News Article

Rumour: Tomodachi Collection: New Life Update to Remove Same-Sex Marriage

Posted by Thomas Whitehead

Potential disappointment for some gamers

Last week we reported on the discovery that Nintendo's Japan-only 3DS life-sim, Tomodachi Collection: New Life, included the option for same-sex marriage between men but not women — there were indications that it was an unintentional bug in the game. Web chatter suggested that some were even attracted to the game as a result of the feature unexpectedly being present, and Nintendo stated that an update would arrive but didn't make clear whether that would be to remove same-sex marriages or to apply it for female characters, too.

Whether unintentional or not, due to the political and social sensitivities of the issue Nintendo has been faced with a decision in terms of maintaining male-female marriages only, or using the discovered feature as an opportunity to open up the experience to same-sex couples. It seems that the company has gone for the former option, with an update on Nintendo's website suggesting that this feature will be removed in an upcoming patch, which will also resolve a few technical issues with save data and in-game notifications. We've marked this post as a rumour, as we're reliant on a Google translation, and would rather not make a cast-iron assumption on those grounds.

As we mentioned in our last post on the topic, gay rights are highly politicised issues, and Nintendo has — seemingly with no intention to do so — found itself involved. If the update page and translations are correct, Nintendo's decision to remove same-sex marriages entirely are sure to disappoint gay rights advocates, even if a 3DS game isn't necessarily the most important of grounds for these debates.

As always we welcome community opinions on these issues, but please stick to the topic of this game and be considerate of others' views in your comments.


From the web

User Comments (215)



hiptanaka said:

Japan isn't very advanced in these topics, after all.

Or rather, they're not a very gender equal country, so I'd assume the above, as well.



Dpullam said:

I really don't see that feature as a big deal but it is Nintendo's choice regardless.



rjejr said:

Isn't this game Japan only?

If so, whatever marriage laws are current in Japan would probably be reflected in the game.

Just remember folks, just b/c you CAN have a gay marriage in a game, doesn't mean anybody is FORCING yuo to have a gay marriage in a game



SqueakyTheBone said:

@Midnight3DS Indeed. If they were too turn it into a full-fledged feature, it'd probably need a lot of thought and fleshing out.

Still... it would've been neat too see 'em make the effort! Pipe dreams though, eh?



MeddlingIdiot said:

I'm surprised it was an option to begin with but to take it away doesn't seem right to me, glitch or not.



theblackdragon said:

my guess would probably be that the glitch may have game-breaking potential since it wasn't actually programmed to be that way. I'm disappointed that they wouldn't go the extra step to make the glitch into an honest-to-goodness option for players, but i can see why they'd go ahead and make the quick-fix in order to stem the possibility of hackers finding an exploit via such a glitch :/

@sillygostly: If The Sims 2 hadn't been such a pile of crap on the DS, I might actually be interested, haha! Talk about a glitchy game that needed updating... D:



Zup said:

I think Nintendo did the smart thing here. Due to the fact that it was a glitch, removing it in no way says that Nintendo opposes gay rights while at the same time never hints at supporting gays either. In this way, Nintendo can remain neutral in the debate, not offending either side.



Shotgunryugan said:

What little interest i had in the game was completely thrown out of the window now.
They had the perfect chance to support Gay marriage too, oh well.
(Though even if it did have it, it probably wouldn't have been released in the US anyway )



TingLz said:

I don't see the big deal. It's a glitch after all and doesn't need to be in the game



Aviator said:

But they're offending the same-sex side by not providing the option in the first place. Whether the glitch was intentional or not, the fact that it has been addressed by removing the option to allow for male-male marriage and not include female-female marriage is discrimination.

I'm not accurate on the LGBT tolerance in Japan. A quick wikipedia search tells me that although there are no laws against homosexuality and no legal recognition of same-sex marriage, there is no real hostility to homosexuality.

It doesn't seem like there can't be same-sex relationships within the game itself. The information I've found about this only relates to marriage, and allowing two males to propose, marry, honeymoon. If the option for same-sex relationships without marriage is there, I don't see any good reason why the option for marriage shouldn't be.

If there is no option for same-sex relationships in the first place, then that's wrong.



bluecat said:

Sucks for those who had taken advantage of the glitch and made it a part of their gameplay. Wonder what will happen to their save? If I had advanced far into the game I'd be upset. I think Nintendo should have stepped and made it a part of the game but I'm not surprised by their action either. :/



Aviator said:

@sillygostly It was also an option for The Sims back in 2000. Why after 13 years it is being removed from a game (that doesn't look to have any religious influence and therefore no need to oppose same-sex marriage) I have no idea.



ShadJV said:

Though this can be taken as them not picking sides (they're simply patching an unintentional glitch which would take more work than fully implementing it), it'll piss off gay advocates anyways. Many won't realize it was a glitch or the amount of work it would've taken to fully implement it instead of removing him. They aren't outright attacking gay marriage, they're attempting to stay neutral to a heated topic, which is the best position financially. Unfortunately they will now be hurt regardless of their decision but this choice probably did the least damage.



Sun said:

'...suggesting that this feature will be removed in an upcoming patch,' If that is true is a kind of homophobia. It is something that was there and later on removed so no excuses would validate that decision.



Aviator said:

The game was released with this glitch. It should've been tested appropriately. It wasn't.

Nintendo were then faced with two options. Allow the glitch to exist, which allows for same-sex marriage among males and also patch the game to allow females to marry eachother. Or remove the ability for same-sex couples to marry one another.

If they do remove it, it's discrimination. The glitch, and this whole position Nintendo have been placed in could have been avoided.



theblackdragon said:

hey guys, there's a lot of assumption going on, and you know what that makes out of all of us — we don't know if it's straight-up homophobia that's prompted this move. again, it could be that there's a legit exploit somewhere in this glitch that they're having to patch before hackers fully explore its potential. can we please give the benefit of the doubt?



Cipher said:

Yes, in a perfect world, this game would allow anyone of any gender to marry anyone else of any gender. Men could marry men and women could marry women, just as it should be in life. Here's the thing, though: this game is currently only available in Japan, and the fact of the matter is that Japan does not, and has absolutely no intention, or recognising same-sex marriage now or in the future. In all honesty, for Nintendo to combat this glitch by patching female-to-female marriage in would be a bad move and would reflect very negatively on Nintendo within Japan, even if the opposite would be true elsewhere.

So they had no other choice, really.



Aviator said:

You're right dragon, and it's hard to know the facts about a game that has very little information outside of Japan and in English.

We will have to wait for a confirmed response from Nintendo. I don't think it will work in their favour though.



C7_ said:

Nintendo needs to stand their ground on this. Don't remove it; this is a life simulator and if that's the life the person wants have, what better place to have it than in a light-hearted game. If they're removing it because of political pressure they need to assert that the option of Gay Marriage affects no one who doesn't want to use it, and that if people think that something as simple as a video game like this is destroying the "sanctity of marriage" they're welcome to not buy the game.

Simply put: if it doesn't affect you personally then don't complain, and just because some people are uncomfortable with the option does not mean that they should outright remove it. I sincerely hope that the only "glitch" Nintendo fixes is that women can't marry, as equality and tolerance across the board is what everyone should strive for.

Also, was there any official confirmation that this is actually a glitch? My understanding is that Japan is a lot more tolerant of these issues than the US is despite not officially recognizing gay marriage, and seeing as I haven't heard any localization for this game I'm shocked this is even an issue outside of Japan.



theblackdragon said:

@C7_: i believe the last article stated a Nintendo rep had referred to it as a 'bug', that's why we're all calling it a glitch instead of an honest feature.



Tate24 said:

I think it's awful :/
Nintendo you continue to disappoint me..... Move with the times....



ShanaUnite said:

Won't somebody think of the children.
seriously though dont see the harm in keeping the option to have same-sex marriages.



Sun said:

@theblackdragon Honestly what you are saying does not make any sense at all as a patch could fix those issues without erasing the option. If that option did not appear in the first place it would be not an issue but if you are saying a patch is erasing that option then it becomes an issue not only for gay people but for any person from a country with equal rights (as most countries in EU).

And you NL are very happy with us making assumptions, otherwise you would not publish this before having investigated a little bit so stop the hypocrisy or you will get this kind of feedback.



jacksayspurple said:

A lot of people are saying 'it's a glitch that didn't need to be in there'. Well, I think that's quite an easy thing to say if you're a straight person, but as a gay guy myself I find it quite nice when video games acknowledge that people like me exist. For gay people the option of same-sex marriage in games DOES need to be there. It is important to us because it's nice to be acknowledged. It doesn't need to be a big feature, and if most people never even know that it's there, then that's fine, but small things like homosexuality being featured in games can sometimes really mean the world to some people. Nintendo is always using silent protagonists so you can feel as though it's you who's playing the game. I don't feel I could enjoy a game like Tomodachi Collection if it didn't include same-sex marriage as I wouldn't be able to feel like I'm playing as myself. It's a small issue in the grand scheme of things, but Nintendo could have handled it better. I was hoping for a Western release of this game, but with this news, I wouldn't buy it even if it did come out in the west. This is a real shame.



theblackdragon said:

@Sun: I said it could be a 'quick-fix' to block access to a potential hacker exploit. It'd certainly explain why they've worked so quickly to fix it when other glitches and bugs take months for them to even look at or acknowledge as honest problems. I'd be happy as heck to see them go back in and come up with an actual patch to make same-sex marriages a fully-programmed option, but if they're trying to fix a genuine bug in the code I can understand their decision, disappointing as it may be. If it does come westward without full-on support for same-sex relationships now that it knows for certain the interest is there, this won't be a title i'll be picking up :/



EverythingAmiibo said:

I'm saying this from experience; Now I see why this thread is so one-sided, the 'modern' moderators who apparently strive for 'equality' remove anything apposed to them. Now THAT is a truly equal world, THAT way we can all agree...



C7_ said:

@PvtOttobot That's a hilarious way to stretch the problem into something it isn't. Age of consent, polygamy, and slavery were never mentioned in my post and what you're making is a false comparison. Child abuse is not comparable in any way to gay marriage between two consenting adults and sex acts aren't even in this game.

The issues you stated have absolutely nothing to do with issues raised in the game, and essentially what you're doing is the "Where do we draw the line" argument, which is a joke in and of itself. We draw the line when these actions ruin lives, which all of the things you stated do. Are you telling me that two completely reasonable people who love each other despite tons of people who they don't directly affect can't have their love recognized? Two people who have nothing to do with you getting married by both of their legal consent under the laws in which we allow marriage does not ruin lives any more than normal marriage would.

And quite frankly I think by creating this comparison and using this argument you've insulted everyone capable of basic rational thought about morality, including yourself. If you can't see the difference between a 16 year-old marrying a 50 year-old, sex slavery, polygamy, and Gay marriage then I invite you to read a book.

EDIT: and the original post was removed because these comparisons were so offensively wrong so now I look silly arguing with posts that aren't there. Ah well, for the best.



theblackdragon said:

@PvtOttobot: I have removed nothing in plain opposition to the idea of same-sex marriages being included in this game, I have only removed absolutely offensive comparisons on your part.



Denkou said:

And thus, people have inevitably began to whine and complain about something that has to do with cultural differences. Remove the feature, its homophobia, patch and make the feature official, and its major problems for ninty Japan. No right option here people. Nintendo did what they had to do to keep themselves from getting torn apart in the homeland. It really is that simple.



Highwinter said:

@LzQuacker Then why does any form of marriage need to be in the game?

Whether Nintendo want to be part of the debate or not is irrelevant, they're picking a side by removing the option.



Sun said:

@theblackdragon My point was that you (NL) want people to click on this even if it is not accurate at all but provocative. I was harsh because this is not the first time you (NL) play the game of sensationalism. For me it is fine because this is just a video games website but it is not the first time that you reproach us for some of our comments and assumptions either and that is when I get annoyed, talk about hypocrisy!



Highwinter said:

@Denkou "Cultural differences" are also used to defend the sickening amount of sexism in Japanese mediums. It's not an excuse and shouldn't be any more acceptable than discriminating against someone's race would be, which for the record, would also be completely fine in certain cultures. That doesn't make it right.



theblackdragon said:

@Sun: I'm not sure what you're talking about...? You've lost me. This is clearly marked 'rumor', and as such we can't be sure of any official 'reasons' at this time. We know it's happening, we just don't officially know why. That's why this thread exists, and I'm just in here trying to keep people from going at one another hardcore the way the last thread went down :/



ThomasBW84 said:

@Sun From my perspective, I disagree with any charge of sensationalism — but then I would, obviously. A number of sites have gone out and taken the same material and stated it as a fact, whereas we feel the rumour tag is more appropriate because of the translation. I reckon it's 99% likely that this update will remove the feature, which has been described as a "bug" by Nintendo reps in the last article on this topic.

I'll keep an eye out and update if anything else comes out, as it can be tricky with Japan-only games. What I won't do, individually, is shy away from stories like this, unless I'm told to by the site bosses. I defend both articles against the charge of sensationalism, too, as I've been very careful with the wording in both to address information that's out there without applying 'spin'.

Do we want people to read the stories and discuss them? Of course we do, that's kind of the whole point. As I've said, in these cases I feel we've done so responsibly.



EverythingAmiibo said:

@theblackdragon I am not comparing them only touching on @C7_ 's idea of 'it's your life (sim) you can do what you want, if that is his reason for enabling gay marriage then I strongly appose it and hope the world can stop the 'it's your life' attitude while they're ahead.



zeldagaymer93 said:

As a gaymer, this is really disappointing to see. The translation states that this patch fixes "abnormal human behavior." That is insulting. There are a lot of gay gamers out there that were so excited to see two men together in a game. Imagine if the game blocked interracial relationships. Not cool, Nintendo. If you wanted to stay neutral you could have just kept it as is.



Denkou said:

Alright, I have legitimately stopped caring about this issue. I never said that it was MORALLY right. However, as a business, Nintendo has made the right decision, as Japanese standards are so much different than ours.

You have the right to your opinion, all I did was remove the 'lulz', as you put it — TBD



MonocledMetroid said:

I assume the male and male marriages were a result of the game believing that one of the involved parties was actually female, which would mean the dialogue would most likely seem awkward coming from a man due to the way Japanese works:

Thus, if Nintendo were to actually implement same sex marriage as an actual feature they'd most likely have to write loads of new dialogue for it to be grammatically correct, which probably isn't something Nintendo finds worth the cost.



C-Olimar said:

@Denkou Not just problems for Ninty Japan I think - if American media got wind of gay marriage in a Nintendo game they would have a field day trashing the company, even if the game wasn't going to be released in the West.

Anyway, how terribly open-minded of you Nintendo. -_-



C7_ said:

@PvtOttobot So are you stating life sims should not have the freedom to choose what they do with their lives? It's a simulation, not a sandbox; Laws enacted by governments are enforced within the context of the game, but Gay Marriage is a personal issue that isn't outlawed and is viewed as a personal choice. I understand you being against parts of the "It's your life" outlook when their decisions affect others unknowingly, but this issue has nothing to do with anyone else beside the two people getting marriage, which is why the outlook is an incredibly important aspect of life and should be held as important as freedom of speech.



EverythingAmiibo said:

@zeldagaymer93 "The translation states that this patch fixes "abnormal human behavior." That is insulting." Now THAT is something I have to agree with, although I am a straight Christian myself, I believe that it is still up to the person themselves to choose their set of 'normal' behaviour. Would not many class christianity as 'weird' in this day and age? Yet all sides receive offensive comments like this, you cannot class YOUR normal as THE normal. Unfortunately that's what makes it hard to make up laws or 'rights' for a divided country and world.



Geonjaha said:

It's a video game. Out of all the places that this kind of controversy causes an issue there are really bigger fishes to fry. Sometimes games only have protagonists of a certain gender or race, and no, that doesn't make them sexist or racist - just as having a game with only same sex marriages isn't automatically a stance against homosexuality.

@PvtOttobot - Well, actually the normal can simply refer to how common it is. Since ~3% (Disclaimer: Rough estimate) of people are homosexual, it is not typical. I realise this could have been meant intentionally in a more insulting way, but when that assumption is automatically made I feel the need to point this out.



Zup said:

@zeldagaymer93 While I personally don't support gay rights, I don't believe in treating gays any different from everybody else so, while it's not really my personal opinion, I agree that Nintendo seems to have taken a side in this issue which they really shouldn't have.



TrueWiiMaster said:

This was pretty expected. Nintendo's not one to approach controversial topics or step on people's toes. It's not discriminatory to not include controversial subjects in a game. I applaud Nintendo for not succumbing to the pressures of people wanting to keep the bug, and instead making the game what it was intended to be.



DrMonk said:

So having gay marriage in a game is a 'glitch' that needs to be corrected, huh? Whether or not they intended to Nintendo will be taking a side in this matter, and if they do indeed remove it that will offend a proportion of the population. I don't see how keeping it in offends the general population seems as though if they don't want to gay marry in the game they wouldn't have to. This is surprising, too, since Japanese games tend to be more liberal about sexuality.



EverythingAmiibo said:

@C7_ Yes. I am very much saying that. I believe there should be and most likely will be standards to how far a video game can go. I'm against GTA as I've seen the affects first-hand: a few years ago my neighbour of 12 years old managed to (leggaly of course) get and play a copy of GTA, within days he had taken a huge interest in drugs and prostitutes. He was thought it was so cool he would just mumble away about heroin and 'his (female dogs)' all day when he wasn't even playing the game! Another friend of mine was absessed with 'woo-hoo' thanks to the Sims.

sorry about the swearing



zeldagaymer93 said:

@TrueWiiMaster Please don't get me started on that. Back in the 60s it was socially acceptable to oppose interracial marriage because it weirded people out and "broke the values of marriage." Fast forward 50 years and you hear the same bigoted comments from opposers of same sex love. Times change and history repeats itself.
Don't judge gay relationships if you aren't gay because you wouldn't understand the hate, oppression, and weird looks for being so happy and in love.



theblackdragon said:

@PvtOttobot: Another offensive comparison — being born a certain way does not compare to liking violent games or being obsessed with the Sims. Come on :/

@DrMonk: I was waiting for someone to make that leap, actually — when we're saying 'bug' or 'glitch', we're not referring to the idea of homosexuals being 'glitches', we're referring to a problem with the game code itself. Nintendo's own rep referred to this issue as a 'bug' in the game; I really don't think they were making that sort of statement about homosexuals in general :/



Geonjaha said:

@DrMonk - This is an example of reading too far into something intentionally. If this is indeed true, then yes, by definition it was a glitch. Why must that fact being stated automatically be linked to homophobia?



FernandoMachado said:

Since it was a glitch I'm glad they removed it as it could be a game-breaking issue.

Let's just remember than Japan IS an advanced country when it comes to sexuality questions including transgender and third-sex issues.

Nintendo is no different! Remember that Captain Rainbow game and all those Birdo references?

However, same-sex marriage is something that's out of question there so I don't see its removal as a big deal.

Being gay myself, I have to say not fussed at all by all of this!



Barbiegurl777 said:

Good. If it does get a american & european release the last thing I want to see is that in the game. A marriage is between a man & a women not between two guys or two girls.

I applaud nintendo's decision. Right on!

Happy Gaming! (^_^)



EverythingAmiibo said:

Clearly it's you who's not listening, I am making no comparisons to gay people wanting to get married only showing that C7's attitude of it's your life is one I despise, If THAT is too much for you, then go ahead re-delete it.



Geonjaha said:

@FernandoMachado - I respect you for that. Knowing when a certain group has been ostracised and insulted is important, and there are times when it becomes necessary to speak up about it. However, imo getting insulted at every possible moment just lessens the effect that those protests have - and means less attention is payed to them.

@theblackdragon - I like to assume you get a call regarding news posts like this. "We're going to need extensive moderation on this next article, it's going to be an all-nighter >:3" XD



TheAdza said:

Really would have liked Nintendo, a leading family entertainment company, make a stand and keep the game as it is, or even add female-female marriage. It's almost a perfect real world metaphor. Just like parents of gay children, Nintendo as developers didn't expect their game to turn out the way it did, but they should still be proud and stand by their game, as any good parent would do, not try and patch it out. That sends a horrible message.



DrMonk said:

@Geonjaha: and @theblackdragon: I wasn't being literal, I was extending a metaphor and making some social commentary. I'm a game designer and understand the meaning of a glitch. I just think it's funny that they accidentally allow for social inclusion and accidentally don't discriminate against gay people wanting to connect with their Mii's, and then have to label it a glitch (which it sounds like it was by the strict definition) and offer a patch. At least since it's a 3DS game the patch will be optional for those that bought the game for that reason.



FernandoMachado said:

@Geonjaha I think you misread my comment! I don't feel offended AT ALL.
If same-sex marriage had been a day-one feature then of course I would love it, but seeing it is a bug (possibly game-breaking) then I'm cool with it being removed.

Same-sex marriages can be seen on LOADS of games out there AS AN OPTION. To be quite honest, anyone who feels offended by seeing same-sex marriage AS AN OPTION in a game is in dire need of therapy x



CrazyOtto said:

Bad move Ninty, the only understandable reason to fix this would be if this was getting localized to the US (I personally wouldn't mind it, but many Americans wouldn't take this very well.) but this is still probably not going to be localized either.



TrueWiiMaster said:

Interracial relationships were frowned upon because of racism. That's it. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Race isn't a part of it, even if some people tried to make it a part.

And it's not bigoted to follow one's beliefs, even if they disagree with another's.

There's a picture in the first article of a pregnant man. At least, I thought that was what it was.



Geonjaha said:

@FernandoMachado - Oh no, I read it correctly - the second part of my post wasn't directed at you, I was just saying that those people who are ranting about this issue don't (imo) have a lot of perspective.



Sinister said:

It is a glitch and as that it is ok to remove it. But i would have loved to see Nintendo seizing that oportunity to make it into a full fledged feature.



Reala said:

I fail to see how marriage is in any way a monopoly for the religious even if some would like to make it that way



ShadJV said:

People already are assuming a lot about the glitch. It's not like males are automatically free to marry whichever sex they desire, it was situational. One requirement, for example, is that the player transferred their Mii from a 3DS. It was a set of variables that Nintendo didn't fully test, which happens because it's unrealistic to test every set of variables, games would never get released then. For the record, the glitch supposedly IS game breaking, so Nintendo couldn't just leave it alone. Also, as pointed out before, there IS pregnancy in the games, no sexual acts but married Miis could have children and one of the Miis (supposed to be female) would get pregnant. With this glitch there could be a pregnant male Mii. Regardless of your stance on gay marriage, pregnant men are abnormal. And as another user pointed out, Japanese grammar is gender dependent. As such, this glitch meant language was used for the wrong gender, which is also abnormal behavior. Finally, it should be taken into account that gay marriage is not a hot topic in Japan. Sure, plenty of people outside of the country would want them to have gay marriage in the game, but few in Japan would care and, in fact, would likely be bothered because it's just not something their culture is debating right now, it's outright illegal there right now with no chance of changing in the near future. If that bothers you, well a game is not the best way to start a gay rights movement in a country that isn't considering gay marriage.



SqueakyTheBone said:

Please, that comparison is horribly offensive. Let's not go there — TBD

Apologies, I went way over the top. Sorry to make your job more difficult than it already is, TBD.



dumedum said:

@ShadJV you're making too much sense. The idea here is that there's a story simple to understand and to tell to the masses. Nintendo Life just quoted it. They even appropriately said that Nintendo is "involved" "seemingly with no intention to do so". Don't confuse it with facts.



Zup said:

@TheAdza That's a somewhat convoluted way to look at it. It may have simply been too financially or technologically difficult to rationalise the features inclusion.



DrMonk said:

@ShadJV: I'm guessing, though, that many of the people commenting in this article are having that debate in their countries at the moment, and Nintendo as an international company is open to this kind of scrutiny. Having to remove a representation of social inclusion is still having to remove a representation of social inclusion, whether it was a game breaking accident or not and whether it would be accepted in that culture or not.



dumedum said:

This controversy can only be good for Nintendo. Imagine if it is picked up by CNN, FOX etc and people keep mentioning the 3DS again and again. Free publicity.



Arcamenel said:

I'm not surprised it's being "fixed". Like I said I obviously can't base my opinion on games solely on these things because I'd have nothing to play. I love Fire Emblem: Awakening and I would've loved if the pairings could've been same-sex but the lack of it didn't stop me from putting over 100 hours into it.



siavm said:

This game is not leaving Japan. Why write this and give nintendo more bad press? Yes gay rights are important but isn't this a children's game in Japan. They don't know gay straight or whatever they just want something fun to play. Pieces like this make more of a impact if it was on some kind of other game. I did not see a article here saying why no gay relationships in fire emblem. Only when they remove something they probably did not have in the first place. Lets leave it as that. Until you all are really ready to make a real piece about gay rights and how all games that have relationships in them should have gay relationships to as default in the game, stop adding fire to the flame you all are probably not ready to deal with.



Arcamenel said:

If you are going to make the point that it's a children's game and children shouldn't have to deal with that then don't have the option of this kind of relationship in the first place even for opposite sex people. Children don't have to worry about marriage in any form if it's just about playing the game.



Peach64 said:

I'm not surprised. I think Nintendo was in a tough position here. If the game had come out without the bug, nobody would have cared, but because they fixed it, they're going to get some stick. It's a bit disappointing, but they were in a no win situation.

To the people saying it's a kid's game... I don't see why that matters. I don't think it's right at all to tell all kids that only man + woman is normal, because they grow up thinking that and later on have problems accepting anything else. You'd never get away with saying 'we can't have black people in this game, it's for kids!'.



Melkaticox said:

@Aviator Isn't the game rated E for Everyone? (well, Cero's version of 'E').
There's your answer. Now, can you tell me any E rated game with openly gay characters?



Jukilum said:

@C7_ :"Two people who have nothing to do with you getting married by both of their legal consent under the laws in which we allow marriage does not ruin lives any more than normal marriage would."

That's not strictly true. Children are most happy and successful when they grow up in a family with two married parents, one male and one female.



C7_ said:

@PvtOttobot That's not even a comparison, that's a joke and I debated whether or not I should humor it with a response. A 12 year old getting GTA isn't a civil rights issue, it's an issue of bad parenting. The game is CLEARLY rated M and he had to have a parent present to purchase it, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. I am strongly against little and impressionable kids getting games despite their ratings as well, but that's just not the issue.

And you support the lack of freedom of expression? You do realize that people that would make the Gay Marriage choice in the game are people who would consider themselves gay; a straight person would not pick the gay marriage choice and suddenly find themselves fancying their same gender; that's not how this works. People are born with these urges and it's again insulting to everyone involved if you think that they'll change because of a game.

And if you think a friend saying "woohoo" because of the sims is hurting society I strongly suggest you get a sense of humor and quit relating this issues with completely separate ones that have nothing to do with it.



camerica18 said:

I'm glad Nintendo is taking it out. I would prefer for them to keep that out of their games.



Arcamenel said:

@Jukilum Say that to a child who lives in a household where his parents detest each other.

Also most health professionals and psychiatrist with any real credibility have already come out saying there is no difference.



C7_ said:

@Jukilum I'd love to see your evidence for this claim, because I've seen from both personal experience and several studies that a child brought up in either scenario is just as likely to succeed in the other scenario.



Sun said:

@C7­_ amazing reply (when you referred to the comparision made by whoever).
@theblackdragon Stop messing with us! You are the one confusing people! LOL
@ThomasBW84 I didn't mean this article only and I meant theblackdragon replies in this particular thread. On the other hand and I hope you have realized, I have congratulated people when their texts were great, not only staff people but users as well. The last one was the Super Mario World review because the author did not say that it is the best but showed and proved why it is the best. I cannot remember more right now but I have been giving some more nice feedback too.
Love and sex is part of life and homosexuality exist since the beginning of times. The only reason we have issues about it is called RELIGIONS. I don't care about society stupidity nor religions so luckily I don't have to judge people's personal choices, preferences and FREEDOM as long as they do not hurt other people (or animals).



theblackdragon said:

@Jukilum: There's no way that claim can be backed up with any kind of evidence until the day when heterosexual and homosexual couples both are free to marry and care for children as they please — and even then it's going to have to be a day when people stop caring whether or not a child is raised by two moms, two dads, or a mom and a dad. until then, any kind of study is going to be rife with bias (either for or against the hypothesis) and therefore useless.



Dutch_Cheesecake said:

The rules in Japan are different than in the west, if it was a glitch or not I think it was a cool move of Nintendo to do it. I mean everybody has the right to think or live like they want, right? But you know, thats just my opinion...



Spaciouz said:

I think that it is something that should have been implemented first time, being a strong supporter of gay rights, but it makes absolute sense for it to be patched.



Best_ said:

Good to see Nintendo sticking to their believes and not jumping on the trend that is going on right now.



TeeJay said:

Guys, you're reading much too deep into this. Nintendo is being as neutral as possible about this.

All they're doing is simply removing a potentially game-breaking glitch. It just happens to be about allowing gay marriage.



Sun said:

please, he's already been dealt with, let's not continue it :3 — TBD You are right.



Zup said:

@TeeJay Agreed, though if I were you I would try to stop convincing anyone in this thread. Both sides are somewhat closed-minded and very few are willing to seriously consider another's view. To them, this is Nintendo taking a side.



citizenerased said:

The fact that gay marriage isn't available as an option says it all, really. Yes, maybe this is a game-breaking glitch. But do you think Nintendo's hard at work now on an update to allow same-sex marriage for all couples, in a legitimate way? Heh. The thought alone is ridiculous.



mullen said:

I'm angry with you, nintendolife. I'm sure you know Japanese, so why you cheat us on what the updates contain? It's easy to translate the webpage on the Nintendo website, and it's nothing about what you said. Your previous news for this topic is a lie (all the "evidence" can be easily explained if you play that game and know Japan), and you're just using another lie to hide your previous lie. Shame.



Ophis said:

The glitch needed to be fixed because of potential problems.

But it would be neat if they added the option of same sex marriage as a free DLC in the future, for the ones who want it. And the ones who don't, can choose to not download it.



GameLord08 said:

They're only trying to remove a glitch which so happens to concern same-sex relationships, and all of a sudden Nintendo is caught up in political warfare? It's clear that Nintendo is trying to remain as neutral as possible about this; stop evaluating their possible courses of action as taking stances, especially when the article states a definite decision is yet to be confirmed.

For now, this is a glitch, first and foremost. It's vital they correct it. In future, perhaps they'll gauge the reactions from this event and decide whether or not to implement same-sex relationships as a proper feature (which is something I'd love to see, actually).



xDarkLink said:

Well, its a glitch that causes the game to become broken & unstable, so of course they're gonna fix it.
If it didn't cause any negative effects, they probably wouldn't have bothered with it.
The fact that they're fixing this glitch has nothing to do with Nintendo's view on Homosexual relationships.
Now if they intentionally built the game to support gay marriage & then Patched it out for whatever reason, then that would open room for discussion.



Bluezealand said:

There are so many ignorant answers regarding this topic, it's unbelievable. It's not part of any of your business who I love, who I want to marry and with whom I have sex with. Thank you very much.

@Best_: And to acknowledge basic human rights for all people equally is no "trend"! Would be interesting to see, how you would react, if someone would try to take them away from you.



Doma said:

@Arcamenel #84 I'm surprised people would honestly care about that kind of thing in a Fire Emblem game anyway. Seems stupid.



Sgt_Garlic said:

They shouldn't remove it, although two men conceiving a child is pretty funny. I don't see the problem.



jacksayspurple said:

@Zup when you say 'you don't support gay rights' but you say you do support gays being treated the same as everyone else. That's supporting gay rights. That's all gay people want to be treated as, the same as everyone else with the same rights and privileges as anyone else. That's why it's so important that EVERYONE from every margin of life gets a chance to be represented in mediums like video games so that we can all be equal!



Best_ said:

To answer your original question, click through to their profile to see where that user is from. As for the rest, it's neither here nor there, so let's please keep it out of this thread — TBD



RudysaurusRex said:

This will piss off some people, but it will make a lot more happy, as Catholicism is a huge part of the world. I think everyone should have the same rights, and it's not up to the government, and certainly not a religion to decide that. While I am Christian, I don't agree with a lot of things that a lot of Christians do or believe.



kereke12 said:

I don't see how this is a BIG deal, I mean come on Mass Effect 3 had same-sex in the game so to me. I don't see this as a BIG deal.



k8sMum said:

And interracial relationships are a very different topic from homosexual relationships.

it wasn't always this way.

