backtop


Print 224 comment(s) - last by EricMartello.. on May 18 at 3:21 PM


  (Source: Inquistr)
West misinterprets fantasy based on its own views

Nintendo Comp., Ltd. (TYO:7974), a silver-haired veteran of the gaming industry, finished the last decade on a triumphant high note, ridigng on the achievements of the best-selling Nintendo DS (2004) and Nintendo Wii (2006).  But the new decade has thus far been less than kind to the chipmaker, with three straight years of losses.  Success stories are surprisingly few and far between at Nintendo these days.

I. Hit Title Ignites Controversy, Protests in the West

One product that has seemingly beat the slump is Tomodachi Korekushon: Shin Seikatsu ("Tomodachi Collection: New Life") ("tomodachi" means "friend" in Japanese), a virtual life simulator for Nintendo's "Miiverse" that allows Nintendo 3DS users to create their own avatars and interact over internet with friends and family in a 3D animated world.

In its launch weekend alone this February in Japan it moved an eye-popping 405,000 units -- far ahead the second place seller's 87,000 haul.    That's just shy of quadrupling the sales of the title's predecessor, which would go on to sell 3.7 million units in Japan alone.  In Japan the new title has helped to revive sluggish Nintendo 3DS and 3DS XL sales in Japan, keeping Nintendo a step ahead of its arch-rival Sony Corp. (TYO:6758) who markets the rival Vita portable gaming device.  But now even as Nintendo looks to for the first time launch the quirky, but beloved regional title overseas, its embroiled in a social controversy that could impact its global sales.

Tomodachi

Controversy ignited after the gamemaker refused to allow users with same-sex Mii avatars to marry each other or enter into relationships.  From launch, Nintendo decided to only allow male-female in-game romance, give those who enter into such relationships exclusive content.

However, a bug in the 3DS game briefly allowed male characters to marry their virtual lovers in-game, until Nintendo "fixed" the issue along with other bugs in a recent patch.

Responding to recent controversy issuing a statement, Nintendo said of the decision:

[We] never intended to make any form of social commentary.  The relationship options in the game represent a playful alternate world rather than a real-life simulation.  We hope that all of our fans will see that Tomodachi Life was intended to be a whimsical and quirky game, and that we were absolutely not trying to provide social commentary.

But for some gay Japanese gamers, the decision to keep the popular title to a heterosexual cartoon fantasy world has left them distraught.  Tye Marini, 23, a self-proclaimed Nintendo fan from Tempe, Arizona, has launched a global campaign called "Miiquality" challenging the decision.  He comments:

I want to be able to marry my real-life fiancé's Mii, but I can't do that.  My only options are to marry some female Mii, to change the gender of either my Mii or my fiance's Mii or to completely avoid marriage altogether and miss out on the exclusive content that comes with it. 

It's more of an issue for this game because the characters are supposed to be a representation of your real life.  You import your personalised characters into the game. You name them. You give them a personality. You give them a voice. They just can't fall in love if they're gay.

Nintendo has responded, defending its stance, but hinting it might reconsider it at some point, writing of the Twitter campaign:

[T]he ability for same-sex relationships to occur in the game was not part of the original game that launched in Japan.  That game is made up of the same code that was used to localize it for other regions outside of Japan.

[However], we have heard (the #miiquality) and thoughtfully considered all the response.  We will continue to listen and think about the feedback. We're using this as an opportunity to better understand our consumers and their expectations of us at all levels of the organization.

Mr. Marini and his fellow "Miiquality" Twitter activists are determined to continue making their voices heard until Nintendo changes course.  He calls on users not to boycott the game, but to post to the internet, including Twitter, urging Nintendo to reconsider.  He comments:

I would hope that they recognize the issue with the exclusion of same-sex relationships in the game and make an effort to resolve it.  Until then, Miiquality will continue to raise awareness of the issue.

The Japanese title is scheduled to be released on June 6, 2014 across the U.S., Canada, and Europe.

II. The Struggle to Understand Japan's Wildly Different Culture, Views in the West

To Westerners in the U.S. and Europe this controversy sounds all too familiar.  After all, they've seen similar debates occur in recent months. Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich recently resigned under fire, obstensibly over a political donation he made in support of banning gay marriage.  Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the family at the center of cable television's second most-watched show Duck Dynasty, was temporarily suspended after making remarks regarding his religious opposition to homosexuality and gay marriage.

But what Westerners are missing is that Nintendo's stance basically has nothing in common with those incidents.  It's not a matter of politics or religion, it's a matter of culture and tradition.  

More than anything the campaign against the prohibition highlights the challenges for Japanese media in offering its wildly different societal views to a U.S. market, which attempts to cast those views into their own belief space.

Japanese culture -- and likely most employees of Nintendo -- embrace homosexuality far more than their pro-gay rights heterosexual Western peers, to some extent.  However, like many things in the Japanese culture, there's highly specific venues where gay culture and homosexuality is celebrated.

A crucial first point to make is that in general Japanese people have no strong opposition to homosexuality, unlike many people in the U.S. and some people in Europe.

In Japan opposition to homosexuality on a religious basis is virtually nonexistent.  Three in five Japanese people report having no institutionalized religious beliefs (other than traditional spirtualism -- Shinto philosophy).  And of Japan's religious minority, seven out of eight people of faith are buddhists.  Traditionally Japan's buddhist community has been associated with a strong tradition of homosexual relationships.  So unlike in the U.S. Japan's views on gay marriage generally have little to do with religion (less than 2 percent of Japanese identify as Christian, Muslim, or Jewish) and in the rare instances when they do it's the religious community supporting the right to be gay.

Likewise the legality in Japan is much different.  In the U.S. while sodomy laws have been deemed unconstitutional in both a heterosexual and homosexual context, a third of states (16 states, in total) have refused to repeal their laws.  Unenforceable as they may be, these states view the laws as a rebuke to homosexuality, which in the U.S. is strongly opposed largely on a religious basis by some Christians, Muslims, and Jews.

In addition to sodomy laws, men who have sex with men are denied the ability to act as blood donors in the U.S. and until recently were denied the right to serve in the U.S. military while openly gay.

On the flip side, the U.S. has a number of anti-discrimination laws and regulations at the federal level, and some such laws at the state level.  Some states now allow gay people to marry and adopt children (others continue to legally oppose this).  In short in the U.S. the issue sees a strongly divided population, with some actively looking to try to "stop" homosexual activity, and others looking to offer homosexuals the same rights heterosexuals enjoy.

Legally the situation in Japan is very different.  Gays are allowed to donate blood and were never banned from military service; in fact in the days of the samurai homosexual pedophilic relationships were actually institutionalized.

Samurai Kissing boyfriend
A samurai kisses a male Kabuki actor in drag.  In traditional Japanese theater -- Kabuki -- women were played by teenage boys.  Most of these youth made extra money on the side work as prostitutes for older (male) samurais and soldiers. [Image Source: Wikimedia Commons]

On the flip side Japanese unmarried couples -- gay or straight -- can not adopt.  There are no laws banning discrimination against gays, although incidents of such practices in Japan are believed to be rarer than in the U.S.  And because there is no legal basis for gay marriage in Japan, commited gay couples can not enjoy financial benefits such as retirement.  That said, again, the situation in Japan is rather different as there's a stronger public insurance marketplace and there's fewer restrictions when it comes to traditional points of contention the U.S. such as hospital visitation and finances.

In short homosexuals in Japan lack the rights they have in parts of the U.S., but also lack the legal discrimination that other parts of the U.S. employ.

From a big picture perspective Japan strongly embraces homosexuality culturally both via classic literary works celebrity gay relationships (which have no significant equivalents in the U.S. in the 1800s) and comic-genres like "yaoi" and "bara" which focus on gay relationships and are popular among Japanese of all sexual orientations.  But the nation's embrace of homosexuality is much like the nation's views on expression of emotion in general -- only express them in certain contexts.

In Japan birth rates have sharply declined.  Half of young Japanese adult women and a quarter of Japanese men in recent studies have reported saying that they had no interest in having sex (with fellow humans of either gender), and no interest in marriage/having kids.  Japan's population is expected to fall in half by 2100, creating a massive slow-boiling economic crisis.

III. You Can't Put a Western Context on Japanese Tradition

In many ways the Japanese culture today is defined by fantasy and a disconnect from human emotion.  George Mirren (not his real name) an expatriot living in Japan summarized the situation well (including contexualizing it to gay rights) telling The Daily Yomiuri:

In America, we’re always seeking ‘the real me’ or ‘my real feelings.’ Everything here, on the other hand, is situational.  In America, gay men spend a lot of time hiding their real self. So when you come to a culture where people aren’t interested in your real self, it’s a relief.

In that context, it's easier to understand why there's been no major outcry from the gay community about Nintendo's decision.  In fact, Nintendo itself is arguably a byproduct of the country's disposition towards fantasy and idealized, artificial versions of reality.  It is no coincidence that Japan long dominated the global gaming market.

And yet as much sense as the Nintendo decision to seemingly ignore gay relationships and gay marriage makes in context of its culture, the problem is that Japan is hoping to sell the game in regions like Europe and the U.S. with wildly different social views.  Even those who support its decision in these regions will typically do so on a radically different basis.  The West seems bound to misunderstand, misinterpret, and misrepresent Nintendo's viewpoint as it seemingly involves an issue that has a far different context in their culture.

Gay marriage
In Japan where most people are apathetic to gay relationships -- and in many case, relationships in general -- in the U.S. people are passionately opposed to or in support of gay civil rights. [Image Source: GuardianLV]

But while Japan's apathy towards the issue may not be viewed as "good enough" from the perspective of Western activists on either sides of the debate in a Western context, the West is unlikely to be able to change Japan's strong cultural traditions which in many cases are centuries old.  And history suggests that while Western efforts to push its culture context and views on other parts of the world are fraught with troubles, history also suggest that the West inevitably will continue to make such efforts, as we are seeing in the case of "Miiquality". 

Thus Nintendo looks destined for an unexpected controversy at a time when it was just hoping to channel a bit of the sales magic it's seeing in Japan.

Sources: AP, Miiquality, BBC News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

who cares
By mdogs444 on 5/9/2014 1:59:17 PM , Rating: 4
Who cares? People act like being gay is the cool thing to do anymore.




RE: who cares
By peterrushkin on 5/9/2014 2:19:25 PM , Rating: 4
Agreed.

What makes me laugh, is that the gays are so intolerant of everyone else's views.

Don't support gay marriage and they will be all over you.

They'll boycott your business and make such a fuss over it that you'll get fired from your job.

They'll boycott your show and it will get cancelled.

Don't tell them that being intolerant is not tolerating someone else's views. It doesn't apply to the LGBT sphere.

Personally, I support both sides being tolerant of each other. I don't support intolerance.


RE: who cares
By Motoman on 5/9/14, Rating: 0
RE: who cares
By Manch on 5/9/2014 2:41:41 PM , Rating: 4
The way I see it is like this.

There is marriage under the eyes of God(Whomever that be to you)

Then there is marriage under the law(Tax goodies, etc)

There should be no reason why gays cant marry each other under the law. Compromise and call it civil union, or super awesome partners, or hell drop an "r" and call it mariage, or gayriage, I dont give a shit.

If a religious group opposes gay marriage according to their faith then so be it, dont get married there. Leave them to their beliefs.

There are places in Arkansas where Im from that I just dont go bc Im a bit too tan. No worries, Ill grab a beer elsewhere. Simple as that. Leave the ignorant to themselves and keep company with the people that hold similar values to your own.


RE: who cares
By FITCamaro on 5/9/2014 3:08:48 PM , Rating: 2
There should be no marriage "laws" period. No benefits for being married. No punishments for being single. THAT is true equality. We don't need marriage laws to decide who can inherit our stuff, who is our emergency contact, who we want to be able to visit us in the hospital, etc.

Then marriage is left up to where it belongs. The church. If people want to make promises to each other, the government has no business in it.

State's should be who create any laws on marriage that do exist though. And they have every right to make those laws to the will of the people. There is no Constitutional right to marriage because the founders didn't view it as the government's business.


RE: who cares
By daboom06 on 5/9/2014 3:29:58 PM , Rating: 5
there's economic and social benefit in encouraging people to form long-lasting and stationary relationships. that's why there are tax breaks for married people.

seeking to get rid of those benefits is similar to wanting to get rid of subsidies for new technology firms.


RE: who cares
By MrBlastman on 5/9/2014 3:37:48 PM , Rating: 3
Right, there are benefits. But do we want the Government manipulating us for those benefits or do we want them to stay out of our business?

That's the question everyone should be asking themselves.

In fact, as it stands right now, if you get married you are penalized until you have children under the tax code. And those tax breaks? They hardly cover the actual costs of raising that child.


RE: who cares
By Dorkyman on 5/9/14, Rating: -1
RE: who cares
By MrBlastman on 5/9/14, Rating: 0
RE: who cares
By Reflex on 5/9/2014 3:54:41 PM , Rating: 3
A thousand years of empire? Sign me up!


RE: who cares
By Reflex on 5/9/2014 3:54:17 PM , Rating: 5
Because consent and consequences matter, that's why not. Polygamy has societal costs, and there are many documentaries about that cost(look up the 'lost boys' about what it does to young males unable to compete with wealthier older men for brides). Bestiality is not victimless, an animal cannot give consent.

