'Bug' Allows Same-Sex Marriage In Nintendo Game, Nintendo Releases Patch To 'Fix' It

from the or-you-could,-you-know,-not dept

Tue, May 14th 2013 5:41am — Timothy Geigner

Unless you've been living under a rock lately, you're probably aware that the tide is turning here in the States more and more in favor of rights for the LGBT community. Interestingly, America rests somewhere in the middle on the spectrum on these kinds of issues, with plenty of world nations allowing for more gay rights and certainly many that allow for less. While this one-toe-in-the-water approach is perfectly reflected in entertainment mediums like video games, it's certainly worth noting that games in North America have begun to be more inclusive when it comes to LGBT characters and/or options in so-called "choice" or "sandbox" games. The Sims franchise was somewhere on the forefront of that sort of thing and more recent games like the Mass Effect series finally began to follow suit. And now it appears we can add the notoriously conservative Nintendo to the list of game developers that include such characters in their games.

See, gamers playing Nintendo's Tomodachi Collection: New Life noticed that this latest iteration of the game, which is very much like The Sims, had the option for the first time to have their male characters marry other male characters and raise children together. Hooray for civil rights progress, right guys?

One Twitter user claims to have contacted Nintendo's customer support, which supposedly said this is a bug and that the game needs to be patched. Online in Japan, however, there were many internet users who said they planned on getting this game only after learning of this bug—er, feature.

That Twitter user's story now appears to be confirmed, with Nintendo releasing a patch to fix the "bug", which it says allows for "human relations that become strange." So allowing players to be as gay in their virtual lives as they might be in their real lives wasn't a feature, it was a bug. And you're going to correct it. Here's another idea, and I'm just spitballing here, but how about the fix you release doesn't take away a bit of the humanity of your latest game, but rather extends it to female characters as well? It's not like including gay characters in a game, particularly one that is all about personal choice, means that somehow the game developers all agree in unison that all the morality questions are thrown aside. I happen to think that anyone who finds a problem with homosexuality is on the wrong side of both humanity and biology, but I won't dismiss the right for other people to have a different opinion. The thing is, none of that is the point. I played the Sims. I don't remember any more of an uproar over that game's characters being able to be gay than I remember an outcry over how you used to be able to order a pizza and then build walls around the delivery guy until he died (great fun, btw). Nobody who saw that done suddenly thought EA was supporting delivery boy murder and no one with a lick of sense thought EA was taking some moral stance on gay rights.

And besides all that, the reaction to the bug? Freaking positive.

In Japan, some Tomodachi Collection: New Life owners seem thrilled by the bug, posting photos of their gay couples online. In the images, male Mii characters ask each other to go steady, propose marriage, go on Honeymoons, bathe together, and raise children.

Well, no kidding, because the metrics of the debate are shifting quickly to be more inclusive. Even if one were to think that homosexuality was immoral, you can't lose your stones about it being included in a video game, unless you're also going to take the same stance on murder, violence, theft, cursing, lying, etc. Nintendo made their bones on a stereotyped Italian plumber. Now that Nintendo has decided to erase the option to be gay from this game, I hope to hell the backlash is as brutal as it should be.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: bugs, features, gay marriage, same sex marriage, tomodachi collection, video games
Companies: nintendo

285 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Rikuo (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 2:33am

There's a different take on the article here.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/123948-Nintendo-Patches-Out-Same-Sex-Marriage-in-To modachi-Collection

There actually was a real bug. The bug allowed male characters to get pregnant. You don't have to be a homophobe to want to fix that. There was also a great comment in that article
"There are currently no laws against homosexuality, but there is no legal recognition of same-sex relationships. Japanese culture and the major religions in Japan do not have a history of hostility towards LGBT individuals. (http://www.hurights.or.jp/archives/focus/section2/2008/06/japan-and-sexual-minorities.html)"

Tim othy, Japan is a very different place than the US. From what I hear, there's few to no anti-gay fundamentalists like you would see in the US. Thus, I doubt this was the thought line at Nintendo HQ, to promote some sort of anti-LGBT message. Hell, when the Pokemon known as Jynx was first introduced, they had no idea whatsoever that it was going to cause controversy over the fact it evoked blackface, due to the fact that Tokyo's population didn't (at the time) have a lot of minorities. Here, watch this video to get a sense of what I'm talking about
http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/ir/suede/animenia/37752-animenia-holiday-hi-jynx- pokemon-christmas-episode

In this case, I'm siding with Nintendo, but wishing they would become more aware of the greater world. So sorry Tim, I have to disagree completely with the tone of this article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 3:55am
  
  Re:
  I sort of agree with you here. But they could have expanded it to allow gay marriages and children adoption. Would have been epic. But I also think you are missing the point of the article. Regardless of the bug allowing males to get pregnant Nintendo should have maintained the homosexual aspect and expanded to females while fixing the bug. And you gotta agree that the whole thing sounds dubious and allows for a lot of confusion.
  
  Now that part was gold:
  
  Nintendo made their bones on a stereotyped Italian plumber. Now that Nintendo has decided to erase the option to be gay from this game, I hope to hell the backlash is as brutal as it should be.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 4:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    Nintendo doesn't care about the homosexual aspect. That probably didn't even come to mind.
    
    Another way to think about it is that it's a mere bug that may ruin the game for others. I doubt highly, given how Nintendo has been in the past, that this was malicious. It was just a bug to them that needed to be fixed before it "ruins" the game.
    
    People still think that Nintendo listens to fans. They aren't Valve or Bungie. They're the gaming version of Google with a very bad reputation for doing things that aren't in their best long term interests.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 4:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Nintendo doesn't care about the homosexual aspect. That probably didn't even come to mind."
      
      Then they must be the only company their size without a PR department. The concept above is, flatly, nonsense. This caused a significant stir and a fair amount of coverage in Japan. The company no longer has a choice in whether or not to take a stance. They're forced into it.
      
      Patching the bug in a way that disallows gay relationships is taking a stance against giving gay gamers the same choices as straight gamers. If the bug was such that the only way to fix any part of it was to fix ALL of it, they could have released a statement along with the patch that promised to re-allow gay relationships. They didn't. They ARE taking a stance, and they're on the wrong side of history.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jay (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 5:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're right on that and it's really something to look into. I think they will get the feminists and LGBT community whipped up into a frenzy given how they've had some pretty out there characters (Tinkle and the Magypsies come to mind) that showed how this isn't a big deal in regards to stories.
        
        Also, we should really take a step back and point this out...
        
        Then they must be the only company their size without a PR department.
        
        That's not what their PR department does. A person makes a decision that reflects poorly on the company and the PR department of any business is to play clean up. Make the problems go away. It's what EA did by just not playing the game. It's what the NYPD does by not stating a public opinion about stop-and-frisk until it's almost certain that it's about to be taken away and they have one less toy to beat people over the head with.
        
        Public relations is the science of getting the public to see things in a more positive light, same with marketing, where they are sold on the idea that what a company did is in their best interests.
        
        Now I'm not against PR, but Nintendo has effectively changed their stance on this by deciding to be on the wrong side of history. I think they might release a statement soon enough if the heat goes on and that's the best they can do if it strikes a chord with the public in how they are perceived.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 6:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So anyone who doesn't blindly accept gay marriage is on 'the wrong side of history,' according to you? Are you the sole arbiter of public opinion? Do tell, what is 'normal' about a guy ramming his **** up another man's ass and why do you feel that everyone has to accept that behavior? Homosexuals love to play the tolerance card, all the while looking for every opportunity to force their distorted world view upon others, especially children. Need I drudge up the infamous 'cross-dressing day' at a certain school, pushed for by the LGBT community, which resulted in parents pulling their children out of school? But then again, this is all born out of the same movement that used to be affiliated with with NAMBLA.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 6:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Can't tell if Poe...
        
        If not, please explain how two people you don't even know getting married affects you in any way?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 6:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If not Poe, then bigot. He does seem a little *too* concerned with what goes on in peoples' bedrooms, mind...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MissingFrame, 14 May 2013 @ 6:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Being so concerned with what goes on in peoples' bedrooms is the abnormal behavior.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 6:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's rich, coming from the same people who promote (or rather, force) such actions. If homosexuality were so normal then why the huge movement in order to *convince* people?
        
        BTW, it's freedom of speech, not freedom FROM speech. Being opposed to a certain lifestyle is not bigotry -- learn the definition.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MissingFrame, 14 May 2013 @ 7:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So every huge movements in order to *convince* people of reality was wrong? The world is actually flat?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 7:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow, now you're comparing the homosexual agenda with a scientific investigation into the shape of the earth?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 7:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'd leave science out of this, it's not on your side.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 8:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh? How so?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MissingFrame, 14 May 2013 @ 8:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Homosexuality is a normal behavior as normal as left-handedness and xenophobia.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 1:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Many species of animal have homosexual sex or other activity. There are literally hundreds of species where such activity has been observed, and often it's related to the state of the population at the time where sexuality shifts. If you're going to claim that gay sex is unnatural, you'll have to deal with biological facts.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 14 May 2013 @ 2:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Please, tell us how such behavior relates to the survival and reproduction of species.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 2:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't know, why don't you go ask the animals doing it why they're doing it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        FightTheGamerAgenda, 14 May 2013 @ 7:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Please, tell us how such behavior relates to the survival and reproduction of species."
        
        Exactly! Why can't those pushing the gamer agenda tell us how video games relate to the survival and reproduction of species? The creation of video games is clearly an unnatural act. End of discussion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 12:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Is that the only criteria for sexual activity now? If so, you must also feel that the vast majority of heterosexual sex is also unnatural.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 4:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's a non-answer. Using your logic, people should eat their babies because lions have been observed doing so in nature. Just because an ANIMAL behaves a certain way doesn't mean it's ok for us to.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 12:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, it just means that it goes against the bigot's bullshit idea that it's unnatural. It still doesn't answer the question of why people like you are so obsessed over what two men do in their own home, though.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 4:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        how about Woman's suffrage? The Civil Rights movement? Getting out of Vietnam?
        
        Weren't those all big movements? Weren't those movements suffering from some sort of bigotry?
        
        History isn't on the side of people who are anti-gay lifestyles.
        
        For the record, I don't freaking care if two guys or two girls or a 3-some with 2 guys are happening anywhere in the world. It's not my place to know nor care. All I say is "keep it in the bedroom".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 7:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But why are you opposed to a "certain lifestyle"
        
        I'm not sure where you are from, but around here the only people that are going door to door promoting a "certain lifestyle" are people convinced that someone in the clouds is watching us and we had all better join in with them or else...
        
        I honestly don't even care that they are doing that, its a minor irritant like people who wait for the cars to stop before they cross the street and then inch their way to the other side.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 7:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's not really the point. The point is that one group is attempting to force a video game company to be all-inclusive. If that's the case then should we also force them to represent every race, creed, political tendency, etc., or do they have a little something called 'freedom of expression'?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 7:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And you know, there's nothing wrong with voting with your wallet, or letting a company know what you'd like / dislike as a prospective customer. I personally don't believe that Nintendo should sway to this contrived "controversy", indeed, I believe that we here in the West are already FAR too quick to jump on the "Crucify the big bad corporation! They don't agree with me!" bandwagon.
        
        And all that being said, I'm in favor of equal rights, just remember to vote with your wallet, and not yell and scream for a change just because you don't like it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AzureSky (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 10:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        dont mind the homophobe, he just dislikes the idea of somebody sticking it up his arse because "god" would then hate him.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 7:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's rich, coming from the same people who promote (or rather, force) such actions. If homosexuality were so normal then why the huge movement in order to *convince* people?
        
        So you're a bigot then.
        
        First of all, I do not care one whit what some does in their bedroom.
        
        But let's give you some historical perspective since you're clearly ignorant:
        
        Rome didn't allow same sex marriage due to the influence of Christianity. As the new religion on the block, Christianity was becoming more dominant and as history shows, most of the popes of the time were actually interested in the lands of the people and acquiring it. So that's why you have differenct sects of feudalism that wanted men to go unwed, unmarried, and give all of their land to the church while upholding the patriarchies and traditions before it.
        
        It wasn't until capitalism came around during the Industrial Era that some of that changed. But if homosexuality were not normal, would it be in other cultures?
        
        Native Americans had it:
        
        Because of the equal distribution of power, it did not upset the power structure for women to identify with what Western European society defined as men's sexual or social roles, nor was it a threat for men to identify with women's social or sexual roles. After being conquered by patriarchal Western European-America, Native American culture exhibited somewhat predictable results. In a male dominated power structure, a woman who adopts a man's social or sexual role may be perceived as demanding the power normally given to a man. On the other hand, a man who adopts a woman's social or sexual role is perceived as voluntarily and foolishly giving up the power associated with the man's role. Any of these four lifestyle choices, which are incongruous with Western European social roles at the time of colonization, were perceived as threatening to the patriarchal power structure of Western European society.
        
        Or how about Greece?
        
        The legendary love between Alexander the Great and his childhood friend Hephaestion is sometimes regarded as being of the same order.
        
        Holy crap, Alexander the Great was gay?! He conquered the frickin world and improved military tactics that were even used in the Iraq War!
        
        Not bad for a gay guy. But we should move to the 21st century... People like George Takei, Margaret Cho and the various number of people that wake up everyday to be treated with respect, dignity, and integrity because of how they've influenced people in far more positive ways than some small minded individual could take away from them.
        
        So has history shown that gay people have left their mark on the world?
        
        The better question is... Why does it matter if they're gay if they want to make a progressive influence on the world?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 7:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That Alexander the Great and others performed such actions had nothing to do with their sexuality, or are you trying to conflate the two?
        
        As for 'progressive influence,' I'd argue that there's nothing progressive about it. Homosexuality clearly goes back thousands of years, so what else is new? Rome was by no means exclusive with regards to how it perceived homosexuality (as being deviant), not simply due to Christianity.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 7:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That Alexander the Great and others performed such actions had nothing to do with their sexuality, or are you trying to conflate the two?
        
        That's your doing. You make it out as if homosexuality is a sin to be purged when it has been around in nature as well as shown to be present in history. Or do you deny your writing?
        
        ? Homosexuals love to play the tolerance card, all the while looking for every opportunity to force their distorted world view upon others, especially children. Need I drudge up the infamous 'cross-dressing day' at a certain school, pushed for by the LGBT community, which resulted in parents pulling their children out of school?
        
        Which is a stupid conflation of all LGBT people into one group as if they all agree to the same BS that you ascribe to.
        
        Rome was by no means exclusive with regards to how it perceived homosexuality (as being deviant), not simply due to Christianity.
        
        Rome and Greece had very tolerant views if you actually read the wikis. They didn't believe in marriage out of practicality, but it's still a pretty ignorant statement that you want to convey the image of "a guy ramming his **** up another man's ass" as if that's going to push the argument in a more positive direction.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 8:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "That's your doing. You make it out as if homosexuality is a sin to be purged when it has been around in nature as well as shown to be present in history. Or do you deny your writing?"
        
        It's one thing to say, ok, there's homosexual people and you'll have to accept that fact. Fine, so be it. But it's an entirely different thing when it comes to FORCING others to accept it as normal.
        
        "Which is a stupid conflation of all LGBT people into one group as if they all agree to the same BS that you ascribe to."
        
        Maybe not but nor you cannot feign the reality of the situation, that the 'gender-bender day' was pushed on the school by a pro-homosexual group.
        
        "Rome and Greece had very tolerant views if you actually read the wikis. They didn't believe in marriage out of practicality, but it's still a pretty ignorant statement that you want to convey the image of 'a guy ramming his **** up another man's ass' as if that's going to push the argument in a more positive direction."
        
        So be it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 9:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But it's an entirely different thing when it comes to FORCING others to accept it as normal.
        
        No one's FORCING you to have a bigoted view on others. You have a problem with it, so be it.
        
        Maybe not but nor you cannot feign the reality of the situation, that the 'gender-bender day' was pushed on the school by a pro-homosexual group.
        
        It must be great to pull up an extreme example as if that solves everything. Hate Socialism? It's the Nazis and those dang Chinese's fault! Hate gays? Nambla. Hate Irish and Scots? The KKK is the scapegoat.
        
        Hate liberals? Obama's a Socialist. Hate conservatives? Make the Tea Party look like victims.
        
        Oh no... It's a great thing to not figure out the nuance of arguments and just pull up extreme examples of everything. Occam's Razor may work in most circumstances, but it sure isn't helping in your narrow view of the world.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 4:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "No one's FORCING you to have a bigoted view on others. You have a problem with it, so be it."
        
        *YAWN* If you're offended, too bad. I see things that I find ofensive all the time. The difference is, I don't believe that I have the right to force others to conform to my way of thinking, then play the lame bigot/phobia card.
        
        "It must be great to pull up an extreme example as if that solves everything. Hate Socialism? It's the Nazis and those dang Chinese's fault! Hate gays? Nambla. Hate Irish and Scots? The KKK is the scapegoat.
        ...It's a great thing to not figure out the nuance of arguments and just pull up extreme examples of everything. Occam's Razor may work in most circumstances, but it sure isn't helping in your narrow view of the world."
        
        I must have missed the part where a video game company's creative decisions are superceded by a certain group's push to ram their chosen lifestyle on others.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 7:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you're offended, too bad.
        
        I'm not, don't worry. Just calling a spade a spade.
        
        The difference is, I don't believe that I have the right to force others to conform to my way of thinking, then play the lame bigot/phobia card.
        
        No one's doing that. They're just calling out your ignorant and narrow view of the world. No force is being used in making an informed decision about different aspects of sexuality. But hey, if you want to remain ignorant and bigoted, so be it.
        
        I must have missed the part where a video game company's creative decisions are superceded by a certain group's push to ram their chosen lifestyle on others.
        
        That got lost in the confusion over why you care so much about homosexuality over an actual conversation about a video game company.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AzureSky (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 10:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        guys, leave this faggot alone, go watch the faggot episode of southpark to get what this guy is, hes a proud faggot after all, look how much hes defended his faggottyness.
        http://youtu.be/xGyKBFCd_u4
        
        again, please dont feed the fag. (watch the video before you get offended please)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 15 May 2013 @ 4:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If I'm critical of something, that means I must be that something? Logic fail.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 4:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Difference between being critical and being narrow minded with a single world view.
        
        What are you, a kid?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 8:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Being opposed to a certain "lifestyle" (not the best word, as it implies choice) *personally* may not be bigotry, but imposing those views on others certainly is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 8:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's absolutely correct. It would be the same if public schools began to force children to 'accept Christianity' or dress as saints. You cannot force others to conform to your world view, so why are all these people (who are all pro-freedom of expression, supposedly) attempting to make more out of this Nintendo thing than need be? It was a BUG. Nintendo has the right to FIX it. It's THEIR product. Don't like it? Don't buy it. It's that simple.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Aaron, 14 May 2013 @ 10:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mike, there's something important you don't seem to understand about speech:
        
        Speech is not tyranny, censorship, or force. Nintendo made a game; its game is speech. Nintendo's game had a bug people enjoyed. People used speech to express their enjoyment. Nintendo patched the game to remove the bug. People used their speech to express disapproval. Voting with your wallet is one kind of speech; writing articles expressing disapproval is another. Peaceful protest is a third.
        
        None of these types of speech involves 'trying by force' to do anything, because (say it with me) speech is not tyranny, censorship, or force.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 10:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It would be the same if public schools began to force children to 'accept Christianity' or dress as saints.
        
        BEGAN to force them? You mean go back to forcing them, right? Public schools have been infamous for just that thing for a very long time. Sometimes it's subtle, such as vacation days only falling on the Christian holidays. Sometimes it's not so subtle, such as forcing prayer. This is just another of those sticky topics that will start yet another 'discussion.'
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 9:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're right, being opposed isn't. However, when your "being opposed" to something turns into punishing others for it, then yes it is.
        
        Sort of like racism. Don't like black people, fine. Start making them sit at the back of the bus, then we have a problem.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 15 May 2013 @ 4:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If I were to date or, goodness forbid, have any sort of intimate relationship with the girls I'm attracted to, I'd be thrown in prison. When (or if) I got out, I'd have a label slapped on me and be subject to registration and monitoring for the rest of my life in the glorious "land of the free".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 4:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Pedophilia, to which I'm sure you're referring, and homosexuality, are not even remotely the same thing. One is a psychiatric disorder while the other is a non-disorder occurring predictably by percentage in certain species.
        
        Try again....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 16 May 2013 @ 4:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I am a girl-lover, yes, but I like women too. I consider myself a "femophile".
        I never said pedophilia (pedosexuality) and homosexuality were the same thing. If your point is that pedosexuality is considered a psychiatric disorder, might I remind you that homosexuality was once considered a psychiatric disorder as well.
        You have your opinions and I have mine.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 17 May 2013 @ 8:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, homosexuality was considered a psychiatric disorder up until the LBGT movement spearheaded a capmaign in the 70's to discredit their research through constant pro-gay campaigning, lobbying and propaganda.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 17 May 2013 @ 8:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Pedophilia is immoral and against the law. If you're an adult who's interested in young girls (as in younger than 18), you'll have to learn to restrain your emotions, lest you get yourself into serious trouble.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 17 May 2013 @ 12:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You are a massively hateful person. I'm going to say why.
        
        At first, you constantly complained of gay people constantly shoving their sexuality in your face. Okay...I can somewhat understand that, but beneath it all, was an undercurrent of hatred towards homosexuals themselves. You said that there was some sort of festival where men openly sodomized each other. Can you link to that? Where the men arrested for indecent exposure, which doesn't take into account sexuality?
        
        You've now conflated homosexuality with pedophilia, as if one who supports homosexual rights must also automatically support pedophilia/bestiality/whatever. THAT IS WRONG, especially when you brought up NAMBLA. There is a huge difference between them. Homosexuality involves willing, consensual sex between two ADULTS of the same gender. Pedophilia involves the willing/unwilling act of sex with a MINOR, i.e. a child, someone whom EVERYONE agrees should not be having sex. Such an act harms them, whereas adult homosexuality doesn't.
        Yes homosexuality is no longer considered a mental disorder. That's because it was proven not to be. It wasn't propaganda. Can you point to any evidence that it is? Sexuality in humans is more than just reproduction, otherwise you would have to be against sex between barren hetero couples. And yes, you did imply that homosexuals cannot love, when you said "It's homoSEXUALITY, nothing more", as if to a homosexual, there can be no feeling of love when engaged in the act.
        Yes, if wider society deems a group of people as "not normal", it's called bullying. Even if there is no violence. The smaller group feels unwelcome, has rights stripped away, all for engaging in an act that harms no-one.
        
        You hate gays. As simple as that. You want no mention of them at all in schools, as if their existence is a shame. You are far too obsessed with other men putting their penises in other men: I don't care, why do you? It's not your penis. If the parades in San Fran bother you, DON'T GO!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 17 May 2013 @ 6:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You are a massively hateful person. I'm going to say why."
        
        *YAWN*
        
        "At first, you constantly complained of gay people constantly shoving their sexuality in your face. Okay...I can somewhat understand that, but beneath it all, was an undercurrent of hatred towards homosexuals themselves. You said that there was some sort of festival where men openly sodomized each other. Can you link to that? Where the men arrested for indecent exposure, which doesn't take into account sexuality?"
        
        Too tired to dig it up right now. I'll look for it later, but you're right: heterosexuals have gotten in trouble before for public indecency.
        
        "You've now conflated homosexuality with pedophilia, as if one who supports homosexual rights must also automatically support pedophilia/bestiality/whatever. THAT IS WRONG, especially when you brought up NAMBLA. There is a huge difference between them. Homosexuality involves willing, consensual sex between two ADULTS of the same gender. Pedophilia involves the willing/unwilling act of sex with a MINOR, i.e. a child, someone whom EVERYONE agrees should not be having sex. Such an act harms them, whereas adult homosexuality doesn't."
        
        That still doesn't change the fact that NAMBLA used to march in gay parades (and were welcomed for a time).
        
        "Yes homosexuality is no longer considered a mental disorder. That's because it was proven not to be. It wasn't propaganda. Can you point to any evidence that it is? Sexuality in humans is more than just reproduction, otherwise you would have to be against sex between barren hetero couples. And yes, you did imply that homosexuals cannot love, when you said "It's homoSEXUALITY, nothing more", as if to a homosexual, there can be no feeling of love when engaged in the act."
        
        It's not so much a mental disorder as much as it is pure evil.
        
        "You hate gays. As simple as that. You want no mention of them at all in schools, as if their existence is a shame. You are far too obsessed with other men putting their penises in other men: I don't care, why do you? It's not your penis. If the parades in San Fran bother you, DON'T GO!
        Yes, if wider society deems a group of people as "not normal", it's called bullying. Even if there is no violence. The smaller group feels unwelcome, has rights stripped away, all for engaging in an act that harms no-one."
        
        Your entire defense of the gay movement is predicated on emotional ploys, e.g. they're victims of bullying and discrimination. You cannot shine a light on their actual deviant behavior, so you must work around it by portraying them as helpless victims. Also, about transgender people: what is normal about a man surgically removing his penis, or vice versa?
        
        Anytime someone brings up something pertaining to the actual act of homosexuality, they are immediately decried as being strange, perverted, etc. when in fact what they're afraid of is exposing the act itself, because then their entire argument crumbles. Gays use emotional ploys to violate children's 1st Amendment right (i.e. freedom of religion), just as the democrats exploit events like Sandy Hook to violate people's 2nd Amendment rights. Homosexuals aren't the only people in the world who are being bullied and committing suicide.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Uriel-238 (profile), 17 May 2013 @ 7:31pm
        
        Trolling revealed.
        It's not so much a mental disorder as much as it is pure evil.
        
        The Real Michael, are we to believe this was said with a straight face?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 18 May 2013 @ 12:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Gays use emotional ploys to violate children's 1st Amendment right (i.e. freedom of religion),"
        
        You obviously have no understanding what that means do you? A child in a public school in the US, in a school that receives funding from the state or federal government, CANNOT promote a religion. It's called the separation of church and state. The founders of the US were quite rightly scared of what would happen if one religion were to indoctrinate children on what is evil and what is not.
        You have, in the US, a freedom of religion, to join whatever religion you want. Based on your comments, you're in one branch of Christianity (and for the record, I grew up in Catholic Ireland, went to three Catholic schools. In fact, I learned recently that my secondary (high) school, which is run by the Marianists, actually had an openly gay headmaster). The founders feared what would happen if a religion were to insert itself one way or another into a government body and use its influence to discriminate against a certain group of people.
        That is precisely what you are doing. Care to tell me exactly how homosexuality is evil? Where's the harm it is causing? I myself am hetero, and I don't give a damn if the guy sitting next to me on the bus takes it up the ass from his partner when they're alone.
        Define evil for me. What is it?
        
        Here's why I don't obey the Bible. Because it is an out-date piece of shit. It is contradictory and in several places, glorifies acts that everyone on the planet rejects. Lot's daughters committed incest and the equivalent of date rape when they got their father drunk. Cities are wiped out in the Old Testament, whole populations massacred and we're told this is good.
        Not only that, but in obeying it, I would willingly become a slave. A slave to a tyrannical Sky Daddy, who seems to have serious mental issues. Sky Daddy hates homosexuality...then why the fuck create it in the first place? God cannot judge us for going off and doing our own thing when he is supposedly the one who gave us free will in the first place. I would rather burn in hell for eternity than submit to your "loving" dictator, because that's what he is. Your god is a tyrant, one who creates arbitrary rules that make no sense and you are a slave who gladly puts on chains, simply because it's what you were told to do.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 18 May 2013 @ 5:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "God cannot judge us for going off and doing our own thing when he is supposedly the one who gave us free will in the first place."
        
        It deserves pointing out that the concept of a God granting us free will is illogical. If God gave it to me, it is not truly free will.
        
        When people ask me if we have free will, I answer, "Of course, we have no choice." But unlike the religious, at least I know I'm being ironic.*
        
        *Borrowed from Christopher Hitchens
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 18 May 2013 @ 6:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Diversion, baseless emotional ploys, empty labeling and religious criticism. That's the extent of your worthless argument. Naturally you must resort to attacking the foundation of millions of people's morals because they contradict homosexuality, but even without going that route, there are also millions of other non-religious folk who also disapprove for obvious reasons.
        
        About the oft-trotted 'two consenting adults' argument: what, one adult is bad but two is ok? What genius came up with that logic fail? So if two adults decide that they want to marry their dog, that should be ok, right?
        
        As far as people's 1st Amendment rights go, yes, that's correct about not bringing religion into the classroom. However, it's also true that the taxpayers aren't paying for the public schools to indoctrinate children with the gay lifestyle; this constitutes an infringement upon their religious freedom, 1A rights.
        
        Here, enjoy your gay parade:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE3XFJzdgZo
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 18 May 2013 @ 8:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's the gay parade where men were openly sodomizing each other? All I saw was a bunch of floats and people walking slowly down a road, waving, smiling, dancing, etc. At no point did I see one man bend over, and another man proceed to have anal intercourse.
        
        Do you want to know why there are gay parades? It's because for decades, centuries, those who were gay were discriminated against. This is undeniable fact. Over time, they fought back, and won rights. They won the right to keep their jobs, etc.
        What is it with you and conflating homosexuality with bestiality, and pedophilia? As long as the people who are having sex are adults, I don't care what it is they do. Note that excludes children and non-humans. If they want to add a third or fourth adult into the mix, fine, that's their business, nothing to do with me or you.
        Also, what is it you think is happening in schools "indoctrinating children with the gay lifestyle"? Do you seriously think that schools are going around saying to kids "You had better be gay". What is a "gay lifestyle"? I've known plenty of gay people and until they told me, I would never have known. They weren't all flamboyant about it. They looked and acted like regular hetero people. They just happened to have sex with a person of the same gender.
        As for attacking millions of people's morals...there is no such thing as an absolute morality. I find what you're saying to be very immoral.
        You're basically taking the argument that millions of people can't be wrong, because...there's millions of them. Well sorry to say, but that's wrong in and of itself.
        
        I notice you didn't answer how and why homosexuality is evil.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 19 May 2013 @ 4:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "As long as the people who are having sex are adults, I don't care what it is they do."
        
        So what you're saying is it's none of your business what they do, unless they do something you deem offensive, right? But then that contradicts what you said: "there is no such thing as an absolute morality." If there really were no such thing then how could anyone ever draw the line and decide that something is offensive? You're not making any sense.
        
        As for the parade, I didn't say that that particular one was the one where they were sodomizing in public. Your reasoning (defense) behind their purpose for parading around half-naked is shallow, once again reliant upon playing up the victim card.
        
        What's the use in discussing why I believe it's evil? Since you don't share my religious beliefs, it's pointless. I'm not trying to convert anyone.
        
        Lastly, about schools teaching kids that homosexuality is ok, that's a verifiable fact. I've already posted a couple links in a post below, but it's rather easy to look that information up one your own using a search engine. The Constitution doesn't come with age restrictions; it applies to all Americans, including children. Apparently certain public schools think that they're above Constitutional law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Uriel-238 (profile), 19 May 2013 @ 11:44am
        
        The problem with moral absolutism
        If there really were no such thing then how could anyone ever draw the line and decide that something is offensive? You're not making any sense.
        
        The problem with moral absolutism is there is no single verifiable source for morality. Sure, Christians claim the bible, but then there are 40,000 (or more!) interpretations of what within the bible is considered a moral decree and what is an allegory, or what is outdated (the less popular dicta within the bible includes proscriptions as trivial as mixed-thread fabrics, and demands as heinous as racial genocide).
        
        Then there's the matter that there are numerous other sources of authority (e.g. the Koran, the Book of Mormon) that command an equal level of authority and yet conflict with the bible. Which do we trust, and why? No, better that we consider all actions critically whether or not engaging in them violates the rights of anyone else.
        
        (And no, there isn't a right to be not offended. We can look to the segregation era when people were offended by the presence of non-whites, or the 20th century when Jews hidden in the midst of the populace was cause to take offense. The cost of living in a pluralistic society is having to tolerate all the weird people. And I suspect you are weirder to me than I am to you.)
        
        There are universal mores within human civilization due to those that are instinctive to us (e.g. reciprocity, loyalty to friends, et. al.) but even some of those are non-conducive to nations large enough for technological advancement (unquestioning obedience to authority, standards of conformity, small group elitism).
        
