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

by Griffin McElroy on Mar 15th 2009 2:00PM

Uber-conservative Christian site WorldNetDaily recently published a hard-hitting investigative report into Hasbro's downloadable PC title The Game of Life, an adaptation of a board game created by Milton Bradley in 1860. Their qualm with the game stems from the fact that it allows players to have same-sex marriages. A WND representative elocuted his or her hang-up with a review on the game's hosting site, explaining, "Many sections of society accept this as normative, but many also would consider this too mature a theme for children. Others would consider this downright offensive."

According to the WND report, one unnamed "concerned mother" found that the inclusion of same-sex marriages raised questions in her six-year old daughter that she wasn't ready to answer. She posted a similar review containing these concerns, which was quickly deleted by an administrator for being "inappropriate." Her response to this censorship is where the story really jumps the shark -- "I had no idea how insidious they were being with pushing the homosexual agenda," she explained to WND.

It's great when parents keep an eye on their youngsters' gaming habits, especially when they play said games with them. We understand a parent not wanting to discuss sexuality with a toddler -- what we don't understand is how the mere inclusion of same-sex marriages in the PC version of Life is the same as endorsing, or insidiously pushing, an "agenda." As WND concedes, even the original Life board game allowed players to bond two same-colored (and similarly gendered) pegs in holy plastic matrimony.

[Via GamePolitics]

Tags: gay, gay-marriage, glbt, hasbro, homosexual, lesbian, life, milton-bradley, pc, shockwave, the-game-of-life, worldnetdaily

Reader Comments (278)

@John -- You asked "I BELIEVE that redheads are hotter than brunettes, I BELIEVE that latin women are super hot and ginger chick are repulsive, does that mean making fun of my sexual choice is OK?"

Well, for starters, it's not a choice. It's a preference. As the clichéd argument goes, you didn't just wake up one day and CHOOSE "Hey, I'm going to be attracted to latina woman!" You just did. The attraction towards latinas just comes naturally to you. The lack of attraction towards other women also comes naturally to you.

Similarly, I didn't CHOOSE to be gay. I just am. The only choice I ever made was whether or not I'd accept the feelings that come naturally to me so that I could be honest with myself and at peace or whether I'd fight it, even though it would likely make me unhappy and feeling unsatisfied. I chose the former.

As for is it ok to make fun of you for having that preference towards latina women, the short answer is, no it's not ok to make fun of you (depending on the context, in my opinion). You shouldn't be belittled for being attracted to who you are. As long as you don't treat red-headed women poorly, simply for how they were born, then that's ok not to be attracted to them, too.

By the same token, I don't begrudge you for being attracted to women, so you shouldn't begrudge me for being attracted to men.

I don't. you missed my point about the assholes that say religion is a choice and therefore fair game for mockery

WorldNutDaily goes out of its way to find things to complain about. They're still busy trying to prove Obama's not a U.S. citizen, for Jeebus' sake. They don't even bother to name this supposed "concerned mother." JoyStiq isn't off the mark when they mock the site's lack of journalistic integrity.

Speaking as a gay man, I appreciate it when games give me the option of playing a gay character instead of automatically locking me into the hetero lifestyle.

The "concerned mother" is going to have a very frustrating life if she doesn't want to explain subjects that bother her to her children. Cry me a river. You're a parent. Act like one.

The problem here is that people asume that all depictions of homosexuality are sexual in nature, this is simply not the case. The mother in the article clearly has no problem with the depiction of heterosexual marriage, presumably because it doesn't contain a sexual component. In this case, as long as the same sex marriage contains no sexual component, there should be no difference between the depiction of same sex marriage and oposite sex marriage. I can understand not wanting children to ask questions about sex but the way the mother describes it but she would have to answer the same basic questions about heterosexual marriage i.e "why do men and women marry", "where do babies come from" etc. Being against homosexuality personally, while intolerant, is quite alright as long as one accepts that the rest of the world doesn't agree.

The big difference between being "allowed" to be openly gay and being "protected" from what one considers an abomination or whatever christians are calling it these days is that the first is about a persons right to express who they are and the other is about not allowing other people to express who they are (i.e freedom vs opression)

This is probably a far bigger problem in america where opinions on homosexuality are rather conservative compared to europe and people are far less secularised.

I'm not so glad Joystiq is giving the WND a broader platform from which to preach. What an irresponsible idea to include this story...or should I say more correctly - non-story. With all the editorializing that goes on within this website, it's odd how in this instance, the editors were all out to lunch.

Well, here's my two cents...

