Fire Emblem: Fates Will Allow Gay Marriage and Relationships

Good on Nintendo for being inclusive.

What? Marriage simulator now?

With today's ground-breaking Supreme Court ruling, the opposition needs to live and let live. It's the law now so respect it. If you don't like it and live in the US, you should move to another country.

Personally I think it's great to support diversity and equal rights.

Ehh give it time, let it sink in a bit with these clowns first. Remember, the 5 stages of grief,

They are now in the anger stage, give it time and they will finally move to acceptance.

@Maroxad: Are we talking about gay marriage or the Xbox One? :P

The XBOX one has been doing pretty well for itself as of late. No need to feel any grief for owning one, its future looks bright :)

However, for homophobes in america, we might have to give them a year or two. Eventually society will be just as content with same sex marriage as they are with interracial marriage. In sweden, everyone has gotten over it already. Of course the vote was nearly unanimous with 6 out of 7 major parties supporting same sex marriage and the only ones who didnt were the christian democrats, and those guys have since gotten over it and even changed their stance.

@DocSanchez: common sjw - neogaf reply to anything with an opposing view.

"Anyone who disagree s with liberal sjws are mysoginistic bigots and need to be banned"

Why are leftists so afraid of discussion and want to label all the time. I'm not saying anything against homosexuals or the like, just want both sides to be heard and not labeld.

...and yet you seemed okay with putting homosexuality on the same level as pedophilia and bestiality, and labeled those who support this as people who would love those things

@Midnightshade29: calling me an SJW. LOL! This has nothing to do with that idiocy. I have been pro gamergate since day one. I know what they are, and I know what I am. I've been pro gay for years before that. Decades even.

You equate me and people like me to paedophiles and pig fuckers and you are bothered by my rhetoric? They've been killing/butchering/locking up gays for centuries, millennia, and I will fight for progress and anyone standing in the way of that and hiding behind "two sides". Especially when one side is letting two consenting adults profess their love and desire in a positive way and the other hides behind a 2000 year old book written for largely illiterate farmers in an inconsequential corner of the world in order to continue to abuse and oppress us and tell people what to do when they have no right at all.

So in closing, I've never called for banning of speech and I wont now, so you lied in that, but letting you have your say doesn't include letting it go unchallenged. If you have something to say, say it and stand by it.

Oh, and well done america. Today was a landmark. Well done Nintendo. I don't often say that.

Excellent news today.

lol at homophobes.

@lostrib: Way to read into something that was not implied. My whole beef is with SJWs in general. The post you commented on was in regard to pedophiles and bestiality. Two things which are wrong and i could see some sjws calling them "prosecuted" and "needing help". Some things are just wrong, some more than others. As I tend to see them make a big deal about everything , ultra political correctness/ cultural Marxism.

While I don't agree with same sex mating, I don't hold it against people, and still respect them as individuals and on equal footing. I just don't want to know about their sexuality or have it displayed around like its the norm. It's not and its really against the laws of nature. Just my opinion and I shouldn't be labeled for thinking that way.

Like I said I have no dislike for people of that sexualtiy and have an aunt on my wife's side of the family. She is a great person and I respect her and her partner. Now I don't agree with the concept, and don't think it should be spread around like its the norm, but if that is who you are and you are a good person, so be it, none of my business what they do under the covers. Does that make me "a bigot?" I don't think so., but it does to most sjws to the point where discussion can't even be had.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and my beef is with the suppressing of speech and opposing viewpoints. Something that happens on neogaf all the time, where you are left with a hive mind/hug box of circle jerks...in other the word the same post over and over again just agreeing with each other with no actual conversation or discussion.

so you don't want to be labeled, but you're cool with labeling other people?

Yes you are entitled to your opinion, that doesn't mean people have to give you an outlet to express it or listen to it

If you oppose same sex marriage or the portrayal of gays in the media then you're homophobic, it's that simple. Opposing same sex marriage is no different to opposing interracial marriage. It's discriminatory and fortunately dying out.

Odd that you don't like being labelled yet use labels yourself.

Oh hey, I just read in my newspaper that gay marriage is a-okay throughout America now.

Cool beans.

The newspaper...

Haha, online newspaper.

To those hiding behind the "It is my opinion argument". Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But at the same time others are allowed to point out how idiotic/flat out wrong/harmful others opinions can be.

Where can I read up these laws of nature, and where does it specify anything about homosexuality?

@Heirren:

It might be. Whether or not it is actually genetic isn't entirely the point though, its not necessarily "human nature".

It may not always be for those reasons, but sometimes it is. Going back to the snake example I used earlier, the male rattlesnake was using very obvious courting behavior on another male. They have very clear dominance behavior and this definitely was not it.

A bit weird? Maybe, but the "its unnatural" line of reasoning doesn't really hold up.

So you are saying God is homophobic? I'm sorry, but all of society is not going to accept this like a lot of people want, God most of all. Christians will not ever accept it because God does not accept it. It's a sin, and that's all there is to it. Society is just going absolutely down hill. First Nintendo, who I thought was a family company does this, and now it's "legal" in the United States? God only sanctioned one man and one woman. Somebody has to say it. God does not hate anybody, and I don't either, but this is a sin.

@psx_warrior: God almost certainly doesn't exist and even if he does he doesn't care about gays. Your only word on that is a work of fiction.

and the crying doesn't end with these overly sensitive homophobes

enough dude bros, it's 2015

it was gonna happen, whether you like it or not

You're an idiot if you think that is honestly true.

@jg4xchamp: lol, I just noticed he said prosecuted.

I've said my peace, and that's all I'm gonna say about it.

@psx_warrior: And it was bollocks.

This thread turned out to be not what I wanted it to be.

@charizard1605: Well, I'm trying to say how I feel without coming off as really hateful. I won't play around and say I believe it's ok when I don't, but at the same time I'm not gonna say anything really mean or nasty toward them on gamespot and risk getting myself moderated.

Tattoos are also a sin, so why is it legal to get a tattoo?

Whether something is a sin or not has no barring on whether or not it should be legal.

Come on. I did praise Nintendo. Once.

How does allow for same sex relationships in games make it less family friendly?

About fifty percent of this post was written two weeks ago in a discussion regarding the SCOTUS arguments on same-sex marriage. I've modified it to fit the context of this thread and the issue of peddling potentially destructive sociological theories in games, movies, etc.. In this case, Fire Emblem.

And that's exactly the kind of dictatorial attitude that propelled Prop 8 to its ultimate success--until of course liberals bypassed the will of the people through bench legislation as they are wont to do.

Things don't happen "whether we like it or not". They happen because they have support from a society of people. Unfortunately, the mechanisms that were meant to support the people were hi-jacked by ideologues who want to force everyone to live as they do, and the majority vote was tossed under the bus to accommodate leftist militancy.

Like yours, for instance.

I found your "lord God Dawkins" post particularly silly. Not only does your Wiki-infested criteria fail to identify a gene or set of genes that actually induces behavior, but the Dawkins video explanation for passing on these unaccountable genes flies in the face of the gender construction theory that has been pushed by the homosexual movement--in congress with third-waver feminists--for years. The ultimate conclusion of passing on so called 'opposite sex behavior' genes, according to Dawkins, is an attraction to the same sex. That is, quite simply, absurd. And while I don't believe in culturally-oriented gender construction theory, his claim puts two members of the same liberal coalition in direct competition with eachother on the identity politics front.

What's more, none of your material makes any effort to prove the existence of a gene or provide evidence of the ability of said gene or genes' to unilaterally dictate one's behavior. Its presence in the human body is assumed and the thesis is developed from that abstract point outside time and space. There's a name for that approach: circular reasoning.

I see that people are beginning to throw around the word "natural". *sigh*

The most difficult aspect of discerning cross-purpose meanings with regard to the word "natural" within this type of discussion is making sure that the term isn't being ill-defined by colloquialisms. For example, a lot of people think that nature is established on the sole token that agents (whether they be high or low in terms of sentience) and matter can be observed in varying processes of action. That is absolutely incorrect. Action is not conducive to nature. Behavior (whatever it may be), for instance, occurs naturally. But that doesn't mean said behavior exists consonant to the natural functions of our physical anatomy. In which case, the more apt phrase that people should adopt in relation to identifying deviant (or non-deviant, as the case may be) behavior is "anatomical correctness". The easiest assessment to make is that homosexual endeavors to pair bond defy the inability of their mutual anatomy to achieve a biologically coherent connection that is ultimately conducive to the goal of procreation--a goal the existence of which is empirically proven by the machinations of sexual intercourse, a process that cannot be truly achieved with two people of the same sex. As such, it can be objectively stated that their anatomically incorrect coupling defies their mutual nature. As such, if we were to craft laws that stand on the basis of homosexuality's "natural" tenets, then the integrity of our society is ultimately resting on a fallacy, which jeopardizes its stability.

Having established nature as a touchstone of anatomy, we inevitably lead into the discussion of nature vs nurture. The prime issue with arguing based on the traditional premises of 'one or the other' or a 'combination of both' is that people always assume that genes are a separate animal from the environment. It's never really considered that genes are a part of the environment because people tend to think that the ego is a function, or bi-product, of genes--that they are directly responsible for shaping our character in an active context while our environment trains us passively. But the idea that genes have a say in defining our habits, beyond influencing our thought process (which is opposed to shaping it), doesn't really have any basis in the realm of objective reality. In which case, until the genes' alleged ability to dictate attraction can be truly observed and falsified, it makes more sense to identify genes as a function of one's environment, thus effecting a person's decision-making, but not his physical nature or overt sexual inclinations.

The individuals in this thread spouting "homophobe" and an endless stream of other insults directed at people who dissent against the idea of homosexuality as a benign aspect of culture seem to be attempting to zero in on the simplicity of the dissenters' posts and use their terse statements on "sin", "natural", and "morally wrong" against them on the sole basis that they don't expand into a didactic realm of esoteric theory that assumes a scientific basis for people being born into a type of behavior. Radical intellectuals have spent the better part of the last sixty years building this gargantuan narrative of "born that way", which stands between its own persistent claim and any form of civil discussion regarding the traditions that speak contrary to said claim, and thus making any endorsement--be it active or passive--of that narrative to be a direct attack on the very idea of tradition in the sense that it lacks the level of technical foundation (the outrageously complicated gene theory) that's faithfully and diligently assumed without possibly being understood. But before knocking tradition for tradition's sake, might I suggest an analysis of its precedent?

"Tradition" is, in essence, a more active, albeit looser, noun-form of "dogma," which carries with it even more connotative antipathy than "tradition". However, an unpleasant reality for most people--especially ones who try to use the nature of the term against others who openly admit to embracing its concept--is that even the most rigid pragmatist will hold an inherently dogmatic view countless times throughout his life. While the anti-dogmatics will disparage and belittle the phrase, "Because the Bible told me so," they won't think twice when they hear, "Because a teacher/textbook/policeman/scientist/Richard Dawkins told me so," regardless of the fact that revealing those sources of information does not, in and of itself, provide any tangibly accountable evidence of credibility. Suffice it to say, these little phrases we keep serve as unaccountable shorthands that veil a vast litany of reasoning and case-studies. Ideally, we want everyone to know and understand these litanies, but shorthands exist to give us reprieve from redundancy. At the risk of being redundant in this instance--because I know this topic has been discussed before--the rudiments of this particular tradition transcend this thread's, I'm sorry to say, general cookie-cutter understanding of the issue as it pertains to religion. And while I agree with posters like PSX_Warrior that a lot of the campaigning for same-sex marriage in much of Western Civilization is specifically aimed at weakening the Christian foundation of the nations involved, the specific issue with marriage deviating from the man-woman format is not primarily a matter of ceremonial exclusivity. The issue is cultural and, ultimately, philosophical. And since we're talking about shorthands, I feel I must point out that philosophy, as a distinction from ceremony, is a part of the litany attached to "religion" and its dogmatic invocations within our culture.

The most grievous error often associated with the "pro" side of this discussion is a failure to acknowledge marriage's implementation as being a calculated program with intended sociological/economical outcomes and instead approach it as an imprecise, general practice that carries abstract societal motives which are as numerous as the couples that get married and are localized within the relationships themselves. This disconnect usually occurs when the success of marriage, as an institution, is measured by spotlighting the ratio of divorcees to committals (see also: Liberals beating to death the "straights violate the sanctity of marriage" strawman) as opposed to observing the effect of marriage on society as a whole. This obsession with micro over macro prioritizes sentiment before function, thus eliminating the purpose of its utility as a state-implemented program. Not only is the glorification of sentimentality a misstatement of purpose with regards to marriage, it also undermines the cohesion of the merger. Affection, for instance, is not a legal prerequisite for matrimony under the state--or religious institutions for that matter. Despite this fact, however, the phrase, "people who care for each other should be allowed to marry," is thrown around like so much cheap confetti and is used as precedent for legalizing a number of different union formats. Needless to say, a preoccupation with affection as a key motivator ignores the scenario in which everyone despises one another. As such, if marriage--as a public institution--was solely concerned with unions involving emotionally simpatico partnerships, as opposed to facilitation of population growth and family stability, then what's the point of investing taxpayer dollars into a program that doesn't actually expect to yield any results (please to note the core concept of paying taxpayer money into marriages as an investment in families based on trends)? Would it not make more sense to simply not get involved with unions in which there's no chance of producing a dividend? If so, wouldn't that practice be aptly described as pragmatist rather than discriminative?

The problem here is that marriage, while being a legitimate program, is no less a metaphysical construct given substantive form only by a series of actors fulfilling a set of defining requirements. The abstract nature of a program as it is applied to a larger, even more abstract, system is inherently weakened by its lack of tangibility (thus we employ tradition to maintain its integrity), which is what allows for the detractors of program conventions to gain so much PR ground when they constantly criticize its meaning and application. Quite simply, when you propose building a device that lacks physically moving, inanimate parts, function becomes much more difficult to discern; it's incredibly easy to explain why putting a DVD into a VCR won't yield any results, but as soon as I point out that two people of the same sex won't truly be married according to the parameters of the concept, all comprehension goes out the window. In which case, the ensuing cognitive dissonance engenders a desire of function as opposed to an understanding of function; design principles become irrelevant.

The inconvenience of abstraction is compounded by a series of other social debates that branch off from this one (or perhaps it's the other way around. I'm not particularly certain), all of which revolve around identity politics. Labels such as "homosexual" or "transsexual" or what-the-****-ever-sexual serve as innocuous twentieth century neologisms that attempt to quantify behavior without actually referring to behavior, but rather the claims of the labeled actors: LGBT individuals are identified by their unorthodox sexual habits, but they're labeled according to the feelings that they allege are emotional indicators of a genetically predestined physical attraction, consequently--and conveniently--qualifying them for civil rights legislation. The unprecedented distinction between this newly formed social group and ethnically diverse Americans (and American women for that matter), was an ontological concession, made by the post-modern sociopolitical culture, that a person could use his own abstract feelings as a basis for self-identity rather than any physically accountable, uncontrollable characteristics for which other persecuted groups were targeted. As such, anything you do as an LGBT must be tolerated, accepted, and approved, effectively divorcing behavior from prerogative in the eyes of the state. Ultimately, accepting the premise of a metaphysical identity passively approves of any form of behavior the individual decides it entails since the actions of the person who was supposedly "born that way" are the only defining aspects of that person's claimed social group. I really shouldn't have to point out the dubiousness in identifying social groups according to behavior and lip-service rather than visually and physically verifiable attributes--especially when it involves taxpayer dollars.

Logically, it is far more rational to assess that this group of people is not a metaphysically distinct social mass, but rather a number of individuals with similar preferences in behavior that are not shared by the majority. By virtue of their esotericism, they interpret the majority's abstinence as a passive disapproval and, therefore, demand validation--which they seek by forming their own sexually oriented sub-cultures in popular media and by pressuring public institutions to bypass the will of the people primarily through bench legislation. Bearing this cultural division in mind, marriage--as a state-endorsed institution--becomes the prime criterion for validation in the eyes of what LGBT sub-cultures refer to as a "hetero-normative" status-quo, thus motivating them to campaign for a right to marry on the grounds of fostering relationships, and thus bypassing the issue of intended social objectives sought by marriage's program structure. As previously mentioned: marriage has never required a prerequisite of affection. Conversely, marriage has never been a requirement for people who share affection; the developed synthesis between matrimony and emotional attachment was an expressly cultural phenomenon. Using the colloquial relationship between matrimony and sentiment as a guiding principle, LGBT groups have made largely successful strides in public relations by downplaying marriage's utility and normalizing their behavior in the process. In essence, the fixation on drawing so-called culturally "hetero-normative" parallels has sacrificed pragmatism in the name of political correctness.

To those who claim a slippery-slope fallacy whenever same-sex marriage detractors bring up polygamy, zoophilia, pedophilia, objectiphilia, or ideophilia (not sure if those last two qualify as words; ballparked it) in relation to this topic, it cannot be stressed enough that concentrating on the emotional aspect of marriage as a selling point for civil rights has established a precedent for these types of marriages if not a concrete example of a causal relationship between same-sex unions and other unorthodox formats. When marriage is viewed as a mode of affectional convenience rather than a stable environment in which to raise children and develop a family, the word--quite literally--loses all meaning. Once again employing the cultural familiarism of conjugality to distract from the loss of marriage's unifying principle, the LGBT movement traded the idea of "family environment" for the slogan of "two consenting adults", an effective, albeit vacuous, redirect. However, when held in parallel to the obvious function of the man-woman format, the sterility of the same-sex model is, by comparison, tangential. In abandoning the original premise of the enterprise, there's no cause to limit the idea to one permutation: Why stop at two? Why consenting? Why adults? Why human? Why animate? If marriage is not limited to a particular social objective, then there is no cause to assign a limit in parameters and, therefore, no cause to deny any of these types of marriages to a given party.

As far as statistical trends are concerned, opposite-sex couplings overwhelmingly trend more in terms of families than same-sex couplings do, but an objective assessment that favors the opposite-sex model need not be confined to statistics when you consider that a fruitful marriage operates consonant to the nature of the couple's physiology. It's logical to assume that man and woman-run households will provide the healthiest venue where a child is given the benefit of both a female and male role model, avoiding any confusion or anxiety that would be attached to having two dads or two moms* (see also: Rosie O'Donnel's son asking her for a dad). "Modern Family" liberals will hem and haw on that observation's lack of moral relativistic virtues (as though moral relativism had any virtues to speak of), but the most intuitive approach to starting and raising a family will always be the wisest. And, quite frankly, there is no positive societal outcome in weakening family-driven programs. Proposing the male/female relationship within a marriage to be a polite suggestion, as opposed to a necessity, in the pursuit of misplaced social ideals will only sabotage the positive family-building effects of matrimony as a state institution and, ultimately, a religiously reinforced tradition that has been responsible for the cultural stability of the West.

*Class action lawsuit filed by Robert Lopez on the toxicity of same-sex run households. Amicus Brief on ACLU homepage.

And THAT, my compatriots is why I refuse to consume games, or any other form of media, that pander to a sociopolitical agenda such as same-sex marriage. By all means, spew your typical hateful labels such as "homophobe" or "intolerant". But don't dare attempt to say that the position of people who boycott Fire Emblem for these reasons is ill-defined. It most certainly is not.

@Pariah-: You really think anyone here is going to read that?

The concept of time travel interests me and reading posts like that are the closest we can get to that.

Racists, homophobes and sexists are very odd people.

Yep, these people are completely out of their minds.

The absolute nonsense they will post to justify homophobia in this day and age is baffling.

This wall of stupidity may only deserve one response,

But since merely insulting is a pretty poor argument, I will continue.

First and foremost: The part of Richard Dawkins being our Lord and Savior was a joke, specifically worded to get a rile out of a certain group of people. Richard Dawkins is not one of the most important people in the world. He is a good biologist and a very successful author. But that is it. Richard Dawkins supports anything supported by evidence. And no evidence supports that homosexuality is a choice. Nothing Dawkins said sounds absurd. Especially if you are someone who has some actual knowledge in regards to genetics. Of course, those who remain in willful ignorance such as yourself may differ in that regard.

Regarding the gay gene. While no gay gene has been discovered yet, it is safe to say that genetics DO play a part. Look at the studies concerning homosexual twins, and you will notice that if one of the twins is attracted to members of the same sex, chances are very high that the same can be said for the twin.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26572-largest-study-of-gay-brothers-homes-in-on-gay-genes.html

Natural means it occurs in nature. And homosexuality has been well documented in nature with our without human interference. Likewise, homosexuality has natural causes. Further solidifying that homosexuality is indeed natural. Of course, whether homosexuality is natural or not isn't very important, a lot of bad things are natural and a lot of good things are unnatural. But people who honestly believe that homosexuality is unnatural clearly havent been doing their research and may also be willfully ignorant. A gay individual can still contribute to the survival of their species and genetic code simply through helping their brothers and sisters and their children to survive. Which was one of the points brought up by Richard Dawkins. Furthermore, sexual intercourse has become quite a social tool for many species of animals too, in partcular mammals. In any case, avoiding the "goal" of sex doesnt make it immoral. Unless you are anti-contraceptives too.

I agree that namecalling is not a good argument, it is clear here that it goes both ways. Others call us on the pro gay side SJWs, and some of us on the pro gay side call the anti gay, homophobe and bigot. The "born this way" argument works, because that argument is supported by evidence. We are getting increasingly knowledgeable on how homosexuality works (the hormone progesterone is a hormone which has helped humans bind together, in making someone more prone to homosexuality). And we even know several possible causes, particulary the impact of certain chemicals in the womb.

The reason why we dont oppose homosexuality like some others do is because we dont see any harm in it. Perhaps if there was some reason for why it is immoral perhaps we would oppose it. That is what seperates us from your dogma. We need a reason, we need evidence to take a stance and there is no compelling reason to oppose same sex marriage, whereas there is evidence for supporting it. Even if we were to fall on dogma, Richard Dawkins, Our Teachers, Professors and Textbooks are infinitely more credible than the bible.

Same sex marriages have both sociopolitical and economical boons. Both for society at large and for the people involved. New York profited quite heavily from their decision to make same sex marriage legal and same sex marriage will make adoption a lot easier. Which is great for all those overcrowded foster homes and orphanages. Likewise, evidence has continously showed that same sex marriage has no impact on the sancitiy of marriage. Divorce rates according to statistics is continously going down and the states with the highest divorce rates also happen to not allow for same sex marriage. With a heavily socially conservative view on marriage. And here is the real kicker, do you know what causes that high divorce rate? The conservative stance itself. Not that this would be surprising of course, since marriage never owrked like that. Even back in the medieval era. Marriages for most of the part happened in the mid-late 20s. Nobility married young, but the main reason for that was primarily due to political purposes. As usual, social conservativism is out of touch with reality.

I hate to burst your bubble, but the vast majority of same sex marriage promoters do acknowledge that they are in the majority, opinionwise. Most of them realized that the majority of americans wanted gay marriage to become legal. That was one of the many reasons, we saw some people throw out such redicilous sums like 6-3 7-2 or even unanimous support. And yes, marriage has never been a requirement, BUT it doesnt change the fact that it improves stability and comes with benefits. Why would anyone not seek out as many benefits to help the relationship as much as possible?

Defending a logical fallacy now are you? The fact of the matter is, we all have a line which we draw, and same sex relationships existed within that line. It still falls within the 2 consenting adults line. The stuff you listed all fall outside that line. Same sex couples still provide an excellent support for children, either children through previous relationships or through adoption. There is no slippery slope here, and the purpose of marriage remains unchanged. Not to mention this argument has so many other problems it isn't funny. Should we stop old people from getting married as well, because they probably wont have any children at any point?

While there have been bad upbringings in same sex households, just as there have been bad upbringings in opposite sex households. There have also been good upbringings. Anecdotes are not going help your cause, they are fallacious arguments at best, and logical fallacies wont convince anyone that your position is right, if anything it will make it look as if you are grasping for straws. Studies have repeatedly shown that children brought up in same sex households fare just as well as those in opposite sex households. Your arguments hold no weight in favor of actual studies,

http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121019094534.htm
http://www.miesiecznik.znak.com.pl/12467/calosc/homoseksualni-rodzice-wywiad-z-psychologiem
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13178-013-0129-2#page-1
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580
http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/ive-got-two-dads-and-they-adopted-me

Need I go on?

By boycotting this game for the existence of same sex marriages you really are no better than those who boycotted that Hatred due to violence. It's a game. Nothing more, nothing less. Your post is filled to the brim with logical fallacies, falsehoods, and possible double standards all while reeking of ignorance.

Bolded the more important parts for those who feel like its too long to read.

No, they won't. Because there's one thing I've noticed that's consistent: When criticism is negative (and drives clicks) the media and their followers are very active. This story is basically the inverse of the whole Tomodachi Life nontroversy yet I doubt it will even get 1/10th of the exposure. The media will then go on to claim that it is either not-biased or that bias is completely inavoidable anyway (despite the fact that the bias on display could have easily been avoided).

So, it's like 2 bi characters out of supposedly near 100 (2 factions combined) that you can kill off if they bother you that much.

Is that the big news? It's a waifu simulator, people. I was genuinly surprised Awakening didn't have at least a super-secret-easter-egg gay character, seeing how you can marry bunnies and dragons.

The question is, how gay couples will have kids.

Or is there no kids this time?

That would be a letdown.

There will be kids. However, no time travel excuse this time around. Instead, timeskips are involved.

Imao this thread.

Just like the US of mothafuckin' A!

@Midnightshade29: Their are examples of homosexuality all throughout nature. That argument is stupid.

Well awesome news, same sex marriage is now legal on all states in the US. Take it in haters/conservatives/Republicans... lol.

Honestly stories like this annoy me, not because I am against it, but because it is so trivial and pointless to actually changing anything in the game.. It's like the Bioware games like ME3 and Dragon Age Inquisition in which there were tons of stories written about it, when they were extremely minor parts of the game and it really didn't change anything about it.. It's like when we have dumbass stories about sex or nudity in a big title video game making headlines in the past...

I was actually interested in reading what you have to say since you took the time to write such a long post but I stopped right here. The United States is a federal republic and one of the cornerstones of that system of government is to keep the majority in check from ruining the lives of the minority, one such example being Prop 8 - hence why it was ruled unconstitutional. Things don't happen just because they have "support from a society of people", they happen because elected officials work to uphold the rights of everyone, not just the interests of the majority. The "will of the people" has not been and never will be the most important factor in determining the constitutionality of the laws of the United States. There is nothing "leftist" about a system designed around checks and balances that adhere to the rule of law.

@JangoWuzHere: I did. @Aljosa23 The Constitution protects their right to do whatever they want behind closed doors, but it does not protect the imaginary right of the lgbt community to get married to each other when no such right exists in the first place.

The Decleration of Independence says this.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Notice where it says Nature's God in the first paragraph. It says again in the next paragraph they are endowed by their Creator with these rights. If you want to follow our founding documents, and the SCOTUS wants to follow our founding documents, than they need to repeal immediately this decicion, because in Romans 1: 26 and 27, For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Obviously, this is not what our Constitution protects.

@sSubZerOo: That's fair enough actually. Understand that. People pretending to have a social conscience to score cheap credibility when they couldn't care less about people in reality always annoys me.

Actually it kind of does. Which is why banning same sex marriage was deemed unconstitutional and why the gay rights activists were so successful in every case they had.

First amendment

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Treaty of Tripoli Article 11

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Sorry but your primitive book holds no control over US law.

That Nature's god thing would honestly imply deism more than it would imply any organized religion. Most religions call their creator god the creator and isnt exclusive to just the abrahamic faiths.