How many Republicans are running on an antigay marriage platform?  It is a big issue to gain the Christian vote.

And I know lots of Christians, shit I live in Kansas, this state tried to end the teaching of Evolution in schools because it conflicted with the bible.  I know lots of Christians.  And few know anything about their religion or holy book.

First we had: 

And then: 

Yes, we judge behavior, in this case homosexuality, by either approving or condemning it. Approving homosexuality goes against God. 

So what!

I'm here for the first time simply because I found a timely article about updating Star Wars:The Old Republic video game and brought it to your attention. Did not Pacov entitled his article a "discussion thread"? 

I'm not the one who first brought up religion or Almighty God in the discussion. It was only after others framed their comments around religion that I added my 2 cents worth.

Yes, of course the rules (or laws) from the spiritual realm apply to our material/physical thoughts, words and actions. We can't get away from it even if we try. These rules are called the Natural or Moral Law which is written in our heart.  The sense of moral obligation confirms these rules. In every one of us there is a sense of right and wrong. A man knows interiorly when he is doing wrong. Something rebukes his conduct. He knows that he is going against an inward voice. It's the voice of conscience, a law we did not make and which no man could have made for this voice protests whether other men know our conduct or not. This voice is often quite against what we wish to do, warning us beforehand condemning us after its violation. The law dictated by this voice of conscience supposes a Lawgiver who has written His Law in our hearts. 

Now, apply that to the coming updated video game and the issue and choice of either condoning or condemning homosexuality and exposing that to children. 

You are not posting from a Stardock video game forum. You have not gotten any karma from a video game related thread. I'd check your post history but I can't seem to find it. I've never read any posts from you to indicate that you are a gamer and certainly not of this game. Thus with what I know about the content of your previous posts I conclude you do not care about this game or the industry other than your wish for your own morals to influence them. Even if other people really took off with it your link is clearly the cause of this thread derailment.

Morality is a subjective aspect of the human psyche. There no moral absolutes in humanity. In fact, some people have totally thrown out the idea of right and wrong in favor of more pragmatic terminology. I guess this is opinion-logic you seem to mistake for logic. I have never heard of any legitimate claims of innate morality. We see other moral codes and internalize them. I guess that is what it comes down to in your argument and presence in this forum that is foreign to you. Seeing gay performed in a game will probably affect children below the age of 12. It will seem normal and harmless. One choice among millions that doesn't affect anyone else in a significant way. If morality was innate, you might have a point, but really you are just trying to spread your brand of morality on the assumption that children need special protection from homosexual content. I guess if there were any other parents on this forum that also wanted to make sure their children thought exactly what they did, your presence here would be slightly welcome. As it stands, you seem to barking up the wrong tree.

I've been reading right along... been super swamped at work and then being a nerd/good husband after hours... hope to catch up with some thought out posts when i can. 

Well, to be honest, I made it about 70% through lula's last reply - I'll do some more reading tomorrow between meetings (side note... 2 days of 8 hour+ training for me... pacov is wiped on the work end lately).  Anyway, here's all I want to say.  Lula is certainly welcome to post here.  Please get that.  It's a general discussion thread about the old republic.  She's completely on topic, even if she doesn't normally join in on the video game jibber jabber. 

I know this is clearly going into a religious or morality discussion, but hopefully everyone can have a good discussion and not just slam one side or the other. We can all be friendly here.  Choose to do so, please.

2nd side note - thanks for the folks that explained things a little more (eg you fellas that corrected my misunderstanding about marriage in SWTOR).  To be crystal clear, there aren't marriages in SWTOR.  You currently have the ability to engage in sexual relations with various NPCs and companions in the game.  Per the article, there will be the ability to have sexual relations with members of the same sex - and apparently there was lobbying to make that happen for some reason (though that sounds strange - tis what the article in question says).

To clarify yet again, there's no marriage either in homo or hetero situations.  It's sex outside of marriage period.  And I'll add, SWTOR has MANY, MANY scenes involving torture, often encouraging the player to torture, etc. 

Hopefully, that much sets the overall record straight.  What remains is a discussion regarding the morality of this sort of thing in SWTOR.  And again, to completely clarify, if you want to address this at its root without getting into a discussion about homosexuality, the game allows folks to participate in torture and sex out of wedlock.  You can throw the new "feature" of same sex romance onto the pile, but I think its safe to say that lula and like minded folks are not a fan of those 2 things without even involving same sex relationships. 

Anyway - off to bed.  Thanks for everyone sharing their thoughts... hope to get some time to contribute meaningfully as well soon.

I wonder how quickly this thread will get locked ...

As far as moral relativism I'll organize what I've observed in an over simplistic way, like I would any video-game based observations

The Hedonists -> Pleasure is the most important. Some hedonists can also be pragmatists.

Pragmatists -> Success is best. Do what works, having skills and being productive is equivalent to being morally correct. Some can also be judgementalist/self righteous. Others can be hedonists. Others might be Thinkers.

Judgementalists -> Be the Moral Authority. Being Judemental is the best, as you can steer the herd in the right direction. (are almost never Hedonists)

Ascetics -> Self Denial is best. Fast, Celibacy, no TV, etc. Absence of pleasure is morally correct. Some may be judgemental, none are Hedonist (direct opposite of hedonism)

Family First -> Relatives are above all else, and beyond that the Community is the most important thing. Many are also Judgementalist. Some may also be Pragmatists.

Truth Seekers/Thinkers -> Finding the truth/ eternal truths is the most righteous path. Some follow a strict set of guidelines, others follow their own path. Many end up believing there is no eternal truth, but keep looking anyway because its in their nature. Those of the former are usually those seeking enlightenment, while those of the last subset are usually scientists or philosophers. (or psuedo-scientists)

Nature Lovers -> The earth is the most important aspect of our universe. Protecting the earth is the most morally just cause.

Humanists -> 'everyone be happy' the happiness of one's fellow humans is most important. Some are Hedonists, others are Family First. None are judgemental (this is the direct opposite of a judgementalist)

Usually various forms of 'Counter Culture' are either Hedonist, Truth Seekers, or Humanists.

I obviously left out the mentally insane and those whose souls have been twisted into something dark and destructive. The latter may also be a part of some counter culture movements, but also may occupy some of the ranks of the 'pragmatists'.

And I think that is about everything I can think of at this moment!

I may add more if other categories come to mind.

While this is true in a theoretical sense, in practice this is not so clear cut. The Epicureans, despite the modern definition of the word, believed in the "rational pursuit of pleasure". What this seems to have meant is that the Epicureans recognized that unrestrained Hedonism would in fact lead to individuals having less happy/pleasurable lives due to their excessive desires that could never be realized (or at great cost), thus a certain degree of personal self restraint was required. Or perhaps that is what you meant by pragmatists, but either way I'd be careful with your mutually exclusives, chances someone has found some (if quite likely crazy) philosophy to include both seemingly contradictory elements.

Certainly not a bad list for a quick internet post.

True, Hedonism is more on the desire-based pleasure side of things, while Asceticism is usually pleasure based upon having no desires (or at least Buddhism seeks to remove suffering with the removal of desire).

The thing is, is this pleasure? Or simply the removal of suffering. Personally I think its semantics

--> I'd agree though, that life is usually better if you aren't constantly pursuing desire-based pleasure, but instead take a path of moderation.

(and actually Buddhism is more a path of moderation ... but that is sort of like a 1st parter Truth Seeker, with perhaps an element of pragmatism)

But I guess what I would ultimately answer is that anyone following a religion could interpret it in a number of ways, and it would usually fall into one of these categories.

For instance ... most Buddhists and Hindus would likely fall into the Family First Category, while only those more spiritually inclined would fall into one of the Truth Seeker categories.

While most protestant Christians would likely fit into either the Family First or Pragmatist Categories, with a few falling into the Truth Seeker categories.

Confucians would likely all be in the Family First Category (and Confucian ideals are likely why many Buddhists fit into the family first category as well), and likely a fair number of Judgementalists as well, due to the Confucian sense of teaching through shame. (well, teach through virtue, and control with shame).

Meanwhile Hinduism is such a spiritually focused religion, it probably has proportionally more 'truth seekers' then any other religion ... India could arguably be considered the birthplace of modern religion, even if Indian culture itself didn't spread very far.

If a truth seeker Christian grew up with another truth seeker Christian, it is possible that both will become Theologians (especially if the mentor already was a theologian or priest), however if the truth seeker Christian was surrounded by Judgementalists of various sorts while growing up, then said Truth Seeker would most likely become either Atheist or Agnostic, or even pick up a new religion entirely.

Certain types of Family firsts of any religion are the least likely to switch religions, as they will follow the beliefs that are best for the family/ that the community upholds as just and righteous.

Likely most medieval 'heretics' were of the Truth Seeker variety, meanwhile those that deemed their works heretical were also of the Truth Seeker variety (just of a different opinion)-> those deep into Theology/ theory/ etc.

However those that 'enforced' the punishment were likely of the Judgementalist category (including Inquisitors, but likely also Bishops and Cardinals)

A Taoist could easily fit into either a Humanist or a Nature Lovers category, but honestly Taoists probably exist in EVERY category

Then either don't let your children play the game or teach them the play it the "right" way. Teach your children your values as if your prerogative as a parent. Homosexuality has been around since before the Bible has been written (Sodom and Gomorrah occurred during Abraham's time), it will be around until God decides to do something about it if He so chooses. Hiding children from this is an even bigger stumbling block then teaching them that it exist and how they should handle it. 

From here on out I will keep things on game topic. Sorry for the minor digression.

Lula posts:

Morality is that quality of an act which characterizes it as right or wrong, good or bad. 

If, as you say, there are no moral absolutes then does this mean we cannot say what Hitler did was "wrong"? If there are no moral absolutes, how can we argue that the morals of a group like Habitat for Humanity is any better than the morals of a group like the drug cartel?

When we make these judgments we are indeed appealing to a standard of morality that exists independent of those..I would say..above them. God provides the source for morality as well as the standard for the moral law in the universe He created. 

I bet you have you just don't know it.

In philosophy it's called the Natural Law engraved or written by God in our heart. Our "innate morality" or "moral sense" is a law that is implicit in the very nature of things. It's applied exclusively to man and a rule of conduct that proceeds from human nature as rational. For St.Thomas Aquinas, "natural law is nothing other than the participation of eternal law in rational creatures." Aquinas conceives it as the imprint of God's providential plan on man's natural reason."

The historical evolution of NL may be traced as far back as the pagan period corresponding to the Greco-Roman world. The origin of a natural law doctrine, if you will, is first found among the Greek poets and historians. Sophicles 497-406 BC., Thucydides, and Xenophon presented a concept of a natural law that is divine, universal and known to all. Plato elucidated on this doctrine and his student Aristotle clarified the distinction between natural law and law that is humanly enacted. 

NL reached it's highest development within Stoicism founded by Zeno of Citium. After Rome conquered Greece, natural law began to infiltrate into the Roman World by Cicero. For Cicero, NL is the highest reason transending space and time. It is eternal and unchangeable from one place to another. It commands what is to be done and forbids what is to be avoided. It precedes written law and the State.  

Christ came and Christianity flourished. St.Paul of the Apostles wrote that the NL is inscribed in the hearts of all men even though all do not have the law of Sinai (Moses). Romans 2: 12-16.  The Fathers of the Church, St. Augustine, St. Chrysostendom, etc. taught the NL is promulgated through man's conscience which supplies the basis of human law. Then came the Thomistic concept which I've already noted.    

There is also evidence of a universal natural law binding on man in Oriental literature, long before the rise of philosophy in the West. 

Yes,  my "brand of morality" as well as my conscience convinces me children need special protection from homosexual content. 

One of the article comments asks: "Will the game tell the dark side of homosexuality?" Since the body parts don't fit, the only life that is produced is bacteriological which causes anal cancers, HIV, AIDS, syphilis, and STD's galore. 

Again, all I've done is provide some info about the new updated Star Wars game. 

What I find interesting isn't any of this philosophical stuff.... its the rating on the game itself.

The game is rated "Teen" by the ESRB - which is, according to their website....

TEEN
Titles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language.

So how does this game get away with the sexual content?  Shouldn't it be rated "M" ?

Of course Christian theology has much of its origin in Greek thought because the early disciples, including Paul, were Greek educated, and all of the New Testament was originally written in greek.

St. Augustine iirc was a neo-platonic philosopher, as well as a Christian theologian.

This does not mean that 'Moral Law' is naturally inherent however. Ethical Monotheism believes in 'revealed truths', as they must be revealed to the masses because they are not naturally inherent.

I do not agree with lulapilgrim that we should specifically target homosexual content, however seeing as this game is rated TEEN, it should likely have all sexual content removed OR be upgraded to MATURE rating.

Of course, maybe the reasoning is that most teenagers are sexually active anyways, who knows.

Still, the TEEN rating is likely undeserved, just going to show that ratings aren't worth crap, and personal judgement is best. (Ratings can be bought, and people can use ratings for manipulation. For instance, independent films used to be labeled NC-17 just to kick them out of theaters ... pure crap).

I have not played this game far enough to get to the controversial content, but I assume the sexual scenes are not very revealing or done mostly off camera, which will allow it to get away with only the "Suggestive Themes" warning. Compare this to another Sci-fi hit Mass Effect which is rated M, the sexual scenes are fairly revealing though perhaps just sort of nudity, leave little to the imagination.

Hmm, I see.