Actually I do. I get to decide whether it matters to me.

I'm all for equal rights for everyone involved. I just don't personally see this as a social justice issue, I see this as a
'laughably poor knockoff of the Sims' issue.

That's a fair question, and I admit there needs to be a cut-off point because the spectrum of human identity and expression is too vast to incorporate in a single game. I would say that in this particular case, a game designed to simulate real life, that excluding a group which is in all likelihood larger than the entire population of the United States is a bad move. In the same way it would be to include religion as a choice but then omit Catholicism or Judaism, both of which have appreciable numbers.

When it comes to games that attempt to parallel and emulate real life, one should look at demographics as a baseline for what needs to be include. Then where feasible expand this grouping to be as inclusive as possible. Naturally in games that are stand-alone stories or not meant to encompass the wide swath of human interaction it is more acceptable to pick and choose what you include. But in the particular case of this game I don't see why they decided to do what they did, especially as there has been so much forward effort in games with regard to this issue as to render the controversial aspect far less than it would have been even a decade ago.
I didn't say otherwise. I'm talking about deciding for others what matters.

As indicated by the last two words in the paragraph you quoted, I didn't seriously think that those laws were a consideration for Nintendo.

Unlike the people behind this campaign, I don't have an agenda to push, and I don't have any inflated sense of self-importance, so I have neither "important" battles to fight, nor windmills to tilt at.

People pick their battles, sure... but in the Europe I live in, in little more than my lifetime we've gone from outlawed homosexuality to legalized same-sex marriage. These changes definitely didn't take place through campaigning against makers of (relatively niche) entertainment products. So, this kind of prioritising of issues feels bizarre when you e.g. have a legal situation like in Russia... influencing local/national policy isn't possible, but influencing the practices of a massive foreign corporation is? A massive foreign corporation, that, probably has more to lose by antagonising religious conservatives etc. As, Nintendo was always very careful about maintaining a "family" image (e.g. the NES's japanese name, the Famicom/Family computer), to the extent that for its release on their platform they even forced the removal of blood and gore from a title largely known for its blood and gore (Mortal Kombat). Seems very optimistic to think any campaigning will make them shed that decades-old stance.

By the way, your name-calling practices in this thread ("asshat/shit-eater/shitstain" et al.) are only hurting the valid points I see in your posts... whether consciously or subconsciously, ignoring someone's point of view happens a lot more readily if they can't even be bothered with basic civility.

WTF is a "gay community"? Anyway, I don't think the company that made a Tingle game of all things would be homophobe, there has to be a deeper reason to this.

Nothing occurs in a vacuum. Incremental advances in social acceptability helped make the legal advances possible. Evolution is seldom an explosive process, but most often a gradual one. Laws do not change in a hostile climate, or when they do they end up with vituperative backlash for decades (a phenomenon easily observed in the US). It is through constant education and correction of prejudice that lasting change is affected in these areas.

Not that I think Nintendo was consciously prejudicial in this case. I think it's indeed possible that the idea did not even occur to them. Invisibility is one of the more pernicious forms that prejudice can take, even prejudice of a silent and unconscious nature. In this case I just feel they made, in my estimation, a poor decision, but one which is likely to have very few repercussions. It's more an opportunity to educate than it is an actual step backwards.

Thanks.
In fact, I never asked myself that question and your post made me wonder. Sadly, I am not sure people nowadays feel confident enough for statistics to be made in an accurate way (on a world scale I mean). Having some local estimations is already something good though.

As said before Nintendo is a conservative company that wants to keep a family-friendly image and same-sex marriage is not legal in Japan nor in the US. Not including gay options in a life-sim is not the same as discrimination. It would be nice if the option was there but Nintendo do have the right to not include it.

I am myself disabled and I own about 1400 computer games and do you know how many of those that feature a disabled protagonist? That's right, zero, nada, nill, 000, not-a-one! So is this a clear case of discrimination against people like me from game developers - no, not at all. Would it be nice if the next Assassin's Creed game, Call of Duty, Splinter Cell or Thief game would have a main protagonist with some form of disability? Sure, but I understand that the entire world does not revolve around me and since disabled people are such a minority that I can't expect the majority of gamers to want what I want and it doesn't make me throw a hissy fit or scream about boycotts because I don't get my way.

Actually in several states it is and that number is increasing more every day.

Just to say - 17 states have same-sex marriage. It is not federal law across the country, but the government does recognise those marriages.

Marginalising a struggle with language like "hissy fit" does no one any favours. If you feel you are under-represented, you can either fight for it as others are doing, or you can resign yourself to remaining invisible. You are of course free to do the latter, but mistaken if you think that puts you in a superior moral position.

I agree, and +1 for you. :P

As far as I can tell, I'm european, straight and still I'm kind of offended by this issue because I try to defend not only my own rights, but everyone's rights as well.

Well said.

I see no fault in this plan.

Be wary with what you tell about them. They are very aggressive. Brendan Eich, creator of JavaScript programming language, was fired because he had something against propaganda of homosexuality.