Conservative Christian site decries Game of Life's 'gay agenda'

Seriously. What on Earth kind of defence is that it brought up questions with her children she didn't want to answer? How about a gay child? Are his parents (who might also be gay adoptive parents) supposed to answer the questions about why society is so retarded it can't accept him to live with his choices?

And why is homosexuality something that needs explanation? And why is it considered so evil that children have to be a certain age before their parents will even consent to them knowing about it?

I grew up in a pretty white community. I remember the first time I saw a black person. I kind of thought it was funny at first. I was 3 or 4 and never really paid any attention to it before. My mum explained to me in 2 seconds that some people were born with a different skin colour. That was all the explanation it took. I wasn't scarred for life or whatever. Stop using kids as some dipshit excuse for the fact that you don't like gay people.

How DARE Hasbro make the game of life so damn REALISTIC!!!!

Why is it that the whole world has to force it's views on religion. We're told to keep our views to ourselves. How would you feel if your post was removed. She didn't say the game itself was part of the homosexual agenda, but her post being removed helped her believe that it was. Free speech is reserved for everyone but christians, whose speech is hate speech. If group "A" has to listen to group "b"'s opinions and be tolerant of them, why can't group "B" be tolerant of group "A"?

You only have free speech from the government. A private website doesn't have to allow anyone to speak and can remove anything they feel like.

Religious people are free to say whatever they like, we're reading about this ladies feelings in the article above. However, the rest of us are free to think that she's an idiot for hating a group of people because they're different than her.

If you are anti-gay, you are a bigot, and bigotry is more than likely what got that post removed. I don't give a crap why someone is anti-gay because there's no good reason. It's not an attack on religion. It's an attack on bigotry.

@roto13:
Define bigotry. If you view the use of homosexuality in a game the same as drug use, you have a right to be upset. You and I may disagree over whether that is the case, but people should be tolerant of other people's views. And that should go both ways. If I must be tolerant of homosexuality, then you should be tolerant of the fact that I think it is a sin. I don't hate you for that. I disagree with homosexuality in the same way that I feel drinking too much caffeine is bad. I don't hate people who drink 8 red bulls a day, but it is a lifestyle I don't choose to live. Same for homosexuality. But there are just as many people who hate homosexuals as there are people who hate christians. After prop 8 there was vadalism at churchs, fights and such. Just as I condemn the KKK and "christians" who use violence and preach hate, it would be nice to see some on the other side condemn the ones on their side that do the same.

it's interesting to approach this from the "christian ideals aren't being tolerated" direction, but the above poster is right, if a privately owned website disagrees with one of its user's reviews, it can pull it, just like with the iTunes music store or any other forum that will remove comments/reviews with copious swears and/or terrible grammar

if the argument were extended that perhaps this happens in too many places then the two counters that spring to mind would be that 1) we see intolerant shit all the time from everyone, we haven't squelched it, and that 2) if we squelch the ability to squelch intolerance we are actually being intolerant, or else the government has been given regulatory control of too much (i.e. everything)

I'd add to 1) though that I much prefer people being intolerant from feelings of unfairness attached to perceived differences than having them feel that way and not be able to express it publicly

good point though, +1

"If I must be tolerant of homosexuality, then you should be tolerant of the fact that I think it is a sin."

Why? The two opposing views are not equally valid. I don't have to respect or tolerate that backwards kind of thinking.

but what gives you the right to decide that their viewpoint is "backwards thinking"? You can't claim to have the perspective to guide the future of humanity so absolutely. This is not to say that your opinion isn't valid, it's to say that it is not innately more "right" than that of a person who does not approve of homosexuality.

It's a little hard for me to type this because I agree with you in that I feel discrimination against gays and lesbians (and etc.) is just wrong, but the guy's point is that he should be able to express how he feels about the topic, and he feels as if he's been squelched. An earlier poster made the point that the site owners have the right to remove content they feel is inappropriate, and I think that's the valid point here.

Going back to the article, I think the apparent lampooning of the "homosexual agenda" comment could be inflaming some people, but the fact is that that comment is an overreaction and is just plain ripe for parody. The game does not promote gay marriages over straight ones or restrict straight ones in any way (as far as I know, if it does, then I am definitely wrong here).