By contrast committed homosexual relationships harm no one, not participants and not the rest of society. And consent is as much a given in them as it is in heterosexual relationships. That is the distinction.

As for your statement about Hollywood, have you bothered to look at the sales figures for movies? They make more outside of the USA than they do inside these days. Clearly other cultures do not look upon us with astonishment and disgust.


RE: who cares
By domboy on 5/9/14, Rating: -1
RE: who cares
By Rukkian on 5/9/2014 5:27:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
beg to differ. Most animals have a lot more and more dangerous ways to say "not tonight honey" than humans do... hooves, teeth, claws, etc... and any combination thereof...


Until they are tied down, put in a pen, etc against their will.


RE: who cares
By Rukkian on 5/9/2014 5:29:38 PM , Rating: 1
Under you definition, since women can fight back, they cannot be raped. Forcing somebody, or some thing do have sex against their/it's will is rape.


RE: who cares
By Manch on 5/10/2014 11:50:35 AM , Rating: 2
The donkey on the stage begs to differ....


RE: who cares
By room200 on 5/10/2014 10:56:34 AM , Rating: 3
You don't want government to stay out of "our" business, you phony. You love big government. You're one of those same people who start talking about women shouldn't be able to have abortion and you use big government to push your views.


RE: who cares
By FITCamaro on 5/12/2014 8:12:38 AM , Rating: 1
So not wanting unborn children to be murdered is supporting big government now? The Constitution guarantees the right to life for EVERY American. The unborn are human. They are American's too.


RE: who cares
By JeBuSBrian on 5/14/2014 6:20:40 PM , Rating: 2
According to the US Constitution, one must be born to gain citizenship, and thus become American. In order to change that, you don't need just some regular old law, you need an amendment to the Constitution.


RE: who cares
By Reflex on 5/14/2014 9:53:15 PM , Rating: 2
I actually considered pointing that out but decided it would just be ignored. But yeah, if constitutional rights apply at conception then we get a whole ton of interesting constitutional issues way beyond abortion. For instance, every child conceived in the USA becomes an automatic citizen, yay! Imagine the kind of tourism that would spark...


RE: who cares
By maugrimtr on 5/12/2014 11:49:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There should be no marriage "laws" period. No benefits for being married. No punishments for being single. THAT is true equality. We don't need marriage laws to decide who can inherit our stuff, who is our emergency contact, who we want to be able to visit us in the hospital, etc. Then marriage is left up to where it belongs. The church. If people want to make promises to each other, the government has no business in it.


I hate it when religion is mixed up with the state. The state has every right to register marriages since it vastly simplifies certain things around inheritance and dependency. I certainly agree that the tax benefit of being married, as it pertains to income at least, should be minimised. I hate knowing that I pay more taxes to supplement some married couple's tax breaks... They're married, right? They probably already save cash on sharing a home, a mortgage burden (I have one too...and I'm single to boot), sharing a car, etc.

You lost me on the constitutional right to marriage. It doesn't exist. What does exist is a married couples right (hehe, or is it requirement?) to register that marriage with the government in return for tax benefits. The stuff that gay people who make promises cannot do in the same way for...religious reasons? Makes no sense to me.


RE: who cares
By cokbun on 5/9/2014 8:41:44 PM , Rating: 2
or butt-buddies


RE: who cares
By tjcinnamon on 5/9/2014 3:00:18 PM , Rating: 2
^^^^

Ding ding ding... Well done!


RE: who cares
By MrBlastman on 5/9/2014 3:07:57 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Either everyone can be married, or you're being intolerant. That's the beginning and the end of it.


Completely, utterly incorrect.

Everything in this world is not black and white. It is not minimum or maximum. There are betweens, highs, lows. There are absolutes, limits and lack of limits.

In this world, everything is different. We are diverse. We have our own special quirks that help us stand out among everyone else.

Not supporting something doesn't make you "intolerant" at all. It just means you have formed an opinion that is not supportive of something.

Just because I don't support gay marriage doesn't make me a bigot. It doesn't make me intolerant. I'm quite tolerant. I've been very vocal on here about a common middle ground to solve the issue. But because I'm of the opinion I don't agree with gay marriage hardly qualifies me as intolerant.

If I went so far as showing up at a gay wedding with a dump truck full of fecal matter and dumped it on the bride and groom--well, then you could call me intolerant. But because I or anyone else is of the opinion that one thing is one way and another is likewise... well, that's not intolerance at all.

Taking a stand that someone is intolerant because the only clear choice is black or white--that is intolerant.

You... are intolerant.

Like it or not, women can bear children. Men can't. We just can't will a child out of us. We lack ovaries. We lack a uterus. We can't birth a child of our own body.

What if a man didn't like that? What if they sued on the basis that if men can't have children, women shouldn't either?

Do you see where I'm going? Because that is where "intolerant" society is going due to fringe groups that refuse to accept anything but their own "guilded new-age progressive" view.


RE: who cares
By Motoman on 5/9/14, Rating: -1
RE: who cares
By MrBlastman on 5/9/14, Rating: 0
RE: who cares
By Motoman on 5/9/14, Rating: 0
RE: who cares
By MrBlastman on 5/9/14, Rating: 0
RE: who cares
By Motoman on 5/9/14, Rating: -1
RE: who cares
By MrBlastman on 5/9/2014 4:36:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And that, my friend, is you. You're so sick with it that it's left you bereft of any possibility of help. The best case would be for you to not reproduce and/or have contact with others, lest you be contagious


Fortunately for you, intolerant extreme one, I have reproduced. You get to enjoy my indoctrinated views in her for another generation! Isn't that great?! :-)

I knew you'd like that. Maybe I'll breed more. A whole little army of tolerant people who think logically with compromise rather than wanting one and only view to exist and no other.

A world of thought control is a scary, terrible place. I shudder what your dreams are like. Bathed in memories of equal thinking. Those who divest are policed, incarcerated, sterilized and executed!

How terrible!

I have no sickness. I have my humanity. I have reason, logic, and a strong scientific background with my feet firmly set in the scientific method. I know this is so because I royally piss off my in-laws and even my wife with it all the time. See, they happen to be extremely religious. I'm extremely scientific. That makes for a great time!

But instead of realizing that no matter how hard you want something--you can't make someone in their heart believe one thing or another--you call us all bigots for not seeing it how you do.

Where did I say explicitly in my solution that only some people get to hate and others do not?

Titillate me. I want to be tickled willy nilly by your frilly swilly frenzied passion. You'll caress the vowels, smother the consonates, round the subjects and drench the predicates. But you'll find no such clause precluded by shadowy participles!

It just doesn't exist!

See, Sir, I am equal opportunity!

In my world of science, everyone gets to hate or love, equally! We can all hate! We can all love! Or some of us can hate and others can love! No, in my world, the world of science, only the strong survive in the end. Back in the day they called it the "school of hard knocks." Not to be confused with prison as life is not such at all. Life is what you make of it. You can chose to be jailed behind proverbial bars of disdain or you can wash your eyes and purge your ears of dissonance whole perusing the local botanical gardens. The choice is yours!

Bubba's Church of Fundamentals might hate same sex couples. Burts Church of Manly Friends might hate man and woman disciples!

Everyone is equal to do as they wish!

For you see, under the eyes of the law, every single one of you are equal, be it man, woman or man as woman or woman as man, together as one or apart as not, it doesn't matter. Only the slip of paper you hold that bears the title, "Civil Union," does.

That is equality.

Any other argument you come up with is amusing to say the least. You're grasping at straws and they keep getting shorter. But try, Sir, try! Even Hitler got lucky, eventually. That cyanide vial worked in the end. He might have broken one, two or three but he finally found one that loved him as much as he.


RE: who cares
By Motoman on 5/9/14, Rating: 0
RE: who cares
By MrBlastman on 5/9/14, Rating: 0
RE: who cares
By Reflex on 5/9/2014 4:59:00 PM , Rating: 2
Why does compromise seem to mean "Accept my proposal or else you are an extremist!" to you? Compromise means you give a little, you get a little. Here is the offer: Your church does not have to participate in any homosexual weddings. What you give up for that right is something you already do not own in the first place, the definition of the word marriage.

See how easy that was? You didn't even have to give anything up!


RE: who cares
By MrBlastman on 5/9/2014 5:10:21 PM , Rating: 1
But I do. I would have to give up Religious Freedom, something guaranteed to any religion under our Constitution.

Separation of Church and State.

So the debate here isn't whether a Church owns a phrase or not. In their hundreds or thousands year-old doctrine, it does bear this phrase. So, because of this, like it or not, to maintain freedom of religion, it must be separated from society.

Or are you telling me your real issue is with Religion itself?

Tell me, please! I'm eager to know!

Like a poster below, the truth will inevitably come out. LGBT issues have been a scapegoat for a long time, like most any other disenfrancised sect of society. They are only useful to support as long as your own secret agenda is passed, too.


RE: who cares
By Reflex on 5/9/2014 5:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
Again, my position, and the position of most who believe in civil rights for homosexuals, is not that churches be forced to marry gay people. Religious freedom guarantees they do not ever have to do that. I could be wrong but I'm fairly certain that churches do not have to marry black people, or interracial marriages or anything else they do not approve of, they can certainly have their own criteria for marriages recognized by their church.

The argument being made is that they do not get *ownership* of the word marriage. The state has no religious faith by definition, and as such its laws should be applied in as neutral a fashion as possible. Permitting the state to authorize and recognize homosexual marriages in no way affects a church, which still gets to pick and choose who it wishes to marry within its walls.

State sanctioned gay marriage cannot infringe on religious freedom. State sanctioned banning of gay marriage, absolutely infringes on civil rights. Thus the compromise is obvious: the state recognizes the right of gays to marry, but churches are in no way forced to participate.


RE: who cares
By purerice on 5/9/2014 7:01:36 PM , Rating: 2
Reflex, when a cake shop owner in CO faces penalties for not baking a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding, he has already lost his religious freedom.


RE: who cares
By Reflex on 5/9/2014 7:19:19 PM , Rating: 2
1) What religion is that? I did not see anything in the Bible that I grew up reading that prohibited me from baking cakes for homosexual weddings. If the owner can point to the verse pertaining to that, they might have a point.

2) The same thing would happen if they refrained from baking cakes for an interracial couple and stated it was due to their religion. I see no reason to give them special religious rights simply because the couple was gay rather than interracial.


RE: who cares
By rsmech on 5/9/2014 9:32:41 PM , Rating: 2
There is a difference you are missing. To be a bakery and sell genetic baked goods to anyone is not a problem. To compel them at risk of losing their business to participate in a union they hold as sin is the problem. In one instance they are actively participating and the other it makes no difference.

Why didn't they go to another bakery? You must respect their desires while they can ignore you beliefs. Is that extreme or not? If they can force a religious person to comply or else; how long before their church is treated the same.


RE: who cares
By rsmech on 5/9/2014 9:36:34 PM , Rating: 2
Look it up, in Sweden it is already illegal for a preacher to speak homosexuality as a sin.


RE: who cares
By Reflex on 5/10/2014 1:54:03 AM , Rating: 2
In some communities, just 'going to another bakery' may not be an option, especially in smaller towns. But even then, that is besides the point. The bakery is hiding behind a religious excuse. Not only is that excuse inaccurate to the religion, it is insulting to the rest of us Christians out there who know better. Just as insulting as those who use Christianity as a shield for other social diseases like racism and misogyny.

But again, no one is asking them to participate in the gay wedding. They are being asked to treat their customers equally. Nothing more, nothing less. They can privately approve or disapprove of whatever they want, but once they choose to operate in the public square, they must conform to the law.

As for the 'how long before their church is treated the same', well, there are still churches that preach virulent racism. Churches enjoy all sorts of special protections in the USA, which is why they are untaxed and able to speak freely about all manner of topics no matter how offensive they wish to be.


RE: who cares
By rsmech on 5/10/2014 10:24:26 AM , Rating: 2
It's easy for you to explain it to yourself but we believe different. I believe love the sinner not the sin. And yes I hold this to be sin just as alcoholism, fornication, stealing, ECT. I do not take the alcoholic to a bar, I support his fight against it. I do not keep a fornicator's secret but ask them to abstain and seek council. I do not buy the thieves goods but reproach them. As a Christian I do not encourage, promote, or accept sin as good works. I'm sorry many may disagree with me but if I were a baker my beliefs would make it a sin for me to not sell my goods to any race, religion, or sexual orientations. But if I were asked to knowingly bake or cater a homosexual wedding I could not. Do I hate those choosing to marry, no. Love the sinner not the sin. We must believe differently. And it's this difference you are discriminating against. I have not compelled you to believe what I do but you and others insist u believe as you.

To religious for a tech site, sorry.


RE: who cares
By vortmax2 on 5/13/2014 10:46:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The same thing would happen if they refrained from baking cakes for an interracial couple and stated it was due to their religion


Civil rights are for people that were born a certain way with no choice in the matter. Black, white, man, woman, handicapped, etc. There is ZERO scientific evidence that homosexuality is acquired at birth. Homosexuals are not a separate race or gender of people and therefore should not be treated as such.


