That's true. Did someone take your code already?

Yes.

I was wondering if I could bury it in inane conversation about poop.

Even if it's a game I see no sense in arbitrarily exluding same sex marriages. Programmingwise it is even a tiny tad more effort forbidding them than not forbidding them and audiencewise you piss off all the people who would like to try a same sex marriage in a playful video game environment. It could be even more than only the gay people. I cannot understand it.

On the other hand it's their game. Is it a case for unlawful discrimination or should one just ignore it and denounce it as inadequate for a modern world?

Unfortunately half the world (arabian and african regions, russia, ...) are a little bit behind in this regard.

The gay community fights to have the same rights as everyone else. Its not "force feeding 'their ways'". Someone in this "life simulation" has programmed in marriage for only the opposite genders. That's the problem. If people think only opposite genders have relationships then they need to jump on their Penny-farthing and cycle back to the 19th century.

I would say that 10% is already quite a lot and maybe in a video game even others would like to try it out. It's only a game after all and marriage there is not a real marriage.

I think the essential thing here is that the meaning of the word marriage has changed in the last 20-40 years. It's now a connection of two persons while it was defined as the connection of a man and a women. Going back to the old definition in this game can be seen as a bit of offending thing. All the political conflicts in the last 20-40 years which are partly still ongoing are simply ignored. I can understand if people feel offended by this. Of course one can just ignore the game and wait for better games that give more possibilities to the players.

@Klumpen0815: I haven't read any of your posts but your last one, and I don't really think you're homophobic; you're fighting for an artist's rights to depict thier art however they choose to without it getting changed. And that's perfectly valid; an artist's work is thier self expression.

I think the main reason people want to change these artistic depictions is two fold; first, these games seem to be made as retail products first and foremost, and art second. Design choices are discussed and manipulated beyond the original creator's original intent to help make it sell more; look at DLC that changes the core experience, things that are cut or added in the design process, etc. That seems to comprimise it's integrity from the get go, similar to block buster films and the mainstream music industry, thus removing that 'shield' of artistic integrity in the eyes of many. Many don't see it as pure art; it's a product.

The second reason is because, far more so than any other art form, video games are truely interactable. They go beyond what a book, a film or show can produce; they make you take a role and be part of it. It's likley this, and to a lesser extent the sense of 'ownership' that stems from being a manatory part of the art's function, is why some people want the art to change, so it truely reflects them.

Bring these together, and you get a situation where a game is devalued as a piece of art in regards to its integrity due to it being seen first and foremost as a product, yet the art still has impact; more so because it *needs* you, and thus leaves a deeper effect on the 'viewer' than a static piece would.

When people take a role in a game, they want one of two things; to take on the role of a character, or take on the role of themselves in this media. The latter is why a lot of games that aren't character driven have a lot of character creation in them; if you're a black woman, you may want to be portrayed as yourself, and this customisation allows you to realise yourself in a decent fashion. Sexuality however, isn't something as cosmetic and obvious, but most of the time is irrelevant. Unless romance is a feature of the game. In situations where romance plays a key part of the experience, and you can realise yourself in one manner, but not the other, it can create discord and dissapointment. You would loose immersion. It can be frustrating, and some take it as a reminder they are not thought about (or to an extreme, 'accepted') by society. It's these sentiments, compounded by the strange view of video games as art we feel ownership of, that lead to people wanting things in these games. People want to more acurately depict themselves, and enjoy themselves on par with thier straight counterparts.

Is it the game designer's right to deny it? Yes, of course; thier product. But it would be kind of silly to do so if only from a financial standpoint; you'd make a lot more sales by catering to everyone than not for no reason (there doesn't seem to be any religious or cultural basis for this situation; it's more a case of Nintendo being culturally insular and clueless about certain things it's home society doesn't really deal with. Japan just doesn't think about gay people in a real world context, so Nintendo doesn't know what to even think with this sort of request.)

Thanks for responding. I guess I disagree with you about whether it is over the top, I don't think having a discussion about these issues or complaining about them is over the top, I think its healthy and an interesting debate to have.

I still don't follow what you were saying about "these people" and their"social habits".

You said "these people actually want to force their social habits upon artists". If you are saying "these people" means "people who nag" , I'm just not sure what social habits you are suggesting those nagging people are forcing on artists. What social habits do "people who nag" have (other than nagging)?

Don't feel like you have to justify yourself, I just don't understand your point.

The habit of dating someone of your own gender f.e.

As a european martial artist, I am not at all happy about the use of swords as clubs in video gaming and movies either, but I have to say this to the designers and not only rant about it on every occasion to make these games bad even if they are great in every other aspect, I can tolerate artists decisions and decide myself, if I buy their stuff or not and regarding the sword/club-thing, I do it nonetheless, while I strictly boycot DRM no matter how great the game may be.
Of course it's perfectly reasonable to boycot straight dating sims as a homosexual, some just ignore the restricitons and play straight, some write a mod, some don't even want games and movies to show, that they are average, it's all a matter of personal decisions.
Ok, maybe it's good to mention the possibilites and restrictions of reflecting yourself in a game, whyever people want to do that is beyond me. I mostly don't even want to be a human when playing a game. :P

Did you read his post, asshat? Maybe you'll be taken more seriously if you respond to hate speech with insults, not with fawning and self-deprecation.
edit: O think I should elaborate. No, I don't always insult people I don't agree with, it depends on teh actual subject of disagreement.