I think someone else said this, but I don't feel there should be that big of a problem discussing sexuality with a toddler, but it'd have to be explained in a "daddy and mommy" sort of way instead of "when a boy becomes a man..."

it goes without saying that she doesn't have to play the game, and likely does not right now

I agree with Roto13. By d0r13n's logic, the black man should be tolerant of the KKK trying to lynch him just as they should be tolerant of blacks.
In regards to homosexuality, you either tolerate it OR you think it's a sin. The idea that we should be tolerant of intolerance otherwise be hypocrites is completely absurd and invalid.

sorry, I wanted to add one more thing; I don't think homosexuality is something that can be picked up as easily as a red bull drinking habit, I think it's something more deeply rooted. This argument is, I think, a really important one, and while people are pretty adaptable in terms of lifestyle, being homosexual doesn't enter most gay persons' minds as a choice, just as being straight just sort of happens for most, and is not a "I choose to be attracted to these people" situation; regardless, I feel as I said above

I think huge depths of psychology and theories on learned behavior can be applied here

"but what gives you the right to decide that their viewpoint is "backwards thinking"? You can't claim to have the perspective to guide the future of humanity so absolutely. This is not to say that your opinion isn't valid, it's to say that it is not innately more "right" than that of a person who does not approve of homosexuality."

I can say I'm right and he's wrong because I've never heard a valid reason to be anti-gay. If he has one, he's welcome to share it, but I have a feeling it's going to be more "The bible tells me so and doesn't explain its reasoning" bullshit. It's wrong because he's told it's wrong. Sorry, that's not gonna fly.

I'm intolerant of intolerant folk and that's about as far as it goes. Seriously dude, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

@Roto13

"If I must be tolerant of homosexuality, then you should be tolerant of the fact that I think it is a sin."

Why? The two opposing views are not equally valid. I don't have to respect or tolerate that backwards kind of thinking."

I have to say that we must be tolerant without labeling, you can't say your tolerant of homosexuality if you are then labeling it as a sin. So I agree with Roto that they are not equal. The first quote is just being bias!

nick frost, the difference is that what makes your example situation absurd is the very real threat of physical harm and death (very very real) from the kkk to the black population, so of course they don't have to be tolerant: they might die.

I think what roto was trying to say is not that we should agree with him, but that he should be allowed to express his view, and I think this is valid because if he were not allowed to say he felt that way he might feel that way any way, and over generations this situation can build up whole communities of resentment, where expression allows us to discuss and argue and get angry without having to explode. It's the same reason that passive-aggressiveness among roommates is terrible (and it is; oh lord it is), and its that bottling up anything causes pressure to build and explode

I love all the dipshits on Joystiq trying to debate religion and politics. It's a damn Video Game blog, if you wanna be a fucking prick go somewhere else.

JOYSTIQ WHY HAVE YOU DROPPED THIS FLAME BAIT ON US!!!! You've started a war this time! Why can't we just hate each other because of or console based fanboyism, not our religious/non-religious based fanboyism?

Everyone needs to take a CHILL PILL and watch this vid real quick!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-MEkwooP2U

To be honest, I'm tolerant of drugs, excessive drinking and smoking, as long as it doesn't include me, what other people want to do with thier lives is up to them. Religeon can't tell me how to live my life and what games to play and as long as I'm not killing, stealing or doing anything to have a detrimental imapct on someone else, I should have every right to live the life I please.

Unfortunatly, some planks on this planet still haven't worked out the meaning of free speech and democracy, if people feel they have the right to tell others what to do, then it should be okay to turn around and tell them how to live thier lives too, am I right?

Religeon or not, same sex marriages isn't creating a bad influence or causing mental damage etc to anyone, so why they felt the need to highlight it despite the fact other games (eg. Sims) have it.

Totally. Beyond the genrall hate, the biggest thing that get's me is the "raising issues that I don't want to talk to my 6 year old about." 6 year old kids are old enough to learn about sex, and homosexuality is an aspect of that conversation. Oh wait, why don't we never talk to our kids about anything that they'll encounter in real life. I'm sure they'll turn out fine.