RE: who cares
By Reflex on 5/13/2014 12:12:16 PM , Rating: 2
1) Civil rights are not restricted to things beyond a person's control like race. It is also illegal to violate the rights of someone for their religion, for example, and in the case of interracial marriage, that certainly is a choice.

2) There is plenty of scientific evidence of genetic homosexuality. Not all homosexuals are due to genetics, but at least some number of them likely are. More info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_or...


RE: who cares
By H33r0 on 5/9/2014 5:18:54 PM , Rating: 4
I agree with MrBlastman and I think your take his/her answer as its the only answer. No where does he say that. He/she is just giving an idea where a it is possible for both sides to get what they want. He/she is calling Motoman an extremist, because of his/her posts, not everyone.

I find it weird that both sides want the to define the word marriage in their own way when the problem can be solved with a new word. Language is a Cultural thing. Words change their meaning all the time. The word Gay didn't mean what it use to mean 60 years ago.

Why is this word so important?

I just want equal rights for humans. I don't really care what they call it.


RE: who cares
By TSS on 5/9/14, Rating: 0
RE: who cares
By akosixiv on 5/9/2014 4:54:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I say: treat everyone equally.


there is no magic bullet of treating everyone equally. It has never happened, not in real life, nor in religious history (any religion). There is will always be deviations from the norm.

You can try to be as close as possible, but you can't perfectly do it.


RE: who cares
By wordsworm on 5/9/14, Rating: 0
RE: who cares
By MrBlastman on 5/9/2014 3:52:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I thought I already explained to you that the solution is to make it so that only religious institutes who do not discriminate would be allowed to legally marry people.


That is not a compromise. That is extremism. Please go back to the drawing board and try again.


RE: who cares
By wordsworm on 5/9/14, Rating: -1
RE: who cares
By Camikazi on 5/9/2014 6:36:45 PM , Rating: 2
Religions are not companies they are clubs and clubs can deny who they want and have their own rules and views.


RE: who cares
By Digimonkey on 5/9/2014 6:41:33 PM , Rating: 3
Honestly companies are allowed to discriminate a bit when it fits their services. Like Hooters, NFL, only women gyms etc....


RE: who cares
By Digimonkey on 5/9/2014 3:45:28 PM , Rating: 3
Regardless of what it's termed legally, people will just refer to it as getting or being "married".

If the LBGT community tells everyone they're married, then what purpose is there in coining the term civil union? Not to mention some Churches are willing to "marry" gay couples.

Also the people who had secular weddings may also have a say in Government telling them they now have a civil union.


RE: who cares
By MrBlastman on 5/9/2014 4:09:46 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Regardless of what it's termed legally, people will just refer to it as getting or being "married".


They can call it what they will. Their certificate will say otherwise.

It is like a dude walking down the street saying: "Don't mess with me, I'm a black belt!" All while wearing a black belt tied around his waist.

He might actually be a certified black belt from some martial arts discipline. But he also might not. He could have bought that belt from the local thrift store.

The thing is--the law doesn't care if he's a black belt or not. It isn't legally recognized, either way.

If you make everyone get a civil union, the only thing that matters under the law is a civil union license. Just because Bubba-Jo's Church of Deliverance refused to Marry a Cow and a Horse has no bearing on their equality. The only thing of significance would be that civil union license.

Now if Horse and Cow walked into Bubba's church, hand in hand they might get some dirty looks. They might be better off at the Bobbischwarma's Temple down the street, where other Cows and Horses sit beside each other holding hands in the pews.

You can't make Bubba-Jo's Church like them or hate them. That's between the people. And it has nothing to do with the law, either.

I won't dare walk into a seedy bar in southeast Atlanta. I don't fit in. If I did, I'd be willing to accept whatever customs or cultures were there. Just like when I went to southeast Atlanta a couple of decades ago to hustle at the game of Samurai Showdown 2 in an arcade there. Truth be told, I was probably so bright they had to put on sunglasses to blot out my sun. I definitely wasn't in familiar company.

But guess what? We all had a hell of a good time. Everyone treated me decently, regardless. And I never once proclaimed they had to treat me as such. I didn't force them by law or anything else.

Likewise, if everyone has a civil union, that's all that matters. One church might condone a spiritual marriage while another, won't. Who cares? Just go to a different church! There are plenty. Either way the spiritual title won't matter, legally.


RE: who cares
By Digimonkey on 5/9/2014 4:31:55 PM , Rating: 2
Yes I understand all of this, but back to the original question...what's the point? Is it that you basically don't want the government to recognize a LBGT couple as being "married" because that's only for the church's to decide?

I don't believe church's have a right to the word marriage. So why should they more or less control it's definition?


RE: who cares
By MrBlastman on 5/9/2014 4:40:08 PM , Rating: 2
Why not compromise so everyone wins? Why are you so opposed to such a concept?


RE: who cares
By Digimonkey on 5/9/2014 4:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
I can't compromise on a solution that doesn't provide equal rights for everyone. It is within church's rights to marry who they want, but not to tell others who can be married.

Religion has basically stolen marriage from society. This is the root of the issue that needs to be ripped up before this problem is truly solved.


RE: who cares
By MrBlastman on 5/9/2014 5:06:38 PM , Rating: 2
Aha! The spectre of truth comes out! The true agenda has been revealed!

quote:
Religion has basically stolen marriage from society. This is the root of the issue that needs to be ripped up before this problem is truly solved.


The progressive left has always been disigenous with their cause. They say it is this that or the other but they are all a shroud to hide the true heart of their crusade.

Religion happens to be your cause. Why not just come right out and say it than use the Gays as your pawn?

quote:
I can't compromise on a solution that doesn't provide equal rights for everyone.


You fail at reasoning and your logical facilities are probably sub-par.

What part of, "Everyone is required by law to get a Civil Union if they want to share in joint rights through love," is not equal?

quote:
It is within church's rights to marry who they want, but not to tell others who can be married.


So what if it is? Under my system it doesn't matter. The only thing that does is a Civil Union?

Did you get your doctorate in circular arguments? I think we've been here before but we keep coming back for some reason.

OH! That's right! The shadow agenda!

So where exactly do you stand on Religion? Are you religious? Are you tolerant of others that are religious? Do you view religious people equally or do you view them as flawed and weak because they believe in something that hasn't been scientifically proven?

Tell us, please! We have to know! Now that the monkey is out of the tree, we need to peel back the banana before we eat it.


RE: who cares
By Digimonkey on 5/9/14, Rating: 0
RE: who cares
By godlyatheist on 5/9/2014 7:56:56 PM , Rating: 1
The same reason why a potato is called a potato, because someone coined the term potato to describe the vegetable that we use to make French fries. If you want to call a potato an otatop, go ahead and start a worldwide campaign and see how far you will get.

You have a flawed view that because religion used the term "marriage" to mean a union between man and woman that somehow gay people's rights got ripped off.

Please, clearly state what you want so we can all see the real truth:

1) Do you want gay people to have the same legal rights as straight people? Yes or No
2) Do you want to allow gay people to have a legally binding relationship of love, with legal benefits? Yes or No
3) Do you want gay people to have the same legal rights in a legally binding relationship of love as straight people? Yes or No
4) Do you agree that a legal term of *????*, used to designate all legally binding relationship of love, provides equality for all such relationships? Yes or No

Whatever you wish to call this legally binding relationship, it is ONLY granted rights and protection because it is a legal term.

If the religious want the term marriage, as defined by their holy teachings, to have both religious and legal recognition, it creates legal inequalities for the gays and should thus be abolished in the legal realm.

If the gays want the the term marriage, as defined in their campaigns, to have both religious and legal recognition, it violates religious rights and should thus only apply in the legal realm.

Obviously the gays don't have the same beliefs as the religious on this issue. So, why are these two group keep fighting to coerce the other to accept their beliefs? Is this a real struggle for human rights or is it a masked crusade of struggle in faith?


RE: who cares
By MrBlastman on 5/9/2014 8:54:35 PM , Rating: 2
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes

Insomuch as the Government is involved. In a perfect world it would have zero involvement in providing benefits for united couples.

The word you are seeking is "civil union." The Religious don't like it. The Gays don't like it.

What's that mean? IT IS THE RIGHT WORD! (or phrase)

If they both don't like it, then we have found a compromise. A middle ground. Everyone wins. Separation of Church and State is preserved and equality of human rights in the eyes of the government prevails.

This isn't a hard issue to solve. The problem is there are just a bunch of hardheads cackling like lunatics about it.


RE: who cares
By Solandri on 5/10/2014 4:26:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's simple argument, please stay focused. What gives religious people the right over the word marriage.

Nobody has a right to the word "marriage". Religious folks are trying to define it to exclude LGBT people. LGBT folks are trying to definite it to contradict the beliefs of religious people. Both are wrong. If the religious folks have it their way, gay people can't be married. Of the LGBT folks have it that way, churches could be sued for discrimination for refusing to marry a gay couple.

That's why the Civil Union solution works. Both sides can define "marriage" however they want it. In the eyes of the law it won't matter. The only thing that will matter is whether or not you're in a legally recognized civil union.


RE: who cares
By Reflex on 5/10/2014 5:01:59 PM , Rating: 2
You are attempting to equate the two sides and claim they are attempting the same thing. They are not.

The social conservatives are attempting to redefine the word marriage to suit their social views, including in many instances explicitly changing the laws on the books to outlaw same-sex unions. This is why they are losing in court fairly consistently.

LGBT are attempting to participate in the legal and civil standard known as marriage, as is, without any attempt to change it. They are not attempting to redefine anything. The only redefinition one could accuse them of would be in cases where social conservatives have already changed the legal definition in an attempt to pre-empt LGBT's. In other words, their attempt to participate is not inherently a redefinition, the only redefinition comes into play if social conservatives have already had their way and claimed their victory over language. Then LGBT will attempt to change the law, and they are correct to do so.

Equating the two sides is an attempt to pretend that they are trying for the same thing and therefore a compromise should be reached. In reality the compromise is the status quo, while simply permitting those who wish to participate to participate and those who do not to not participate.


RE: who cares
By Rukkian on 5/9/2014 5:46:38 PM , Rating: 2
I somewhat agree in that I don't think churches should own the word marriage, just since they may have used the word first, but the problem is that there is enough people in the country that are religious, and will fight tooth and nail to stop gay marriage from ruining the sanctity (all of the divorces, cheating, etc already did that imo).

I would say the lesser of 2 evils is to change the actual name to civil unions, but I am pretty sure that the same argument will happen there as well, meaning nothing will ever happen.

In the end, I think government (at least federal) should get out of the marriage business, as well as any other social politics (credits for buying a house, getting married, having kids, etc, etc, etc). There is no reason that people that do not marry should be penalized (pay more taxes to make up for credits for others).


RE: who cares
By Reflex on 5/9/2014 4:56:35 PM , Rating: 2
Because its not a compromise, its a secession of language to benefit a religion. Permitting gay couples to be married in no way infringes the right or standing of church marriages which may or may not permit gay marriage. Restricting the term marriage only to those who are church married heterosexuals, on the other hand, restricts homosexuals. Especially given the amount of law at every level of government that would need to be amended to bring civil unions up to the same standards as marriages.


RE: who cares
By MrBlastman on 5/9/2014 5:12:28 PM , Rating: 2
Forcing a Church to marry a gay couple, IS a big problem.

If you do THAT, you are overstepping the boundaries of Separation of Church and State. Or have you not read the Bill of Rights and Constitution, lately?


RE: who cares
By Reflex on 5/9/2014 5:32:41 PM , Rating: 2
Churches can marry or not marry whoever they wish to each other within the bounds of law. What they cannot do is dictate to the state who the state can marry.


RE: who cares
By H33r0 on 5/9/2014 6:09:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What they cannot do is dictate to the state who the state can marry


You definitely have a point. The problem is that all politics have Religious influence, because no one will vote for a non-christian, which is sad.

I think that both sides of this argument are getting too wrapped up in wanting the words marriage and marry. Why does one word cause this much suffering? Why can't we use a different word or make one up that the Government will use?

I feel like in this debate I'm watching 2 toddlers fight over 1 toy, when either they can share or one of the toddlers can get a different toy that is laying around. And since they don't want to share why not get a different toy.


RE: who cares
By Digimonkey on 5/9/2014 6:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
@H33r0: Because in the end it's a simple solution but one that would have severe repercussions. You're giving rights to a group above all others to use a word exclusively. Where did they get this right, and where would this right end as far as others go? You're basically bestowing a right that the government can't legally give. That's what people want by banning same sex marriage.


RE: who cares
By H33r0 on 5/9/2014 6:53:41 PM , Rating: 2
Rights to a word? I think you mistaking me.

Words are cultural they change all the time in what they mean by census. And what I'm purposing is that the Government not use a word in , not give Religious group(s) the Right to only use it, in a legal sense. Law Writing is almost a completely different language, I would suggest is to remove marriage and replace for something more modern, for the sake of giving equal rights to all Humans.


RE: who cares
By Reflex on 5/9/2014 7:43:48 PM , Rating: 2
Given the tens of thousands of times the word 'marriage' appears in federal, state, county and city laws, it seems the more reliable and more efficient approach would be to simply extend the right to the minority requesting it given that it would take decades, perhaps centuries, for all of the historical uses of the term to be found and changed, especially given the reluctance of many legislators to do so.


RE: who cares
By godlyatheist on 5/9/2014 8:04:19 PM , Rating: 2
Or you can pass a law that says:

1. Starting today the term marriage is null and void when used legally.
2. All instances of the word marriage in any and all laws passed before today shall have the same effect as *???*
3. *???* is the legal term for all union of love and shall have all the legal benefits of such union.


RE: who cares
By Digimonkey on 5/9/2014 8:15:54 PM , Rating: 2
How does religion get the right to the word marriage? Really if you can't answer this, you lose. It's that simple because that's what you want.


RE: who cares
By MrBlastman on 5/9/2014 8:58:09 PM , Rating: 2
Religion gets it because they have claimed it for centuries--be it whatever the religion is. Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam... the list goes on.

What does it matter?

It only matters if you hate religion and refuse to life peacefully among the religious.

If this is truly about "rights" and not about being against religion, then there is no issue. Call everything "civil unions" legally and we can all be happy.

If you STILL are not content, pay the licensing fees to become an ordained minister, start some religion like L. Ron Hubbard did and marry whoever you like... once they have a legal "civil union" license.


RE: who cares
By Digimonkey on 5/9/2014 9:27:08 PM , Rating: 2
What law within the US entitles religion to the word marriage? If none, then why should their be another word for it? How is it compromising when you're not losing anything that wasn't yours? I believe Reflex already asked this and the question still stands.

I'm not against religion at all, I'm a arguably a christian in that I find no fault with Jesus's teachings.


RE: who cares
By godlyatheist on 5/9/2014 9:54:50 PM , Rating: 2
Let me ask you, what law entitles dating to be called dating? You have no point arguing the origin of the word. Why is America called America? Why is a ship called a ship? Because it's been that way since the beginning of time. What you want is not equality in any sense of the word; you want to bend language and history to your view and pretend it's some kind of noble cause.


RE: who cares
By Digimonkey on 5/9/2014 10:19:04 PM , Rating: 2
You realize the term marriage has multiple meanings, like most words in English right? Basically looking at this definition "an intimate or close union", why couldn't that definition be applicable to an LBGT relationship?



RE: who cares
By MrBlastman on 5/9/2014 11:43:26 PM , Rating: 2
The Bill of Rights. It ensures a Religion can practice freely and separately from the state.

Do you realize that if Federal Law mandates that Gays can and should be married, that there will be an instance where Gays try and force a Church to marry them against their will. It WILL happen.

And when it does, how does the Federal Government respond? There is Separation of Church and State in the Constitution. A whole new can of worms is opened up.

See, it is against Christian doctrine to Marry Gays. So you see, that's the problem. And that is why the word in the Government should be changed from Marriage to "Civil Union" to avoid infringements like this.


RE: who cares
By H33r0 on 5/9/2014 9:30:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Really if you can't answer this, you lose


Wow, just wow. How old are you? I guess you didn't read my post. No one has a right to the words(unless copyrighted or trademarked jk :) ). But just like before I said, "census", if you had everyone vote in United States on the meaning of marriage, it would sadly be something like "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by God and law".

I'm not saying they're right but we are a democratic-republic, so majority rules. You're blaming religion, and think its the people that are extremely religious that are the problem. They are the majority, with support from the normal religious people. I'm saying lets try separating Government from religious people as possible, if they are willing to fight for the word because they believe its spiritual, fine, let them have it but it wont mean anything in a court of law(per my suggestion). Actual Freedom and Equality is more important than a meaning of a word.

And again its only my suggestion... I will vote for gay marriage but if its the bases of the main argument about the meaning, why not say to the other side "hey you know what if you think its defined that way, fine, but then i want equal rights, under a different legal word that all couples must be under Law"

Real Question to you Digimonkey, what does marriage mean to you? How and where did you get you conclusion? Because most Americans it means what I stated above in the census.


RE: who cares
By Digimonkey on 5/9/2014 10:28:43 PM , Rating: 2
When you form a basis of an argument you cannot support yes, you lose. That's how logic works.


RE: who cares
By H33r0 on 5/9/2014 10:10:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Given the tens of thousands of times the word 'marriage' appears in federal, state, county and city laws...


Well you if you must know there is no federal laws about Marriage, that why the states have the laws, not the federal government. If we made a Federal Amendment for equality for all homosexuals, it will null void the states laws. Just like the we did with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Fourteenth Amendment and Fifteenth Amendment.


RE: who cares
By Digimonkey on 5/9/2014 10:23:57 PM , Rating: 2
...and?


RE: who cares
By H33r0 on 5/9/2014 10:36:28 PM , Rating: 2
and... you lose :)


RE: who cares
By Digimonkey on 5/9/2014 10:41:02 PM , Rating: 2
How do I lose? Refute the basis of my argument and I'll reply in kind. Blastman has ignored the question over and over again that is a paramount to this debate.


RE: who cares
By Digimonkey on 5/9/2014 10:44:58 PM , Rating: 2
Honestly though man, it just came across that you were against civil rights altogether. I'd really like to believe you were going to say something else.


RE: who cares
By Solandri on 5/10/2014 4:41:34 AM , Rating: 2
Your argument doesn't work because it's symmetric. You've cast it as an either/or issue - either religion controls the word "marriage" (which you have a problem with), or LGBT supporters control the word "marriage" (which you apparently don't have a problem with since you don't see the hypocrisy of your argument).

There's no reason it has to be either/or. The difference is entirely semantic. Mr. Blastman's suggestion bypasses all the problems entirely. Just make the law refer to civil unions, and strip the word "marriage" of any legal meaning. Then both religions and LGBT people can use the word "marriage" as they see fit, without it carrying any sort of legal connotations.

It's the legal ramifications of marriage which are causing the problems, because everyone has to abide by the same laws. Remove the legal ramifications and a church won't care if a LGBT couple considers themselves married, because they're not forced to abide by the LGBT's definition of the word. A LGBT couple won't care if a church considers them not married, because likewise they're not forced to abide by the church's definition of the word. It's only when you make marriage a legal thing that one side has to abide by the other's definition of the word "marriage".


RE: who cares
By Digimonkey on 5/10/2014 10:51:54 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not looking for anyone to control marriage. Religion wants to take it as their own, I'm just saying they don't have a right to do that. Not only would they take it away from the LBGT community, but Atheists and those looking to perform secular weddings as well.

While I appreciate the concept of Civil Unions because in the very least it provides the same rights to all, it is nothing more than a water down version of Marriage.

Marriage holds a lot more societal significance. It's been ingrained in society for hundreds of years. It's advertised to us daily/weekly. It's in a plethora of books, movies, magazines etc...

So no, I think the fair answer is that Churches have to share, but they don't have to perform the ceremonies if it goes against their beliefs.


RE: who cares
By Reflex on 5/10/2014 2:04:55 AM , Rating: 2
Calling for a constitutional amendment is calling for inaction. The constitution already supports at the least a prohibition against discrimination. This has been upheld explicitly for decades now. That is the basis of state laws against homosexuals being overturned. There is no further legal work needed, the courts simply need to continue to overturn the illegal laws banning gay marriage and the situation is more or less settled.

The law already supports this. We simply need to enforce it.


RE: who cares
By H33r0 on 5/11/2014 3:35:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Calling for a constitutional amendment is calling for inaction. The constitution already supports at the least a prohibition against discrimination. This has been upheld explicitly for decades now. That is the basis of state laws against homosexuals being overturned. There is no further legal work needed, the courts simply need to continue to overturn the illegal laws banning gay marriage and the situation is more or less settled. The law already supports this. We simply need to enforce it.


I don't think you read the constitution... because by your logic the Civil Right Act of 1965 and the Fourteenth Amendment and Fifteenth Amendment were not needed, BUT they were. The US constitution is very broad and is up to Judicial branch to interpret the laws. The whole reason the executive and legislative branch needed to add those Amendments to make the Judicial enforce those laws that were board, to be more narrow and direct. So for the Marriage( or whatever we want to call it) we may need to make more narrow so it can enforced for all courts.


RE: who cares
By Reflex on 5/11/2014 2:36:24 PM , Rating: 2
Given that since 1998 38 states have either redefined marriage as between a man and a woman or outright banned gay marriage, calling for a constitutional amendment is a call to inaction. To ratify a passed constitutional amendment requires 3/4ths of states to agree. I can easily pick out 12 states that will not agree and are likely not to agree in my lifetime.

So no, calling for a constitutional amendment is not realistic in this situation.


RE: who cares
By H33r0 on 5/11/2014 7:15:17 PM , Rating: 2
Reflex, I have to give some respect that you haven't attacked me like the others here. You have given me some great counter points.

But I think you Logic is flawed. Because if the States and Representatives from those States, that your talking about, don't vote for it in US Congress what makes you think they will change their State Laws. The point of all this is to make equality for homosexuals in all States. The only way to make all States do that, is through a Constitutional Amendment. Both ways, of either States change theirs laws, or pass an Amendment in Congress, will require new representatives that support equality for homosexuals. Saying its not realistic is basically say it's not realistic for all States to give equal rights to homosexuals ever.

We have had so many Amendments added to US Constitution that give equal rights to woman and minorities, to force States to not discriminate. We just need enough support in the US Congress to force the States to not discriminate homosexuals. And the quickest and easiest way is through a Constitutional Amendment.


RE: who cares
By Reflex on 5/11/2014 8:06:30 PM , Rating: 2
I just don't see how that could be considered the quick and easy path. To do so you would need a 2/3 majority vote in both houses of congress, and ratification by 3/4th of the states. Only 12 states would have to disagree to block it from happening. The chances of it happening via constitutional amendment are slim to none.

There is another route, and its the one being taken now: The courts can enforce the equality that is already enshrined in the constitution. That is by far the fastest and most effective route, and it is now winning in state after state regardless of local values.

The point of a constitutional amendment is to fix something that is broken. This issue is not broken, it broke when states started passing discriminatory measures explicitly redefining marriage towards their religious sensibilities. Now that it is being challenged in court, it is being tossed out as unconstitutional because, well, it is.


RE: who cares
By Rukkian on 5/12/2014 11:53:49 AM , Rating: 2
While I would love to see all states stop discriminating, I don't think the federal government has any business telling states who they can marry. It should be up to the people of that state to decide that.


RE: who cares
By majorpain on 5/9/2014 4:25:10 PM , Rating: 2
Have to agree with you on all of it. Cheers!


RE: who cares
By Mint on 5/10/2014 2:43:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Answer: Everyone gets a civil union. Existing laws are changed so marriage is abolished from the legal language and replaced with civil union.
How can you possibly think this is feasible?

Do you really think applications, interviewers, surveys, and the million other ways people ask about marriage are going to abolish the term 'marriage'?

Here's the bottom line: If a gay man in a civil union is asked if he's married, and is legally required to tell the truth, is he allowed to say 'yes' or not?

If so, then what's the point of your compromise, and who among those opposed to gay marriage will agree with it? If not, then you don't have anything remotely close to equality.

The word 'marriage' has been used for inanimate objects long ago in common language, with ZERO objection. Think about that before claiming this has nothing to do with intolerance.


RE: who cares
By FITCamaro on 5/9/2014 3:29:24 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not a single woman with 3 kids so I don't get the EIC tax credit. That's bigoted.

That's the same argument you're making for marriage benefits.


RE: who cares
By wordsworm on 5/9/14, Rating: 0
RE: who cares
By peterrushkin on 5/9/2014 5:59:27 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, you read that I didn't support gay marriage by outlining certain facts.

Bottom line is, I dont care. I am not for it or against it.

Next time, don't put your own views on someone elses comment.


RE: who cares
By EricMartello on 5/11/14, Rating: 0
RE: who cares
By Reflex on 5/11/2014 8:09:22 PM , Rating: 2
Every argument you made here was also made in the stand against interracial marriage. And they were just as ridiculous and bigoted at that time too..


RE: who cares
By EricMartello on 5/15/2014 12:53:59 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Every argument you made here was also made in the stand against interracial marriage. And they were just as ridiculous and bigoted at that time too.


Sorry brah, not even close to being the same thing. Race is not a disease or mental disorder, and marriage is about gender not race. You're response highlights the fact that you have no intelligent rebuttal...because you're a moron.


RE: who cares
By Reflex on 5/15/2014 12:19:34 PM , Rating: 2
Fortunately being gay is also not a disease or mental disorder. And marriage is about gender for YOU, but not necessarily for others. It used to be about race as well, but fortunately laws were changed and race was removed as a factor, just as gender is being removed now.

Again, same complaints, same bigotry, same end result. Can't wait to see Idaho issuing marriage licenses for homosexuals on Friday, that's another state that would have never done the right thing voluntarily so its good to see the courts step in.


RE: who cares
By EricMartello on 5/18/2014 3:21:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Fortunately being gay is also not a disease or mental disorder.


Actually it is one or both of those things - what it's not is a "new normal" that liberals try to sell it as. Being gay is no different than being a pedophile, except that it's easy to demonize a pedophile while media portrayals of the 'sassy gay guy' have made gays seem "harmless" by comparison.

The point is that by marginalizing people with other serious mental disorders in order to make homosexuality a political platform has ensured that it is highly likely for anyone that has a sexuality-afflicting mental disorder aside from homosexuality is going to be ostracized.

There are many people who have some kind of treatable disease or disorder and choose to live with it, but they don't kid themselves into believing that said disease is now who they are. Homosexuals, rather than supporting a push to find treatment, have decided to make homosexuality a "lifestyle", thereby depriving ALL homosexuals from the option of being treated.

quote:
And marriage is about gender for YOU, but not necessarily for others. It used to be about race as well, but fortunately laws were changed and race was removed as a factor, just as gender is being removed now.


No, it has always been about gender on the books. Your petty attempts at making your view seem like the majority is quite pathetic. Homosexuals are a relative minority of the global population...and I personally do not think the government should be involved in marriage one way or the other.

quote:
Again, same complaints, same bigotry, same end result. Can't wait to see Idaho issuing marriage licenses for homosexuals on Friday, that's another state that would have never done the right thing voluntarily so its good to see the courts step in.


People who disagree with you are not "bigots", and you really are a moron who seems to find new ways to inject stupidity into every topic you respond to. Notice how you are unable to make a compelling argument to actually support your disagreement - it's really quite sad. You want to disagree but you can't back it up.

If you were a champion of "marriage equality" then you would seek to have marriage legally defined as "a union between any two or more consenting adults". In other words, if a person is legally able to enter a contract, they should be able to marry a partner (or partners) who are also legally able to enter a contract.

THAT would be equality.

What you and other liberal idiots have pushed for is a class privilege, where the benefit does not equally apply to ALL people but only to a certain group of people...on top of this, the group of people is a small minority of the total population.

How about we deal with problems that affect ALL US CITIZENS rather than pandering to a small minority? It's because the left has no substance and therefore has to fabricate a platform. Liberty is not a component of the left and never was.

This is why you and other liberals are best identified as a cancer that needs to be removed from our society, so that all people can enjoy equal treatment under the law and government. Liberalism and its supporters need to be defined a terrorists organizations and treated as such - when people are run by pure ideology they do things like crash planes into sky scrapers, and feel fully justified in doing so.


RE: who cares
By Reflex on 5/9/2014 2:41:29 PM , Rating: 3
This is a common logical fallacy. Professing intolerance for a bigoted view is not itself bigoted. No one 'tolerates' everything, nor should they. There are many things I refuse to tolerate, and 'discrimination' as a action is something we all do and in the vast majority of cases it is a good thing. Some examples:

I am intolerant of pedophilia, abuse of another person or animal, rape, murder, theft and virtually anything else that directly or indirectly harms another person.

I am tolerant of things that I personally disagree with but that are victimless outside of the person doing them. For instance, marijuana use, abortion as a form of routine birth control (as opposed to abortion in cases of rape/incest/etc), political and economic views opposite to my own, promiscuity, crappy music (by my personal definition, obviously), television in general, Apple products, etc.

I am encouraging of things that improve life for others in ways that cause no harm to others or themselves. Social justice, healthy eating, higher education, positive role models of all genders, ethnicities, religions, cultures and gender identities or sexualities, and of course the improvement of civil rights for all. Homosexual marriage and the rights of the transgendered fall into this category.

No one says that to be 'tolerant' we must tolerate everything. That is stupid. We do not tolerate many things for good reason. Tolerance in the context of homosexuality is expected because homosexuals cause no harm and there is no logical reason to ban them from various aspects of society or restrict their rights, including marriage and all of the legal capabilities that come with it. Nor, as individuals or as a society, should we tolerate bigotry towards homosexuals or any other group that is causing no harm to others.

Context matters. Nothing makes sense when taken to its extreme. And it is reasonable and expected that when preaching tolerance one is stating it in the context of the subject they are discussing, in this case equal civil rights for homosexuals. Nor should those requesting such tolerance be expected to 'tolerate' those attempting to maintain a system of bigotry against them, that is inane and an attempt to discredit by moving the discussion to an extreme that would never be used in any other civil rights discussion (are we expected to 'tolerate' the KKK and its views, and build our laws and reactions in ways to avoid harming their sensibilities?).

What is owed the bigots is a guarantee that the government will not halt their exercise of their hateful speech. And that guarantee has been met, and even organizations like the ACLU has come to the bigots defense on those grounds repeatedly. We do not, however, owe them any protection from the free market reaction to their speech, the guarantee of free speech does not include a freedom from consequences of that speech, so long as the consequences are not handed down by government in an attempt to suppress such speech.

Believe what you wish. Espouse what you wish. But your cries of oppression when faced with the consequences will fall upon deaf ears.


RE: who cares
By FITCamaro on 5/9/2014 3:12:25 PM , Rating: 2
Really abortion is victimless? Tell that to the child that was ripped apart or burned to death. Because whether you want to admit it or not, that is what happens during an abortion. Sometimes worse in the case of partial birth abortion where they literally slit the babies throat as it is born.


RE: who cares
By Reflex on 5/9/2014 3:51:09 PM , Rating: 2
Partial birth abortion is banned at this time, so I really don't see a point in any argument there. As for abortion in general, like most things, I go with what science tells me. Its not something I endorse and if my partner did it without discussing it with me it would likely mean the end of our relationship. But I will not use force of law to enforce my personal distaste for the practice on the general public. I defined these things into three groupings for a reason. Intolerant, tolerant, and accepting basically. I tolerate abortion, but I do not engage in it, much the same as everything else on that section of the list.

That said, you missed the forest for one tree you disagreed with. My point was that denying bigotry is not in itself bigotry.


RE: who cares
By FITCamaro on 5/12/2014 8:15:41 AM , Rating: 2
And what science tells us is that unborn children are living, breathing, feeling human beings with a pulse and brains by the time abortions generally take place.


RE: who cares
By Reflex on 5/12/2014 11:48:11 AM , Rating: 2
You are welcome to your opinion. And I am fine with you living by that opinion. I even agree with it largely which is why I'd leave a partner who had an abortion during our relationship. Just so long as you keep it as your opinion and don't attempt to change the law to restrict the rights of people who disagree with this opinion. That's where the line is drawn.


RE: who cares
By MozeeToby on 5/9/2014 4:11:16 PM , Rating: 2
"Don't want to allow gay marriage and they will be all over you."

Fixed that for you. I'm not trying to be trite, there is a difference. No one expects everyone to come out and celebrate when two men want to get married, they just want the legal right to do so (and receive the same tax breaks, insurance rates, powers of attorney, etc, etc, as heterosexual married couples).


RE: who cares
By maugrimtr on 5/12/2014 11:37:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What makes me laugh, is that the gays are so intolerant of everyone else's views.


Which views are they intolerant of? The ones where people call them unnatural creations of the Devil who have sex with animals (I've noticed bestiality gets thrown in alongside sodomy a lot), or the ones where people in suits do their best to deny gay people equal rights and even lawfully allowing them to be discriminated against for religious reasons?

People need to differentiate between the two types of marriage in any Christian nation. There's the one in a Church presided over by some religious person. Gay people generally don't care whether they have a Church wedding (when the Church in question denies it to all gay people).

However, what about the purely State affair of going to a registry office and signing a document? Should THAT be off limits too? Why should it be?

Now, I'm not gay, but I see no reason why gay people should be denied access to having a marriage certificate completely independent of any religious ceremony, blessing, meaning or anything. It's simply registering a permanent partnership with the State. Ahh, but isn't that a "Civil Partnership" and not "Marriage"? Not exactly - married couples are treated differently but gay people just want to be treated the same way.

It really is that simple.

What's the big deal? How is that diluting "marriage"? Why are people using Religious based arguments to deny a non-religious marriage state? This is why separation of Church and State is always essential - not everyone shares your particular set of religious beliefs and you do NOT have the right to impost those beliefs on others against their will.

THAT is why gay people are intolerant of certain views. They are not views - they are active discrimination without logic.

I've seen folk try the religious based attack on non-religious gay marriage in Ireland. It sunk like a rock. 75% of the Irish population support gay marriage and most of those are confused as to why the Catholic church is commenting on something that has...nothing to do with Catholicism. It's a STATE marriage, not a CATHOLIC marriage.

You are entitled to discriminatory views, but you shouldn't expect them to pass without criticism. Is criticism of another's views intolerance? Not always!

Have gay people gone overboard with intolerance? Arguably, they have, a few times. They are people afterall - you ever know people NOT to go overboard from time to time?


RE: who cares
By Reflex on 5/9/2014 2:21:58 PM , Rating: 2
People who are being discriminated against, and people who oppose discrimination care. I hope that answers your question.


RE: who cares
By FITCamaro on 5/9/2014 2:24:12 PM , Rating: 2
It's not discriminatory for a game developer to make a game in the way they choose.


RE: who cares
By Reflex on 5/9/2014 2:42:39 PM , Rating: 1
If you read the article you would notice that they built the game in a way that explicitly was discriminatory towards a class of its gamers. Which is why they have made a campaign about it.


RE: who cares
By FITCamaro on 5/9/2014 3:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
I did read the article. According to your logic, if I want to make a game about people and only allow you to create black people, then that means I discriminate against all other people. Or maybe that was just the vision for my game and I did it independently of secretly hating all other people.

Most American, single player, non-RPG games have white main characters. To you is that because of racism? Or because that's what they just chose to do?


RE: who cares
By Digimonkey on 5/9/2014 3:56:06 PM , Rating: 2
In this case it's not what they chose to create. The marriage mechanic was there. They put in extra code/man hours to lock down a gaming mechanic in a discriminatory way.


RE: who cares
By MrBlastman on 5/9/2014 4:12:10 PM , Rating: 2
So don't buy the game. Buy another one that lets you do as you please. Nobody is forcing you to play that game.


RE: who cares
By Digimonkey on 5/9/2014 4:36:27 PM , Rating: 2
It's not my type of game, I have no interest in playing it. I'm just of the mind no game should intentionally alienate their player base and if they do they are deserving of the backlash.


RE: who cares
By ProfFarnsworth on 5/9/2014 3:26:26 PM , Rating: 2
Issue is is that the SJW community doesn't even play the games and if they do, they are such a minority that whatever loss the company gets from them will be so negligible that they will not care.

If that's the case that it doesn't pander to the lowest common denominator then why doesn't anyone go after games with the macho buff male characters? Or how about games made only in english and not any other language? Or how about games that force relationship crap (LOOKING AT YOU DRAGON AGE AND MASS EFFECT!) and be either rewarded for gay decisions or chastise for choosing against gay decisions?


RE: who cares
By Reflex on 5/9/2014 3:58:03 PM , Rating: 1
Straight white male oppressed! News at 11!

(fully expecting next post to be claims of blackness or black/gay/jewish/martian friends)


RE: who cares
By shikigamild on 5/15/2014 2:36:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
r how about games made only in english and not any other language?

Wha....
I don't even...
Games made only in english...?

Localization doesn't exist then?

Also, last time I checked, there is always drama when a popular Japanese game doesn't get an English localization.

And talking about how games force relationship crap... what about games that reward you for taking heterosexual decisions... MOST games with relationships are like that, didn't you know. Of course you didn't because you take it for granted.

So thanks for proving how you are just a whining privileged retard. When it's a right or something that you perceive as unfair that affects you, you have all the right to complaint, but when other people that you don't like does it, it annoys you.

Congratulations, you are a bigot \(^o^)/


RE: who cares
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2014 10:03:21 AM , Rating: 3
All I can say is, first world problems.

Seriously the guy in the article who made the campaign...you're 23 years old and it seriously bothers you so much that you can't marry a DIGITAL guy in a kids game? To the point that you try to launch a global campaign over it? Get a job! Get a life!

What the F is wrong with people...

I believe the terms is "projecting". Caring about an issue (gay marriage) is fine. Obsessing over it to the point that you project your sacred cow issue onto every little thing, is obnoxious.

Unless you actually believe "gay rights" in a kids Nintendo game is a crucial first step in realizing your goal of gay marriage. In which case, time to get fitted for a straight jacket.


RE: who cares
By shikigamild on 5/15/2014 2:48:55 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, fcking first world problems.

Next thing you know, you will see other 23 years old making campaigns over kids games where you can't comment or vote just because your avatar is a girl.

Get a job! Fcking whining people who project their trauma on everything.

I mean, it's not like these people still don't have the same rights, are discriminated on all levels of society, and just ostracized all the time on everything every day of their lives.

Also it isn't like there is a context to this story, or the fact that Japanese Society is still a very homophobic and repressive society that discriminates against gay people.
They had institutional pederasty 500 years ago... I mean, obviously nothing changes in 500 years.


RE: who cares
By Manch on 5/9/2014 2:30:35 PM , Rating: 2


Eventually no game will be released until you have the option to choose your character. Instead of knight, mage, etc it will be

Apologetic white hetero guy

Smart & proud Black man

Computer savy Asian chic

Funny Gay dude

Angry Lesbian Brawler

I saw an article the other day where people were complaining about not enough diversity in the new Star Wars Films.....

Talk about absurd.

THe things people complain about.


RE: who cares
By Dr of crap on 5/9/2014 2:39:37 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you.
HOW THE F^%$ CARES?

DO every GD thing have to include every GD variable.
Gee my car doesn't accommodate people smaller than 4 feet, must be racist against small people.

Little up people. Don't you have ANYTHING else to do?
My back ground is Russian, Polish, German. You can me any Polish joke, and Hitler joke, and poke fun at any of the three cultures, and I'll laugh along with you.

Does anyone remember Don Rickles??? His whole act was picking on others, like gays, foreigners, guy with a scraf on his head, anyone, and we ALL laughed at his jokes. He couldn't do his material any longer. NO ONE can laugh at themselves any longer!


RE: who cares
By xti on 5/9/2014 11:07:49 PM , Rating: 2
my car is extremely prejudice against fat people.

what I hate is that my right to not give a fk is every day being chipped away at.


RE: who cares
By ProfFarnsworth on 5/9/2014 3:04:26 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, WHO CARES?

Also, this place better not go the ways of SJW crap. I do not want to come here and see more clickbait articles. It's stupid and unprofessional.

The japanese made a KIDS game and the game was translated over with NO CHANGES to the code. Why everyone is getting upset when it's pretty well known that the japanese are not about the gay community, is beyond me.

2/10 made me comment


RE: who cares
By Jeffk464 on 5/10/2014 5:58:09 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty sure their is no concept of political correctness in Japan.


There's a reason for that
By FITCamaro on 5/9/2014 2:23:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In addition to sodomy laws, men who have sex with men are denied the ability to act as blood donors in the U.S.


Because gay men are far more likely to have both AIDS and other transmittable STDs than straight people. Whether the media wants to talk about it or not, promiscuity is extremely widespread in the gay community. There's a reason why AIDS was for a long time called a "gay disease".

I only pray the Red Cross holds firm to that restriction.




RE: There's a reason for that
By datdamonfoo on 5/9/2014 2:31:35 PM , Rating: 1
All blood is tested after it is drawn. So there's no reason to ban gay people from giving blood anymore. It's a discriminatory practice that spawned from 1980's hysteria, and the wrongful belief that it was a "gay disease".


RE: There's a reason for that
By Manch on 5/9/2014 2:48:10 PM , Rating: 2
But testing is not full-proof and there may be trace amounts that cannot be detected. I cannot give blood because of places I have traveled and certain shots that I was given to protect myself from diseases that I was never exposed to and therefore had no natural defense. I am banned for 5yrs from the last time I was exposed. This is to make sure that when I am eligible to give blood again all risk factors are mitigated.

Gay people in a monogamous relationship can give blood FYI.


RE: There's a reason for that
By lagomorpha on 5/9/2014 3:06:48 PM , Rating: 2
Who to accept blood from is a decision that should be left to epidemiologists, NOT politicians and not social justice warriors.


RE: There's a reason for that
By FITCamaro on 5/9/2014 3:15:43 PM , Rating: 2
It wasn't a wrongful belief. My mom is a pharmacist. Ask her her opinion on the subject as someone who has made, can still make, and distributes medications for AIDS patients. She'll tell you the majority are gay. Not because she hates gays. Because it's the truth.

And there is a reason. Not wasting money drawing blood and testing it when there is a good chance they'll have to throw away.


RE: There's a reason for that
By Reflex on 5/9/2014 5:20:43 PM , Rating: 1
1) She must have amazing gaydar. Unless someone is flamboyant I certainly have no clue whether or not they are gay. I shared an office with a gay manager for a year and had no idea, and he wasn't in the closet or anything, it just wasn't something he discussed at the office.

2) Anecdote is not evidence.


RE: There's a reason for that
By Reflex on 5/9/2014 2:45:35 PM , Rating: 2
Promiscuity is also extremely common in the straight community. Its amazing how much humans love to have sex.

Oddly enough, having spent some time in clubs, gay and straight, it was amazing to me how much of a meat market the straight clubs were. Despite being a straight guy I much prefer to hang out in a gay club. I'm sure meat market gay clubs exist and all, but the popular ones in Seattle do not seem to be that way at all.


RE: There's a reason for that
By FITCamaro on 5/9/2014 3:26:41 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say it isn't. But it's still proven to be far greater in the gay community. And that community is far more likely to get AIDS than a straight person in America.

http://kff.org/hivaids/fact-sheet/the-hivaids-epid...

quote:

- While estimates show that men who have sex with men (MSM) comprise only about 2% of the U.S. population, this group accounts for most new HIV infections (63% in 2010, with an additional 3% occurring in MSM with a history of injection drug use).4,5 Between 2008 and 2010, annual new HIV infections increased 12% among MSM.

- Among MSM, whites accounted for the largest number of new infections (11,200) in 2010, followed by Blacks (10,600).

- Younger MSM (ages 13-24) are at particular risk. In 2010, this group accounted for 1 in 5 (19%) of all new HIV infections and 30% of new infections among all MSM. Among Black MSM, this age group accounted for 45% of new infections.

- New infections among MSM ages 13-24 increased by 22% between 2008 and 2010, the most significant increase of any age group.

- A study in 20 major U.S. cities found that about 1 in 5 (18%) MSM is already living with HIV, with even higher prevalence among Black MSM, and many are unaware of their infection.


So when almost 20% of gay men are HIV positive, and they only make up 2% of the population, why waste the resources? So you don't appear intolerant?


RE: There's a reason for that
By Reflex on 5/9/2014 5:12:48 PM , Rating: 1
1) It can and is tested for, so the argument is ridiculous.
2) That appears to dramatically underestimate the number of homosexuals in society, which of course would by its nature inflate the percentage of the community that is afflicted with HIV. HIV cases are well tracked because you are either in treatment or you are soon dead. If 2% of the population accounts for a 20% infection rate, then if you revised the estimated population to 3% your infection rate is cut to only 10% of the population.

Most estimates put the number of homosexuals between 5-10% of the population, depending upon how much of the 'spectrum' one decides to lump in with homosexuals. At the low end of that number you would cut the HIV rate down to about what would be expected, at the high end it would imply that the rate is actually lower in the homosexual population than it is in the population at large. Based on rigorous studies, a full 36% of males have at some point in their life engaged in homosexual contact with another male to the level of achieving orgasm. Given that, the rate of disease is a fairly distorted number since those studying it are dramatically understating the number of homosexuals and amount of homosexual activities that occur in the general population.


RE: There's a reason for that
By KCjoker on 5/9/2014 6:34:04 PM , Rating: 2
There is no way homosexuals are 5-10% of the population. African Americans make up 13% according to the latest census. So you think there are close to as many homosexuals as African Americans? lol no way


RE: There's a reason for that
By Reflex on 5/9/2014 6:38:44 PM , Rating: 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexua...

I know it is difficult to believe for a straight person, but it appears to be true. I'm actually giving the low end of the estimates.

And since being gay is not exclusive from being black, why would the number of black people matter?


RE: There's a reason for that
By purerice on 5/9/2014 7:18:01 PM , Rating: 2
Looking at the trends you see the results are higher in larger cities than in smaller cities. When you look at country-level demographics, it is closer to 2-3% in most cases.

Though odd, really, from a genetic standpoint. In males, homosexual mate selection would preclude reproduction. Rape being sadly as common as it is would make homosexual women much more likely to procreate than homosexual men. Yet (Brazil as an example) men outnumber women.

There are very few genetic situations of even 1% that often preclude reproduction, yet to say "5-10% of the population is oriented away from heterosexuality" flies in the face of genetic survivability of a species.

If you then claim that homosexuality is on the rise, then either something is causing the genetic discrepancy, or homosexuality is really a choice.

Either there really are very few homosexuals, as in less than 2-3%, or this 5-10% figure you claim includes people who choose the lifestyle and can change that choice if they so desire.

What does that have to do with a video game anyway?


RE: There's a reason for that
By Reflex on 5/9/2014 7:36:08 PM , Rating: 1
Just out of curiosity, why do you feel that even 10% would jeopardize a species survivability? Only 50+1% would need to create a child to replace themselves in order for the species to continue to survive. There is a lot of evidence now that as population pressure increases the rate of homosexuality increases in other species. There are a number of theories as to why this may be, it is an active area of research.

BTW, there is little doubt that homosexuality is both a choice and not a choice depending on the person in question. For some it clearly is not, but for others they can choose. That is why it is considered a spectrum. For many it is not a either/or thing.


By peterrushkin on 5/9/2014 7:41:33 PM , Rating: 2
>> Yet (Brazil as an example) men outnumber women.

Is that why homosexuality in Brazil is rife? I mean, a lot of men there choose to be transexual and then a lot of men choose to have sex with them.

Brazil is probably the leading export country in shemale/transexual porn.

Do you think a Brazilian man thinks, omg I am so horny and yet I cannot find a girlfriend so I better be with a shemale? At least I will get laid?

Wow no wonder many of them have issues!


RE: There's a reason for that
By FITCamaro on 5/12/2014 8:23:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
HIV cases are well tracked because you are either in treatment or you are soon dead.


Completely and utterly false. One can be HIV positive and be completely symptomless. HIV can lie dormant for years, decades, or one's entire life. But it can still be passed on through blood to others during that time.

And yes it is tested for but that costs money. Why spend money on a small segment of the population (I guess you know more than they do about HIV though) when there is a good chance that you'll end up throwing out the sample anyway. The Red Cross is a non-profit so they screen out any group that has a good chance of it being necessary to discard the donation. They also don't take blood from anyone who lived overseas for long periods of time in the 90s. Which is a large portion of member's of the military during that time. Is that bigoted too? How about them screening against people who've had tissue grafts?

It's all for the same reason. Reducing the chance that they'll have to end up throwing out the donation which costs them money.


RE: There's a reason for that
By maugrimtr on 5/12/2014 11:42:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And yes it is tested for but that costs money. Why spend money on a small segment of the population (I guess you know more than they do about HIV though) when there is a good chance that you'll end up throwing out the sample anyway.


You're funny. You do realise that people who ARE NOT GAY can also get HIV and spread it? All blood donations are screened for HIV. Whether you're gay or not is irrelevant to donating blood except in certain minds where logic is on an extended vacation...

Nobody is saving money but they are telling a hefty percentage of the population to not donate the one resource any nation's medical infrastructure desperately needs: blood.


RE: There's a reason for that
By retrospooty on 5/9/2014 6:02:14 PM , Rating: 2
I don't care about this game, its a game FFS, get over it everyone, there are bigger issues to worry about in the real world... But I do find it funny that in any article about anything miniority related you are all over it... Simultaneously explaining how you aren't a bigot but are always against whatever it is that the minority wants or needs or is being denied.

Dont you find that odd?


RE: There's a reason for that
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2014 7:22:23 AM , Rating: 2
I don't care about the game either. But if I was a parent, I would question the need for a kids game to have gay marriage. I mean come on, this discussion is getting ridiculous.

A freaking kids game is NOT the proper medium to advance the LBGT agenda. Pick a different battlefield!

Nintendo made the right call here. Deal with it people and move on. A kids game is not where you should be looking to fight the gay marriage issue. Wtf is wrong with you people?


RE: There's a reason for that
By retrospooty on 5/10/2014 9:29:42 AM , Rating: 2
"A freaking kids game is NOT the proper medium to advance the LBGT agenda. Pick a different battlefield!"

Yup... WAY too far on this one.


RE: There's a reason for that
By Reflex on 5/10/2014 5:05:49 PM , Rating: 1
Why would you question that? What if one of your children were gay? Would you wanting them to learn at an early age that they are not accommodated in the world? Personally I'd be happy that my children would be learning that whatever they are, they will have a place in the world.

Also, what LBGT agenda are you referring to? Equality? Civil rights? When did those become bad things in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave?


RE: There's a reason for that
By vortmax2 on 5/13/2014 10:52:33 AM , Rating: 2
Humans aren't born gay, scientific fact. There may be dispositions at birth that can develop further during childhood, but that's entirely different.


RE: There's a reason for that
By Reflex on 5/13/2014 12:15:40 PM , Rating: 2
What do you think a genetic disposition is and what causes it? Answer: genes


RE: There's a reason for that
By Rukkian on 5/12/2014 12:35:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't care about the game either. But if I was a parent, I would question the need for a kids game to have gay marriage. I mean come on, this discussion is getting ridiculous.


To that end, why have marriage at all? I think you can have the same argument.

I don't have a problem with the game not allowing gay marriage, but I also don't have a problem with the LGBT community exercising their free right to speak out about it.


And people claim there is no gay agenda
By atechfan on 5/9/2014 4:53:31 PM , Rating: 2
For a group that comprises about 2% of the population, they expect a hell of a lot of accommodation for them. Now they are trying to hold Nintendo hostage to their attack on normal families. Call me a bigot, whatever, I don't give a fuck. The simple fact is homosexuality is a biologically invalid lifestyle. I don't give two shits what two dudes do to each other in the privacy of their own lives, just stop bitching about it all the time. Not every form of entertainment has to have their token faggots.




By peterrushkin on 5/9/2014 6:06:00 PM , Rating: 2
Here here!


RE: And people claim there is no gay agenda
By Reflex on 5/9/2014 6:46:38 PM , Rating: 2
You are a bigot. Thanks for permission to point it out. You can return to not caring.


RE: And people claim there is no gay agenda
By godlyatheist on 5/9/2014 10:13:36 PM , Rating: 1
Do you think calling as many people as bigot as possible will somehow help the gay rights movement? People get called derogatory names all the time and it doesn't change them, what makes you think the term bigot is gonna do differently? You have no argument, no points, so calling names is the only thing you got left. Here's some newsflash: gays get called faggots and they stay gay, imagine what the anti-gays will do when they get called bigots?


RE: And people claim there is no gay agenda
By Reflex on 5/10/2014 2:15:45 AM , Rating: 1
1) I have made many descriptive arguments in this thread. Feel free to go read them and articulately disagree if you are capable. This poster I replied to did not articulate their position, they simply stated up front that they held bigoted views and did not care if they were called out for them, spewed garbage, and signed off. I simply obliged their request and affirmed that they were indeed bigoted.

2) Bigot is a description, not an insult. To be a bigot one must believe or act in a bigoted fashion. This persons post was bigoted, thus they are a bigot.

3) You are right, they will typically remain a bigot. Not always, but most. Of course changing their mind is not necessarily my goal. Others read these threads, and as humans are social animals they will subconsciously seek approval of the majority. Speaking up about the contempt in which bigoted views are held by the majority will help sway those who are still forming their opinions on a topic. Hence it is important to point out negative social behavior when it is observed.


RE: And people claim there is no gay agenda
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2014 9:55:02 AM , Rating: 2
So I want to be clear here: Parents who don't want their kids playing a game with gay marriage, are "bigots"?

Good luck winning that fight! No seriously, go ahead and keep screaming "bigot", see who cares.


RE: And people claim there is no gay agenda
By Reflex on 5/10/2014 5:09:41 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, actually, they are. If the game includes marriage, but specifically excludes a group of people from that, like say blacks or women or homosexuals, then a parent who is aware of that exclusion and actually sees that as a selling point is indeed bigoted.

And again, bigot is a description of an action or pattern of actions. It is not an insult.


RE: And people claim there is no gay agenda
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2014 5:16:45 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think you creampuffs growing up in this day and age have a goddamn clue what real bigotry is. To you it's a word you throw around to insult others who don't agree with you on social issues.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2014 5:47:52 PM , Rating: 2
PS, since I know you're going there. "Creampuff" had nothing to do with your orientation, it was said in the generational/cultural context.

I wouldn't want you to create even more reasons to call someone a bigot :)


By Reflex on 5/10/2014 6:05:23 PM , Rating: 2
Just because it is worse somewhere else or at some other point in time does not mean that progress should not continue to be pushed for. You are right, a lot of people have and had it worse. So what? You could have said that at the time of the Revolution and it still would have been true.


By thesaxophonist on 5/11/2014 4:02:51 PM , Rating: 2
You should consider investing in a thesaurus.


RE: And people claim there is no gay agenda
By M'n'M on 5/10/2014 8:51:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The simple fact is homosexuality is a biologically invalid lifestyle.

Yes it is. As was my marriage to my wife after her 1'st round of chemo. Are you even suggesting that my marriage, because it was equally "biologically invalid", was invalid as a whole ?

I would dare you to say that to my face.

As for much ado over nothing ... I might agree but there's been more ado in this thread than I think there has been in real life over that game.


RE: And people claim there is no gay agenda
By peterrushkin on 5/10/2014 11:26:39 PM , Rating: 2
> Yes it is. As was my marriage to my wife after her 1'st round of chemo. Are you even
> suggesting that my marriage, because it was equally "biologically invalid", was invalid as
> a whole ?

> I would dare you to say that to my face.

When did he mention your wife? He didn't. In-fact you did. You were the one who made it a point of argument.

He talked about 2 dudes being biologically invalid. It is. 2 dudes even if they separated and went with other dudes will never ever produce a child.

Now for your situation. Whilst I am sorry about it. You are still free to be a donor to a surrogate and have a child or even adopt. Nothing is limiting you from having kids.

Therefore, it is only your choice which keeps you in a "biologically invalid" relationship with your wife.

I would be happy to say this to your face. Facts are facts after all. No matter how hurtful they are.

Finally, you mention that marriage is invalid due to no kids. Well I have news for you. It's not. There is a growing trend of couples who marry and decide not to have kids.

So next time, try not to become so emotionally charged when reading comments. You'll tend to read what's not there!

Bu-bye!


RE: And people claim there is no gay agenda
By Reflex on 5/11/2014 12:38:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are still free to be a donor to a surrogate and have a child or even adopt. Nothing is limiting you from having kids.

Thanks for this. Given that these options are all viable options for homosexual couples, it is nice to see that you have changed your stance on their biological validity.

Just one more hurdle overcome!


RE: And people claim there is no gay agenda
By peterrushkin on 5/11/2014 1:24:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thanks for this. Given that these options are all viable options for homosexual couples, it is nice to see that you have changed your stance on their biological validity.

Just one more hurdle overcome!


Actually his still right.

By adopting, none of the genetics of the gay couple is being passed along.
By having a surrogate, only 1 partner is passing on his genetic code. Hopefully being diluted by the woman.

So 50% or less with biological validity. Not exactly a win here is it?

What's next? Gay couples are going to pour billions into research so men can have babies?

LMAO!

Seriously reflex, take a break. You are clutching at whatever straw to make yourself feel better.

Go get yourself laid. Be it a member of the LGBT (boy, girl, tranny) or hell even man's best friend is available if you can't get any of those 3 (lol)


RE: And people claim there is no gay agenda
By Reflex on 5/11/2014 2:38:48 PM , Rating: 2
Again, homosexuals can procreate to the same extent as the poster you replied to can. By your own standards that makes them biologically legitimate. Thanks for the confirmation.


RE: And people claim there is no gay agenda
By peterrushkin on 5/12/2014 4:08:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, that's exactly what I said.

Not sure why you are duplicating my comment and trying to make yourself feel better.

Except, I'm saying. 2 MEN = NO BABY. Get it? A man can't yet carry a baby to term. Therefore their dreams of their own children as in dna from both parents is DUST!

BUT! 2 women and 1 man can have a baby! http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/...

AND! 2 women can have a baby! .... maybe... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-59196/How-...

Awww poor little gay guys, no love for them!


By Reflex on 5/12/2014 7:45:21 PM , Rating: 2
And one man plus one infertile woman, as stated above, cannot have a baby any easier than two gay men can. Again, what is the distinction you are trying to make here?


By M'n'M on 5/11/2014 6:07:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When did he mention your wife? He didn't. In-fact you did. You were the one who made it a point of argument. He talked about 2 dudes being biologically invalid. It is. 2 dudes even if they separated and went with other dudes will never ever produce a child.

I'll try and put this so even you can understand it, as his argument seems to have gone over your head. He mentioned "biological invalidity" as a reason 2 dudes shouldn't get married, or even be homosexual. If he didn't intend "biological validity" to be a reason why being gay was bad, why did he mention it ? He could have (and already has) left it as 'gay is bad'.

Now using logic if being "biological invalid" is a, perhaps the, reason that being gay is bad it should also be an equally good reason that all "biological invalid" people or couples are also bad and that their union should not be allowed by law. If not, then being gay is bad because it's just bad, "biological invalidity" adds nothing to his argument.

So let him continue to argue his point that implies all "biological invalid" people/couples are in someway bad and shouldn't be married or admit that "biological invalidity" has no bearing on the issue.

FWIW I agree homosexual couples are a "biological invalidity" union, I just don't think being able to conceive children is required to be married.

Clear enough now ?

Buh bye.


Do Gays Need to Have Their Way In Everything?
By Arsynic on 5/9/14, Rating: 0
By Digimonkey on 5/9/2014 3:11:33 PM , Rating: 2
Right because if anyone has it worse than you then your complaints are invalid.


By FITCamaro on 5/9/2014 3:31:08 PM , Rating: 1
Generally no. But in this case they are. It's a game. If you don't like the way the game is, don't play the game. If you want to write the company and suggest they make a game like you want, go ahead. But a company is not intolerant because they don't make the product you want them to make.


By Dr of crap on 5/9/2014 3:59:17 PM , Rating: 2
YES, exacatly.
Stop your complaining and go back to your self loathing!


By Digimonkey on 5/9/2014 5:12:36 PM , Rating: 2
They might not be intolerant, but blocking a game mechanic based on gender/sex/race sure can come across as intolerance. Easiest summation is if it wasn't intolerant it was stupid and either way they're to blame.


By xti on 5/9/2014 11:09:58 PM , Rating: 2
so now they cant sell a game unless they cater to everyone? thats the bs everyone gets fed up with.

I dont see armani making XXXXXL


By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2014 9:50:35 AM , Rating: 1
What the...

Nintendo is intolerant because they didn't put gay marriage in a goddamned KIDS GAME!?

I guess they should put transsexuals in a kids game too! We wouldn't want them being intolerant of others now, would we?

What the hell is wrong with you people? Context is pretty important here. This is a kids game!

You need to learn to pick your battles. You'll never gain any ground at trying to force your world view on other people's children.


By Digimonkey on 5/10/2014 11:51:08 AM , Rating: 2
Stop being so dramatic. Video games go right along with make believe. When I was a kid girls used to pretend to marry each other all the time, you know at the age when they thought boys are yucky, it was not a big deal.

And again, It's not that Nintendo didn't add it. It's that they specifically blocked it from happening. Then when they found a bug that let it happen, they fixed it. They put man hours thus money into blocking it. It's not enough to get out pitchforks, but it's enough to raise some questions.


RE: Do Gays Need to Have Their Way In Everything?
By Reflex on 5/10/2014 5:07:29 PM , Rating: 2
Its a game that, among other things, simulates relationships and marriage. So yeah, it should probably include gay options since in the world the children will be growing up into, gays exist, are in relationships, and are more frequently getting married.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2014 5:25:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So yeah, it should probably include gay options


Well you're welcome to make your own game with "gay options", you have that freedom. This isn't Russia, nobody is stopping you.

Nintendo has a different opinion than you on what should be in their game. And if you can't respect that without calling them bigots then that, ironically, makes you one as well.

In the end we're talking about a video game. Someone is honestly wrong with you if you have THIS much emotionally invested in it. There are far better places to pick your battle on this.


By Reflex on 5/10/2014 6:02:21 PM , Rating: 2
When did I call Nintendo 'bigots'? I tend to agree with the tone of the article in that it is a cultural difference. Some of the posters have been bigoted in their replies, but that does not make Nintendo a bigot.

And I have nothing emotionally invested in this. I don't buy Nintendo products. My emotions are, however, invested in civil rights. Something that is near and dear to the hearts of anyone who admires the founding fathers and their ideals as I do.


By thesaxophonist on 5/11/2014 4:11:37 PM , Rating: 2
And who, exactly, cares if the company in "intolerant"? It is a private entity, and it's games shouldn't be subject to anyone else's opinion. I highly doubt that they let you sacrifice goats to the sun gods and dangle their entrails round your neck in this game. Why aren't we bitching about that? I'm sure it offends at least one sun worshiper out there. Point is, unless you make the game, you have no right to complain.


RE: Do Gays Need to Have Their Way In Everything?
By Reflex on 5/11/2014 8:13:37 PM , Rating: 2
Not real clear on the concept of freedom of expression, are you?


By thesaxophonist on 5/12/2014 6:39:20 PM , Rating: 2
Let me make that more clear: people ought to be able to say what they like. However, Nintendo has zero obligation to do what they ask. So really, it's kind of pointless making a big ruckus about it.


By godlyatheist on 5/9/2014 10:02:05 PM , Rating: 2
I make game for people's entertainment. If you do not find my game entertaining, do NOT buy. If you wish to make MY GAME fit your needs, license the game from me and you can make whatever change you want. I do not make game for the pleasure of a small group of people. It is not my duty to satisfy your needs. Do you get what I'm saying?


By peterrushkin on 5/9/2014 6:04:47 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly.

The quicker we can round them up and force them to live in California where they can make it the gay state of the US and leave the rest of the US alone. The better.

They can then petition nintendo not to ship this game to cali and everyone else can be free to play it in piece!


This ...
By Jim_Liquor on 5/10/2014 8:24:36 AM , Rating: 1
This is what we get down to once a snowball of a very vocal minority gets rolling. Now flippin' NINTENDO is in trouble cause of a stupid game on an even dumber and fairly useless console gets headlines because a few jackasses yelled about it???

Snowball gets bigger.

Different view? Racist or homophobe or intolerant or nature-killer ....

Snowball is getting out of control. I personally know people who are so terrified of 3 people making a stink out of 300 of them, they simply stopped expressing any sort of opinion.

That's freedom? No, that's totalitarianism, which is being used bv the supposed oppressed to fight the very same thing they think is happening to them.




RE: This ...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2014 8:48:45 AM , Rating: 2
It's the tyranny of the minority what's going on here. People losing their jobs, having their lives ruined, because they expressed a majority viewpoint.

How many of these gay people are even going to play this game? It's for KIDS!!!

So you're a bigot if you don't put gay marriage in a game for kids? Just lol. Okay.


RE: This ...
By Acupuncture on 5/10/2014 3:47:53 PM , Rating: 2
You are the epitome of a closed-minded dipshit.

If a parent cannot explain to a child why a man loves another man, or a woman loves another woman, you are a shitty parent. Period. Lets role-play.

Little Johnny: Why can a man marry another man in my game?

Non-shitty parent: Well Johnny, some men love other men, and some women love other women.

Little Johnny: Oh. Well how will I know if I will love another man?

Non-Shitty Parent: Trust me, you'll know when it happens.