        Generally, when something is offensive, it's personally offensive. There may even be specifics that are popular, but that doesn't mean such an act or such a person should be criminalized. There needs to be a practical reason before a particular behavior is deemed wrong.
        
        Consider, for example, that anal sex is not the most extreme of sexual acts (nor is it confined to gay relationships). I may find (say) play piercings or scat play objectionable, but even if I convince a million others that it's not right, that doesn't mean I should deny those people who engage in such practices their right to participate.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 20 May 2013 @ 4:20am
        
        Re: The problem with moral absolutism
        There has to be a general moral standard, otherwise there would be no reason to place limitations on things and prohibitive actions, e.g. walking around in public naked. Moral relativism is akin to saying that people's sense of right vs wrong is merely an abstraction, a self-delusion, if you will, and that standards in public decency and laws can be decided upon arbitrarily (without the consent of the governed, I might add).
        
        As far as certain people's sexual habits, right, it's not for us to say who's allowed to do what, but nor is it the public school system's to indoctrinate our children into believing whatever they want them to.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Uriel-238 (profile), 20 May 2013 @ 9:44am
        
        Re: Re: The problem with moral absolutism
        There has to be a general moral standard, otherwise there would be no reason to place limitations on things and prohibitive actions, e.g. walking around in public naked. Moral relativism is akin to saying that people's sense of right vs wrong is merely an abstraction, a self-delusion, if you will, and that standards in public decency and laws can be decided upon arbitrarily (without the consent of the governed, I might add).
        
        But in some cultures, public nudity is the norm, so the general moral standard regarding decency isn't universal. Furthermore, even in our culture, those that oppose indecency laws (on the basis that it's more natural to not wear clothing than to adorn one's self with artificial skins. Decency is one of the few laws in Western culture that is exclusively based on common practice (tradition). There is no pragmatic purpose for it.
        
        Is right vs. wrong an abstraction? About as much as the value of the US Dollar. And like the US Dollar, some of our basic mores are essential to our societies (e.g. life, property, respect for the law, etc.) But that doesn't make them absolute; Only the individual's right to life is respected by all human societies; some don't recognize personal property (further than one's ability to retain it). There's neither an absolute source for these mores (other than our personal instincts, some of which don't agree with large societies), nor are any of them truly absolute, as becomes evident when they interact with each other, or with the rights of others.
        
        So yeah, the purpose for morality ultimately boils down to survival. If your morality supports a larger, technologically advanced civilization then you will dominate over smaller, less advanced civilizations. (And tech and population tend to correlate.) And your culture (and often your genes) will outlast theirs. But our instincts push us towards small tribes, so in order to build nations (that are not identified with family clans) we need to invent better forms of government, and better forms of morality, than what is provided instinctively, or through ancient feudalistic documents.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Uriel-238 (profile), 20 May 2013 @ 10:07am
        
        The very silly nudity taboo
        Crap. This is what I get for not editing my words. As I was saying (regarding dress codes, nudity, indecency, etc.):
        
        But in some cultures, public nudity is the norm, so the general moral standard regarding decency isn't universal. Indecency laws are one of the few statutes that are based solely on common practice and not on pragmatic purpose. Those that oppose restrictions on public nudity note that it's more natural to not wear clothing than to adorn one's self with artificial skins (so the debate comes down to an appeal to convention vs. an appeal to nature and the public's interest in retaining personal liberty). Now, as it is, the decency laws as they are here in the industrialized world aren't that much of an inconvenience, so the society isn't collapsing under the contention, but this violation of personal liberty might serve as a precedent to violate further personal liberty with later laws, and there's no real good reason why we refuse to let people run around naked....
        
        I opine that we'd be much better off as a society if we didn't freak out over other people's genitals, and a clothes-optional society would be a significant step in that direction.
        
        Sorry, all, for writing before my first cup of coffee.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Uriel-238 (profile), 19 May 2013 @ 11:56am
        
        Open sex in gay parades and public affairs
        As for the parade, I didn't say that that particular one was the one where they were sodomizing in public.
        
        I've yet to see a gay or altsex public event in which there was open sexual contact (more than PDAs typical of amorous het couples in springtime), not during the pride parade, not during the (now extinct) Castro Halloween spectacular, and not even at the Folsom Street Fair where one would hope for such wonton displays.
        
        Do tell of these wild parties where sex in the streets is tolerated and accepted. Please be specific; inquiring minds want to know!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 22 May 2013 @ 6:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Apparently certain public schools think that they're above Constitutional law."
        
        This is the part where you must be reading a completely different US constitution than the rest of us.
        Just to be clear, you and I are talking about the separation of Church and State - as in, there is no state-sponsored religion, where adherents of that faith enjoy special privileges and those of other faiths don't. Public schools in the US, being run by the government, cannot promote one religion over another, so this means no morning prayers for example.
        How is it a violation of that to teach kids about homosexuality, say in biology or social ethics classes (or whatever you call them over there)? The schools, being public, cannot have edited lessons for each religion: they can't have a lesson in Biology for students belonging to the Nation of Islam faith teaching that black people are superior to non-blacks. Just like here, they can't have classes where homosexuality is a pertinant topic and either not mention them or say that they're evil/anti-human/immoral/whatever, because such a determination is subjective and discriminatory.
        
        As for the parade link - you originally mentioned being at/seeing a parade where men sodomized each other. I, in disbelief that this would happen in public without falling afoul of public indecency laws (you and I can agree on no sex in public, gotta protect the kids innocence for a while longer), asked for proof, to which you gave me a link to a gay pride parade where no actual sex occurred.
        As for playing the victim? Can you answer me, with a straight face, that a group of people who share a common characteristic, who were victimized over that trait, shouldn't hold pride parades? Were homosexuals victimized for being what they are?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 22 May 2013 @ 2:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "...being run by the government...". That's the problem right there.
        And if you want to talk about the constitution, where it mentions religion it is restriction on the powers of congress. Anyone with any sort of reading comprehension can see that. Now, what US constitution are YOU reading?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 19 May 2013 @ 12:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "It is an out of date piece of s***". Some might say the same thing about the constitution you hold so dear.
        "...glorifies acts tha everyone on the planet rejects". Everyone on the planet? Really? What did you do, take a poll? If so, you never asked me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 19 May 2013 @ 12:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        *that
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 21 May 2013 @ 3:40pm
        
        Welly-welly-welly-well, Rikuo...
        http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/21/gay-fla-teen-facing-charges-having-sexual-contact-with-14-year- old-girlfriend/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Uriel-238 (profile), 21 May 2013 @ 5:59pm
        
        Re: Welly-welly-welly-well, Rikuo...
        It seems the girl didn't actually do anything wrong. And the state's Romeo & Juliette law is applicable...at the discretion of the judge.
        
        Here in California, for example, she wouldn't have even committed a crime.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 22 May 2013 @ 6:29am
        
        Re: Welly-welly-welly-well, Rikuo...
        Your point? That's sex with a minor, which is what I'm against.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Uriel-238 (profile), 22 May 2013 @ 11:45am
        
        Sex with a minor.
        You're against minors having sex? Good luck with that.
        
        Normal sexual experimentation (with peers) begins as early as eight years old. By twelve, girls are swooning over boy celebrities. By fourteen, and within your local schools, plenty of girls are having relationships with college boys (and, interestingly, not so much with their peers). Some of these young men will get arrested, prosecuted, branded permanently as pedophiles, and jailed.
        
        Our current laws don't cover the range of normal sexual activity of young people, but that's not going to stop them from being active, any more than anti-gay laws are going to stop gays, or outlawing abortions is going to abortions (or as has been statistically shown, reduce them at all).
        
        But at least we aren't burning our women for dishonoring their families by getting raped, yes? Progress!
        
        Because the US is freaked out about sex, we don't have a very good grasp of what should be acceptable. And our society still features a preponderance of misogyny.
        
        On the other hand, more teens are waiting before becoming sexually active, but mostly in those regions that have more relaxed attitudes about teen sexual activity, and bother to educate their kids comprehensively about sexual health and birth control.
        
        I don't know all the correlations, but so it is. As for Ms. Hunt, it's circumstances such as hers and her partner's (who is also guilty of having sex with a minor, and could be charged as such) for which Romeo and Juliet laws have been implemented. Florida's is just a weaker variant, but Florida notoriously freaks out about sex in general, so it wouldn't surprise me if some hanging judge makes an example of this couple.
        
        In the meantime, what does sex with a minor have to do with the Nintendo thing above?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 17 May 2013 @ 3:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Pedophilia is not against the law. ACTING on it in certain ways is, as you point out in the second sentence.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 6:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Do tell, what is 'normal' about a guy ramming his **** up another man's ass"
        
        Why do you care? Do you also attack heterosexual couples who like to have anal sex, or are you only opposed when something makes you feel icky? What about lesbian couple, or people who enjoy threesomes or have other fetishes that you don't like?
        
        Should those people also be banned from marriage?
        
        "why do you feel that everyone has to accept that behavior"
        
        Unless someone is being harmed or forced into doing something without their consent, it's none of my damn business what they're doing. Nor yours.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 7:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This.
        
        Seriously why do some people feel that the world and all if its inhabitants have to conform to their world view.
        
        At least he hasn't started in with the slippery slope argument where gays lead to the human race being wiped out.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 7:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You cannot even see the hypocrisy of your own statement. "Seriously why do some people feel that the world and all if its inhabitants have to conform to their world view." Meanwhile, people are opining that Nintendo should either keep the bug in or add a feature to allow for same-sex couples to adopt. Really? REALLY?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 7:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why not, what is the harm. We aren't storming Nintendo HQ demanding that they include this or else. We are just suggesting that this is a feature we would like to see. I'm guessing it could be ignored if someone didn't want to get married to someone of the same sex. If they make it so you can only marry someone of the same sex, well that probably wouldn't be as interesting to as many people. I'm guessing you probably would choose not to purchase it if that was the case.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 7:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What is the harm? Certainly Nintendo has freedom of expression, but not freedom from being boycotted. They cannot afford to piss off a large number of people -- it's bad for their bottom line. Money talks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 7:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Exactly, releasing games that people want to play = profit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 7:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't want for it to be any of my business, but since they never shup up about their chosen lifestyle... As far as the 'gay marriage,' I'm not even going to bother getting into it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nigleford the Temporary, 14 May 2013 @ 7:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I wish you would shut up about your chosen lifestyle. Being attracted to women is such a selfish lifestyle. Did you Jesus going around having a relationship with a woman? # No, he didn't. He hung with a lot of men. Does God go around dating other deities of the female persuasion? Nope.
        
        (# though it's likely that Jesus actually was married. And to a woman too.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 7:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        As usual, it's ok so long as it's a liberal cherry-picking a certain group they don't like and then attacking them, but when the tables are turned, your response is "shut up." But that's how it is with you people: isolate certain groups of people, pack them into nice clean boxes, then paint one side as the victim and the other as the aggressor in order to give the former the illusion of oppression and, by extension, legitimacy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Niglefront the Portentous, 14 May 2013 @ 7:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, it's about not cherry picking.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 7:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Really? So then, why push Nintendo into a corner for eliminating a bug?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 10:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So discussing current player concerns about Nintendo pushing their own agenda on the players by removing a part of the game that many seem to enjoy is pushing them into a corner?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 4:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Here's the difference: Nintendo didn't intend to include this as a standard feature. If by fixing a bug you consider it 'pushing their own agenda,' whatever that implies, clearly that's your problem. Companies apply patches and fix known bugs and glitches in their software all the time. There's no conspiracy involved.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nigleford the Temporary, 14 May 2013 @ 7:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Please tell me this is OOTB with all his kneejerk contrariness. Having said that, I doubt even he wouldn't flinch at such bigotry.
        
        Tell me, what's "normal" about a man sticking his tongue up a woman's front bottom? There's nothing "distorted" about a man sticking his **** up or into anything (unless **** is meant to be chin). Men have placed their dingle dangles in things since the year dot; and equally men have been sticking things up their bottoms for for just as long. That two complimentary minded men choose to combine their pursuits is therefore both natural and nicely efficient.
        
        More worrying is that you identify homosexuality as being a physical act, rather than the emotional and spiritual attachment that is actually what it's about, as it is with any healthy relationship.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 7:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's called homoSEXUALITY for a reason.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Niglefront the Portentous, 14 May 2013 @ 7:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Demonstrating that you actually believe that sexuality is defined by a physical relationship, rather than emotional.
        
        In which case, you're clearly a socksexual.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 7:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's sexual attraction, nothing more, nothing less.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 7:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hope your sock is a willing participant.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 1:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So now you're saying that gay people cannot feel romantic love for those of the same sex? This right here is your problem. You're practically denying that they are human beings, by saying they're incapable of love.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 15 May 2013 @ 6:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Now you're putting words in my mouth.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 4:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Really? Putting words in your mouth?
        
        It's called homoSEXUALITY for a reason.
        
        Doesn't seem to be with that one...
        
        How about this one?
        
        It's sexual attraction, nothing more, nothing less.
        
        He's just using what you said.
        
        next time, choose your words more carefully.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 7:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes it is. Just not the reason you're thinking of.
        
        Maybe you should look the word up in a dictionary to see what it means, before you look even more stupid (hint: it doesn't exclusively refer to the act of sexual intercourse).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 7:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So now you're selling me the notion that homosexuals are out to form platonic relationships? Not buying it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Niglefront the Portentous, 14 May 2013 @ 7:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        As much as anyone is looking to form platonic relationships. Which is the point - it's about everyone and anyone.
        
        And no. Buying it would be solicitation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 7:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Is that the only reason you are with your sock, for the sex. You don't ever have any nights where you order take out and just cuddle on the couch watching a movie.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 7:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, that's the ticket. Resort to childish insults.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 7:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Thanks, now that we are agreeing, how about you help us force our opinions on Nintendo.
        
        Ready... 1...2...3... shout real loud...
        
        NINTENDO.....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 8:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I feel kind of sorry for Nintendo. They're just the latest victims of the pro-homosexual movement, trying by force, yet again, to make everyone conform to their views.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 8:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So, you're also against this kind of thing when Christian groups try to get homosexual content removed from games (Mass Effect, Bully, etc)? Or, is that suddenly acceptable because you don't have to accept the gays as equal?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 8:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm just as much against that as I am this. No group should be allowed to determine what a company (or artist, if you will) has the right to sell. Don't like something? Either boycott it or don't support it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 9:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Don't like something? Either boycott it or don't support it.
        
        Isn't that what you are complaining about people doing?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Leigh Beadon (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 9:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Don't like something? Either boycott it or don't support it.
        
        "But don't talk about it"?
        
        Sorry, I'm trying to figure out how that thought could possibly end in a way that doesn't endorse people expressing their opinion...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 4:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I never said I was opposed to discussing it; I said that I was opposed to others portraying a video game company in a negative way just because they want to fix a bug.
        
        And yes, that's my opinion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 10:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So why the obsessive anti-gay posting for the last couple of hours, when all you had to say is "Nintendo can do whatever they want, boycott it if you don't like it". Few here would disagree if you'd simply said that, but now you're just exposed yourself as a hateful bigot who spends a suspiciously large amount of time talking about gay sex.
        
        Oh, and like most bigots, your logic isn't working very well. You say that no group should be able to determine what a company does. Yet, isn't that exactly what a boycott would be trying to do?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 4:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "So why the obsessive anti-gay posting for the last couple of hours, when all you had to say is 'Nintendo can do whatever they want, boycott it if you don't like it'. Few here would disagree if you'd simply said that, but now you're just exposed yourself as a hateful bigot who spends a suspiciously large amount of time talking about gay sex."
        
        Basically the crux of your argument is that I should only say things you find comfortable. Let me throw your argument back on you -- what's with all the pro-gay postings on here? You'd think that people here had a vested (unhealthy?) interest in it or something.
        
        "Oh, and like most bigots, your logic isn't working very well. You say that no group should be able to determine what a company does. Yet, isn't that exactly what a boycott would be trying to do?"
        