Either they tell thier kids that something is wrong (eg. having different races in your area is wrong, disabled people are to be laughed or stared at, though not always said, its plainly obvious to a child by the behaviour pattern) or they tell thier kids nothing and prefer to complain about society and what is being shown, thats almost as bad as the parents complaining that the schools should be teaching children manners and not them or that GTA should have less violence so little 12 year old Timmy can play it, yes, that makes lots of sense.

Roto13, you wanted a reason to be "anti-gay." I'm not sure I can give that to you, because I'm not sure I know what that means, but I can tell you why homosexuality is not natural. Natural law is basically that by nature certain things make sense or don't as they apply to ethics. A male and a female in nature of every species have sex and produce offspring. By natural law people are designed through evolution to create male and female couples that produce offspring. So whether or not you believe in God or organized religion you have to agree that in nature opposites attract and it goes against nature to be any other way.

I'm no bigot, don't worry, and I love everyone. All I present is one logical view of the world.

But we are already going against nature when we polute, build technology, poach animals, use up all the oil, cause global warming (another argument), build houses cutting down trees and leaving less space for animals to be wild and free, get married, drive cars, wear clothing, cure natural desieses which are SUPPOSED to take our lives, smoke, drink, do drugs, visit Joystiq, access the internet, have a computer, commit suicide, use money, tax people, have a president or primeminster, study, go to school, go to university, go to work, watch TV, remove parts of the body we were born with, add parts of the body we were born without, have liposuction, have breast reduction, have breast implants added.

If we are to talk nature, then that argument is severly flawed Triforceowner and therefore only makes us more hypocritical as humans to have one rule for one thing and another rule for another, I understand the point you are making, but there are so many other things to counter that, and at the same time, you have to ask yourself, with all this going on and the fact that the moment Eve picked the apple and she and Adam ate it the whole of humanity was thrown out of the 'natural' cycle, why is homosexuality any different or any worse then most of these things.

Personally, I believe there are more important things to worry about if we are talking 'natural' and 'religion', like why we as humans can let others across the world starve, or have war with each other, why we have teens getting pregnant and why people have little or no respect for society and others. Homosexuality isn't harming anyone. Its not homosexuality bringing the human race closer to demise is it?

"I can tell you why homosexuality is not natural. Natural law is basically that by nature certain things make sense or don't as they apply to ethics. A male and a female in nature of every species have sex and produce offspring. By natural law people are designed through evolution to create male and female couples that produce offspring. So whether or not you believe in God or organized religion you have to agree that in nature opposites attract and it goes against nature to be any other way."

1) Homosexuality happens naturally, so assuming that natural = ethical, homosexuality is fine.

2) Whether something is natural or not has nothing to do with whether or not something is right or wrong anyway. If someone thinks anything unnatural is wrong, they're not in any position to argue that homosexuality is right or wrong anyway because they'd pretty much have to go live in a hollowed out tree stump off in Alaskan wilds or something because almost everything in civilized society is man-made and "unnatural."

I've heard that one before and it falls into the category of bullshit. Feel free to try again if you come up with anything else.

"Why is it that the whole world has to force it's views on religion. We're told to keep our views to ourselves. How would you feel if your post was removed." How you should feel is stupid and out of date, which is what you are. This is exactly the same species of "respect my ancient bullshit" that Islamic nations are using to pass binding anti-blasphemy resolutions in the UN, which would prevent people from linking human rights abuses (almost always against women - genital mutilation, honour killings, abuse, forced marriage, acid in the face for going to school) to the cultures that defend them.
We have to force religions to keep their trash to themselves, because we know exactly how things worked when your poisonous ideas held sway over the law, which is of course the "Christian agenda" in America - to legislate, or demand special treatment for, your arbitrary or flat-wrong opinions on marriage, evolution, embryos, sexual education, etc.

"but I can tell you why homosexuality is not natural"
Actually this is incorrect, and unsurprisingly stems from the creator-oriented perspective that things are "created" for a "purpose" and have an "intended" way of "working". Reproduction is necessary for propagation, of course, and it would be best for the genes an animal is carrying if they went on to propagate themselves. But there are natural variations in outcome which produce animals who will not achieve that. That's bad news for the genes, but that doesn't make the outcome unnatural (nor are the genes entirely blameless). If deviations from some imagined blueprint are unnatural, then you must not only include harmless behaviour tweaks like homosexuality, but more grevious physical errors that people don't choose, like blindness, or mental retardation, as unnatural and "sinful". Indeed, when ignorant superstition ruled the world, people with simple developmental problems and mental retardation, problems no fault of their own, were mocked at best and treated as if possessed by demons at worst.
The truth is, plenty of animal species have been observed, not only engaging in same-sex intercourse, but in rearing young with a partner of the same sex. Bonobos are a great example, given how closely related they are to us. They resolve practically all their conflicts with sex. They love it. They have homosexual sex, perform incest, practice anti-monogamy, oral sex, mutual masturbation, masturbation on their own, you name it, they do it. So I guess all those things are "natural" then! Awesome! Don't panic though, you've always got that pathetic fallback position: "Um, well, the world changed after 9/11... I mean the Fall"

have a logic test tomorrow that I need to study for, so I thought I'd classify all of Roto13's logical fallacies. Just for funsies.

"If you are anti-gay, you are a bigot, and bigotry is more than likely what got that post removed."

Ad-hominem/Hasty Generalization

" I don't give a crap why someone is anti-gay because there's no good reason. It's not an attack on religion. It's an attack on bigotry."

Begging the Question/Strawman

"Why? The two opposing views are not equally valid. I don't have to respect or tolerate that backwards kind of thinking."

Begging the Question

"I can say I'm right and he's wrong because I've never heard a valid reason to be anti-gay. If he has one, he's welcome to share it, but I have a feeling it's going to be more "The bible tells me so and doesn't explain its reasoning" bullshit. It's wrong because he's told it's wrong. Sorry, that's not gonna fly."

Argument from Ignorance/Poisoning the Well/Burden of Proof

"1) Homosexuality happens naturally, so assuming that natural = ethical, homosexuality is fine.

2) Whether something is natural or not has nothing to do with whether or not something is right or wrong anyway. If someone thinks anything unnatural is wrong, they're not in any position to argue that homosexuality is right or wrong anyway because they'd pretty much have to go live in a hollowed out tree stump off in Alaskan wilds or something because almost everything in civilized society is man-made and "unnatural."

I've heard that one before and it falls into the category of bullshit. Feel free to try again if you come up with anything else."

Oversimplified cause/Equivocation->Strawman (particularly nicely done)/Poisoning the Well

Not that the other arguments here on both sides aren't fallacious to insane extents, but Roto's were nice to pick out (mostly because his posts are shorter too...! I do love that equivocation-strawman in your last post, part 2. I've been reading stuff like this all day and didn't see anything that nice.

The ad hominem, strawman and attacks against religious/moral views are out of hand. Seriously, this is what passes for reasonable argument?

eipxen, what you don't understand is that the prosecuted should not have to be tolerant the prosecutor. My example my have been a bit extreme (though homosexuals, similar to blacks in the rural South, often do find themselves with the very real threat of physical harm and death) my point still remains and isn't as "absurd" as you might think.

That's usually the result of a very traditional and backwards way of thinking. Don't like it, attack it, but it's only what makes these individuals less educational or inspiring.

@ chaos3346

Oh, look, nobody gives a flying shit.

I didn't ask anyone to care. But I do think that it's truly depressing that "debate" to this generation is logical fallacies and demagoguery. In the end, you can stand on a soapbox and yell "God hates gays!" or "People who disagree with homosexual marriage are bigots!," but neither is an argument and ultimately you're never going to convince anyone who wasn't going to agree in the first place (except the insecure people who use the "pro-gay" side's constant appeal to snobbery (Those people are bigots we're so much better than them) to give them comfort through a false sense of superiority.)

@chaos3346

I love how the guy doesn't have anything to say other than to personally attack you. Nice job picking out all of his logical fallacies.

Psst.

This isn't an actual debate. Those rules don't apply here. People who act like arguing on the internet is akin to an actual debate with time limits and a moderator are pathetic. Ad homonym.

I'm voting this up. Appreciate your honest opinion. You personally disagree with it but are open to people being aware/educated about it.

I don't know why this was voted down so much, you're allowed to have your own opinion.

Look at the URL, it will explain all.

No idea what URL you're referring to that pertains to this guy's comment.

"joystiq.com"

Markez,

Its because of the way he phrased his statement. Homosexuality is not "wrong" in anyway or form. You could say you don't like it or that you don't support it, but saying that it is wrong, when it really doesn't have any negative effects on said human being, well, is wrong...

Now, that's not to say that I respect Ryan's honesty about it, at least he is much more rational about it than most people out there that are against it.

Voted up.
Hey... could be worse... it could be Digg you're posting on.

I apologize, I meant to say:

"Now, that's not to say that I DON'T respect Ryan's honesty about it"

Noshino, he said "I BELIEVE HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG." The way he worded it didn't force anything on you.
I don't think he opened this up for a debate. If you want to do that, go to the aforementioned site in my above post.

@ Noshino

But he said "I believe" not "I want you to know". It would be the same if someone said, "I believe Christianity is wrong." We wouldn't be so fast to vote them down would we.

I agree with several poster that intolerance is both ways. Both sides need to get off the high horse and get over it.

@ ALL OTHERS:

If you think about the possibility why this is a sin, you can see how these problems are created. Think about when the Jewish people were in the desert for 40 years. Population dwindled. What things, don't raise the population? Masturbation, Homosexuality, Condoms etc.... think about it.

At the OP: Preach it! Life is wrong! Go shoot yourself so you can get to heaven faster and not have to deal with all this "real life" bullsh*t you so despise.

ZaxCG2,

First of all, Im not arguing about his opinion, Im just stating what I believe is the reason as to why many are downvoting Ryan's post. Many, myself included, thing that it just doesn't make sense to call Homosexuality wrong because there is no negative effects on the individual.

The fact that Ryan worded it that way (even if he said "I believe"), whether it is in a blog or in person, means that it is subject to be criticized. Now, no one is trying to change his mind, nor his opinion about the matter at hand. I was just stating that in general, it isn't right to call an individual's sexual preference "wrong".

Btw, since when we are not allowed to argue in Joystiq?...

Reddrive,

uh, it doesn't matter whether he said "I believe", "think", or "know", in any of those cases the word "wrong" still wouldn't still be offensive, not to me mind you, but to the many that support homosexuality.

You just can't say wrong to other people's sexual preference, that, once again, does not have any negative effects on the human being, more so when this is something that they are not born with, but that they chose to be as they grow.

and you went a bit overboard by calling it a sin, but anyway, the last thing we need right now is to increase the world's population, which is already overpopulated, hence why even now the catholic church teaches abstinence.

I'm not voting him up because of his "homosexuality is wrong" principle. I can't praise the logic of someone suggesting that some wonderful people I go to school with are somehow "wrong" or an abomination unto his imaginary god.

@ reddrive
Uh, they were supposed to die in the desert. They didn't trust God, (which is one of the underlying themes in most all sin) and like all people who sin, they were going to die. God gave the laws in Pentateuch to promote a healthy lifestyle that would glorify God, as well as to help people figure out what sin is.
Once you realize that all people are traitors to God, you gotta figure out a way to get back in his good graces or be eternally separated from the God of peace, justice, joy, goodness, hope, truth, and beauty.
That's why He came to earth himself. To live the life we were meant to live, and die the death we deserve to die, so that his justice is satisfied and we can be given the righteousness of Jesus, the resurrected Savior who died in our place.

Wow, I come back to see this buried on the last page :P I'd like to just point out that personally I find nothing wrong with homosexuality at all. There's one in my family, a number in my circle of friends, and coworkers as well. I think the notion that people 'choose' to be gay is one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard.

Anyway, dude has his own opinion, I disagree with it, but he seems at least rational enough to be upfront about it and deal with it like a grown-up and not be tweaked and horribly offended that this is in the game. Hence, the +1 he got from me.