Nintendo apologizes for not catering to the gay community

[Deepfreeze32]

It was neutral to the issue and some people took the lack of same sex relationships as a deliberate attempt to discriminate where that may not have been the case. That's the issue here, reading too much into something.

Except that wasn't what happened. Some fans sent Nintendo a petition to do so. Nintendo responded in a less than satisfactory manner. To quote the article,

Nintendo never intended to make any form of social commentary with the launch of Tomodachi Life. 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.

The ability for same-sex relationships to occur in the game was not part of the original game that launched in Japan, and that game is made up of the same code that was used to localize it for other regions outside of Japan.

Of course, denying gay people the right to get married in a game about relationships and marriage is itself "social commentary."

So the fans applied more pressure. How would you feel if heterosexual marriage wasn't an option? It is, after all, "just a game".

What I have a problem with is the notion that an omission of that kind requires an apology. ...

As was mentioned earlier, same sex marriage just isn't in people's minds in Japan, so when the game designers built the thing, it just didn't occur to them. That isn't an injury against anybody, it's just how they designed the game. I find it distasteful in our culture just how whiny and entitled people are acting when they don't feel like they're getting the vindication they want. Should I start screaming now that Nintendo hasn't apologized for removing Christian references from the Legend of Zelda games?

This is just stupid. I get they're doing it for business reasons, but I hate that such a thing is even necessary.

I kind of agree with you in that I think apologies are unnecessary, but I think it should be a no-brainer that we need to include LGBT characters in media. Just like we need more Muslims, more Hindus, more of everything. Humanity is diverse, shouldn't our media also reflect that?

The problem here is that when media does include groups (Especially the LGBT community), the group that's a majority complains that it's no longer getting exclusive rights.


Let me just say this, and I'll try to stay calm:

Why must we (Christians) have exclusive rights to marriage? Why is it SO BAD when people of the same gender want to get married, even if they aren't Christians? Why do we have to legislate morality? WHY? Christians, why do we love to play the persecution card so much? To say that we are being "persecuted" is frankly offensive to people who actually are being persecuted for their beliefs. We have it easy compared to Christians around the world. We enjoy freedoms and privileges that even the majority people in those countries don't have. It's this sick obsession with being some sort of martyr that makes me very sad for Christians. Just because it isn't an idyllic utopia doesn't mean it's an anti-Christian nation. You want anti-Christian, move to the middle east then tell me we're being persecuted.

Let me put this another way: Suppose that one day, fundamentalist Muslims become the dominant group in America. Suppose these fundamentalists want to implement a form of Sharia law as the standard for national morality. Would you like to see that? Because I sure wouldn't. If we continue to force our conflicted opinions on the bible down the throats of everyone in America, then we have set a dangerous precedent. In so doing, we have opened the door for the next majority religion to come in and legislate IT'S version of morality to everyone. When Jefferson said that the first amendment had erected a "Wall of separation between church and state", he meant stuff like this. By not using religions as the motivation for our laws, we ensure fair and equal protection to ALL people, regardless of skin color, sexual orientation, gender identity, or religious identity.

Here's my final reason for why we shouldn't be the source of morality: We can't decide on what the bible really says. There aren't a bunch of denominations and sects of Christianity for no reason. The fact of the matter is, we can't even agree on how to act amongst ourselves, let alone what the bible says. If we can't do that, then we have NO business setting standards. Look at what inter-religious conflict did to Ireland between Protestants and Catholics. My fear is that by trying to institute our standards of "Morality", we end up becoming the very thing we fear: Controlling and domineering of individual freedom to worship as we see fit. And it's certainly not fair to those who aren't even Christians.

/rant

[ArchAngel]

You put that very well, DF.
I couldn't have said it better myself. But I'll try.

Just kidding. I don't think I could, but I did want to put a little support on the Wall of Separation between Church and State. Arctic claimed before that it's one of the most misused phrases around. And I used to think so to, as I commonly saw it as a way to push religion out of the public eye. And you know what, I'll even give it to you that it has been misused for that purpose, but it serves a greater purpose and that's the one DF elaborated on. The letter that coined the term was to a group of Anabaptist worried about the influence greater denominations would have, and Jefferson was placating their fears. In the days when Christianity was more than just the majority, it was dominant, the worry was one denomination taking over. And it has happened. It wasn't a "we agree to disagree."

