they still hold to the old stereotype of the Bible-thumping fire-and-brimstone fundamentalist.

Re: On Games and Religion

Why does every topic remotely related to religion have to turn into some sort of stupid pissing match? 95% of the people in these debates don't know crap about religion anyway (on either side of the debate, mind you), and they just end up going over the same old incorrect BS every time. Seriously people, get over it and keep your uninformed opinions to yourselves. We don't need to turn every topic into an excuse to show off e-peen by trying to shove your beliefs down others' throats through your uninformed, biased "arguments."

Re: On Games and Religion

As any reader of this website knows full well, videogames and religion tend to mix like oil and water.

Put quite simply, no. Videogames and religious fundamentalists mix like oil and water, but not the religion.

A number of pastors, reverends, and even a bishop that I have met play videogames of a variety of sorts. They even play ones that the fundies of their religion say are inherintly evil and laugh about them. Why? because they do not preach that videogames are evil, but instead preach that videogames are a work of fiction for entertainment or sometimes educational purposes. Heck, one pastor I knew played Xenogears, which is up there in ones that people question religion on, and he liked it because it made him realize how to best approach people who question their faith.

Re: On Games and Religion

What religion are you a part of?  You, and these individuals, may be mis-labeling your belief system.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Has a video game ever made you so mad you broke the controller?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
ZenOk, so yeah...it's kind of a lie...but I HAD to go with "Nope. I'm zen." lol. Only broke one controller myself (PS3) on a playthrough of Uncharted that got frustrating.07/09/2014 - 10:38pm
MechaTama31I am not proud of this, but I had to select the "multiple times" option. Not for the same game, but I went through several controllers (particularly dreamcast ones. fragile, maybe?)07/09/2014 - 6:52pm
Andrew EisenI'd say breaking a handheld out of anger counts (even if it's just the hinge). Likewise, I'd say busting a keyboard or mouse counts so long as you were playing a game at the time.07/09/2014 - 12:28pm
ConsterAnd since there happened to be (without me realizing) a towel which broke the fall resulting in 'only' a damaged hinge, would that be option 2 or 4?07/09/2014 - 12:23pm
ConsterAbout the most recent poll: since the "controller" for the DS is basically part of the DS, does throwing my DS against the floor because Mario Basketball cheats count?07/09/2014 - 12:22pm
Sleakersaw this on Forbes, thought it was pretty good: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/06/03/if-comcast-and-time-warner-dont-compete-then-why-shouldnt-they-merge/07/08/2014 - 9:09pm
Adam802the Sun is claiming games are as addictive as herion: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-07-08-the-real-story-behind-the-suns-gaming-as-addictive-as-heroin-headline07/08/2014 - 6:43pm
ZippyDSMleeIt takes 2-6 days to transferfunds to your bank, it can take up to 30 days for ebay to give you moeny from a sale. But lord to spend it its instant!07/08/2014 - 10:50am
Cheater87http://www.twinfinite.net/2014/07/08/evil-within-receive-gore-mode-dlc-japan/07/08/2014 - 10:00am
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/07/08/bandai-namco-pulling-tales-of-phantasia-soon-to-be-unusable/ BN is shutting down Tales of Phantasia, and nothing of value will be lost.07/08/2014 - 9:34am
Sleaker3 business days when I've done it in the past.07/08/2014 - 12:54am
MaskedPixelanteOk, thanks.07/07/2014 - 9:12pm
Sora-Chan@MP If I recall correctly, it takes a few days.07/07/2014 - 7:49pm
MaskedPixelanteJust a few hours, it concerned me because I checked my bank account after the purchase was made, and no money appeared to be gone. At least with CC, it changes my credit limit when I purchase something, even if it doesn't process for a few days.07/07/2014 - 2:44pm
E. Zachary KnightNever done one that way, but I know the other way often takes forever and a day. How long have you been waiting?07/07/2014 - 2:28pm
MaskedPixelanteHas anyone ever done a bank-to-Paypal transfer before? How long does it usually take?07/07/2014 - 1:26pm
TheSmokeyViolent video games may actually increase players' sensitivity: study - http://technology.canoe.ca/Gaming/News/2014/06/30/21775831-relaxnews.html07/07/2014 - 12:37pm
E. Zachary KnightIf anyone wants to know, I just launched a Kickstarter campaign for my game Demon's Hex. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ezknight/demons-hex-cross-platform-collectible-token-game07/07/2014 - 11:09am
Cheater87Australia to get stricter game regualtion? http://mmgn.com/ps4/news--australia-s-tyrannical-game-censorship-legisl07/05/2014 - 1:53pm
MaskedPixelanteNo, I'm just saying that, were Ubisoft to shut down, the only thing of value lost would be Ubiart.07/05/2014 - 9:38am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician