And yet I doubt you could actually find a law that prohibits same sex marriage before relatively recently. Say before 30 years ago.

So what? You can't find a law that specifically prohibits me from marrying a gibbon. That doesn't mean it isn't prohibited and it doesn't change that fact prior to the law change, gay people were not able to legally marry.

You can type a lot of words, I'll give you that. Very little else.

So your argument is that if there isn't a law against it or specifically allows it then it is against the law.

There is no low specifically prohibiting punching yourself in the face, is that illegal? It is according to you. It isn't according to the law, you know, the thing that determines legality...

<moderator voice>

Any further discussion along this line of reasoning without links to reliable sources will result in thread closure.

</moderator voice>

So your argument is that if there isn't a law against it or specifically allows it then it is against the law.

No, the argument is that it is covered under blanket laws against non-normative forms of sexuality.

For example, the many, many laws against Sodomy that pretty much every American state had on the books up until 2003.

I just love when moderators say "stop talking about this subject" and then right after voice their opinion so that you can't respond to them them without them thinking they are justifiably censoring people who show they are wrong.

I'm not going to link to the definition of sodomy or a wikipedia article cuz you can find it yourself, which would cover the reliable source thing, and instead just point out that a law against Sodomy is not a law against same sex marriage. While sex and marriage tend to go together, it is not the same thing, and if you were to mix the two as you are trying to do it would explicitly also be a law against heterosexual marriage as well considering all the things that are covered under sodomy are things that straight couples like and do as well.

So no, those laws do not support the claim, however they can be used in that way as I explained earlier that there are loopholes in laws that allow bigotry, however these specific laws have nothing to do with homosexuality, but rather they are what is called a blue law that tries to ban all sex save for missionary position for religious reasons.

All this just goes to show my case and return to the original point. Why does Promit and apparently a few others think it is ok to be bigoted and say bigoted things? Not just anywhere but specifically in an area where the people they are specifically being bigoted against are the people that they are being given power to censor. Further, why do you think it's a relevant argument to dissociate with a group based on such lies. Those lies have nothing to actually do with whether one would be a gamer or not and even if they did and you actually cared for that community that is about playing games, not some stupid social justice nonsense, then what you would do is associate yourself with the label and present boldly what you are so as change things in the way that that you care about. You have to show that there is a demographic there that will buy into these things for the companies to make games to sell to them. By dissociating all you are doing is preventing that from happening and spreading lies, damaging that which you claim to like or love or be a part of.

I just love when moderators say "stop talking about this subject" and then right after voice their opinion so that you can't respond to them them without them thinking they are justifiably censoring people who show they are wrong.

That isn't what he said at all. He said:

Any further discussion along this line of reasoning without links to reliable sources will result in thread closure.

Which means, if you are going to continue to discuss this, stop posting your speculated opinion and start posting links to prove your point.

On topic, is there a game you played that made you feel like you lost part of yourself playing it because it was so terrible? I'd have to say Steel Harbinger on Playstation One was it for me.

Durraken, please just shut up. All you're doing is embarrassing yourself and derailing an otherwise interesting thread.

If you want to rant about inverse sexism/racism/homophobia, start your own thread about how persecuted you are. Or better yet, post it on stormfront or NOM or somewhere else where someone gives a damn, 'cos no-one here does.

No it really isn't interesting. Are you [insert label] never are, because it's a conversation based post-modernist nonsense. Labels have meanings. If you fit the definition of a label then you are that, if you don't you aren't. You can disagree with the label existing which i have done. Or you can say that it's a different class of label, but you'd be wrong and it is easy to tell. So if you post here, the answer to the question is yes, if the label is used and you play games then you are a gamer. End of thread.

There is no such thing as "inverse" whatever. There is just bigotry.

That you don't care IS the problem that I'm raising here. Promit is being bigoted towards many of you that post here are sticking up for Promit.

Any further discussion along this line of reasoning without links to reliable sources will result in thread closure.

Which means, if you are going to continue to discuss this, stop posting your speculated opinion and start posting links to prove your point.

Nothing I have said is speculation, but to completely show the case would require people to read books, wiki articles, and be more familiar with the topic which most of you are not willing to do so there is no point, but those who do care, then I shouldn't have to because they should go check into it. I implore you to think about what I've said and look into the people I've mentioned.

And no a line of reasoning is not synonymous with speculation. That's just silly v.v

Anyways, not worth any more of my time. Have fun.

Seriously, how dumb do you have to be to think gay marriage wasn't prohibited prior to the recent changes in law?

Nobody cares about your narrow minded views, unless you consider disgust to be caring.

You going into unusual primitive further

You consider seriously (apart ot topic context which i mostly do not read) that some person who lets say has a wrong information must be dumb? This is exceptionally primitive. Dont you consider yourself dumb if you are not ashemed to write such logical holes tied with insulting?