        Typical bullying, name-calling, intolerance, etc. coming from the side that wants forced acceptance. Anyone who doesn't conform MUST be a bigot. Nevermind that homosexuals aren't their own race, but why let facts get in the way? As for boycotts, it's still ultimately up to the company what it wants to do in the end; they're still free to make their own decisions, potential consequences notwithstanding. I fail to see the confict in logic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AzureSky (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 10:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        wow, a fag talking about how homosexuals shouldnt complain or get upset when other fags like himself insult and belittle them for not conforming to their fag view of normal....
        
        a fag saying its homosexuals who are opressing he and his "normal" fag friends....
        
        funny, from my reading of history of this country its been fags like 'The Real Michael' who have been the source of all the bad feelings, distrust and hate of homosexuals....
        
        I dont understand why Fags like TRM cant just let people live their lives and hold their own opinions....
        
        but hey, he has the right to be a total fag if he likes.....how much you wana bet he rides a harley
        http://youtu.be/xGyKBFCd_u4
        
        if not, hes still a total fag...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 12:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Basically the crux of your argument is that I should only say things you find comfortable."
        
        No it's not, and it's a shame you're too stupid to understand the actual points.
        
        "Let me throw your argument back on you -- what's with all the pro-gay postings on here?"
        
        I'm trying to correct a hateful bigot who's attempting to derail the thread with a lot of crap that has nothing to do with the point he's claiming to make. I'm defending against an attack that you started. I probably wouldn't have mentioned sexuality otherwise (other than perhaps to comment that I thought that it wasn't really a consideration for the folks at Nintendo when they created and fixed that bug). I felt compelled to defend against your hatred.
        
        "Typical bullying, name-calling, intolerance, etc. coming from the side that wants forced acceptance"
        
        It must be hard to be so oppressed. You can't even spout hateful bigotry without someone being intolerant of your intolerance and hatred. What a hard life you must lead...
        
        "Anyone who doesn't conform MUST be a bigot."
        
        No, anyone who espouses bigoted views and behaviours is a bigot. Your words and behaviour in this thread meets that definition perfectly. I'm sorry if you're uncomfortable with accurate names for what you're doing, but there we go...
        
        "As for boycotts, it's still ultimately up to the company what it wants to do in the end; they're still free to make their own decisions, potential consequences notwithstanding. I fail to see the confict in logic."
        
        You fail at life, I suspect. The conflict between telling people to boycott and telling them not to criticise a company is blatantly obvious to those who understand what words mean.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 15 May 2013 @ 4:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I'm trying to correct a hateful bigot who's attempting to derail the thread with a lot of crap that has nothing to do with the point he's claiming to make. I'm defending against an attack that you started. I probably wouldn't have mentioned sexuality otherwise (other than perhaps to comment that I thought that it wasn't really a consideration for the folks at Nintendo when they created and fixed that bug). I felt compelled to defend against your hatred."
        
        Naturally you did, because homosexuals are sacred and perfect, beyond any criticism.
        
        "It must be hard to be so oppressed. You can't even spout hateful bigotry without someone being intolerant of your intolerance and hatred. What a hard life you must lead..."
        
        Oh yes, of course. Why didn't I see it sooner? Promoting the gay lifestyle sure would be so much easier to do if only people would turn a blind eye towards their more questionable activity. Now if only we could erase history...
        
        "No, anyone who espouses bigoted views and behaviours is a bigot. Your words and behaviour in this thread meets that definition perfectly. I'm sorry if you're uncomfortable with accurate names for what you're doing, but there we go..."
        
        Once again, they're not their own race and certainly not above criticism.
        
        "You fail at life, I suspect. The conflict between telling people to boycott and telling them not to criticise a company is blatantly obvious to those who understand what words mean."
        
        I didn't tell people not to criticize Nintendo; I said that people are being critical of Nintendo for the wrong reason. It's easy to get the impression that many people here, yourself included, overreact and lash out to protect anything pertaning to gay lifestyle, even where it involves a bug in a video game. Yeah, so Nintendo should just keep a bug in the game which allows for male characters to marry and have children together. I mean that should send children who play the series a wholesome message, right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 5:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Naturally you did, because homosexuals are sacred and perfect, beyond any criticism."
        
        You know what the sad thing is here? Based on everything you've said, I can actually believe that you're stupid enough to honestly think this is the argument.
        
        "I didn't tell people not to criticize Nintendo; I said that people are being critical of Nintendo for the wrong reason"
        
        If you didn't cloud your point with pointless homophobic ranting, you might have gotten that point across. Guess why you failed?
        
        "Once again, they're not their own race and certainly not above criticism"
        
        Valid criticism, sure, especially when addressing individuals rather than a minority group as a whole. Nobody's perfect, and being a member of a minority or protected class doesn't shield anyone from criticism of their character.
        
        The crap you've been spouting, attacking their very existence with little logic but plenty of blind hatred? No, not acceptable. If you weren't a raving bigot, you'd understand why.
        
        " I mean that should send children who play the series a wholesome message, right?"
        
        Nothing worse than all the times I saw Bugs Bunny in drag or Tom & Jerry try to mutilate each other when I was a kid. Parents still exist in your world, right?
        
        Again, I agree that this scandal is really nothing and that it's being overblown. But that doesn't excuse the hatred and bigotry spewing from your idiot self.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 15 May 2013 @ 6:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Valid criticism, sure, especially when addressing individuals rather than a minority group as a whole. Nobody's perfect, and being a member of a minority or protected class doesn't shield anyone from criticism of their character.
        
        The crap you've been spouting, attacking their very existence with little logic but plenty of blind hatred? No, not acceptable. If you weren't a raving bigot, you'd understand why."
        
        Attacking their very existence? No. More like attacking their forceful nature and deviant behavior.
        
        "Nothing worse than all the times I saw Bugs Bunny in drag or Tom & Jerry try to mutilate each other when I was a kid. Parents still exist in your world, right?"
        
        Bugs in drag was funny because it was clearly meant to be stupid. It certainly wasn't promoted as a valid lifestyle. Tom & Jerry mutilated each other, as did countless other cartoon characters, and guess what? People didn't go on killing sprees like they do in this day and age, because we understood fantasy from reality. We weren't being lectured by the schools and the state, telling us what to do, who to accept, how to think. We were thrown out into the real world and learned how to deal with most problems on our own. That's because people had a stronger sense of moral values and families were close-knit. But not anymore. Morality has been replaced with rampant, agenda-driven propaganda. Now they make an example out of you if you dare to think outside of their small box. (i.e. Let the state think for you.) But guess what? It's backfiring.
        
        "Again, I agree that this scandal is really nothing and that it's being overblown. But that doesn't excuse the hatred and bigotry spewing from your idiot self."
        
        Blah blah blah.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 6:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Attacking their very existence? No. More like attacking their forceful nature and deviant behavior."
        
        So, you're OK with gay people as long as they don't say anything and pretend not to be gay? As long as they deny their nature and don't complain when they're abused and marginalised, that's fine? Sounds like the type of vapid idiocy I've come to expect from you.
        
        "It's backfiring."
        
        Is that why so many states and countries have recently made moves toward allowing gay marriage, if not allowing it outright?
        
        I can see that you're a typical idiot bigot - too dumb to understand the nuance of the argument, too blinded by hatred and prejudice to even consider an opposing point of view, and blind to the harm that the attitude you have does to others.
        
        Go crawl back under whatever rock you came out from under to show everyone what a delusional moron you are. Your work has been achieved.
        
        " Blah blah blah."
        
        The most intelligent and least obnoxious thing you've typed thus far. Well done.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 15 May 2013 @ 7:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "So, you're OK with gay people as long as they don't say anything and pretend not to be gay? As long as they deny their nature and don't complain when they're abused and marginalised, that's fine? Sounds like the type of vapid idiocy I've come to expect from you."
        
        Nice strawman. There's a fine difference between simply being something and shoving it in people's faces, particularly children, our most vulnerable.
        
        "Is that why so many states and countries have recently made moves toward allowing gay marriage, if not allowing it outright?"
        
        That's funny to hear because recently in France, one of the largest protests in recent memory, an estimated million people, marched against homosexual marriage. As well, the overhwelming majority of comments on gay-related stories I read tend to be opposed.
        
        "I can see that you're a typical idiot bigot - too dumb to understand the nuance of the argument, too blinded by hatred and prejudice to even consider an opposing point of view, and blind to the harm that the attitude you have does to others."
        
        Name-calling rhetoric, as usual. Equal rights ...except for those who dare express a difference of opinion, right? Blatant double-standard.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Leigh Beadon (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 8:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Who is trying to deny you any rights?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 16 May 2013 @ 3:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Like mall bigots, you're an idiot, and proving it at every turn. Nobody is denying you any rights. You just don't get to hide when your vile hatred of gay people is responded to. You have the same rights as any person - and homosexuals should have all those rights as well. Tough shit if you don't like it, but that's what's fair - equal rights for everyone, even those you hate.
        
        That you try to twist this into you having some rights removed only shows how stupid you really are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2013 @ 5:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Jesus on a piece of melba toast, I was right, you are a frikin Poe. Nobody can honestly be this dense and hypocritical.
        
        "Naturally you did, because homosexuals are sacred and perfect, beyond any criticism."
        
        No homosexuals are human, just like you and me, they have all the flaws that any human being has. Your problem seems to be that you don't consider them to be human and that is a sad sad thing. Don't like people talking about homosexuals, leave. don't like pride parades, leave, don't like The New Normal, change the frikin channel. nobody is forcing you to tolerate any of this, so when you come spouting intolerant horse shit, don't start crying you are oppressed when people like me call you out for your hateful speech.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 15 May 2013 @ 6:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Care to show me where I said that they're not human? Oh, that's right, I didn't. Not approving of someone's lifestyle isn't the same thing. For the last time, they're not their own race of people; they're people who are attracted to the same sex.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 7:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "For the last time, they're not their own race of people; they're people who are attracted to the same sex."
        
        So, you agree it's nature and not a choice? Why then are you opposed to them being true to their own nature, when it's between two consenting adults?
        
        Nobody's said they're a race. It has been pointed out that they're a protected class because of morons like you, who would treat them as lesser citizens due to your bigotry if you weren't forced to give them equal rights. But, hating someone for their sexuality instead of their skin colour is apparently OK in your book. You do realise that it's only because of your kind that you're hearing so much about this issue, right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 15 May 2013 @ 7:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nice retardation of logic. First, care to show me which freedoms I've personally denied them? Second, the reason we're hearing about them so much is because of the aggressive media campaign to promote them. It's a sad state of affairs when a football quarterback gets mocked and then released because of his faith (Tebow), yet a basketball player comes out of the closet and he gets heralded by the media as if he were a hero (Collins, if I remember correctly), prompting Obama to call him and congratulate him.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 10:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What is the pro-homosexual movement, pray tell? Sounds like a like of hand wringing and cries of how the sky is falling.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AzureSky (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 10:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        buttsecks is icky!!!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 7:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So? I know facts and complex world views are beyond the ability of tiny bigot minds, but facts are facts and no amount of baseless prejudice can change that.
        
        It must be pretty sad to hate so many people you've never met, thinking of them as nothing but base creatures unable to form relationships without sex. It does make me wonder why you spend so much time obsessing over what goes on in gay peoples' bedrooms though. I'm not gay, yet the thought of such things rarely cross my mind, even among the gay people I do know.
        
        I wonder why you have to think about it, and why it offends you so much. It can't just be an assumption of promiscuity and non-missionary sex acts, since you don't seem to have a word to say about heterosexual sluts and fetishes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 7:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, ok. Anyone who doesn't blindly conform to your world view is automatically labeled a bigot. I also don't believe that prostitution is acceptable behavior. Does that mean that I hate all prostitutes? No, it doesn't. That people choose to form same-sex relationships really isn't my concern. However, trying by force to make people accept it -- that's another matter entirely.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 8:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, anyone who acts like a bigot due to some blind hatred of homosexuals that's barely based in fact is a bigot. You seem to fit that bill perfectly. Don't like it? Stop acting like a bigot. At least keep your hatred to discussing the issue at hand, not your rabid opposition the the very existence of gay people.
        
        "I also don't believe that prostitution is acceptable behavior"
        
        Nor do I for the most part, but I don't try to demand or attack women in discussing my objection to it. I don't mind activities between consenting adults, but things like sex slavery and drug addiction make the lines very difficult with that particular issue.
        
        Gay relationships and marriages, on the other hand? Who gives a crap if both parties consent?
        
        "However, trying by force to make people accept it -- that's another matter entirely."
        
        Oh right, so you're not a bigot, you just don't want to be forced to accept homosexuals as equals, or be forced to treat their relationships as acceptable. It's all good as long as the gays have less rights than you, right?
        
        Your kind is always around. Luckily, with the advances in civil rights for women and non-whites, you're running out of targets for your ignorance.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 8:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Complete bull.
        
        I hate the act of homosexuality, not homosexual people.
        
        Marriage is between a man and a woman. Leave it to the homosexual movement to attempt (by force) to redefine it.
        
        And oh please, enough with the BS about the plight of homosexuals getting equal rights, attempting to equate it with race and women. It's nowhere near one and the same.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 9:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Marriage is between a man and a woman.
        
        Says who? A book of bronze age myths compiled thousands of years ago by ignorant savages? Even that book doesn't agree with itself - many of those powerful men featured in it had multiple wives, slaves and concubines.
        
        It's nowhere near one and the same.
        
        But it is. You think of them as somehow different and not deserving the same rights you take for granted, just as was done with women and other minorities.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AzureSky (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 11:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        shhhh your making fun of his magic man in the sky, if you do that to much his magic man in the sky will strike you down and send you to burn in the lake of fire.
        
        anyway, dont mind this hypocritical fag, like all of his ilk they think that hating and not wanting somebody to have the same rights as them is OK as long as they can justify it using their magic book.....yet they never even live by that books rules themselves.....
        
        homosexuals should have no rights in their eyes because they arent people, they are aborations and scum, they are also not of any value because they dont breed more followers to give the faith more power and money via tithe and donations!!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Leigh Beadon (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 9:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And oh please, enough with the BS about the plight of homosexuals getting equal rights, attempting to equate it with race and women. It's nowhere near one and the same.
        
        Pretty sure people like you said that about the plight of women when it was being compared to race, too.
        
        That phrase "wrong side of history" really is delightful, isn't it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 5:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Unlike homosexuality, race and sex are not choices. "Wrong side of history"? LOL. Why not let people marry animals, children, or anything else? After all, everything else is purely subjective in your view.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AzureSky (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 11:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        moralfag is moral....
        
        WoW is this moralfag "moral"
        
        just amazing, Im willing to bet you that this guy also thinks a womans place is serving her man, and that she should only speak when spoken to....
        
        and that blacks arent equial because the bible says so and it also say that having slaves and selling people is moral(hell it even gives prices for people!!!)
        
        what a total fag...
        
        i feel sorry for any homosexuals who endup stuck with this fag in proximity...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 11:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Unlike homosexuality, race and sex are not choices.
        
        And when did you "choose" to be heterosexual?
        
        Why not let people marry animals, children, or anything else? After all, everything else is purely subjective in your view.
        
        Out of curiosity, why do you believe that marriage is definitively and without question between a man and a woman?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 15 May 2013 @ 4:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "And when did you "choose" to be heterosexual?"
        
        When I was very young, around 4-5, if I remember correctly.
        
        "Out of curiosity, why do you believe that marriage is definitively and without question between a man and a woman?"
        
        Because men and women go together naturally; they can reproduce, each having a special role in the upbringing of children.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2013 @ 6:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This is the problem, you have been forcing yourself to be heterosexual since 4 or 5. Let it go, let your freak flag fly, embrace who you really are and feel the cancerous hate disappear.
        
        I must say, I am pretty impressed that you were able to suppress the slippery slope argument for so long, almost a whole day, that is goddamned amazing.
        
        Just for the record, I believe that everyone else on here define any "couple" as 2 consenting adults, homo or hetero.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 15 May 2013 @ 6:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The question becomes, who gets to define? Apparently we're playing by somebody's rulebook.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2013 @ 8:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Do you disagree that couple can be defined as 2 consenting adults?
        
        How does it affect you personally if it is 2 men or 2 women? Why does that even matter to you?
        
        Do you honestly believe that Christ would be right beside you telling them they are wrong?
        