For Sstavix and Arctic, we don't even have to reference Islam. Early days for Mormons, they were treated very poorly. They were pretty much run out. The separation of church and state was very much violated in their case and it led to countless injustices. Yes, it's not specifically in the First Amendment, but it is for a loose construction of it, and I posit that it's fundamentally important that we construe the first amendment loosely, for maximum rights. A secular government is so important and it must treat all religions (and non religion as well) equally.
If it would help to convince you that I mean not to minimize religion but ensure proper religious freedoms, I'd offer an olive branch: a full rant from me about people complaining about "religion being pushed on them." Because boy, does that pee me off. This does go both way, though. One must not be too sensitive of "secularity" being "pushed" on them.
For every issue, we must take a fully objective view on things and we must always ask ourselves, what if it was the other way around?

[ArcticFox]

Except that wasn't what happened. Some fans sent Nintendo a petition to do so. Nintendo responded in a less than satisfactory manner[/url].

I don't see what was so awful about that reply. Not enough groveling and rending of garments, I suppose.

Of course, denying gay people the right to get married in a game about relationships and marriage is itself "social commentary."

Not bothering to include something isn't the same as denying it. The former is a simple design decision. The latter is a whole different can of worms. If I create a game that simulates driving a car, omitting the ability to pilot an X-Wing fighter isn't about denying the player the chance to fly a spaceship. It's just a game about cars.

So the fans applied more pressure. How would you feel if heterosexual marriage wasn't an option? It is, after all, "just a game".

Then it probably wouldn't interest me enough to want to play it. I wouldn't go on the warpath over it.

I kind of agree with you in that I think apologies are unnecessary, but I think it should be a no-brainer that we need to include LGBT characters in media. Just like we need more Muslims, more Hindus, more of everything. Humanity is diverse, shouldn't our media also reflect that?

Diversity is good. Forcing diversity for its own sake is misguided and harmful. There's a niche for everything.

The problem here is that when media does include groups (Especially the LGBT community), the group that's a majority complains that it's no longer getting exclusive rights.

Sometimes. Although I don't see too much of that happening. If someone who produces games, movies, TV shows or whatever wants to include that sort of thing they're perfectly welcome to do so. I don't have to buy it, that's the end of it. What I would object to is when they're forced to include stuff.

Why must we (Christians) have exclusive rights to marriage? Why is it SO BAD when people of the same gender want to get married, even if they aren't Christians?

Christians don't claim an exclusive right to marriage. Ask any married Muslim, Jew, Atheist, Buddhist, Daoist, etc. As for why same sex marriage is a problem, I've been working on a post about that very question, as a result of an article I recently read where an anthropological study (conducted by an LGBT friendly organization) discovered that the notion of people being 'gay' or 'straight' is a Western notion that has only become a big deal in the last century. I won't go into it further right now, (I'll save it for another post) but in short: Because it's a "right" that's completely manufactured that has never before existed in human history. Also, because implementation of this "right" is steamrolling the freedom of others, as we've discussed a few times here lately.

Why do we have to legislate morality?

On some level, every law is legislating morality. Theft is illegal because we, as a culture, believe it is immoral to take other peoples' property without permission. I could cite a few more examples but I trust you get what I'm saying.

WHY? Christians, why do we love to play the persecution card so much?

I beg your pardon. I can't speak for others, but I don't frickin' love it at all. I'm sick to death of worrying about things that I shouldn't have to be worried about in 21st Century America. I'm tired of having this discussion. I'm tired of reading articles about people being threatened with lawsuits or jail for just wanting to be left the %&($ alone. I'm tired of wondering when my daughter will come home from school and tell me she's been chastised by a teacher for mentioning Jesus Christ. I'm tired of reading articles about people losing their jobs because their opinions suddenly mark them as being on the wrong side of a cultural movement. You think we LOVE it?

To say that we are being "persecuted" is frankly offensive to people who actually are being persecuted for their beliefs.

In 10 years either you'll be vindicated because everything's fine, or you'll wish you stood with us when religious freedom was still free. Let's wait and see. Meanwhile I'm not going to shut up about this stuff.

We have it easy compared to Christians around the world.

That's right, we do. And it'll only stay that way as long as we push back when rights become threatened.

You want homophobia, move to the middle east then tell me [homosexuals] being persecuted [here].

Fixed that for ya.

Funny how that works both ways, isn't it? Would you be willing to use that same argument if a homosexual is screaming about Nintendo's design decisions?

Let me put this another way: Suppose that one day, fundamentalist Muslims become the dominant group in America. Suppose these fundamentalists want to implement a form of Sharia law as the standard for national morality. Would you like to see that? Because I sure wouldn't.

So if that starts to happen, how long would you want us to wait before we're justified in complaining? Don't wait too long. Examples have begun to pop up.

[RedPlums]

Soooo, an article on a corporate apology has turned into political-religious argument?
Go on, I find this interesting. I shall sit here with my popcorn enjoying the show.

[RoosterOnAStick]

Yeah...this has definitely gotten out of hand.

My main point was whether Nintendo was actually discriminating against anyone and I honestly think the answer is no. Here's why:

I trust that Nintendo tries to stay neutral whenever possible. Someone mentioned Zelda earlier and I think it is worth taking a look at what they eventually filtered out of the Zelda series.

http://zeldawiki.org/Controversy_in_The ... lda_Series

Specifically look at the use of religious imagery and their policy of not including (or removing if something was included) anything that may too resemble any religious references. There were multiple religious symbols filtered out of their games from various religions.

Given that Nintendo has made the effort to stay neutral on political and religious issues in the past I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt here. No one is suggesting that gay people be denied the right to marry in this either implicitly or explicitly. An oversight on Nintendo's part shouldn't be held as a sign of prejudice. I stand by what I said earlier in that this was an overreaction. If there was a game that only offered homosexual marriages instead of both then yeah I'd be a bit upset but I don't think it is worth mobilizing people for a protest. Honestly I may not even hear about that game either until someone posted up the controversy surrounding that.

Frankly, we have much bigger issues to deal with in this country and fighting over a video game that I never even heard of until this week is a waste of time.

[ArcticFox]

So the post I hinted at earlier about these things is probably never going to happen, because as I mentioned, I'm absolutely sick to death of this subject.

So I will provide the link I mentioned, for your edification/amusement.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/19/nobod ... rians-say/

[ArchAngel]

They’re almost all LGBT themselves, and they have decisively shown that gayness is a product of Western society originating about 150 years ago.

Yeah, um, no. Ancient Greece, Rome, and third genders in south east asia, just off the top of my head. If not, why are they making references to it in the Bible thousands of year ago?

Even if you make the claim that modern western expressions of homosexuality is new, which seems like the article moves to make, that means nothing.

Sure, I don't know of a call for gay marriage in ancient societies, and even our perceptions of sexuality are probably too linear and polarized. And yes, the term homosexuality is a relatively new one. All of that is intellectually interesting, but irrelevant to the question of gay rights.

Because it's a "right" that's completely manufactured that has never before existed in human history. Also, because implementation of this "right" is steamrolling the freedom of others, as we've discussed a few times here lately.

Historical justification is not necessary for any right. The same could be said for Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and Abolition. You have to start somewhere. Even the concept of "Rights" is arguably not historically justified. You define rights by freedoms that people should have, not freedoms they have had in the past. It's all quite irrelevant.

So here's the thing. You talk about Steamrolling through other's freedoms? All you have mentioned is a few isolated incidents where, say, a wedding photographer was threatened with suit because he wasn't going to do a gay wedding. Hardly constitutes steamrolling. Secondly, you seem more than apt to use that as a reason why nobody should be able to have a same-sex marriage. THAT, my friend, looks a lot more like steamrolling.
And I mean, here's the thing, it's not even necessarily opposed to each other.

I beg your pardon. I can't speak for others, but I don't frickin' love it at all. I'm sick to death of worrying about things that I shouldn't have to be worried about in 21st Century America. I'm tired of having this discussion. I'm tired of reading articles about people being threatened with lawsuits or jail for just wanting to be left the %&($ alone. I'm tired of wondering when my daughter will come home from school and tell me she's been chastised by a teacher for mentioning Jesus Christ. I'm tired of reading articles about people losing their jobs because their opinions suddenly mark them as being on the wrong side of a cultural movement. You think we LOVE it?

What about the other side of the spectrum? Do you worry about people loosing their jobs because they weren't religious? How about the child reprimanded because he wasn't going to say "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance? Or about the soldier who is berated and held down by his superiors because he's not a Christian? The Jewish kid who is made fun for his yarmulke, or the Muslim woman who gets sideways glances because of her hijab. How about the gay couple that would like their marriage to get full rights under the government, but can't, because people are afraid a couple photographers might be sued. You don't think I have to keep my mouth shut sometimes when I'm out or at work? I have Christians above me and I know someone of them aren't so fair minded. I don't want to cause problems for me at my work. My very worldview offends people. I remember how they preached about Atheists in church, as if we were tools of Satan himself, and how people nodded their heads in agreement. It's not safe to be an Atheist, either.
You don't think the vast majority that is the Christian population could and does just rampage through other people's rights?
I don't think your giddy to use the victim card, but you get the comfort to think the world is against you and you couldn't be part of the problem.
But that's the thing, and gay activists and whoever, do this too. When you take up arms against giants and monsters, you're not just jousting windmills, there are people on the otherside. Those are people on the other side and through the visors of warhelms, it's hard to see what you would be tearing through. Do you not think the people you see as steamrolling through your rights are not fighting their own holy war?

You have to consider everybody when thinking about rights, not just your own. The question of rights must apply to everyone equally, and if that can't be assured, it turns into special entitlements. This is why I still feel strongly about religious freedoms, even as an Atheist. Your child should not ever be berated for talking about Jesus, and my (future) children should not be either, whether they talk about Jesus, Allah, Buddha, or their nonbelief. I would be opposed for their teacher trying to teach them about Jesus, just as I would if your child's teacher tried to tell them that god does not exist. It's the same issue. I'll argue atheism vs. religion just about any day of the week, but when it comes to rights, we have to put that aside. I cannot just look out for my nonbelieving bros. I need to look out for everybody. Maximum rights for maximum people.

And I'm hoping I'm just misinterpreting your previous points about opposing gay marriage because it could be used to impose on merchant's right to refuse service. That's mind blowing to me how tilted that scale seems. Is it just because you don't see same-sex marriage as constituting anything near a freedom people should have? I know you are tired of this, I'd like to argue over other things to, like the ethical justifications for the Prime Directive, but I don't want to believe that you'd, well, steam roll over other peoples right in an effort to protect your own, but the last debate we have has left me with that notion.

I'm saying all these things, and as it seems directed to you, I'm intending them as more general. I agree with DeepFreeze, and even if you don't like the term "love," Christians do have a persecution complex. Not just Christians, either. In all fairness, all people tend to. They focus on those opposing them and never see the strength behind them. Hence my insistence on the importance of objectivity. Rights are never about sides.

[ArcticFox]

I think after this reply I'm going to duck out of debates on this topic. My patience with the whole thing is at an all-time low and I don't want to be a jerk to anybody. Nothing against any of you guys, just sick of the subject. All the way to the bone.

Yeah, um, no. Ancient Greece, Rome, and third genders in south east asia, just off the top of my head. If not, why are they making references to it in the Bible thousands of year ago?

They address this in the article. They didn't say homosexual behavior didn't exist. They said it wasn't a way in which people defined themselves like it is now. That's consistent with the Bible too.

Historical justification is not necessary for any right. The same could be said for Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and Abolition. You have to start somewhere.

Yeah, and every single one of those rights had a clear and direct historical justification.

So here's the thing. You talk about Steamrolling through other's freedoms? All you have mentioned is a few isolated incidents where, say, a wedding photographer was threatened with suit because he wasn't going to do a gay wedding.

I could come up with as many examples as you like. I wonder; how many examples would it take before it ceases to be isolated incidents and becomes a problem? 100? 1,000? The population of the state of Rhode Island?

What about the other side of the spectrum? Do you worry about people loosing their jobs because they weren't religious? How about the child reprimanded because he wasn't going to say "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance? Or about the soldier who is berated and held down by his superiors because he's not a Christian? The Jewish kid who is made fun for his yarmulke, or the Muslim woman who gets sideways glances because of her hijab. How about the gay couple that would like their marriage to get full rights under the government, but can't, because people are afraid a couple photographers might be sued. You don't think I have to keep my mouth shut sometimes when I'm out or at work? I have Christians above me and I know someone of them aren't so fair minded. I don't want to cause problems for me at my work. My very worldview offends people. I remember how they preached about Atheists in church, as if we were tools of Satan himself, and how people nodded their heads in agreement. It's not safe to be an Atheist, either.

Tell you what, I'll defend you against the world if you'll defend me. Wait... I already do that. I've got an Atheist that reports to me at work. Think I treat her any different from the others? I hope you know me well enough to know the answer.

You don't think the vast majority that is the Christian population could and does just rampage through other people's rights?

I fight them when I see it happen. But, like it or not, that's an old problem that's been around for a long, long time. I don't think you mean it this way, but a lot of your arguments sound a little like it's OK for Christians to get stepped on these days because we're just getting our comeuppance for all the problems before.

Do you not think the people you see as steamrolling through your rights are not fighting their own holy war?

If they are, wouldn't that be frightening to you as well? If you're all about fairness and objectivity, then the idea of EITHER side going all jihad should be cause for alarm. What are Christians supposed to do then? If the other side is indeed fighting a holy war just sit back and let it happen, because God forbid, it look like Christians are playing the victim card and we can't have that.

You have to consider everybody when thinking about rights, not just your own.

I'm sorry that for whatever reason you think I don't. The problem is the other side has made it crystal clear that they don't give a wet fart about the rights of Christians to live according to our conscience, and are ready to use the media, the courts and the Government to bully us until we give them the validation they crave. You'll just have to forgive me if I'm not nodding my head sagely about the "enlightened" 21st Century and gay rights while my brethren are being bullied in the courts simply because we want to stay out of it. NO wedding cake designer ever tried to prevent a gay wedding. He just wanted to be elsewhere and for that he got a lawsuit and threatened with jail, and he's not alone. But I guess that's perfectly fine if it's just an isolated incident, right?

I don't want to believe that you'd, well, steam roll over other peoples right in an effort to protect your own, but the last debate we have has left me with that notion.

Well I'd hope you know me better than that. I've written at length about my difficulties in making myself clear in his type of medium.

Maybe this is the sort of conversation that's best live between friends. Maybe we can take it up sometime on roll 20 after the game is over.

[ChickenSoup]

I'm not usually one to hop in at the last second, and Arctic said he is leaving, but I want to leave everyone with this:

They address this in the article. They didn't say homosexual behavior didn't exist. They said it wasn't a way in which people defined themselves like it is now. That's consistent with the Bible too.

If you want an example of non-traditional sexuality being accepted hundreds/thousands of years ago, you should look at the third-gender roles observed in Native Americans. The first and most prominent that comes to mind is the berdache of the Zuni Pueblo. Pretending that humans have only ever wanted to get jiggy with the opposite sex is a little naive.

ALSO the notion that the majority of LGBT individuals only define themselves by their sexuality is giving in to believing a stereotype. We only ever hear about their sexuality because they have to fight so hard to get people to treat them like humans, and that's the hot-button topic right now. It's up there with "all Muslims want to kill us" and "all men only want sex" and "British people have terrible teeth."

JUST, JUST, NO

[ArcticFox]

(Not trying to come across like a jerk. It's just that this kind of thing is one of the most frustrating parts about a discussion of this nature. I can tell by those comments that you didn't read it, dude, because those things were addressed in it.)

[blacksinow]

I think what many need to considere is that Nintendo isn't a Christian company, they are a JAPANESE company which if you've ever noticed anything about their culture is entirely unique unto itself. Now to say, if it were a western company, I could see the argument. But, don't get me wrong though... putting gay characters or relationships into video games to appease (I think that's the right word...) is entirely a different story. It isn't any different then putting characters of another race into a game to appease say... hispanics or caucasians. Or putting Christians of Hindus (I think that's right, I don't know...) into a game to appease religious groups. The purpose of a game (especially a nintendo game) is to play it and have fun.

[RoosterOnAStick]

It isn't any different then putting characters of another race into a game to appease say... hispanics or caucasians. Or putting Christians of Hindus (I think that's right, I don't know...) into a game to appease religious groups. The purpose of a game (especially a nintendo game) is to play it and have fun.

To be perfectly honest, unless they were left out intentionally, I don't think I'd make a big fuss if there weren't hispanics to represent my race in the game . It would be the subject of some wisecracks perhaps, but nothing worth creating a complaint over.

Heck, it wouldn't really feel all that much better if they added some only for the purpose of appeasing hispanics either. That again implies that too much thought went into this and that it may just be a token effort so hispanics don't complain (not to mention wisecracks about the "token hispanic" that would come of it ). By forcing this it kind of breaks the immersion because now I think about that, rather than just a game that happens to have hispanics (or not). It becomes about whether or not a quota has been met.

[storm]

it is a sad time when political correctness replaces Spiritual righteousness
When not so much having to say I am sorry for my beliefs but rather feeling I need to say what man wants so as I can live in his world instead of saying what God says is right so I can one day live in His world
There are 2 worlds from which we must chose from
the world of man and the world of God
the world of his needs and the world of His desires for us
the world of the little h and the world of the capital H