Fucking simple as that. When I started taking interest in the opposite sex, It was a biological and chemical attraction. It's completely natural, and it harms a child to fill their heads with bigoted rhetoric. Don't ever have kids if this is an issue with you.


RE: This ...
By Reflex on 5/10/2014 5:15:37 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/1...

News flash: Its not the minority opinion any longer. Also, kids can be gay too, even if they haven't expressed it yet. For the percentage of people for whom sexuality is not a choice, they are born one way or the other. Why would you want to teach them at a young age that they will be excluded?


RE: This ...
By Acupuncture on 5/10/2014 5:28:05 PM , Rating: 1
It's because he's an idiot. Fortunately the "old, white republican" majority is slowing fading away, and it scares the shit out of bigoted assholes like Reclaimer. He's a fwitened whittle boy.


RE: This ...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2014 5:45:40 PM , Rating: 1
You know, I don't believe I've said anything to warrant such hostility and hate from you. I never said I was against gay marriage, or that I would vote to deprive LBGT's of marriage rights.

And yet, I have the feeling if I returned your hostility in kind, you would further use that as a justification that the world is against you and I'm just another "bigoted" hater. So I'm just not going to play your game and add fuel to a fire.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm the product of divorce at a very young age. I have an issue with marriage in general, all types. And looking at America's divorce rate and my own family experiences, I don't think our culture has been especially good stewards of "marriage" altogether.

I made it clear my opinion was about the video game, and only the video game. And you will not succeed in dragging me into this absurd debate, especially if you cannot fathom how someone can have scruples about gay marriage in a kids game and NOT "hate" gays altogether.


RE: This ...
By Acupuncture on 5/10/2014 5:55:22 PM , Rating: 2
You can raise your child however you like. That is not only your choice, but your right. However societal acceptance is a wonderful thing. We no longer are disgusted by interracial relationships, and don't gasp in horror when a black man uses the same restroom. And now, fortunately, we are working on not discriminating against homosexuals, and avoiding the "old" thinking of their "act" to be morally repulsive and ungodly.

And yes, it is bigoted to think that children will somehow be corrupted by being around homosexuality. It's scientifically incorrect.


RE: This ...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2014 5:32:38 PM , Rating: 1
Well I'm not a parent. But I imagine that every parent eventually wants grandchildren. They seem to express that desire often and in great numbers.

You and your militant friend above seem to think a parent is "bad" if they don't raise their children to embrace the gay lifestyle. This is not only ridiculous, but extremely insulting.

Feeling slighted, oppressed, whatever - doesn't give you some moral imperative to question how parents raise their children and impose your belief system on them.

That's crossing the line, sorry, it just is.


RE: This ...
By Reflex on 5/10/2014 6:10:54 PM , Rating: 2
What does 'embrace' mean in your statement? And how am I 'imposing my belief system' on anyone by expressing my opinion?

Real simple: I believe that humans who are not harming other humans or society as a whole should be treated as equals, regardless of their ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality or other defining factors. They all should have the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness as defined in the constitution. Legal definitions enshrined in law both civil and criminal should hold equal protections and advantages for them. That is what I embrace.

As for the game, Nintendo has the right to produce whatever they wish. Not a single post here has called for the game to be banned or for Nintendo to be forced to change their code. However that does not in some way magically mean everyone should shut up about it. Freedom of speech means that we can speak our mind, and we are. Which is as it should be.


RE: This ...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2014 6:59:33 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry but I just can't view gay marriage as a civil rights issue. We are not free to marry whoever we want in this country. I can't have two wives. I can't marry a 12 year old. And I don't know anyone who believes two siblings should be able to marry. There are more and probably better examples, but moving on..

So once you have conceded that not every imaginable relationship should be called a marriage, you are conceding that there is no civil right to marry anyone you want.

To clarify, people do have a constitutional right to get married. But the idea that people have a constitutional right to declare any relationship they might find themselves involved in a marriage is both legally unsupportable and silly.

By making this a "civil rights" issue, it's just all too easy to label someone a hateful bigot if they don't agree. It's just a bit too convenient and simplistic.


RE: This ...
By Reflex on 5/10/2014 7:29:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm sorry but I just can't view gay marriage as a civil rights issue. We are not free to marry whoever we want in this country. I can't have two wives. I can't marry a 12 year old. And I don't know anyone who believes two siblings should be able to marry. There are more and probably better examples, but moving on..

That is because you are ignoring basic concepts of consent and societal harm. A 12 year old cannot give informed consent. Polygamy and incest have societal costs that are well documented. As a result, homosexual marriage is comparable to neither. You are correct, there are better examples. The primary and to date most accurate comparison is interracial marriage.

quote:
So once you have conceded that not every imaginable relationship should be called a marriage, you are conceding that there is no civil right to marry anyone you want.

No, I have conceded neither point. I was very clear in my criteria. Informed consent and lack of harm to society are requirements.

quote:
To clarify, people do have a constitutional right to get married. But the idea that people have a constitutional right to declare any relationship they might find themselves involved in a marriage is both legally unsupportable and silly.

Which is why no one is asking for what you have claimed here. They are asking for the right to homosexual marriage, as it can be consentingly entered into, and does not damage the individuals or society in any manner.

quote:
By making this a "civil rights" issue, it's just all too easy to label someone a hateful bigot if they don't agree. It's just a bit too convenient and simplistic.

One does not have to be hateful to be a bigot. Plenty of people hold bigoted views without attaching an emotion to it. Again, this is easily comparable to interracial marriage historically. Many people who had no issue with equality among ethnicities still held serious problems with interracial marriage. An Indian co-worker of mine told me about her shock when her kindly grandmother who had raised her children with love and teachings of racial equality one time said that an Indian girl she knew who married a white guy did so because "as a child her parents never taught her her colors". There was no hate, she simply felt they should not mix.

Like interracial marriage this is by definition a civil rights issue. An entire class of people are being inherently discriminated against based solely on their sexual orientation with no demonstrable reason that it benefits the individuals or society to do so. That is about as civil rights as an issue gets.


RE: This ...
By Acupuncture on 5/11/2014 3:13:06 AM , Rating: 1
Fantastic post. This should be sticky'd to the top. It's pretty disheartening how ignorant the comments are on this site. Dailytech is fast becoming the infowars of tech sites.


RE: This ...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/11/2014 8:37:04 AM , Rating: 2
You only have 44 posts and already have a user rating far below mine. Wow, that's amazing.

I don't think you're in much of a position to judge others here. You're a newcomer. Should be keeping your head down and earning some clout, you haven't earned the right to get all up in people's faces yet.


RE: This ...
By thesaxophonist on 5/11/2014 4:00:23 PM , Rating: 2
I happen to agree with you on the issue at hand, but criticizing him just for his post count makes you look weak. Not everyone has the time to post as much as you do.


nintendo BS
By GulWestfale on 5/9/2014 3:02:27 PM , Rating: 2
regardless of culture or religion, nintendo is banning gay marriage in its games. nintendo therefore discriminates against people by limiting their own personal choice to he choice that nintendo makes for them.

i am not gay, i do not own a nintendo product, but i have to say that i am against limiting a person's freedom in any way.

gays aren't hurting anyone by loving each other.

nintendo's bigotry might, when kids grow up thinking that homosexuals are "abnormal".




RE: nintendo BS
By Dorkyman on 5/9/2014 4:00:32 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, you stumble on the truth. Homosexuality IS "abnormal" in that the primary purpose of life is to reproduce.

Believe what you want but understand that what is happening today is a bizarre event that will end badly. Other cultures look upon the West with a mixture of astonishment and disgust.

The pendulum will swing back. It won't be pretty.


RE: nintendo BS
By Reflex on 5/9/2014 5:40:26 PM , Rating: 2
If its abnormal why do thousands of other species engage in it? Why has it existed all throughout humanity's history? Why do our cousins on the evolutionary tree also engage in it? Why has it never damaged a species in the past? What makes it invalid? And why do you feel the only purpose of life is to reproduce on an individual level, given that many other species do not actually have that requirement?

The pendulum has been swinging one direction for a while now. A new dark age is possible, of course, but that would not change the fact that it would be a regression.


RE: nintendo BS
By gixser on 5/9/2014 5:54:03 PM , Rating: 2
I'm really damm curious as to what's going to happen. Any insight?

quote:
Believe what you want but understand that what is happening today is a bizarre event that will end badly.


RE: nintendo BS
By godlyatheist on 5/9/2014 10:07:25 PM , Rating: 2
This is a complete BS argument. So every RPG game that let's you create your own character that's made before the "gay rights movement" became popular is intolerant if they didn't include gay elements? So basically what you are saying is because the gays rights movement went into full swing, game developers can't make games the same way they did before. I fail to see any logical connection in there. What if I made an rpg involving alien characters that only mate the opposite sex? Would that be considered anti-gay because somehow gay rights is interplanetary?


RE: nintendo BS
By Chaser on 5/11/2014 2:09:54 AM , Rating: 2
Imagine the uproar from heterosexuals if relationships were removed from games. None. This is all the desperate pursuit of getting the same titles but in the end it doesn't change the behavior which is really what homosexuality is about. Not titles.


Factually Incorrect Article
By shikigamild on 5/11/2014 8:48:50 AM , Rating: 2
The article has many points that are just plain factually incorrect.
It says that "Gays are allowed to donate blood" but this is not true.
The Red Cross of Japan, have a list of reasons why they refuse people, and under the point know as "????????????????????????????" or "People with AIDS or Hepatitis, or those who are suspected to have it" it clearly says "???????????????" or "Men who have had sexual contact with the same sex". Source: http://www.jrc.or.jp/donation/refrain/detail/detai...

There is even a Q&A which asks that if men who have had SAFE sex with other men are also banned, and after a lot of stupid justifications, it basically says that it doesn't matter if it's safe or not, that they are banned to ensure safety. Source http://www.tokyo.bc.jrc.or.jp/qa/index3.html

According with the Red Cross of Japan, every men, regardless of ANYTHING, not even the TYPE of sex or anything, that have had sexual contact with another men is suspected to have AIDS.

Also I should point, I live in japan, I've been living here for 6 years, I'm gay, and I actually started to be sexually active while in japan, and I can tell you there is a LOT of homophobia in this country.
Yeah, the homophobia is different to that of the US or Europe, were it is religiously based, but ironically speaking, Japan became more homophobic after the Meji Restoration, that is when Japan became more "Westernized".

They basically copy-pasted laws from other countries, INCLUDING sodomy laws.
Another factually inaccurate point of the article.

There were sodomy laws in japan from 1873 to 1880.

Also, transgender people who have changed legally their sex, are still discriminated to opt for Artificial Insemination by Donor.

Also I should point that most, and by most I would thing that about 90% of Japanese LGBT are in the closet. Most gay people I know (which all are Japanese) have in one way or another deep emotional problems because they have to hide themselves all the time.

The same way there is no "hate" for gay people, there is also no real information about LGBT, and they are saw as something that doesn't happen in japan. LGBT people are depicted as sexual perverts in TV programs, and just like in the US they call kids at high-school call others "Homo" as a derogatory term.

I've heard again and again stories of people who are pushed away from their families and friends, because they reveal their sexuality.

So yeah, Japan right now may be not be as bad as 1970's US, but is still not good at all.




RE: Factually Incorrect Article
By Reflex on 5/11/2014 2:56:27 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for this post. It is interesting to see the perspective from someone living there who happens to be gay. I have to say as bad as you described it, it is worse in China. Many of my Chinese friends flat out tell me that there are "no gays in China" or that gays are all perverts because if they weren't why would they hide it? (Oh I don't know, maybe because you all would treat them horribly???).

The strangest thing is that when discussing the topic with Chinese women I know, they start out against it heavily, but after some chat many of them have admitted to having a crush on another female, but then insist that they are not at all gay or bisexual.

The whole situation makes me sad. Both for homosexuals in China, and for heterosexuals who really never get to know some of the people they care about simply because they can't let go of condemnation over something out of their control. Whenever I talk with a fellow American who tells me that they haven't known any gay people in their life I remind them that yes they have, and they probably should ask themselves why those friends and family members are not comfortable enough to be open around them. It has caused a lot of pauses for thought, and more than one "I really never considered that".

A very close friend of mine from childhood, his son came out as transgender to me recently. I was very worried about how his family would take it, given that they are very religious and have always held that these things are a choice. The son has always looked up to me as an older brother since he was very little, and he felt okay admitting the truth to myself (and his sister). To my welcome surprise, when he finally told his family there was shock, long conversations, and acceptance, his mother has been teaching him how to use makeup and his father is reading a lot of the scientific work done on transgenderism. I have rarely felt so proud of a friend in my life, he went through an amazing amount of growth to accept his now-daughter, and he did it in a short amount of time.

Anyways, while I am as straight as they come, LGBT issues hit close to home for me, and honestly they should hit close to home for anyone who cares about human rights.


RE: Factually Incorrect Article
By peterrushkin on 5/12/2014 2:18:59 AM , Rating: 2
Admit it. The way you write all your posts in these threads.

You love your male best friend.

Just marry him already!

You ain't fooling anyone!

p.s $100 Reflex has a gay son LMAO!


RE: Factually Incorrect Article
By Reflex on 5/12/2014 11:55:39 AM , Rating: 2
I do not at this point have any children. As for the rest, no, but so what if I did? Why would it matter?