        See I was brought up christian and my understanding of the bible comes down to "Love everyone and do no harm" It is the kind of bullshit you are spouting that has turned me away from religion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Leigh Beadon (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 9:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sure, let's role with it: A marriage is defined as a man and woman. And a faggot is defined as a bundle of sticks. Some people invent new definitions out of love, others out of hate. Which group are you closer to, Michael?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AzureSky (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 9:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        faggot in my book is defigned as people like "the real michael"...or harley riders....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 16 May 2013 @ 3:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Strange, being English I've always thought of faggots meaning meatballs, especially Mr Brain's Faggots, still found in UK supermarkets. Funny thing language, isn't it :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 16 May 2013 @ 4:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I've never heard meatballs called faggots. Yes, it is funny that faggot can refer to meatballs, a bundle of sticks, and a homosexual. Did you know that in addition to "gay" having the two meanings we know, it also at one time referred to prostitutes?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 8:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        When I was very young, around 4-5, if I remember correctly.
        
        Interesting. How did you go about choosing at that age?
        
        Because men and women go together naturally;
        
        You knew that at age 4?
        
        they can reproduce
        
        Are you only attracted to people based on whether or not they can bare you a child?
        
        each having a special role in the upbringing of children.
        
        Also interesting. What are the "special roles" you're talking about?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AzureSky (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 9:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        thats probably when daddy/uncle/exct touched him in his naughty place.....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 11:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "When I was very young, around 4-5, if I remember correctly."
        
        So, at age 4/5, you were fully conscious of sexuality, of the act of sexual intercourse, and at that age, you decided, you said to yourself "I am going to have intercourse with women, and women only!".
        You really knew at that age that your "peepee" was meant to go into the woman's "vajajay" and that was how you made babies?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 4:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        4-5 years old and you knew you were hetero?
        
        ...
        
        I call bullshit on that.
        
        While you might have been inclined towards the opposite gender at that age, you didn't know that you were straight until you were at least 12-15...
        
        You know, about the age people hit puberty.
        
        Human sexuality doesn't develop the way you think it does.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 8:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oddly, the science seems to suggest that on that point, he'd be right. The studies I've seen seem to suggest that while sexuality is influenced from birth, right around the ages of 4-5 years old is when it is solidified.
        
        The point, of course, is that at 4-5 years old, very little is choice, and most actions are the result of a combination of instinct and environment. Homosexuality is naturally occurring. It is no more choice than heterosexuality.
        
        Even more striking, chances are sexuality is on a spectrum, not a fork in the road. It's quite likely that all of us are some gay, some straight, with the degrees on either side defining our love lives. I rather enjoy this thought, since I enjoy inclusion, and that would make us all members of the same variable spectrum, rather than opposite sides of some non-existent sexual coin....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2013 @ 10:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Out of curiosity, why do you believe that marriage is definitively and without question between a man and a woman?"
        
        Probably for the same reason YOU think it's between 2 people, and not 3.
        
        "And when did you "choose" to be heterosexual?"
        
        Perhaps you can't choose orientation, but you can choose behavior. There are people who get off on setting fires. I'm sure there are at least some people who would get gratification from it but choose to NOT become serial arsonists.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 10:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Homosexuality is not an act. It isn't a thing. it's a state of being, a lifestyle, and not a choice any more than being straight is a choice. You hate homosexual acts, not homosexuality. Or maybe you really do hate homosexuality. Hmm... When exactly did you decide to be heterosexual?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        The dude, 14 May 2013 @ 9:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Welcome to real world Real Michael!
        What you need to realize is that the people here are only "tolerant" of the opinions they agree with, and that anybody else is an evil bigoted hating religious fanatical.
        The sooner you realize this, the easier your dealings with the "good guys" will become.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 10:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sadly, that's a fantasy and a lie. But, I'm sure you knew that. He's labelled a bigot due to his bigoted comments, not because of any team game that morons like to presume is being played when they can't grasp the arguments.
        
        Anyone wants to prove me wrong? I'll be waiting for a defense of Michael's homophobic rants that don't leave him being labelled a bigot (as that's why he's earned that label, not for his defense of Nintendo's business). I feel I'll be waiting a long time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        The dude, 14 May 2013 @ 10:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        First thank you for the moron and the liar.
        Second its not just in this story, i have seen similar behavior in stories involving freedom of speech and gun control, where the political correct crowd labels the other side as described above.
        Also i see a some of it in your post "liar, moron, im sure you knew that", you are implying that the truth that you represent is the right side, while the "others" are evil people obsessed with their hate agenda, and furiously awaiting to attack the defenders of what is good and correct, i also get the feeling that this discussion will be pointless.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 1:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So, nothing of substance to debate me with, just a bunch of vague comments and "yeah this will be pointless"? No wonder you don't get anywhere when discussing these things.
        
        I called you a liar because at least one of the things you said was clearly untrue. I didn't call you a moron, but the guy you're agreeing with is demonstrably a bigot, and bigots are morons in my book. I notice that you don't bother to address any of my points (i.e. Michael is being attacked for his anti-gay bigotry, not what he claims his point was).
        
        I'm sorry that you can't see beyond your assumptions on this issue, but again, I'm open to debate if anyone actually wants to, rather than simply dismissing speech you don't like, as you have done..
        
        Carry on with your blind assumptions about how a conversation would go on, but that's the refuge of the bigoted moron, not the intelligent person open to nuance and actual debate.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The dude, 14 May 2013 @ 2:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        First, i am not commenting on his so called bigotry because i frankly haven't read all of his comments, and probably aren't going to agree with some of the things he says.
        
        Tell me which of the things i say is clearly untrue.
        I find it funny that you consider someone who doesn't agrees with you a moron (because he may be educated with different values than yours, view the world in a different way, etc).
        Second i think this will be pointless because you obviously know you are "right", probably consider yourself a smart and open minded person (in my experience sometimes the most difficult people to deal with).
        Third, i don't dismiss speech i don't like, i am simply commenting on the reactions a dissenting opinion that is not popular gets around here.
        Finally your comment puts the other side as bigoted idiots who "don't get it", and yourself as the good guy, which is one of the reasons that makes this whole debate pointless to begin with.
        Also you have already categorized me as an moronic bigot, why would you want to debate such an evil being?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 12:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Tell me which of the things i say is clearly untrue."
        
        Right here:
        
        "What you need to realize is that the people here are only "tolerant" of the opinions they agree with, and that anybody else is an evil bigoted hating religious fanatical."
        
        I can explain to you if you wish why you're so utterly wrong, but I can see from your later comments that you've already made up your mind and are imagining slights against you that I've not made. Forgive me and correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't seem open to any actual discussion here.
        
        "I find it funny that you consider someone who doesn't agrees with you a moron"
        
        This is the internet. I can't see him, don't know who he is, don't know his education. But, I can see what he wrote, and those are the rantings of a bigot. I consider bigots to be morons, and a lot of prejudicie is based on ignorance.
        
        Can you say anything that might change my mind here, or are you just white knighting someone you have an equal lack of knowledge about? "i frankly haven't read all of his comments" Oh, you're just defending him without even having the level of knowledge I do...
        
        "Second i think this will be pointless because you obviously know you are "right", probably consider yourself a smart and open minded person (in my experience sometimes the most difficult people to deal with)."
        
        I don't know what you're trying to get at here. Perhaps if you were capable of expressing why you don't like my comments rather than vaguely attacking personal qualities. you imagine I have. So far, you're just attacking your imagined view of me as if it were real, and offering no insight as to why I might be wrong.
        
        I'm open to any intelligent, reasoned debate. Do you want to try it, or is the strawman version of me you constructed enough?
        
        "Also you have already categorized me as an moronic bigot"
        
        So, reading comprehension is not your thing, I take it? I already clarified that it was Michael I applied these tags to, not you. Why are you so defensive over things I've never called you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 5:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Really? Last I checked, I'm not obligated to agree with, much less protect, homosexuality. Name-calling has no effect; it merely smacks of desperation. BTW, it's difficult to be a bigot when homosexuals aren't their own race. Nice try though.
        
        Stop trying to force your perverted homosexual lifestyle on others. Thank you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 11:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Last I checked, I'm not obligated to agree with, much less protect, homosexuality."
        
        Actually, you kinda are. What if you're in a management position and one of your employees is homosexual? It would be illegal for you to discriminate against them, or refuse an applicant for the same reason.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 15 May 2013 @ 5:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        All the PC crap is bringing this country to its knees. People are too worried about hurting someone's feelings, so they're forced to walk on eggshells.
        
        Employers should hire the people most qualified for the job, not simply hire for diversity's sake (in order to appease special interest groups).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 5:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Employers should hire the people most qualified for the job, not simply hire for diversity's sake (in order to appease special interest groups)."
        
        Agreed. But that's not why the laws are there. The laws exist to stop homophobic idiots like you from refusing to employ a perfectly qualified person just because you don't approve of their partner's gender. Or from denying them access to the same rights as heterosexuals just because you don't like what you assume they get up to when you're not looking.
        
        But, again, we can see you're too dumb to understand this. It must be so hard being you, marginalised because you can't openly practice your prejudice.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 15 May 2013 @ 7:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Maybe if I refused to employ a qualified person based on their sexual preference you'd have a point. Until then, however, you're completely wrong. BTW, if two equally qualified people apply for a job and one happens to be homosexual, if the employer only hires the former it's automatically assumed that it was due to discrimination and a lawsuit will follow, so the employer HAS NO CHOICE but to hire the homosexual instead. How right is that?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 11:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, that would be if the topic of the applicant's homosexuality was discussed during the hiring interview. (Which quite frankly shouldn't be discussed at all).
        It would be discrimination if you (unknowingly) had a homosexual employee, their partner were to hug them/kiss them chastely or otherwise make it known to you that said employee was gay, only for you to then fire the guy/girl. (Note, I'm not talking about making out, or having full blown sex in front of customers, I'm talking about a loving embrace that no-one would blink an eye at if it were a hetero couple).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AzureSky (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 11:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Moralfag is "moral".....
        
        sorry, im far from gay, and I find your comments to be some of the most homophobic faggy things i have read outside of a right wing forum/blog full of faux news viewers.
        
        Im sorry that buttsecks really really bothers you.
        
        Im sorry that the idea of 2 people of teh same sex loving eachother offends your ideals and "morals"
        
        I for one will continue to respect and be friends with homosexuals I know and grew up around, I dont share their love of the buttsecks, but, as long as i dont gotta see it, I really dont care what they do when they are alone.
        
        your fascination and fixation on what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms really is something you should seek help for, its not normal, infact, having taken a number of psychology courses I would say its quite deviant and disturbing that you spend so much time and effort fixating on other peoples private lives.
        
        please seek help...if not for your own sake, for the sake of those around you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 1:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh dear, you really are that stupid, aren't you? Even though I've already stated that I'm not gay, your tiny hateful little mind can't comprehend of a straight man wanting to defend the lives of others against unprovoked attacks. So, you have to assume I'm trying to force something on you personally. It can't just because I support equality - it's something launched as an attack against you! I can't just be defending against the disgusting vitriol coming out of your might just because you might have to accept the gays as equals!
        
        You're as vile as you are stupid, and it's a close call as to which one describes you more.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 15 May 2013 @ 5:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Everybody's equal; however, everybody's actions are definitely not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 5:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Indeed. For example, there are a great many homosexual men who have added much to science and culture, from Alan Turing to Ian McKellen. There are many straight men who have done nothing to this world other than spread hatred and destruction.
        
        Neither of these have anything to do with their sexuality. Sadly, you and those who think like you are happy to deny rights and openly attack homosexuals, even among those in the first group who have done nothing but enrich the world you live in.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 8:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow, so every heteroSEXUAL couple is in a loveless relationship just for the sex? Who'd have known!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 9:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, that sounds kind of accurate in my experience lol
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 3:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Tell me, what's "normal" about a man sticking his tongue up a woman's front bottom?"
        
        Animals do it.
        
        "More worrying is that you identify homosexuality as being a physical act, rather than the emotional and spiritual attachment that is actually what it's about, as it is with any healthy relationship."
        
        Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender.
        
        Let me know when I can legally have more than one wife here in Canada where we have had same sex marriages for some time now. Well, not that long, but long enough that they are already getting divorced.
        
        Otherwise, how can you be married and be bi-sexual?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stig Rudeholm (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 7:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The Real Michael, May 14th, 2013 @ 6:17am:
        
        """Do tell, what is 'normal' about a guy ramming his **** up another man's ass and why do you feel that everyone has to accept that behavior?"""
        
        Why do you assume that all homosexual people like anal sex? Sticking your dick in various holes is not the only way to enjoy each other's company.
        
        And no-one is forcing you to stick your dick in anyone's ass, right? Or taking one up your own ass?
        
        Then why do you fucking care?!?
        
        Seems to me that for someone who hates the thought of two guys getting it on, you spend an awful lot of time thinking about it...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 7:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well then, why do you assume that people enjoy hearing about it? Do you people ever give it a rest? When EA decided to incorporate same-sex features in their games, that was their choice. But apparently Nintendo doesn't deserve that same freedom, according to many of you people.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 8:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Enjoy hearing about what? "a guy ramming his **** up another man's ass" You were the one that put that out there and I have to say it is pretty hilarious that you have to type **** unless there are naughty word filters here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 8:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "you people"
        
        You keep saying this. I just wonder who it is you think you're addressing when you say it. Please elaborate - which particular group of "people" do you think your talking to?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 8:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sure, the posters here who think that Nintendo should conform. Do you or do you not believe in freedom of expression? People are condeming Nintendo for fixing a bug in their own product. Somehow people have equated this as to being a slight against homosexuals.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 8:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm not condemning them for fixing a bug. I think it is a pretty shortsighted business error.
        
        Although ... this does get them back in the news. Maybe there will be a whole bunch of homosexual haters who buy consoles and the game to "support" their stand.
        
        Scratch that, it may be a good decision. I mean look at how Koran sales went up when that preacher wanted to burn a bunch of them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 9:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Excuse me but we're talking about Nintendo here, a company with a longstanding reputation of wholesome, family-oriented fun, not with being risque or making social-political decisions.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 10:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Family-oriented. Another one of those terms that people don't seem to truly understand. Did you know that same-sex couples who adopt are better parents? Plenty out there to support it. They have stronger relationships, too, due to the shared life experiences of hate and bigotry. Sure there are just as many outliers as there are among heterosexual couples (note, I don't call them 'traditional,' because history doesn't support that term).
        
        In the end, why does it matter to you so much who loves whom? It doesn't affect you in the least, and if you think it does, then you're overly sensitive about things that others do. Things that are, strictly speaking, none of your business.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 5:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Did you know that same-sex couples who adopt are better parents? Plenty out there to support it. They have stronger relationships, too, due to the shared life experiences of hate and bigotry. Sure there are just as many outliers as there are among heterosexual couples (note, I don't call them 'traditional,' because history doesn't support that term). "
        
        Did it ever occur to you that perhaps history doesn't support them for a perfectly logical reason? BTW, 'better couples' my ass. Care to qualify that statement with some hard fact?
        
        "In the end, why does it matter to you so much who loves whom? It doesn't affect you in the least, and if you think it does, then you're overly sensitive about things that others do. Things that are, strictly speaking, none of your business"
        
        Borrowing your line of reasoning, why not let people marry children, animals and anything else under the sun? After all, it's "none of my business," right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AzureSky (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 11:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        aww did somebodies daddy/uncle touch him in a bad place?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 4:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        wholesome fun huh?
        
        Castlevania, Ghosts and Goblins, Conker's Bad Fur Day, Bubblebath Babes, even Mario isn't really wholesome when you know the story of the Donkey Kong game...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 17 May 2013 @ 5:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Castlevania = Konami
        G&G = Capcom
        Conker = Rare
        Bubblebath Babes = unlicensed game
        
        Ok, I admit to being oblivious as to the backstory behind Donkey Kong. What's the deal?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 9:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I believe in freedom of expression, which means that Nintendo, their critics and their supporters all have equal say.
        
        You, on the other hand, seem to be equating people telling you not to be a bigot with trying to stop Nintendo from doing something. Not at all - it's just that your freedom to be a homophobe is equal to the freedom of others to tell you you're being a homophobe. Nintendo are also free to do whatever they wish - but if they appear to be homophobic or doing something to marginalise the gay community, freedom of speech guarantees them the right to react however they want. But it also allows their critics to voice their opinion too.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 15 May 2013 @ 5:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I am against homosexuality, so be it. Even if the whole world were against me, I wouldn't care -- it contradicts my beliefs.
        
        Nintendo removing a bug = marginalizing gays? I think not. Had they included it as a standard feature from the outset and THEN decided to remove it, maybe then your argument would hold some weight.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 5:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        My argument is that your homophobic ranting has added nothing to the discussion, and it's both clouded any point that you think you're making, and has most likely coloured views on any other comments you make negatively.
        
        The sad thing is that I actually do agree with the central point you seem to have been trying to make. A pity you did it so poorly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stig Rudeholm (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 7:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The Real Michael, May 14th, 2013 @ 6:17am:
        
        """Homosexuals love to play the tolerance card, all the while looking for every opportunity to force their distorted world view upon others, especially children."""
        
        Wow, really? The world view that you don't have anything what-so-fucking-ever to do with what other consenting adults do with each other? Distorted? Why is this important to you? How does this affect you? If two men or two women get married (or not), live together (or not), have lots of sex (or not), raise children together (or not), do tell me how that is any of your fucking business. Please, explain this to me, because from where I'm standing, this doesn't affect you.
        
        And another thing...
        
        """But then again, this is all born out of the same movement that used to be affiliated with with NAMBLA."""
        
        Seriously? Again, the keywords here are "consenting adults." Why the fuck would you bring up NAMBLA?
        
        If I call you a "bigot" right now, please explain how I'm wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 8:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Tell that to all the children who are forced to endure homosexual tolerance programs in schools. Since when did the state make their moral judgements for them?
        
        Question: have you ever seen a homosexual parade? How about the one in San Francisco not so long ago where adults were openly sodomizing each other in public? So much for keeping it in the bedroom.
        
        By all means, call me every name in the book -- I do not care. It only serves to demonstrate the bullying that's become synonymous with the homosexual movement. LGBT groups have even utilized the DMCA to take down websites that shed a negative light on some of their more questionable actions. Freedom of speech is purely relative, I suppose.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 8:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Man this is getting weirder, you don't agree with the lifestyle yet you go to watch the parades?
        
        Lets see if we can help you figure out the lock on that closet door.
        
        I joke, I joke, but it is only because you sound like a complete asshole, you may not be, but you certainly sound like one.
        
        The whole point behind teaching kids to be tolerant of each other is to hopefully prevent some kids getting beaten to a pulp or teased so much they attempt suicide.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 8:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's social engineering dressed up as an anti-bullying campaign -- a form of brainwashing. Bullying may be bad but so are a lot of other things. They cannot BAN behavior. Parents shouldn't bubble-wrap their children, insulate them from the real world, giving them a naive, distorted outlook on life. Reality isn't always pretty.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 9:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Its funny, the only parents I see who "bubble-wrap their children, insulate them from the real world, giving them a naive, distorted outlook on life" are Xtian parents. Coincidentally they are also usually the ones yelling the loudest that homosexuality is wrong.
        
        And in my view bullying is about the worst thing that can happen to a kid and I think every effort should be made to prevent it from happening.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 15 May 2013 @ 5:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Christians are supposed to uphold their faith and have a strong sense of morals. Parents should teach their children that homosexuality is wrong and immoral. That doesn't translate to 'let's go out and bully gays.' Besides, it's not as if gay kids are the only children who get bullied, much less commit suicide -- far from it. But of course the gay community loves to portray themselves as always being the victim.
        
        As for anti-bullying campaigns, again, social engineering. The state is a poor substitute for parents.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2013 @ 6:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Parents should teach their children that homosexuality is wrong and immoral."
        
        Wrong, parents should teach their kids that everybody is different and there is nothing wrong with that as long as they are not doing any harm. If you teach your kids that people who are different are wrong and immoral you are a grade A asshole.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 7:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Parents should teach their children that homosexuality is wrong and immoral."
        
        No, they should teach that hatred of other human beings is wrong and immoral. Hopefully that will help reduce the impact of people that scum like you would spawn, as well as stop the bullying of kids who have been mistakenly identified as gay (straight kids get bullied too because morons like you don't know how to pick the right target).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stig Rudeholm (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 8:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The Real Michael, May 15th, 2013 @ 5:26am:
        
        """Christians are supposed to uphold their faith and have a strong sense of morals."""
        
        And do you get your sense of morals from the bible? If so, let me ask you a few questions:
        
        When did you last help stone someone to death?
        How many slaves do you own?
        Oh, I could go...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 17 May 2013 @ 6:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Besides technological advances, human nature remains the same as it was back then. There's always going to be some degree of violence, rape, pedophilia, theft, bribery, murder, slavery, etc.
        
        If you think religion is to blame for society's ills then all those communist states where religion has been outlawed ought to be shining beacons of peace and harmony, but they're not -- far from it. Genocide, mass starvation, euthenasa, authoritarian oppression, you name it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stig Rudeholm (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 8:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The Real Michael, May 15th, 2013 @ 5:26am:
        """Parents should teach their children that homosexuality is wrong and immoral."""
        
        Parents should teach their children to think for themselves and to question dogma.
        
        In my mind, the only actions that are immoral are those that lead to the suffering of concious creatures.
        
        The only time being gay leads to suffering is when people like you causes people suffering for being gay.
        
        """... That doesn't translate to 'let's go out and bully gays.'"""
        
        Of course it does! Do people bully gays because they were taught to respect other people? No, they do so because they were taught that only a chosen few are worthy of respect.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 10:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So... you think that we shouldn't teach kids not to bully and beat gay kids to the point of suicide, because people will just bully and beat them for being gay outside of school too?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 15 May 2013 @ 5:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That should be the parents' job, not the schools'. A school is supposed to educate, to teach math, science, english/foreign languages, etc, not morals.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 7:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Education includes knowledge of the world surrounding you, and that world contains an significant number of gay people, all of whom deserve equal treatment to the rest of us.
        
        I apologise if you don't like this fact, but it's true, and if parents with your mindset aren't going to teach anything but hatred and prejudice, then the schools will have to.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 15 May 2013 @ 7:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They deserve equal rights but not preferential treatment.
        
        It's not up to the school to play parent and decide for the children what they're allowed to think. That's an infringement of their 1st Amendment rights. If a child believes that homosexuality is wrong, that's their right.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 16 May 2013 @ 2:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yesah, I mean why stop there. Let's just let all the racists and misogynists have their way too! I mean, why teach kids how to integrate into modern society when they can just hate all the gays, women and racial minorities they can, right? I'm sure harbouring those vile prejudices will never result in harmful action.
        
        You a moron, one of the most despicable people I've ever had the misfortune of encountering.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 16 May 2013 @ 2:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow, PaulT, you sound rather hateful.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 17 May 2013 @ 12:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If by hateful you mean "have no patience with the hatred, prejudice and bigotry of others" then yes. I fail to see why that's a problem.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 17 May 2013 @ 7:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Many religious people believe that homosexuality is a sin. You're advocating for the state to teach children to violate the tenets of their faith, not to mention violate their Constitutional rights, out of purely selfish motivations.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 2:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Parents shouldn't bubble-wrap their children, insulate them from the real world, giving them a naive, distorted outlook on life. Reality isn't always pretty."
        
        But...that's precisely what you've been arguing FOR. You've been arguing against homosexual tolerance classes, i.e. you want to sweep the topic under the carpet, bubble-wrap the kids, insulate them from the real world and give them a naive, distorted outlook on life. By your logic, because a different race of humanity have practices different from yours, then kids shouldn't learn about them in school, nary a mention should be made.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 15 May 2013 @ 5:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What the hell is a 'homosexual tolerance class' anyway? That doesn't belong in school. Again, if it were considered normal behavior, there'd be no need to convince (or in this case, brainwash) our children as it should be a given.
        
        This is the reason why when parents in liberal California tried to pull their children from school in protest of this ham-fisted gay indoctrination, a judge ruled to prevent parents from doing so. Typical of the state, infringing upon other people's freedom, even attempting to dictate what parents are allowed to do with their own children, for the sake of the ever-forceful LGBT movement.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2013 @ 6:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "What the hell is a 'homosexual tolerance class' anyway? That doesn't belong in school."
        
        I totally agree, there should not be any need for schools to teach kids that they should be tolerant of others. That is the parents job. Unfortunately a lot of parents seem to fail at this.
        
        "Again, because this is normal behavior, there should be no need to convince our children as it should be a given."
        
        FTFY
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 15 May 2013 @ 7:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, so normal in fact that the schools have to resort to indoctrination.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2013 @ 7:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Where are these schools that are "indoctrinating" the kids exactly? And how are they indoctrinating them, like what are they teaching them? Please provide some linkage with some info.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 15 May 2013 @ 8:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        http://teach1776.ning.com/profiles/blogs/no-opt-out-for-gender-liberation-indoctrination
        
        http://m ommylife.net/archives/2008/07/homosexual_prop.html
        
        Here's a winner: Mass. Senate to vote on draconian bill to punish criticism of homosexuality with fine & jail term
        (3/10/2009)
        http://www.massresistance.org/docs/govt09/bully_bills/bill_s2283/index.html
        
        I could go on but what's the point? Search engine is your friend.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2013 @ 9:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Thanks for the links. I also went looking myself but had to stop because my face was getting too sore.
        
        You are correct, there are lots of xtian websites stating that California is requiring schools teach kids to be gay.
        
        Couldn't actually find any actual news sites, but perhaps my search terms were not optimal. Will try later when my eyes stop bleeding.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 16 May 2013 @ 2:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He means that they have the audacity not only to acknowledge that gays exist but that they are equals as human beings. They also have the sheer gall to do this in front of large groups of people, some of which statistically will be homosexuals.
        
        He just hates that his rabid hatred of gay people is not allowed to fester and turn into bullying, violence and psychological trauma on the children he hates (yes, michael, some of those children are gay).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 17 May 2013 @ 6:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Once again, who said that it's ok to bully? You're conflating disagreement with a zealous hatred resulting in physical violence. But back to my original point. Correct me if I'm mistaken but the board of education isn't supposed to use taxpayer money pander to a special interest group and promote their agenda; their sole responsibility is to give children an education, not preach morals (or their twisted version of it anyway). What they're doing not only goes over the heads of the taxpayers but constitutes a direct violation of their Constitutional rights.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 17 May 2013 @ 6:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You're conflating disagreement with a zealous hatred resulting in physical violence."
        
        Try reading my words, and stop making things up. Unchecked bigotry and hatred often leads to violence, and you don't have to look very far to see stories where gay kids (or kids merely suspected of being gay) are bullied, often to the point of suicide of physical violence.
        
        I'm not saying that you said it's OK to bully. I'm saying that bigots like you sometime turn to bullying and violence as a result of their bigotry, especially in a school where such behaviour is not discouraged. That you haven't personally done this doesn't excuse the next gay kid driven to suicide because of others who share the same prejudice, or the kids wasting half their lives trying to appear straight because of how their peers would react.
        
        "What they're doing not only goes over the heads of the taxpayers"
        
        No its doesn't. It goes against the opinions of people like you, but the taxpayers who take the alternative viewpoint are having their taxes used in the way they wish. Many taxpayers fully support the education you find so offensive, and I'm yet to hear an objection not based in simple bigotry.
        
        It's obviously pointless talking to you, since you apparently don't understand the role schools have in wider society, and seem to think that educating against bullying and discrimination is some form of agenda. But, like most bigots, I doubt that you can come up with a reason for your prejudice other than "I don't like those people" or "because my book of fiction says so", and that sort of person can rarely come up with something not equally applicable to heterosexuals. If you can, feel free to share and debate, but you've already shown that "I don't like what they get up to in bed" is about the extent of your reasoning.
        
        As for constitutional rights, gay people have those as well. If you don't like your children being taught tolerance and how to see gay people as fellow human beings, you're free to homeschool, or send your children to a private or religious institution where they can be taught all sorts of bullshit ranging from creationism to how there's no problem with hating people if you don't like something about them. If you send them to a public school, then the taxes of gays and other minorities are also paying those taxes, as well as people who support their cause for equality.
        
        Gay people exist, they always have and always will. Stripping away their rights because you don't like that is not acceptable, and teaching kids that they - like women, blacks, jews, Irish and whatever other group has faced similar discrimination - deserve equal treatment is hardly wrong. When people say you're on the losing side of history, this is what they mean. Get used to it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 17 May 2013 @ 8:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I'm not saying that you said it's OK to bully. I'm saying that bigots like you sometime turn to bullying and violence as a result of their bigotry, especially in a school where such behaviour is not discouraged. That you haven't personally done this doesn't excuse the next gay kid driven to suicide because of others who share the same prejudice, or the kids wasting half their lives trying to appear straight because of how their peers would react."
        
        Your argument is predicated on the false assumption that unless people accept homosexuals as being normal, they'll inevitably bully them into suicide. Nevermind all of the other kids who get bullied or commit suicide, no. Let's just exploit an emotional ploy by painting one group as the oppressed and another (in this case, mostly religious folks) demonized as the big bad bully. Screw that.
        
        "No its doesn't. It goes against the opinions of people like you, but the taxpayers who take the alternative viewpoint are having their taxes used in the way they wish. Many taxpayers fully support the education you find so offensive, and I'm yet to hear an objection not based in simple bigotry."
        
        What you label bigotry (wrongly, I might add) is parents who object to their children being taught something they're opposed to for moral/religious reasons. Your belief that homosexuality is normal does NOT supercede other people's Constitutional rights. Oh, and for the record, I've yet to read a story about a school promoting homosexuality that wasn't met with opposition from parents.
        
        "It's obviously pointless talking to you, since you apparently don't understand the role schools have in wider society, and seem to think that educating against bullying and discrimination is some form of agenda. But, like most bigots, I doubt that you can come up with a reason for your prejudice other than "I don't like those people" or "because my book of fiction says so", and that sort of person can rarely come up with something not equally applicable to heterosexuals. If you can, feel free to share and debate, but you've already shown that "I don't like what they get up to in bed" is about the extent of your reasoning."
        
        All you seem to be able to do is posture from a faux-moral high ground while conjuring strawmen to knock down. I don't even need to tell you the reasons why I oppose their lifestyle. Who are you, the moral authority?
        
        "As for constitutional rights, gay people have those as well. If you don't like your children being taught tolerance and how to see gay people as fellow human beings, you're free to homeschool, or send your children to a private or religious institution where they can be taught all sorts of bullshit ranging from creationism to how there's no problem with hating people if you don't like something about them. If you send them to a public school, then the taxes of gays and other minorities are also paying those taxes, as well as people who support their cause for equality."
        
        Tolerance of gays and intolerance of religion go hand in hand, as your post proves. Let me ask you: were you around when the earth was created? No, so that ends that. By the way, you're full of shit about homeschooling. In California a judge ruled that the parents didn't have the right to homeschool their own children. There's a blatant example of the "justice system" violating people's rights, but of course that doesn't matter to you. Just as long as they're forcing your world view upon others, everything's ok. Whenever someone dares to disagree, just label 'em an intolerant bigot. That's basically your argument.
        
        "Gay people exist, they always have and always will. Stripping away their rights because you don't like that is not acceptable, and teaching kids that they - like women, blacks, jews, Irish and whatever other group has faced similar discrimination - deserve equal treatment is hardly wrong. When people say you're on the losing side of history, this is what they mean. Get used to it."
        
        Last I checked, gays had Constitutional rights. But of course it's ok to infringe upon other people's 1st Amendment right to believe what they choose for the sake of protecting this manufactured "minority" group of special class citizens. Don't even try to equate something like black slavery with the gay movement.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stig Rudeholm (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 10:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The Real Michael, May 15th, 2013 @ 5:47am:
        """... Again, if it were considered normal behavior, there'd be no need to convince (or in this case, brainwash) our children as it should be a given."""
        
        So, do you honestly believe that kids are born with a natural instinct to reject homosexuality as unnatural? There are plenty of examples showing that that's not true. Kids don't give a fuck about someone being gay until they are taught to do so by their bigot parents!
        
        I can't comment on particular schools and their "homosexual tolerance classes" because I have no information on them. But I do know that sometimes schools will have to try to undo damage caused by stupid parents.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 14 May 2013 @ 2:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Again, the keywords here are 'consenting adults'". Adults. Hmmm, a bit of bigotry of your own?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 12:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Agreeing to an age of consent for sexual activity is bigotry now?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 7:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        GIVEN a divorce rate of approx 50% in the most civilizedest, smartbombingest, technoadvanced nation EVAH in the universe, i hardly take ANYONE talking about the 'sanctity of marriage' seriously...
        
        GIVEN a debauched, depraved, deprived society where moronic shows like the bachelor, marry a millionaire, et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseum, i larf heartily in the face of ANYONE decrying that gayosexuals might get the same chance at a lifetime of regret...
        
        oh, just out of curiousity, is it 'natural' or not for a guy to put his wee wee up a woman's poo poo ? ? ?
        ...or for him/her to perform oral sex ? ? ?
        ...or (fill in the blank with a million things nekkid apes do that you probably don't approve of, yet you are ONLY going to get your knickers in a twist over the gaybos...)
        
        in SPITE of our evil overlords, the arc of his story IS to more tolerance and understanding...
        
        i could care less if someone marries their dog, or their favorite tree, or a can of campbells soup; wtf i care ? ? ?
        
        hell, xtians already debase marriage themselves in so many ways, not the least of which is the creepy, weird, and downright perverted ritual where young virgin grrls 'marry' baby jesus...
        now *THAT* truly debases marriage when you have nonsense like that going on...
        
        by the way, *who* are good xtian BOYS supposed to 'marry' so they don't 'sin' or 'stray' ? ? ? the virgin mary ? ? ?
        yikes!
        i mean, aren't they the 'real' problem in this regard ? ? ?
        
        you silly xtians, so much intolerance, i'm sure baby jesus would approve... funny how your god hates EXACTLY who you just happen to hate...
        (you'd almost think that people were making god up!)
        
        art guerrilla
        aka ann archy
        eof
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 8:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        At least you had the audacity to draw the battle line clearly in the sand between homosexuality and Christianity. The whole purpose of the homosexual movement (and its promoters such as yourself) is to debase this country until it is morally bankrupt. Small wonder that the rise in immorality coincides with the economic and political downfall of our country.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        housh, 14 May 2013 @ 9:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Because two dudes in love are TOTALLY the source of the economic crisis.
        
        Are you even listening to yourself?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AzureSky (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 11:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        didnt you know, gay buttsecks makes go angery so hes punishing the world.
        
        oh and britney spheres what was it 55hr marriage? that was a true example of the sanctity of marriage!!!
        
        I really am starting to think that somebody touched this poor guy in a bad place as a child and now hes all butthurt over it.....
        
        I love how his kind(moralfags) always equate anything they dont like with moral corruption....they think their morals are the only valid morals.....funny stuff....would be even funnier if the govt wasnt full of people who feel the same way and want to force their "morals" on the rest of us...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 7:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Who cares about who's ramming who up the ass? As long as it's not my ass it's none of my goddamn business.
        
        I figured we were past this I mean it's 2013... Shit my wife has a few gay friends and I highly doubt they're looking to get with me.
        
        The point is they should not have to be "accepted" for anything and honestly they should not care what anyone thinks. If someone wants to be gay all I can say is have a blast. It's not going to change my view of them if they're a good person.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AzureSky (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 11:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        seems people are failing to get that this guy and his moralfag ilk are stuck in the 1950's.
        
        I bet you he also expects his wife/gf to shutup and look pretty, as well as expecting her to do all the housework and shit....
        
        please understand things from his point of view, things where better when strait white men ruled the world and
        women just sat around looking pretty
        gays stayed in the closet, and if they came out they got beat down/dead.
        blacks/coloreds stayed to their part of town....
        
        oh and when only white males had the vote....things where wonderful till all these stupid people went and ruined it by wanting equial rights and respect.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 9:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "So anyone who doesn't blindly accept gay marriage is on 'the wrong side of history,' according to you?"
        
        Of course. The progression of logic is quite simple. If you believe that homosexuality occurs in nature (and it does, in multiple species) and you believe that beings who are the way they were created who don't harm others should be afforded the same rights as everyone else, the conclusion is quite simple: if straights can marry, gays can marry. Bringing religion into it muddies an otherwise simple issue.
        
        To be clear, people are allowed to have whatever religious belief they like. That's their right. What they cannot LOGICALLY do is use a bigoted religion to justify bigotry, then claim they aren't bigoted. It's really just that simple.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AzureSky (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 11:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think you are failing to understand one simple concept here, from this fellows perspective the only valid religion is his, and the only source of valid morals is his religion.
        
        from his perspective the fact that
        
        woman are not property of men anymore is bad and evil.
        
        blacks/coloreds having rights and the vote is bad.
        
        gays not being to afrade of death to come out of the closit is bad.
        
        this is justified by his religion due to their need for more followers.
        
        gay couples dont produce more children that can be raised to follow the believes and ways of the religion, this means they dont get the money and political power from gays they would from breeders, hence gays are bad.
        
        honestly read his posts, its VERY clear hes a 50's guy whos very unhappy to be in the modern world, and he would love nothing more then to go back.
        
        hell if it wasnt for the fact that he hates muslims and islam he would move to the middle east where his attitude would fit right in with much of society.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 12:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Do tell, what is 'normal' about a guy ramming his **** up another man's ass"
        
        When you put it that way, it's kinda hot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 12:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        History or technology?
        
        Just because it may be easy to not allow a particular character type to match up does not mean it would be technically easy to allow all character matches with normal gameplay.
        
        If the issue really was that the male character was getting pregnant that may indicate that the entire relationship portion of the game up to and including pregnancy is a core part of the code and its not easy to allow any character type to match up without first making major changes to how relationships work.
        
        Did Nintendo screw up? Possibly when they decided in the design room that only men and women would couple in game. I do however doubt that the move at this point is about some kind of snub of LGBT values more than just trying to fix a broken game.
        
        It's extremely foolish to make assumptions about what a patch can or cannot do in a piece of software you have no real knowledge of on a development platform only about 1% of developers worldwide have even touched.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 5:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Another way to think about it is that it's a mere bug that may ruin the game for others.
      
      Another way to think about the it is that it's a mere patch that will ruin the game for gay players.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 4:01am
  
  Re:
  Just so I'm clear, part of the fix disallows men being allowed to have relationships with men, and you're siding with Nintendo on this one?
  
  I don't give a rat's ass about cultural differences when it comes to basic human rights and the recognition that homosexuals are every bit as human as anyone else IS a basic human right. Just as I won't excuse some theocratic nations for the abhorrent way they treat their women, nor will I excuse Japan or Nintendo for this....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 6:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    "I don't give a rat's ass about cultural differences when it comes to basic human rights and the recognition that homosexuals are every bit as human as anyone else IS a basic human right."
    
    No, it isn't, and Nintendo isn't preventing anyone from having such discourse just because they disable that particular function in their game. It's THEIR product to do with as they choose, just as it's YOUR body to choose whom form a relationship with. They have no obligation to support homosexuality -- they're a video game company.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 6:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    Their game their rules. Don't like it? Make your own.
    
    Sorry but there is no "human right" for representation of any group in art.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rikuo (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 2:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Sorry, poor choice of words. What I meant was that in the tone of this article, I'm siding with Nintendo. This article was making Nintendo out to be some huge anti-LGBT corporation. When quite frankly, I've not seen much evidence on the matter (about the only thing I can remember apart from this is they pulled an episode of Pokemon where James from Team Rocket was walking around with fake breasts, and that was back in the 90s).
    Do I believe they should have kept in the option for gay marriage? Yes. However, I believe that this fix wasn't done out of maliciousness. As far as I can see, the game was originally programmed to allow only hetero marriage, a bug allowed males to get pregnant, and someone at Nintendo just patched that out without considering the implications.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous, 14 May 2013 @ 2:23pm
    
    Re: Re:
    How do you feel about AOC laws?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous, 15 May 2013 @ 3:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No answer?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 4:07am
  
  Re:
  If that's the case then the fix would seem to be simple enough. Remove the 'men getting pregnant' glitch, add in an adoption option if it's not already in there to replace it, and leave in the ability for same-sex couples in the game to get married.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 6:26am
    
    Re: Re:
    Why should they? This is yet another example of pro-homosexuals attempting to ram their views upon others, to satisfy themselves.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 6:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Why should they? This is yet another example of pro-humans attempting to ram their views upon others, to satisfy themselves."
      
      FTFY
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Real Michael, 14 May 2013 @ 7:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Says the person who feels that Nintendo should conform to your distorted world view and feature homosexual relationships in their products, even if unintentionally.
        
        There's nothing 'pro-human' about homosexuality.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 7:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't think that Nintendo has to conform to anything.
        
        I just think it is a poor business decision to alienate any percentage of a prospective market. I'm guessing that including same sex marriage in the game would appeal to a certain percentage of the population, therefore more games sold = profit.
        
        I even thought that the male getting pregnant was a cool twist. Hell its a game, not real life.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AzureSky (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 11:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        but, leaving it in would alienate guys like this douche bag moralfag.....so in his view they did the right thing on all counts....didnt you get the memo gays are not people, nore are women or colored people....so say the 50's guy!!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 2:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "There's nothing 'pro-human' about homosexuality."
        
        Ah go on. Do fill us in. Write a yarn about how homosexual people are not in fact humans at all, but some sort of vile creature performing acts of perversion that (somehow) mean they cannot enjoy the same rights as hetero people. I dare you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AzureSky (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 11:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        why cant people get it, in this guys view(circa 1950)
        
        1. gays arent people/human they are just abhorrent animals that should be put down for the good of all moralfags like himself.
        
        2. woman arent people because they arent men.
        
        3. coloreds arent people because they arent white men like him....
        
        pretty simple, his views are strait out of the 50's....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 19 May 2013 @ 5:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Ah go on. Do fill us in. Write a yarn about how homosexual people are not in fact humans at all, but some sort of vile creature performing acts of perversion that (somehow) mean they cannot enjoy the same rights as hetero people. I dare you."
        
        I didn't say they weren't human; I said that there's nothing pro-human about homosexuality, because they cannot reproduce. But feel free to misinterpret anything I write to suit your agenda.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 12:03pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Are you a developer on the project? Have you ever worked on the Wii platform? What knowledge do you have of the code base for this game and the patterns and practices that Nintendo uses that gives you such authority on a niche piece of code for a niche piece of hardware (yes in the wider scope of software/hardware development, the Wii is a niche product).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 6:29am
  
  Re:
  Male pregnancy is still quite possible in The Sims games with mods, and through getting abducted by aliens to have an alien baby, so it's not really that much of a bug.
  
  Also, just because there's no history of a group being openly hostile to gays doesn't mean they don't suffer discrimination.
  
  Ironically in the US, I think it's anti-gay groups that have helped gays advance the most over the years. By giving gay marriage so much publicity when passing gay marriage bans in 2004 they helped nationalize this issue, and disgusted a number of straight people with how they were demonizing gays.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Howard (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 6:31am
  
  Re:
  I generally agree with you.
  
  I'd like to add two things:
  
  1. Bug (noun) Informal. a defect or imperfection, as in a mechanical device, computer program, or plan; glitch
  
  Technically, if they did not intended it as a feature, it qualifies as a bug, no matter what it does. Stop being hypersensitive about them calling it what it is: "bug".
  
  Keeping a bug as a feature can have several side-effects, from null pointers to game crashes to unrealistic in-game results like males being pregnant. Removing the bug is the only valid option.
  Reintroducing the positive effect as a feature is an entirely different matter.
  
  2. IMHO not every game should include LGBT aspects just for the sake of being so fuckin' tolerant. If a game's environment do not support it, then they shouldn't force it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MissingFrame, 14 May 2013 @ 8:14am
    
    Re: Re:
    Removing a bug also has side-effects, every time you touch the code there are possible side-effects. If I had a nickel for every time a patch needed to be backed out I'd be rich. In this case, the biggest side-effect isn't a null pointer but a nulled community. As a gamer I've seen many many many patches to fix bugs that upset the players in one way or another, and people will complain.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Howard (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 1:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I were talking about the bug from a technical aspect, which has nothing to do with the fanbase.
      
      If the fanbase applauds this bug, then Nintendo should consider implementing it as a feature, without known/unknown side effects that make the whole game unstable. But that's a business decision, above us, mere developers :]
      
      I had my share of these undocumented "features" which later came back to bite us in the ass.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- al c, 14 May 2013 @ 7:18am
  
  Re: A real bug???
  There actually was a real bug. The bug allowed male characters to get pregnant.
  
  GOD FORBID It's a frickin' computer game... just a fantasy.!!!
  
  Who really cares who can get married and/or pregnant? It's not like it's real...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 9:36am
    
    Re: Re: A real bug???
    What you're talking about is adding a feature.
    
    When games are released, they have a specific bug-fixing crew that works on them if no further content is being added to them. Their job is to fix bugs. They are typically a couple of QA testers and a programmer.
    
    Their bosses would lose their shit if they found out that they added a feature without first going up the chain of command. What may be "Let's just change the dialog around, remove the stomache and presto! gay marriage!" is instead "Let's contract a new in-house team to add this feature in, bug test this feature, and then roll it out into the next patch"
    
    Adding features cost money, adding features cost big money.
    
    That's why I find it pretty awful that people are blaming Nintendo over this. Like it's NINTENDO's fault that a bug-testing team found a bug and hammered it down like they should have. Like doing their JOB makes them bigots
    
    I think everyone just needs to grow up and realize that people's jobs are not worth their social justice crusade.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcel de Jong (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 8:01am
  
  Re:
  Good post, overall, however I object to the term "minority", because I'm sure that Tokyo's population must have a lot of minorities, just perhaps very few black people.
  
  Minority doesn't mean "black people", it means the group of people that's not the majority.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- McCrea (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 9:57am
  
  Re:
  Yes, assuming a bug isn't a bug is a poor choice for an article, imo.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 6:02am

Please don't bring up EA's attempts at tricking otherwise good LGBT people into buying their crap.

Because of my past experiences with their "diverse" offerings I'm now strongly opposed to any LGBT character in any game. Yup, that's right EA made me a (virtual) homophobe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 9:18am
  
  Re:
  "WUT YOU DON'T LIKE EA'S BUSINESS PRACTICES? YOU MUST BE A BIGOT"
  
  And then EA proceeds to shut down servers for popular games, kill off popular franchises, treat their workers like shit, and just generally make awful business decisions all around the board.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Niglefront the Portentous, 14 May 2013 @ 7:37am

I demand
that the game include characters who, however much a simple and fair concept is put before them, still remain steadfastly blinkered in their attitudes to others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 9:13am

bugs need to be fixed, the act of patching a bug shouldn't offend people.

If you start leaving bugs in the game because people like those bugs, they have other unintended side effects. Like aforementioned "unable to boot the game" problem.

If you want nintendo to add gay marriage and adoption, by all means, give them the R&D money to do so. But don't complain when they perform the natural act of fixing their product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 9:45am
  
  Re:
  If you start leaving bugs in the game because people like those bugs, they have other unintended side effects.
  
  Like the combo system in Street Fighter?
  
  Like aforementioned "unable to boot the game" problem.
  When it can be shown that the male pregnancy bug is linked to this sort of game breaker, you might have a point.
  
  Also, as pointed out above, sometimes fixing a minor bug can introduce a bigger bug. In that case, it may be better to let the minor bug lie.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 10:05am
    
    Re: Re:
    Like the combo system in Street Fighter?
    
    Or strafe jumping from Quake, the difference is: This isn't the 90's anymore and programming teams are made of HUGE groups of people who are working on multiple projects. This isn't the core focus of the company, most of the people who worked on this game aren't even working on a similar project anymore, they may not even be working at Nintendo
    
    If you can justify assembling a new team to sort through the code, add relevant flags, and add-in gay marriage. Then I can justify the huge costs that would be associated with doing so.
    
    You think that if they just left this bug in it would have been okay, it's really not. Males were getting pregnant, and there's no telling what other kind of side-effects were happening in-game.
    
    Remove the pregnancy while keeping the male partner? Congratulations, that's a new feature. If you can pay the team 1,000 an hour to add that feature in, maybe Nintendo will consider letting it slide. But as it stands, they took the smart programmer decision and fixed the bug and moved on.
    
    When it can be shown that the male pregnancy bug is linked to this sort of game breaker, you might have a point.
    
    If you read The Escapist article, one side effect was that people were having problem rebooting their systems. This is a serious problem.
    
