[MUD-Dev] Same-Sex Marriage (was: Trouble Makers or Regular Citizens)

[Ananda Dawnsinger]

----------
>From: Matthew Mihaly <the_logos at achaea.mudservices.com>
>Date: Fri, Apr 7, 2000, 11:37 AM
>

>On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Ananda Dawnsinger wrote:
>
>> ----------
>> >From: Matthew Mihaly <the_logos at achaea.mudservices.com>
> 
>> The issue is complicated because ours is a multi-racial system and IMO it's
>> neither realistic nor desirable to sanction marriage between species of
>> fundamentally different kingdoms.  Will players accept it if two humans of
>> the same sex can marry, but a female human can't marry a male dragon?
>
>It might not be realistic, but really, so what? Dragons aren't realistic
>either. It might not even be internally consistent, but I would argue that
>the #1 goal of any mud that is aiming for success in terms of player-base
>needs to make community-enabling and person-to-person relationship
>building their top priority. 

In the general case I'd agree with you.  And I think at this point, if I
were given the opportunity to build a MUD world from scratch, I'd design it
so that interracial marriage wasn't an issue.

However, IMO there's no point in designing a suite of original* races and
cultures without taking measures to preserve the distinctiveness of those
races and cultures.  And marriage restrictions of some sort need to be part
of those measures.  Otherwise the nature of each race will tend to slide
rapidly toward "human," and you pretty much lose the benefits you gain from
having original races -- a bolstered sense of identity and community (within
the race as opposed to within the game), and an increased opportunity for
drama and storytelling.  At least that's what I've observed.

>If two players are in puppy love with each
>other (which tends to be a rather ooc thing in my experience), and you
>tell them they can't get married because some byte on their characters are
>different, I think you'll have a couple of very unhappy players. I mean,
>what do you care if they marry, really? Not allowing them to have kids I
>understand. 

I've seen a lot of this as a player on a MUD where the races range from
18-inch fairy-like beings to 12-foot-long dragons -- where not only is
marriage often culturally infeasable, but sexual contact is sometimes wildly
implausable.  Pretty much whenever a "weird" marriage or coupling takes
place, two things almost invariably occur:

1) The two players directly involved expect their marriage to be embraced
and accepted by everybody.

2) Many fellow players object, because the notion of such a "weird" marriage
breaks their vision of the world.

Most players object to the relationship on the message boards or in private,
but treat the characters more or less as they always did.  A few players
usually shun the "weird" couple, or publicly voice their disapproval. 
Occasionally somebody will duel or attack one of the folks involved. 
(Generally the husband, as you might guess.)  A perhaps-surprisingly small
number of players say "Hey, it's their characters, let them do what they
want" -- because most players want to preserve the racial integrity of the
game, not dilute it.

Last I heard, the admins reserved the right to refuse to support a marriage
that they thought "weird."  Most players seem to support that stand.  I
could be wrong, however, since I haven't played in several years and only
occasionally read the message boards.

This is definitely a topic that will need to be discussed with the early
players before any firm decision is reached.

>> The solution I would (will) suggest is to decouple the legal and the
>> social/religious aspects of marriage.  Any two (or more) people can register
>> a union with the city-state, giving them property and inheritance rights. 
>> The various religious and racial orders and institutions would be more
>> restrictive.
>
>Sure. If the players can join and leave said restrictive orders at will, I
>don't see any problem. Asking the players to make a bit of sacrifice
>(perhaps leaving said restrictive order) for the sake of love is not a bad
>thing I think. 

I think it's very important that players have the opportunity to make a
sacrifice for the sake of love.  More broadly, I think it's very important
that players have the opportunity to make choices that have consequences --
for only then can they make choices that truly matter.  (Granted, not all
players want this...)

Some players want to run characters that are transgressive.  This is
impossible if, in the sake of Open-Mindedness and Not Causing Offense, there
are no transgressions in the game society, or if the only things that are
transgressive are things that are generally outright offensive in human
society (deliberately broad).

On the other hand, I have no doubt that most gay/lesbian/bisexual players
are sick and tired of living in a world in which they are automatically
transgressive based on the nature of their attractions, and would rather not
have their gaming world reflect those same judgements.

Interracial relationships are a different issue, though, because the
real-world and in-game realms don't correspond.  Fantasy "races" are often
clearly separate species.  The way the game deals with such relationships
may comment on, inform, and be informed by our attitude toward interracial
relationships in the real world; but it's only an analogy, not a parallel. 
You can do a lot more interesting (and potentially offensive) things more
safely when you're not dealing with direct paralells.

>> This means that race X can have a long history of blessing same-sex
>> marriages, race Y can have different customs and names for same-sex and
>> opposite-sex unions, and race Z can officially deny that homosexual Zs even
>> exist...
>
>What if an individual member of race Z decided to be homosexual though?
>You're going to make him reincarnate his character or start a new one so
>that he can be with the man he loves? That seems counterproductive to me.

I did say "officially" deny.  What did Victorian lesbians do?  (I have no
clue, honestly.  I'd guess they married and pursued their loves behind the
safety of proper marriage.  But surely there _were_ Victorian lesbians, and
surely they _did_ love other women, even though Queen Victoria reportedly
refused to believe such a thing could exist.)

The short answer is, there's nothing wrong with Z being gay as long as he's
willing to accept that his choice is transgressive, won't be officially
accepted, and may lead to him being disapproved of, even shunned, within his
community.  If he wants to be race Z, gay, out, proud, and married... he's
probably going to be thwarted by the rules of his culture, and judged
harshly by his roleplaying peers.  (And let's face it, we roleplayers are
great at judging harshly...)

The caveat: it has to be reasonably clear that there isn't any provision for
same-sex marriage in culture Z.  I'm not sure you have to say it outright --
but if several other cultures do have provisions to recognize same-sex
relationships, race Z doesn't, and race Z is described as being "perhaps
surprisingly, rather conservative and traditional in their domestic and
social affairs", this might be enough of a clue to at least ask an admin
before assuming a gay Z will be privy to all the same rights as a straight
Z.  (Or it might be too subtle...)

If you don't do that, you're effectively fizzlethorping**, which is ugly
enough when players do it, and completely unacceptable when done by the
management.

>Internal consistency can go too far (particularly as I'm unaware of it
>being achieved to any great degree in any mud, when you really break the
>systems down. No successful mud that I know of does things like create
>laws of physics that explain things like magic, giants (who, in our world,
>would simply find their bones and muscles unable to support their weight),
>etc.

True.  This is why you make sure that all your races are "parts-compatible."
 You can prevent a marriage, if you're so inclined; you can't prevent a
boink.  Though I'd bet graphical games are better in this regard.

   -- Sharon

* "Original" in the sense of "races designed specifically for the game/world
in question."  No race worth playing can be wholly original.

** Fizzlethorping: the act of bullying or shunning another player because of
obscure knowledge that you know and they do not.  An ugly trait to which
roleplayers are prone (I can say this, I've done it, and I'm not proud of
it).  From a post on one of the EverQuest boards in which one person berated
another for not knowing that Fizzlethorpe (sp?) was the first name of the
god Bristlebane.



_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev