I played an online game called Runescape (I couldn't afford World of Warcraft and this was free) for the better half of a year. The thing I realized is that a lot of the younger generation who aren't acquainted with the earlier role-playing tradition treat online RPG's as basically animated versions of Instant Messenger or MySpace. They don't care about the quests, the atmosphere of the game, or the plot - to them it's all about getting a high level so you can brag and call other people 'n00bs'. In-game 'marriage' is mostly just another example of this chatroomization of games. It's a bit hard to feel at all immersed in the fantasy world when you're constantly walking past people with names like "Slipkn0t559" going "ne1 wanna cyber???? l00kin 4 haWt wife, no n00bs!!!111". So unless the field can somehow be restricted to more mature players, I am generally against the idea of marriage in serious fantasy games (as opposed to Second Life or Sims Online, which are INTENDED to be animated chatrooms).

With that said, adding gay marriage into the mix would make these matters even worse, not only because of the inevitable flame wars and idiotic in-game political debates it would create, but, as the people in the article have said, because of authenticity. Homosexuality simply does not exist in Tolkien's universe (obvious Freudian readings of Sam and Frodo aside), and only the most strident, anti-intellectual postmodernist bereft of any aesthetic sensibility would insist that a work of art must address all modern social and political issues, much less endorse a certain side. Now, if this were a game based on, say, George R.R. Martin's much more nuanced and complex universe (which I would sign up for in a heartbeat) where homosexuality does exist (among other forms of court intrigue), it might be more fitting (though the idea of official gay marriage would still be pretty anachronistic). But not in Tolkien.

In conclusion, I shudder to suggest this, but why do you need official recognition? You control your character's words and actions. If you're really hankering to get married, move your two characters to a church of some sort, find someone from a Cleric class to perform the ceremony, and say the words. In other words, ROLE PLAY! You know, those two words that the "R" and "P" in MMORPG stand for? Again, if all you care about is an icon next to your name, just stay on MySpace or Facebook.

If we were to start demanding political correctness from fictional worlds, it would be the worst tyranny of all - that which intrudes upon the imagination. You have the entire real world in which to air your views. Please, leave us fantasy nerds (most of whom, like myself, AGREE with you in the real world!) alone.

"What self-respecting gay man or lesbian would want to get married in one of these games? Not only are a majority of the players male, twenty-something, homophobic mouthbreathers, but the programmers are hypocrites."

Ooh, this is going to be fun. I can't tell if you're suggesting that there some sort of intrinsic link between being a twenty-something male and a homophobic mouthbreather or if they're just three separate traits you assign to gamers. But actually you're wrong on all three counts. The majority of people playing online RPG's are late middle school to high school aged. And if you knew anything about the gaming world at all, you would be aware of the myriad of recent articles about how women now make up almost half of the gaming population.

As to the poster who equated this game with Halo, the gaming world is not monolithic. RPG's and first-person-shooters are entirely different worlds with entirely different demographics, as are single player games versus online games. Furthermore, I would wager that this game, with its focus on authenticity and the Tolkien universe, will attract the kind of people who take fantasy seriously rather than the more action-oriented players of World of Warcraft.

The notion that fantasy fans have some kind of conservative streak is just flat-out wrong. Fantasy fans tend to be nerdy and well-read, which already predisposes them to being liberal. They're also far less likely to be Christian, given that Christians consider fantasy to be some sort of devil worship. So once again, you're an idiot.

But hey, it's all the same to you guys, right? Since you so carelessly toss about assumptions about gamers, I might as well make one about you: forty-something douchebag boomer who thinks watching Will & Grace makes him sophisticated. Now, if you'll excuse me, this 20-something male has to go breathe through his mouth and vote for Bush, even though he's a grad student and volunteered for three Democratic campaigns.

Idiots.

Hundreds of people die in Iraq in some bombing, shooting, or combination of the two.

Democrats pass some sort of resolution criticizing the president, which is in turn criticized by the president.

Public figure makes some sort of offensive comment, Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson/Catholic Leage/NOW demand apology.

Just expand those into 2000 word articles and you'll have your hard news. And remember, whatever you do, you are NOT allowed to talk about, write about, or even think about anything else. Because clearly, no one cares about fantasy role playing games.

Hey, by that logic, why don't we just kill all the religious people? I mean, they're going to live forever anyway, so they shouldn't mind, right?

...it DOES make a huge difference. About the only useful thing to come out of the recent 'study' on 'liberal bias' in the media was the obersvation that there is a solid wall of separation between the WSJ editorial and news departments, and that the latter frequently refer to the former as fascists. And even then, the editorial page will at least occasionally attempt to offer the semblance of balance. Neither of these will last under Murdoch, rest assured.