Hurlshort

Eh, I'm on my 5th character. While there are a few quests I rush through because I've done them enough times, the unique character plots keep it pretty fresh. The trick for me is to alternate imp/republic characters. I also haven't taken one all the way to the cap. Also I'm pleasantly surprised how often the dialogue changes with the quests available to all. My Mercenary elicits a very different reaction from quest givers than my Sith warrior.

I've gotten back into Skyrim a bit. I'm still not totally in love with it. I think it's the pacing, it just feels a bit too slow, and I'm a bit tired of climbing around in caves. There sure are a lot of people living in caves. Maybe it's the damp air that makes them so irritable, because they also like throw themselves on my sword, and it is getting a bit dull. I had a nice vampire quest where a family was burned alive in their home, and I did some investigation to find the culprit. I found her and took care of her in the basement of her home. For a second I thought this was finally going to be a quest where I didn't have to crawl through a cave. Then they made me go crawl through a cave to kill some master vampire.

I didn't even know it was slated for release this year.

I voted for Hong Kong in the second round. Your vote is now cancelled out Shady!

Huh, I really haven't found a storyline that didn't appeal to me in some way. But I'm a sucker for the Bioware pulp fiction machine, so that helps.

This game is completely designed around the idea that you need to focus on multiple characters. Independent storylines, unique companions, and the legacy system mean that if you only play one character, you are completely missing out on content. THat's why I was surprised so many people leveled one character and then quit.

Yeah, I've enjoyed the crafting system more now that I have a solid understanding of how they all work together. My first couple characters stumbled through it and eventually stopped progressing, but now my characters work together a but more naturally. It's fun to set aside stuff for my legacy characters too, and really the best way to keep all your orange gear up to level is to craft the mods.

My guess is TOR will take at least two years before it enters a free to play stage. You might get an amalgamate system earlier, like free starter worlds or something similar.

But it becomes a civil rights issue because married couples are afforded more rights by the state than non-married couples, no? In the case of straight people, you could argue this doesn't matter, because they have the choice to marry and receive those extra rights or not. But in the case of gay people, they have no such choice. Actually they do. No one is preventing them from getting married, just getting married to someone of the same gender. That is the fig leaf that makes this not a civil rights issue. ASFAIK all States support a civil union that grants gay couples equal rights even if the do not call it marriage. Once again that makes it just a word. I wish we could trust states to move forward on this issue and give equal rights to everyone on their own, but North Carolina just passed legislation that gets rid of both marriage and civil unions for gay couples. Arkansas used the national guard to stop black students from entering Little Rock in 1957, without federal intervention who knows how long we would have kept schools segregated? Much like your claim that gay people can get married, just not the way they want, black students could go to public schools, just not with white students. That's why I call this a civil rights issue.

No it only means that you like gay black women. Not only that, he is their champion!

I feel like Volourn and Oner kind of miss the point of the thread.

Well there is already plenty of data to suggest that gay parents do not result in tons of gay children. I'm actually surprised to hear you say that at all. Do you think homosexuality is a choice? I've just never understood that position. Why would you choose that, given the discrimination that will come with it? I know I've never had to convince myself I am attracted to women, it is completely natural. It takes no effort, if anything he effort lies in not staring at every pair of boobies I come in contact with. Given that, it is easy for me to believe that someone who is not attracted to the opposite sex is not making a conscious choice.

If I am seriously religious and married to a woman, how does gay marriage force me to do anything? It doesn't affect my beliefs at all, it doesn't lessen my personal experience in my wedded bliss. At least it shouldn't. As I said, if you are concerned about marriage as a religious institution being attacked, then you should be going after the atheists and the folks eloping in Vegas, not just gay couples. C'mon Hurlie, can you seriously not see how the entire concept is undermined by allowing same-sex couples to get married? I used the word existential for a reason. As someone who is utterly devoted to my wife I fail to see how anyone else's marriage affects me at all. It is between me, my wife, my children, and God. No one else matters in that equation. That's the way it should be. If I did let this stuff affect me, the problem is I know a lot of man-woman couples that are terrible. You see it on TV regularly, it seems to be a requirement in order to get a reality show. Those folks would seem to do a lot more to undermine marriage than the gay couples I know.

I dont get it either. Because you CAN be gay and deeply christian. Radical concepts I'm spouting, I know. C'mon, try a little harder. Since the very book their beliefs are founded on openly calls homosexuals sinners, one would expect these sinners to not feel so good about that and not want to be associated with an organization that finds them to be unequal to others. You might be surprised to know the bible is anything but clear when it comes to matters of homosexuality. Here is an interesting wiki on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testament The point being that the bible is fairly vague on the matter. It is much more condemning of those who worship money, for example. Not to mention their is a laundry list of stuff the Old Testament rails against that has become accepted by modern society. A literal interpretation of the bible is not something that any major church goes by today.

If I am seriously religious and married to a woman, how does gay marriage force me to do anything? It doesn't affect my beliefs at all, it doesn't lessen my personal experience in my wedded bliss. At least it shouldn't. As I said, if you are concerned about marriage as a religious institution being attacked, then you should be going after the atheists and the folks eloping in Vegas, not just gay couples.

I dont get it either. Because you CAN be gay and deeply christian. Radical concepts I'm spouting, I know. Exactly. There is no shortage of churches accepting of gay members, by the way.

Yes. It's not like gay couples are suddenly interested in getting married, society has finally progressed far enough where they don't have to hide their relationships. My former principal is in his 60's and has been with his partner for 40 years. Why shouldn't the government recognize them legally as husband and husband? Also with the adoption hurdles mostly cleared for gay couples, they are raising children. Again, why wouldn't the government recognize them like any other family? The legislation that just passed in North Carolina didn't just strike down gay marriage, it struck down civil unions as well. We can't rely on majority votes and opinions any longer on this, the progress is too slow. Just like the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's, we need protection from the tyranny of the majority.

This argument reminds me of the whole segregation one out of the 50's. Minorities deserve public education, but they should have separate schools. As long as the government is involved in marriage as an institution, they need to prevent discrimination. Marriage is not just a religious ceremony. Atheists can get married. There are theme chapels in Vegas. There are also quite a few churches that support gay rights, I attend one on occasion. I would be fine with the government getting out of the wedding business entirely. If civil unions give the same rights and are available to all equally, I would happily accept that. But I don't see that happening anytime soon, so until then I say the government needs to do what it can to prevent discrimination.

Not sure if serious. The cover is really more of a play on words because he is the first American President to come out in support of gay marriage. ...That's not much of a play, just blatant misinformation. Only for someone that is completely misinformed to begin with. The cover isn't coming out of nowhere, it is clearly a response to his recent stance on gay marriage.

I'd say both parties are actively trying to represent the diversity of the country, and it clearly paid off in the Obama campaign 3 years ago. The problem for the Republican party is they have a decent sized constituency that wants nothing to do with diversity, and so they have to tread a lot more cautiously. But even the Democrats have to do some work here. Obama had to get on the phone with a bunch of pastors to explain his stance here, because they can't afford to lose too many votes over this.

Not sure if serious. The cover is really more of a play on words because he is the first American President to come out in support of gay marriage.

A conversation on this was getting started in the funny things thread, so I thought it might be better of on its own. This Newsweek cover may be a bit sensationalist, but if you read the article that goes along with it, it is a very touching piece about how important Obama's stance is. Gorgon wrote: I'm not a huge fan of Obama, I recognize he is still a politician, I haven't been overly impressed with his term. But he could have hedged here, taken a middle of the road stance like every other politician before him. Instead he did the right thing, and I applaud that. Whatever his motives are, it is a huge step to have the President support the equal rights of a minority group. I just don't see a more important issue in our country than eliminating discrimination. It isn't a political issue at all, it is about human rights. Those who stand against giving equal rights to minorities never look good under the light of history. Now I would love to see the Republic party leadership step up and join Obama in this statement against discrimination. I think they should, I know they have a good amount of people in the party that believe in it. But until they do, they are standing on the wrong side.

I guess that is funny in an awesome, accepting of others and taking a great stand against discrimination kind of way.

I'm getting the same thing LC. It doesn't helped that the wind has picked up.

LA over Phoenix in 5 - LA has come alive in the postseason, they have depth. I do like Shane Doan though, so I would be happy seeing either one. NJD over NYR in 6 - The Devils should be better rested, they've started to click, and the Rangers can't possibly limit teams to 1 goal all postseason...right?