For example:

"I liked The Avengers."
It's not something one can even disagree with, it's only wrong if the person in question is lying and didn't actually like the movie.

"To The Moon is a good game."
An appropriate reply in this case is "No, it isn't, because...." Prefacing it with "wrong, asshole!" is generally considered to be unacceptable. Ignoring it is also very much a valid option; it's very likely that the fan in question is interested in talking to other fans. Anyway, a forum verdict on whether the game is good doesn't have wide-reaching social impact.

"Homos should stop whining, I'm sick of them promoting homosexualism."
If you say this, you're a shitstain, and it's fine to call you names without even explaining why you're wrong, because everyone who has internet access has had innumerable opportunities to educate oneself. There's no justification for being on the internet for any appreciable time while being racist/homophobic/anti-vaccine other than extreme asshattery. If you say "homos", you're a shitstain. If you say "forced eviction of poor disabled black people is a 'first world problem'", you're a shitstain. If you concern troll for excuses for such behavior, you're one, too.

Actually this is pretty much my point so well said! You are correct that if gays make up 10% of the population then we shouldn't be surprised that we are gonna see all manor of reactions from that community from civility to throwing temper tantrums because that's just human nature as you said. Also the Internet seems to bring out the worst in people so a response that would have been civil in an op ed. in a newspaper could end up going bonkers on the Internet due to anonymity. Anyway just to make it perfectly clear that i would also be in favor of having the option for same-sex relationships in a life-sim.

I'm gonna use my freedom to grab some hot coffee but a good day to you good sir.

I haven't read the rest, but I think this statement is questionable. Do you have any evidence? I suppose one consideration Nintendo (as a profit-oriented company) has to make is whether it will cost them more sales if they leave same-sex marriage out of the game or if the possible outrage by conservative groups will be more severe when they are possible.

You're thinking in very Western terms for a company that's Japanese. Japan doesn't have that religious/'moral' situation that some Western nations do in regards to gay people, let alone a lot of things; it's not a predominantly Abrahamic religious nation where a lot of these issues have come from. Asia has, traditionally, been fairly relaxed on these issues, and Japan is no different. As mentioned in a previous post of mine, homosexuals were around, and Samurai took male lovers often enough that such men had special 'gay' kimonos made for them to warn women and other Samurai they were already taken. Gay characters are common in Japanese media and games; look at characters from Eddie in Street Fighter to Birdo.

The last time Nintendo attempted to adhere to Western 'moral panic' it censored all religious icons, blood, etc, in the late 80's and early 90's, but this ended up damaging Nintendo's appearance to Western gamers themselves (look at the Mortal Combat port for an example) which is why the Nintendo 64 was much more violent and 'free' than, say, the NES and SNES. I don't see them adhering to anything like that again on something like this. It'd be a mistake to think Japanese game developers cared much at all about what the West really thinks, or your wouldn't get people like the creator of Megaman upright saying Japanese game development is dead because it refuses to take any sort of cues from foreign games, and develops primarily for a very insular game otaku culture at home that themselves are getting bored with all the repeating tropes.

My view isn't that Nintendo is intentionally 'fixing' gay content to pander to foriegners, it's more that the very situation of gay people approaching and asking them to be included is unprecedented. They never thought about gay people when making the game at all. As I said, gay characters are common over there...but mainly as stereotypes, entertainers of comedy (Hard Gay) or objects of fantasy (Yaoi manga). Those historical pretexts all but forgotten to things like Wikipedia and historians. Legit Japanese gay culture is fairly underground due to cultural expectations less than hate; family and friends apparently can't really comprehend what a real 'gay person' is, not without a lot of effort. I have a friend in Japan whose mother is fine with him having a boyfriend, but is certain he'll eventually find a nice girl to marry. It's not prejudice; just misunderstanding, helped in no part by the horrible misrepresentation over there.

Nintendo very likley got approached after it pulled what it honestly saw as just a bug and nothing else, and pulled defenses because it doesn't know how to approach this - it didn't expect it, because at home, gay people are just 'not a thing' sadly. I wouldn't be surprised if eventually they did add is an option because, as insular as Japanese culture is, especially game development, when they do acknowledge a problem as a problem, they want to sit down, learn, and learn what they can do to change things. It's just misunderstanding; nothing else.

Very shameful. They claim that they didn't include it because they didn't want to make social commentary, but by actively deciding to not include it, that's what they done.
Allowing players to choose to have same sex relations in games is not any more a social commentary than allowing straight relations in games.