Gaming Heavies throw their weight behind marriage equality
By Jess Colwill on July 20, 2012 at 4:55 pm
Three gaming titans, namely EA, Microsoft and Zynga, have joined the growing list of companies and cities that are filing a brief to legally challenge the Defence of Marriage Act, which as you might know, states marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.
In EA’s announcement they cite financial and tax reasons for supporting for cause, but alongside their equal opportunities policy, seems like they’re just more interested in doing the right thing.
Source: VG247
EA reportedly lays off its internal analysis and review team
Around 20 more staff let go.
EA: “The lion’s share of PCs on the marketplace” could not run EA Sports games
Not enough high-end gaming PCs to support the engine, among FIFA players.
Microsoft says the solution for gamers who can’t get the internet is… the Xbox 360
Microsoft not winning any PR awards this year.
You can use the following bbCode
[i], [b], [img], [quote], [url href="http://www.google.com/"]Google[/url]
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
facebook
twitter
google+
rss
Why challenge the definition of the word marriage? I don’t get it.
Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a women. Legally, same sex couples have the same rights as male/female couples so why change the meaning of a word?
If marriage is the union between a man and a women, let people make up another word that will define the union a man and a man or an women and a women. Words change there meaning over time with use. Eg, look up an old dictionary and compare it with a new one, new words and different meanings. To legally challenge the meaning of a word is ridiculous,
I can’t believe there is such political argument over the definition of a word.
spaz84,
It’s not about the definition of the word, it’s about the legal act of two people of same sex being able to become a legally bound couple.
It used to be illegal in many Western countries for people of two different races to get married, but the legal definition was changed and this is now allowed. Was this a bad thing?
The bad thing is that people wish to be legally bound at all. It’s a funny thing when people are demanding to be bound by something, as the very definition of being bound is to be limited.
Making private vows between two people regardless of sex have as much if not more force than any legal crap. The legal crap is purely for purposes other entities (government, church, etc…) being able to exact rules upon the people in question. Something I generally find unacceptable.
I think it would be more unacceptable if the rules and laws surrounding marriage and defacto partnership were abolished. It would be great if everybody was responsible and reasonable enough to handle their relationship issues privately, but unfortunately this happens only some of the time and so the court system needs guidelines to be able to resolve issues of custody and property when people legally separate.
Yay, good on them. While it doesn’t do much for the Australian politics of the issue, it’s good exposure and hopefully gets gamers talking.
Spaz, the problem is it’s not just the world. It’s the federal government and some parties essentially saying “There is just something about you I don’t like, so you can’t have the same rights as everyone else”, and while it might seem like they should make up a new word, that’s still just another level of discrimination, akin to the “separate but equal” stuff America used to do to it’s People of Colour.
Why do you need to sit on the same part of the bus, you can just have this part of the bus to yourself, it’s the exact same anyways.
vencha88,
Also by world I meant word*
Perhaps (given this is an Australian audience) pointing out that this is an act before the US legislature and not in Australia at all would be worthwhile.
Nothing of this nature is happening in Australia, at all.
The thing is, Marriage stems itself from the Christian religion, however it’s not just Christian marriages that same-sex couples are denied from, it’s all forms of marriage even civil unions which have nothing to do with religion.
And let it be known, the religious groups are one of the largest advocates of denying any form of same-sex unions.
It’s discrimination pure and simple and should be illegal, we all bleed the same colour of blood afterall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage.
spaz84,
Exactly what this fella said. I’m all for gay couples becoming legally bound, but call it something else. Marriage defines union between a man and a woman.
I can’t really see how “Oh just get your own thing the exact same” can just be an argument on it’s own. It’s really really hard to believe that anybody who says that, doesn’t actually have an issue with it. If you truly were for it, why does the slight alteration of our particular countries use of the word matter?
It is less “legally challenging the meaning” but “challenging the legal meaning” The idea that marriage is a union between man and woman becomes irrelevant in what is proposed. The law in question is based upon scriptures first and foremost and what people are seeking to do is effectively restate what marriage is for the purpose of “legal stuff” (support, welfare, taxes and so on, stuff that will affect you irrespective of what gender, race, religion or sexual orientation you have).
On one hand, people underestimate just how much you are ‘legally bound’ with your partner of choice just by living in a codependent situation for a certain period of time: children, property and general money and investments are all included (only in Australia).
And on the other, prostitution is legal so any argument against gay marriage is specious and moot (QEFD – the f stand for fantastic :P)…
Slight difference. On one hand you’re talking about judging people based by their race or colour, which is quite obviously wrong. On the other hand you’re talking about judging people by their actions, which I don’t have issue with. It seems the lobbyists want to have their cake and eat it too – “let’s live in this unnatural relationship together, and have all the privileges offered by an ordinary relationship as well!” Sorry, doesn’t make any sense on any level, and I hope same that sex marriage never becomes reality.
Marriage is a defined institution with specific entry requirements (being a man and woman). Now imagine if another institution like Mensa was forced by a government to accept people that don’t meet the entry requirement (IQ) under the guise of “equality”. This would completely defeat the purpose of the organisation as it would no longer be a place for people with high IQ’s.
I don’t buy the equality argument either as there is not one shred of evidence that points to its existence.
I am a huge fan on equality on this part, and until recently I am felt that redefining marriage is the fairest way to go. But I think an even better and more socially relatable idea is to remove the marriage act. It simply based upon too much history and doesn’t really fit the world view of many people nowadays. People simply declare their relationship to be that of one that we would call a marriage and they recieve the entitlements that come with that. There are plenty of de facto relationships that don’t want the label marriage but still deserve the rights and entitlements that sort of relationship allows.
Of course religious institutions are absolutely entitled to perform marriage ceremonies but the government doesn’t have the right to be engaged in the labelling of legitimate relationships. Therefore it just isn’t necessary to have a government sanctioned marriage act. They should purely deal with the legal and taxation ramifications of said relationship.
However, this doesn’t fit into the cultures that practice polygamy (which I personally feel is exploitative) and also communal based child rearing. So I don’t have any answers for that sort of predicament.
texelate,
Marriage has had numerous definitions over the course of human history, not all of which fall under the definition of one man and one woman being legally joined. Moreover, even the modern Western marriage has a rather sullied history as a tool of statecraft, economics, criminality and politics. What people think the institution has to lose by the admission of gay couples is a mystery to me.
vcatkiller,
Your lobbyist seems to be a straw-man as far as I’m concerned. No advocate for gay rights that I’ve ever heard of would deem homosexual relationships to be “unnatural”, nor would they ever concede that the relationship choice of two mutually consenting adults was ever grounds for judgement. I’m sure you’ll find that future generations will find your judging of people based on their sexuality to be just as wrong as the racism you find wrong today. Oh and those future generations will be able to get gay married too :3.
chipotley,
That’s a pretty ridiculous argument. Mensa exists so that its members can meet each other and gather at regular occasions, while the institution of marriage has no such requirements or expecations. It is quite frankly absurb to compare the two. If you feel your straight marriage is threatened by the existence of gay ones, then you are free to ignore them to your heart’s content, but you are not free to deny them equal treatment under the law.
There is a wealth of evidence as to the inequality that exists because of the inability of gay couples to be married under the law. In 2007 the-then Attorney-General Robert McClelland identified over 100 laws that discriminated against gay couples. While many of these inequalities have since been ameliorated, they cannot be truly eradicated until the institution of marriage is made equally accessible to all couples.
I’m sure that the people to whom I’ve replied are probably still against gay marriage, my advice to all three of you is that if you don’t like gay marriage… then don’t get gay married.
Jez, my argument wasn’t Mensa = marriage. I used it to highlight how ridiculous the “equality” argument is when applying it to other institutions, rendering their definition useless. I completely object to the ideological corruption of language.
chipotley,
The two institutions are not comparable for a number of reasons:
1. Mensa is a private organisation and thus has considerably more leeway when it comes to deciding who they do and do not admit, marriage is a public institution and thus is bound much more strictly in this area.
2. Membership in Mensa does not confer any other privileges except the ability to go to Mensa meetings — and maybe to brag. While being married confers a number of sizeable economic and legal benefits that are cumbersome to replicate in other ways.
3. Mensa membership uses performance-based metrics (IQ tests) in order to determine membership, while the institution of marriage uses no such requirements as a prerequisite for entry.
I’m sure there are other reasons as well. I don’t really think that I have ideologically corrupted the language in this thread, but you are free to think otherwise. Personally I don’t really regard myself as an ideologue on this issue, I think supporting the rights of gay people is part-and-parcel of being a decent human being, but each to their own.