This will piss off some people, but it will make a lot more happy, as Catholicism is a huge part of the world. I think everyone should have the same rights, and it's not up to the government, and certainly not a religion to decide that.

then who is it up to? do you think there would be no oppression if people were just allowed to denigrate those they disagreed with because they were in the majority? the separation between church and state is becoming blurred here in the states, and that is a bad thing, imo.

it is up to governments to protect the rights of all citizens.



MrL1193 said:

This almost feels like reverse censorship--accidentally adding controversial content when it was never supposed to be there at all. I wonder what all those people fighting for the uncorrupted "author's vision" would have to say about this?



Ketchupcat said:

Wait, where does it suggest anything? I used Google Translate and the closest thing to this I found was "Human relationship is funny".



Justaguest said:

Glitch or not they obviously don´t support gay community by not adding it into the game in a first place. Removing this "glitch" is just a confirmation of that. Shame on you, Nintendo..



HeatBombastic said:

@Justaguest They didn't add it in the game in the first place because of cultural differences, not being homophobic. You don't have to do extensive research on this, just read the comments. The glitch allowed men to get pregnant, since the game saw the male Mii as a female. Of course they're going to remove that.



Tertis said:

I'm fine with that. They can do whatever the hell they want with politically sensitive issues in their games.



Justaguest said:

@HeatBombastic Yes, I never said they were homophobic. They don´t really support gay community though. They decided to stay out of harm´s way - getting complaints from people who are in my opinion selfish. But I am not going to continue in any kind of critism here. You are right about the glitch though. I guess it is too late to change anything now so it is better for it to be removed entirely..



Arminillo said:


The lack of same-sex marriage in a game isn't wrong. The developers are allowed to choose whats in their game. Your reasoning is just as valid as saying i can't be african-american in Pokemon.



theblackdragon said:

@Bluezealand: if i'm reading correctly, Suicune seems to be using Pokemon to illustrate whitewashing — that you can't choose the race or skin tone of the avatar that is supposed to represent you in the game. That's where their comparison lies. I feel that neither situation is right, personally, but others will differ I guess.



Jaz007 said:

If this glitch's removal means that Nintendo has taken a stance in this argument, does that mean that they have taken a stance against against male pregnancy too?



Pichuka97 said:

With homosexulaity becoming more prominent in the world, I'm surprised more games (life sims) aren't letting you choose to have same sex marriages. I can see why because lots of people don't support them but eventually, it will just become a normal thing and people will wonder why stuff like this hadn't been done sooner. But I do see why is Nintendo trying to play it safe to avoid problems. Then again, not including this feature could also cause some outrage. Life is confusing




It sounds like Nintendo didn't even have the possibility of same-sex marriage in the first place. It shouldn't be that much of a problem since the demographic are the more-liberal teens to young adults..." says me who's fine with less discrimination for the LGTBQ community. But that's just me of course, and not the likely more-conservative, older men running the company.



Azikira said:

How disappointingly backwards they're thinking... Oh well, one less game to get.



Meaty-cheeky said:

Nintendo made the right choice. This is an E-rated game. If it was rated T and up then I wouldn't have a problem. Also, it was a glitch to begin with.
Children shouldn't be introduced to unnatural sexual desire at an early age, simple as that.



jacksayspurple said:

@Meaty-cheeky "unnatural" sexual desire? Ok, that's offensive. It'd be silly to get into discusses about how people don't choose to be gay same as they don't choose to be straight, etc etc. But no, either you argue that video games shouldn't introduce children to sexual desire, or you argue introducing children to the idea that being gay isn't something to be ashamed of so they don't grow up with a whole load of self-hatred. Either way, 'straight-washing' things like video games that children have access to isn't a good thing.



Zup said:

@jacksayspurple I was more saying that i would not encourage someone to be gay, however in the basic society gays are usually social outcasts and i believe that this is very wrong.
Basically if someone asked me to vote, i would probably vote for gay rights even though i don't believe that it is right, because it is simply my religious view and i have respect for people of different beliefs. It can be compared to being banned from eating beef by a muslim. I would be very upset, so I can understand how people would be upset at me forcing my religious beliefs upon them.



Meaty-cheeky said:

@jacksayspurple It was not meant to be offensive, simply fact. "Unnatural" in the sense that two dudes can never have children because we were not designed to be with the same sex.



Elhijodelrio said:

Lol thats so 80's, , Nintendo goin back wards in time again would they have made the same decision for interracial marriage, smh



Elhijodelrio said:

Lol, Nintendo is so 80s,they keep going back to dark ages, would they take interracial marriage out too



Intrepid said:

@TrueWiiMaster Couldn't have said it better myself.

It was a potentially game breaking glitch with a Cero A (ESRB E) rating dealing with subject matter for a county that doesn't really accept gay marriage. It was smart on Nintendo's part to fix it.



MeWario said:

All for gay marriage! It's a shame Nintendo didn't embrace an apparent glitch. O well, I'm glad I live in a country where people are free to love who ever they like.



RantingThespian said:

Being Bi, this is a disappointment. It's sad that we live in a world that gay/bi/transgender people don't have the same rights as everyone else.



ueI said:

I would never have expected them to turn the bug into a real feature, but why even remove it? As theblackdragon said, "other glitches and bugs take months for them to even look at or acknowledge as honest problems." I'm not inclined to believe that this glitch is game breaking, as nobody has explained how it breaks the game.