I am a follower Christ myself and believe homosexuality is wrong (it's mentioned several times in the Bible that it's an abomination against God). But here's the thing... if this lady also has a problem with homosexuality and wants to keep her kid from being exposed to it, she should have checked out the game first before letting her child play it. Instead of being upset at herself for not being a better parent, she's taking it out on Hasbro... which is also wrong.

God gave people a free will. They can make and publish whatever games they want. They can choose whatever religion they want (even if it's non-religion/athiesm). I don't get angry if someone decides to be a buddhist or an athiest... it's their choice. Yeah, it hurts me if they reject Christianity... but they're rejecting God, not me. I think it would be wise if more Christians would think this way. Instead, we have parents getting more and more lazy and just blaming other people for stuff that happens to them or their kids... it's really sad. :-(

That's it! I'm organizing a straight pride parade! Who's with me???

woo! Woo! I am there.

It's not okay to feel proud about your group unless it's in the minority.

Gay pride is a reaction to the shame that gay people have been told they're supposed to feel for being gay. Straight pride just comes off as straight people being jerks.

Because straight people SHUOLD look like jerks. I mean look at them, all not caring that you're gay, and not needing every conversation to be a equal opportunity battle.

By all means, Gay people should have to bring up how they are gay at every concievable opportunity, cause they never come off as jerks that way either.

Gay people are the end all be all do no wrong group that should feel free to put their seploits out there for everyone and if you dan't want to hear about what someone does in their bedroom, well too bad, you are oppressing progress.

Way to completely and totally miss the point.

Way to completely be a douche in every post you've made in this thread

John, I'm sorry to say that you are spouting bullshit. One hears about heterosexual sexploits far, FAR more than anything homosexual. This holds true on television, movies, conversations, and Joystiq. Stop trying to play the victim who is forced to be exposed to ALL TEH GAINESS!!

To be fair, I do understand that some gay people may "play the gay card", so to speak, to get a bit a sympathy. Some females online do the same thing, casually letting it slip that they are a girl, thereby changing the entire tone of a thread or conversation. That however is a minor and infrequent occurrence and doesn't represent gays nor females as "jerks".

Rather than resorting to sarcasm and petty name-calling, trying defending your point in a mature manner.

...Lest you look like jerk.

@John
"Way to completely be a douche in every post you've made in this thread"

Let us take a look at your last three posts, shall we?

#1
"I don't. you missed my point about the assholes that say religion is a choice and therefore fair game for mockery"
#2
"What an irresponsible idea to include this story...or should I say more correctly - non-story. With all the editorializing that goes on within this website, it's odd how in this instance, the editors were all out to lunch."
#3
"Gay people are the end all be all do no wrong group that should feel free to put their seploits out there for everyone and if you dan't want to hear about what someone does in their bedroom, well too bad, you are oppressing progress."

I would include a sarcastic insult while pointing out your hypocrisy, but I wouldn't want to be a douche.

First off, that second post isn't mine.

Secondly, I find it a little irritating that a lot of you have to respond to a story like this with "all Christians are bogoted morons anyway" type posts, go ahead and read any of the comment sections fo any joystiq posts that feature the word "Christian" in the title.

Thirdly, if you are trying to tell me that it isn't a trend to include a disproportionate number of homosexuals in media then you are high.

I really don't care if someone is gay or not. I don't think you should have to hide it, but really, the way a lot of gay people try to bring it up in normal conversation or drop hints that they are gay is just as annoying as when the guy from the office tries to work his new BMW into every conversation.

I don't know what heterosexuals you hang with that feel the need to throw their sexual tastes and experiences out that much, but I wouldn't want to hang out with them either.

All I want is joystiq to come down as hard on the Christianity bashers as they do on all the other bigots on this site.

And Mr. Frost, I went ahead and looked at your comment history, only, I looked at those that you actually DID post, see if you click a person's name, it's much easier than just counting the number of posts with that name.

It seems you think that it is OK to bash all Christians for the actions of the idiots.

I personally chalk up a lot of things to free will and sexual preference is one of them. If you like the same sex great! I like redheads and latin women, I choose that. I am married to someone who is neither, that too is my choice. It's not a wrong choice, but if I think that homosexuality is disgusting, (which has nothing to do with my religious beliefs, i just think it's gross,) it does not mean that it gives someone who is gay free reign to call me a bigot, or any of the other wonderful names that get thrown around here.

People choosing Christianity to me are exactly the same as people choosing homosexuality, and therefore BOTH sides should be banned when they bash each other, and the moderation of the site that only bans one side and not the other is clearly in the wrong.

WorldNutDaily strikes again.

Prop 8 FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But to be honest, Homo's (and I don't say that as a slur) are going to when in the end, because Americas Morals and Traditions are slowly dying and Gay Propraganda is everywhere Movies, TV, music, Magazines and in the Hearts of Sick people with Mental Problems. So for right now I can still say PROP 8 FTW...WOOT!!!!!! :-)

*Exasperated Sigh*

I used to always gay marry in Life. I thought it was an easy and entertaining way to make my close family uncomfortable. I, for one, am ecstatic that they chose to leave that random little aspect in the game.

OMG GAY PEOPLE!!!! IF WE ALL TELL OURSELVES THEY DON'T EXIST, THEY'LL CEASE TO EXIST!!!!

/end sarcasm.

Ah...religion - where things don't happen if you don't believe in them.

That's just silly. Nobody says or thinks that.

Denial is one of the ways people cope with problems. I don't know of a single religious tradition that teaches it as a workable solution. In fact, I would wager it's by and large discouraged.

We need to focus on improving life for all humans, regardless of their culture/sexual preference/race/beliefs/flaws/etc. Science and technology will have the final say for the human race in the end--be it we destroy our fragile Earth fighting over our differences,etc--or we accept the fact that we are all one in the same: human; equally capable of doing great things for all of humanity.

Sorry if this is a little off subject, just wanted to put that out there.

Very few people will disagree with this statement, but they will disagree with what an improvement looks like, and how a society optimally functions. These stem from all sorts of root assumptions on everything from human nature to cosmology.

The irony is that groups that promote their interests to the exclusion of others will outlast and out populate "enlightened" groups that promote their interests inclusively. Example: Europe becoming predominately Islamic in the next 50 years.

Well what it comes down to is there are two viewpoints.
To say that Homosexuals have a better veiw point is saying that 2000 years of religion had no meaning. People have different views. To some of the other posters, before you post things of an anti-christian nature you should take a look at the bible. If are not educated on both sides of the issue, then you are adding to the chain of ignorance.

Now the otherside, yes i am christian, yes i think its a sin, BUT it is your choice if you want to be homosexual and as an American i will defend your right to. Frankly i have had way to many gay friends that are great people to say they dont have the right to live their life this way. I have no problem giving you equal rights, but your view points do not invaildate a 2000 year old doctorine.

"To say that Homosexuals have a better veiw point is saying that 2000 years of religion had no meaning." - This confuses me greatly. Could you connect the dots for me?

"[...] adding to the chain of ignorance." "BUT it is your choice if you want to be homosexual"

OH THE IRONING

Previous 50 Comments

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

Reader Comments (278)

Posted: Mar 16th 2009 9:20AM Skruff said

Posted: Mar 16th 2009 2:23PM (Unverified) said

Posted: Mar 16th 2009 9:46AM Zaphod65 said

Posted: Mar 16th 2009 10:09AM (Unverified) said

Posted: Mar 16th 2009 10:32AM (Unverified) said

Posted: Mar 16th 2009 10:43AM (Unverified) said

Posted: Mar 16th 2009 11:33AM Rocktave said

Posted: Mar 16th 2009 12:06PM (Unverified) said

Posted: Mar 17th 2009 2:27AM (Unverified) said

Posted: Mar 17th 2009 2:57AM Roto13 said

Posted: Mar 17th 2009 3:42AM (Unverified) said

Posted: Mar 17th 2009 1:33PM Roto13 said

Posted: Mar 17th 2009 4:04PM (Unverified) said

Posted: Mar 17th 2009 5:51PM Nick Frost said

Posted: Mar 17th 2009 5:58PM Nick Frost said

Posted: Mar 18th 2009 7:52AM (Unverified) said

Posted: Mar 18th 2009 8:12AM (Unverified) said

Posted: Mar 16th 2009 11:44AM (Unverified) said

Posted: Mar 16th 2009 5:16PM (Unverified) said

Posted: Mar 17th 2009 6:05PM Nick Frost said

Posted: Mar 16th 2009 8:28PM (Unverified) said

Posted: Mar 16th 2009 9:08PM Harrison said

Posted: Mar 17th 2009 2:49AM (Unverified) said

Posted: Mar 16th 2009 11:26PM (Unverified) said

Posted: Mar 17th 2009 2:39AM (Unverified) said

Posted: Mar 17th 2009 12:25AM (Unverified) said

Posted: Mar 17th 2009 2:33AM (Unverified) said

Posted: Mar 17th 2009 2:58AM Roto13 said

Info

Description

MSRP

Release Date

Genre

Developer

Publisher

Rating

Breaking News

WB conjures up Harry Potter for Kinect this fall

Featured Stories

Weekly Webcomic Wrapup is a stranger in a strange land

Silver Lining: I Am Alive's unfeeling world

Game Of Thrones and the paradoxes of adaptation

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW