@rat-fish It doesn't matter what someone says. It's still just their opinion. Incarcerating someone for that is tyrannous and Draconian. I realize speech isn't necessarily considered an unalienable right outside of the United States, but even non-Americans can see the difference between speech and physical assault.
@rat-fish The language doesn't even have to be that severe. All you have to do is disagree with state endorsements of the practice, and you're in violation of the law....unless you happen to be Muslim of course, in which case you get off scott free. Even so, are you really going to argue that people should be jailed for saying that? I realize freedom of speech doesn't extend to Europe, but it was still his opinion for crying out loud. How can you jail someone for having an opinion?
@HipHopBeats To add to your point: I'd just like to mention that if I so much as utter the phrase, "I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle," in Sweden the authorities will have cause to throw me in jail for no less than 4 years. Scary stuff.
@Calvin The origin of the knowledge of HOW to procreate is not in question. The controversy is whether or not the urge to procreate is subverted--or co-opted if you will--by an infatuation with something you're unable to actually procreate with. And infatuations are not genetic constructs. By your logic, everyone with a foot fetish was ingrained with the desire to procreate with...well, feet. "Our entire sexual development is factually proven to be driven by genes" This all depends on what you define as "sexual development." It's one thing to say that our bodies develop the urge to breed. It's quite another to say they're assigned a precedent to be attracted to something in particular that may or may not be their own sex--or even species for that matter.
@rat-fish The civil rights movement was conceived because people were being discriminated against for characteristics they couldn't control. Thus, whether or not someone is "born that way" is very relevant to the issue. Even if I were to entertain the idea that they were "born that way" though, it would still be accurately identified as a disorder since the behavior they say they're predisposed to violated the anatomical propriety of their own bodies. And, of course, unless you have Tourrettes, you always have control over your behavior.
@Mark07041971 But that doesn't necessarily mean that whatever you "like" should be endorsed by the public or that media outlets should endorse them simply because they're a pop-cultural phenomena.
@Calvinsora "Sexuality IS engrained in our genes. This is a fact," That's your argument. Not your criteria. Your diatribe invokes many "born that way" tropes that try to siphon off the scientific community, but it doesn't prove anything. All it does is restate the same tune in varying ways with a smattering of bio terms here and there. That's been the same story for years and years, but no one has actually proven that people are born with these characteristics. The deciding factor behind most endorsements of homosexuality has exclusively been their own hearsay (see also: "I feel as though I was born gay feelings are innocuous. Since homosexuality is, regardless of origin, a behavior, naturally it's categorized the same as other behaviors. And behaviors have always been subject to social development and environmental factors. As such, the common sense here resides on my side of the court, and the burden of proof--which you have yet to offer beyond your own hear-say--is on you.
@rat-fish I never said anyone didn't have the right to anything. That's just you insinuating certain unflattering meaning into my own words. Homosexuality is not a civil rights issue. I realize homosexuals like to put themselves in the same category as persecuted religious movements or cases of racial discrimination, but they have yet to actually prove the "born that way" party line--as has been pointed out in this thread ad nauseum. Until such a day--which will never arrive--it is an impressionable behavior. @Bandit @WCK619 Please dispense with the strawmans. I never said anyone was at fault for my kids being exposed to M content. My comment wasn't even regarding children being exposed to M content in general. I was pointing out how the issue of homosexuality wouldn't even be principally considered as M content. Suppose for example I see the phrase "sexual content" on the box. Does that actually tell me that it has to do with homosexual matters? No, it doesn't. And according to many tunes it here, it's irrelevant. As such, the issue could conceivably be included into non-M games as well.
Ryouga001's comments