    The team in charge of the game now is only tasked with one thing: fix bugs. If they get a bug, they're going to fix it. I'm not going to blame someone for doing their job.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 10:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Lol, never read the article but if this bug was borking the system so it wouldn't reboot, that is kind of hilarious.
      
      Definitely needed to be fixed. The bonus is that people who are against gay marriage can point to that and say "gay marriage is responsible for making our Wii suck a bit more."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 10:08am
    
    Re: Re:
    Also you're really showing that you've never worked with a big group of programmers before. When fixing a minor bug is your job you fix that damn bug or they'll find someone who will
    
    The team isn't going to just stop because you have moral objections to fixing a bug.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josh Gree, 14 May 2013 @ 9:47am

During the time that I have used DNS Services, (on behalf of a client), I never had any issues with them. Their support team is quick to answer questions and the DNS service itself is bulletproof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
william (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 10:11am

uhh... sorry to spoil the fun for all the LGBT right activists out there, but the news that some Japanese people are rushing out to buy the game after learning of the glitch is probably not the freedom fighters of LGBT that you North Americans would imagine or wish for.

From my knowledge of the Japanese popular culture, I would recommend reading up 'fujoshi' and 'yaoi'.

have fun! ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 11:57am
  
  Re:
  Nice stereotyping of an entire nationality. Congratulations. You are everything that is wrong with the world.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - william (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 1:30pm
    
    Re: Re:
    1. you generalized and extended my opinion in order to draw a conclusion in order to place yourself in moral high ground.
    
    2. And Americans have a reverse stereotyping of thinking everyone else in this world think and feel the same way they do, and has the same kind of morality and culture they do.
    
    Congratulations, you are among one of the many that actually think "American Exceptionalism" is a praise. Well, think again.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - AzureSky (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 12:21am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I think you should read up on lolicon and shotacon, those are 100% indicative of the japanese culture as well....
      
      if you think any of that is "main stream" (what either of us mentioned) your an idiot.
      
      Having a few friends who have lived in/do live in japan, I can tell you, the vision most westerners have of japan is fucking twisted and nuts.
      
      1. in most places the japanes dont really give a shit about same sex couples, just like most americans dont really give a shit when it comes down to it.
      
      infact, in japan long standing tradition is for ment to play the female roles in plays....some male actors effectively live their lives as women because those are the roles they play and they like dressing/acting that way all the time.....
      
      2. otaku are effectively geeks, and i have been told this over and over, some are insane geeks that are truly rare in the west but most are just like the trekies and comic fans who go to cons and dress up...and they get the same reaction there as here....those who arent part of the "geek" culture dont get it and think their weird...
      
      3.'fujoshi' is a term that girls/women who like to read 'yaoi'(also known as Boys love) gave themselves, and yes they are seen as deviant, but no more so then anybody else whos into porn and dosnt hide it....
      
      the fact is, there are people in japan who hate gays, but, I have never been able to get anybody I know whos from japan or whos lived there to recount a case where there was the bile filled vitriolic hate spewed at homosexuals or anybody that I see on a fairly regular basis here in the states....its just not socially acceptable to be that kinda douchebag in public.
      
      oh mind, my friends who live over there or have lived over there would have noticed and they are geeks/otaku, not the crazy kind though, no closets full of yaoi or shotacon/lolicon or the like, just lots of anime and games and figuriens and shit....oh and fucktons of tech we never see hit the US market....(one of them has something like 15 minidisk players....I sooo use to want one!!!)
      
      OH and I do agree with your last line's point, Im from this country and i wana cry when I see people use that line/term....so many fucktards in this country....so very many...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 11:53am

Do it for the slashfic girls!
The Sims 2 allowed for Civil Unions for gay couples, which was always annoying.

What amazes me is that the companies are ignoring the demographics of dollhouse games (which is about the same demographic that writes Kirk/Spock and Harry/Draco slash which is to say young-to-middle-age women. And they want their sexy guys humping each other like bunnies, heavy on the romance and melodrama.

Granted, it's a hot issue what with even the Pope going ewwww! Buttsex! (It's always the buggery. No one complains much about the carpet munching or the double-headed dildos.) But you're going to include far more people then you're going to exclude by having the options in the game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alto, 14 May 2013 @ 12:08pm

No Re:
Listen, what your characters do on their own time behind closed doors is their right. Let's just not have them parade it in front of the rest of us while we try to enjoy a rather crappy game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
marak, 14 May 2013 @ 3:53pm

from someone who lives in japan
im a bit late to the party, but as some of you know im in japan now.

i can guarantee this isnt a anti lgbt thing, over here on quite a few evening tv shows there are transsexuals. theres no uproar about that at all. these are considered family friendly shows.

i agree they shouldnt have patched it out (coding the male on males to adopt instead of having a babie would have been better, but you wont see many devs goto that much trouble either)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2013 @ 4:50pm

"I hope to hell the backlash is as brutal as it should be."

They fixed a bug. If the backlash is as brutal as it should be, it will be zero.

"no one with a lick of sense thought EA was taking some moral stance on gay rights."

So including gay characters is not taking a moral stance, but not including them IS taking a moral stance? Really? Maybe you should consider whether YOU have a "lick of sense" in your thoughts on this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ben, 14 May 2013 @ 7:26pm

Hey, found this article with the same wording and a different by-line over: http://www.teleread.com/nintendo/bug-allows-same-sex-marriage-in-nintendo-game-nintendo-releases-pat ch-to-fix-it

I don't know what the normal techdirt response to something like this is (Given my interpretation of the editorial attitude 'round here, I'd hope not immediate legal threats).

I don't know the story, and so I'm not making accusations towards anyone about plagiarism, but someone somewhere has to be faking a by-line, and that's what irks me the most.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 9:43pm
  
  Re:
  "Given my interpretation of the editorial attitude 'round here, I'd hope not immediate legal threats).
  
  I doubt you'd reply, but what do you mean by that? Techdirt doesn't fire off legal nastygrams just because someone in the comments links to something. Hell, I'm an insider and look at what I posted first thing here - I disagreed completely with the tone of the article. Where have you observed TD legally attacking someone just for holding, or in your case really, linking to a different opinion?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ben, 14 May 2013 @ 9:54pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Sorry if that was unclear, I meant legal nastygrams towards the other blog. TD seems to take an overall stance of "be friendly first, be legal as a last resort" (which I like), and I was just hoping that applied to possible shenanigans involving their own posts.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rikuo (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 10:40pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Okay, thanks for clearing that up. Just so you know, Techdirt doesn't care if others copy the articles here.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 11:52pm
  
  Re:
  Hey, found this article with the same wording and a different by-line over: http://www.teleread.com/nintendo/bug-allows-same-sex-marriage-in-nintendo-game-nintendo-releases-pat ch-to-fix-it
  
  I don't know what the normal techdirt response to something like this is (Given my interpretation of the editorial attitude 'round here, I'd hope not immediate legal threats).
  
  Huh. That's odd. We have no problem with folks copying our stuff, though we appreciate them linking back to the original and properly crediting the author. As we've noted in the past, people are free to do whatever they want with our work, though if they replace bylines and don't mention the source, it often probably comes back to harm their *own* reputation.
  
  Anyway, Teleread's always been a pretty good site that we're fans of here. I just sent a friendly email to the folks there to ask them if they meant to post it that way, or if it was unintentional, though making it clear that we appreciate our work being seen. We'd just appreciate it more if it were properly bylined and credited.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 5:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    And, not surprisingly, Teleread has said it was an accident -- just a mixup in how they used a new aggregator tool to send stories to each other. They've taken down the story, though, frankly, they didn't need to do that.
    
    Either way, no big deal.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ben, 14 May 2013 @ 9:53pm

Sorry if that was unclear, I meant legal nastygrams towards the other blog. TD seems to take an overall stance of "be friendly first, be legal as a last resort" (which I like), and I was just hoping that applied to possible shenanigans involving their own posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jotunbane, 15 May 2013 @ 5:39am

Did anybody else notice this : http://www.teleread.com/nintendo/bug-allows-same-sex-marriage-in-nintendo-game-nintendo-releases-pat ch-to-fix-it/

The exact same article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does it matter?, 15 May 2013 @ 12:20pm

What the Bible says
Romans 1:27-31 - "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

You don't have to believe it, but you will reap the penalty regardless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Does it matter?, 15 May 2013 @ 12:21pm
  
  Re: What the Bible says
  So in retrospect... props to Nintendo for supporting what the world is now perverted and blind to.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 12:39pm
  
  Re: What the Bible says
  I don't give a shit what the Bible says. It's contradictory to say the least, and yes, I have read it, cover to cover. I'm a real man, I'm able to make my own decisions, I don't blindly hate a group of people simply because a book near 2,000 years old says I'm supposed to.
  Even if your book were right, read the fucking quote. "God gave them over to a reprobate mind" as in, it's God making gay men gay. If that's true, (and it must be according to you, it's in the BIBLE) then why should they be punished for merely doing God's will? Isn't that what we're supposed to do?
  
  No, you are a hateful person, one who has no real basis for his hatred, and merely points to a book because its convenient.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nope, 15 May 2013 @ 2:57pm
    
    Re: Re: What the Bible says
    Reading it is not merely enough. You have no relationship with God... therefore His word is just words to you. The problem with your thoughts and analogies is that the Bible is actually living and breathing. It applies to all life and every situation. I never expressed a hatred toward gays... only their lifestyle. It is something that God specifically says He does not want for mankind. Also, you are taking scripture out of context. "God gave them over to a reprobate mind" doesn't mean He "made them gay". It means He let them live in their sin because they chose to do it. The end result is the same. Sin and God cannot exist in the same place. Therefore they will be separated from Him forever if there is no repentance. This would be hell. You see Christianity as a weakness, it is a strength my friend. As sad as I am for you and those like you... You are the weak, lost, scared, angry, and hating one. I hope you find peace eventually in Jesus Christ.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2013 @ 5:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: What the Bible says
      No, the book of pure evil was living and breathing. I mean it used to fly right at Todd's head. I put as much credence in that as I do your book of fairy tales.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Uriel-238 (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 1:03pm
  
  Re: What the Bible says
  You don't have to believe it, but you will reap the penalty regardless.
  
  That sounds like the stereotypical Abrahamic threat.
  
  How do you know?
  
  What makes the bible more sacred or true than the Egyptian Book of the Dead? After all the lake of Hellfire appeared there long before it was added to the book of the Hebrews.
  
  If it's a question of faith, how does your personal faith affect our world, and why should the ideology of a few, based on a tradition befouled with cruelty, be regarded as superior to the reason that founded a modern nation?
  
  Abrahamism is monarchist. It's long obsolete.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nope, 15 May 2013 @ 2:52pm
    
    Re: Re: What the Bible says
    "Your world" as you call it... is THE world thatGod created. Therefore... He owns it. You twist His word to work the way you want it to. You will suffer the penalty because all who deny Him will burn in hell forever. The end. It's simple. But you are too blind to see it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 3:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: What the Bible says
      ""Your world" as you call it... is THE world thatGod created. Therefore... He owns it."
      
      What God creates, he owns. Thank you for exemplifying for me why I dislike theism so much. I'll take a deistic or atheistic viewpoint over one in which I must never-endingly praise the dear leader who owns me, as if he were some celestial Kim Jong Un.
      
      "You twist His word to work the way you want it to."
      
      Says the guy with a book claiming to be the word of God, yet it was hand-picked by a bunch of dudes in dresses.
      
      "You will suffer the penalty because all who deny Him will burn in hell forever."
      
      Gentle Jesus, meek and mild, on display for anyone on the fence, my friends....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Uriel-238 (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 5:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: What the Bible says
      You will suffer the penalty because all who deny Him will burn in hell forever. The end. It's simple. But you are too blind to see it.
      
      Again with the threats. You still didn't answer my question. There are doesn't of mythologies about the afterlife. Why does the one you prefer prevail.
      
      Threatening us with Hellfire only reenforces the internet Christian Fundamental Jerkwad stereotype. It actually weakens your position that you resort to such rubbish.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 12:57pm

Perhaps you can't choose orientation, but you can choose behavior. There are people who get off on setting fires. I'm sure there are at least some people who would get gratification from it but choose to NOT become serial arsonists.

So you are comparing consenting adult gays who want to marry to arsonists.

People who get off on starting fires become pyrotechnicians and demolitionists. There are safe, even useful ways to facilitate a fire fetish.

And yet you don't think that there is a safe way to be gay? How does a homosexual man threaten society the way an arsonist does?

This seems unnecessarily hyperbolic, like you're just freaked out about something regarding gays, not like there is a real, rational danger with letting gays act with the same freedom we allow hets to act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous, 15 May 2013 @ 3:39pm
  
  Re:
  "How does a homosexual man threaten society the way an arsonist does?". They're both flamers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 17 May 2013 @ 12:29pm

Clarifications re: Pedophilia, Homosexuality, et. al.
Pedophilia, to which I'm sure you're referring, and homosexuality, are not even remotely the same thing. One is a psychiatric disorder while the other is a non-disorder occurring predictably by percentage in certain species.

Pedophilia is a phenomenon about which our already-sexually-distraught society is especially freaked out, has inflated the issue to gross proportions and has created what is no less than a witch-hunt for pedophiles, one of the results of which has been teens getting databased with the charge of distributing child-porn, for no more than sexting themselves to their sweethearts. (Not necessarily explicitly, either.)

There's a difference between pedophilia, the disorder in which an adult is compelled to sexually assault children, and pedophilia, (yes, a homonym) the paraphilia in which adults are sexually attracted to children. In a gross majority of the cases in the latter form, these adults don't act on it. Yet they are conflated by the media and ignorant law enforcement all the time with convicts diagnosed with the former. Anonymous is implying he's in the latter category at worst (and see below), in that he's aware of the criminal consequence and is at least so deterred. But also most of those who are sexually attracted to kids actually like kids, and would be heartbroken to realize one got traumatically hurt due to their actions. Besides which, there are numerous ways to be able to experiment with these desires in safe ways that involve only consenting adults.

Then there's a difference between pedophilia, attraction to pre-pubescent children, ephebophilia, attraction to pubescent adolescents, and hebephilia, attraction to post-pubescent young adults, the latter two of which are considered well within the realm of normal sexuality (only in the 20th century was the age of consent elevated above typical ages where sexual behavior begins). So (for example) when Representative Mark Foley was propositioning 16-year-old interns by chat, what he was doing was inappropriate and maybe even criminal, but it didn't make him a pedophile. For a time, a ten year old boy could be marked as a pedophile for being caught experimenting with a twelve-year-old girl, and cases resulted in guilty charges and lives ruined until Romeo and Juliet laws were implemented.

Homosexuality, is, incidentally, also regarded as a paraphilia. Paraphilias aren't necessarily bad, they're just aspects of our sexuality that are anomalous (but not necessarily contradictory) to reproduction, and since sex serves more purposes than reproduction (despite our squicked-out culture in the US and despite the wishes of many conservative religions) they aren't considered bad or wrong until they are a source of secondary dysfunction in someone's life (not including societal reactions, such as hate-crime against gays. That's a hang-up the community has over a paraphilia, not the individual.)

Just as someone who likes being raped (there are plenty) doesn't want to seek out actual rape due to the hazards, someone who likes kids doesn't generally want to seek out actual kids due to the risks of trauma. (Both of these fetishes can be acted upon in role-play with consenting adults, however). Someone who likes their own sex is neither hurting themselves or others by finding adult consenting partners with whom to engage their paraphilia, and that is the specific difference that makes it a social prerogative to allow for homosexual relationships and not pedophilic relationships.

Nope is trying to hold us accountable to biblical authority, which isn't applicable to a country such as the US that values personal liberty over adherence to a specific ideology, such as Southern Baptism. Since Nope's recourse when confronted with this is to argue ad baculum by way of the threat of Hellfire, we can assume until demonstrated otherwise, he's plum run out of ideas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
btrussell (profile), 20 May 2013 @ 8:13am

Priorities.

Ensuring people of the same sex can kiss in public or get married is more important than ending the war on drugs.

How many people have been killed because they were gay? For all time.

How many people killed in the last ten years due to the war on drugs?

Priorities. What the hell is that? Shhhh! (Insert sport) game is about to start.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
karmine, 16 Jul 2013 @ 4:40am

keep faggotry out of games
nothing but filth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]