Ren said:

Ah so this is just the usual behavior of Nintendo jumping up to patch a devastating, game breaking glich in a game, following a long history of doing everything in their power to do a simple patch to big annoying bugs in their games.
give me a break guys. I get why they're doing it, but it doesn't make it ok. Bigotry is not cool, I don't care what "exotic cultural thing" people want to think it is. Nintendo is just living in the past (on more than just this).



Aviator said:

@Melkaticox I don't understand this comment.

Are you saying that LGBT characters cannot be in games rated E, or they can't be found in games rated E.



Saturn said:

@RantingThespian I'm not too worried. Society is fastly moving forword. 25 years from now people will look in disgust at the fact they did somthing like this.




@Ren Concluding that Nintendo is just stuck in the past for doing this might not be the best approach to this issue. Maybe it's a choice that's keeping them from losing many sales. And many of us are not endorsing what this rumor is implying. But rather, we're just trying to make sense of why the company might be trying to remove the glitch.



iphys said:

I could understand not including the feature out of simplicity, but removing it seems homophobic. I'm disappointed in Nintendo.



FriedSquid said:

I'm honestly surprised at some of reactions in this section. You people do realize that a male Mii was pregnant? I assume that is what they meant by the glitch, which would be the game reading a male Mii as female and therefore allowing it to be pregnant, which as we all know, is biologically impossible. I would hope that Nintendo has plans to allow same-sex marriages given the response. But, that's not to be determind for a while. For now, Nintendo has technically made no stance politically, and those offended should not be offended. If Ninendo were to come out officially and say they would not implement same-sex marriages due to the response of this issue, then it would be appropriate to get offended. Right now it makes no sense to get offended and I feel as though some of you haven't read this article completely, as well as the previous one.



ShadJV said:

This "response" is coming from places outside Japan when this is a game that likely won't leave Japan. Even on the off chance it does, games change during localization based on public opinion in regions. People in Japan are NOT responding like this to Nintendo and the company would likely lose sales given the country's view on gay marriage. It's ridiculous for non-Japanese citizens to tell a company what JAPAN deems as right and wrong. Why do we feel the need to control other countries, hm? If we want gay marriage in our countries, that's fine, but Japan isn't asking for it and we're asking Nintendo to tell Japan what they want. They have a different culture than us as well as different views on the meaning of marriage. If you really want to force Japan to adopt our viewpoints, though, a game shouldn't be how you introduce them to it. This is not an issue to them and most would be rather offended if a Japanese company tried to push western values on them.

In other words, it would make perfect sense to have gay marriage in western games, but not in the video games of a region that isn't interested in it.



FriedSquid said:

@ShadJV: You've got a point, I think most people don't realize that, as well as myself, actually. I only wish that Nintendo of Japan would make this decision, but I understand it is not as much of an issue over there. And of course, it is very unlikely this would come to America or Europe. As it seems, many relationship-simulation games do not make it over here. I think most people simply want something to be done because they feel they have the right to make their voices and opinions heard, when honestly, they don't. I don't mean to sound harsh, but thinking about it, none of us Westerners really have any say in the political rights of Japan, where any change of this would even take effect.



emiru69 said:

Really sad news, unfortunately Japan is really backwards regarding this subject compared to Europe or America.

It is not unnatural. Over 350 species have same sex relationships (some of them even monogamous). Unnatural means “against the laws of nature”. This is not the case.

Justice and Equality are coming, whether you like it or not. You can be part of the change or you can try to fight it but you CAN’T stop it.
“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”
Thomas Jefferson



kurtasbestos said:

Japan is indeed very far behind the times when it comes to things like equality. Which is sad because there are some very famous and popular people here who are gay, and because it has NOTHING to do with religion here... it's more about how Japanese people are ridiculously slow in changing their way of thinking on any subject. So it's kind of sad that Nintendo decided to remove this "glitch", but it's not surprising, and I'm sure very few people in Japan will notice or will do anything about it (like take to the internet to post comments complaining about it).



andreoni79 said:

C'mon, omnipotent god, prescribes us a Bible 2.0... we're in 2013, you know?
Can't you update the old one? Isn't your wi-fi connection good enough?



Moshugan said:

I honestly thought they were going to ADD relationships between women, when it was talked about that a patch was coming for Tomodachi Collection!
Here I thought the Japanese were liberal, and Nintendo was just following suite. Dunno what I was thinking.



emiru69 said:

@TrueWiiMaster: I was wrong about the number of animals that display homosexual behavior the list is actually higher over 500 documented over 1,500 observed. The list includes Mammals, Birds, Fish, Reptiles, Amphibians, Insects and other invertebrates. The most complete list so far was done by researcher and author Bruce Bagemihl's 1999 book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. The most "stable" homosexual relationship in the animal kingdom (as far as know today) are the dolphins. Not only they have monogamous relationships but if one of the partners die they don't mate with anyone else until their dead.
I just want equal rights, I just want to get married with the person I love, with the person that I've been living for the last 7 years of my life. You said "Everyone has the same rights right now". Not true, I paid more taxes because I can't get married. My rights had become some kind of popularity contest in which the left wing and the right wing just try to get the debate heated so they can get more votes. For the last 7 years we had to safe all our money to pay my studies.1/3 of the people who commit suicide in the United States are homosexuals, that's an insane number if you think about the total number of people. Which part of your heterosexual marriage improves by ruining someone else marriage?



Intrepid said:

The U.S. Government guarantees freedom of religion. If the government legalizes gay marriage, they will force churches to go against their religion by marrying gay people.

Remember, marriage is a religious ceremony performed by ministers. Since any homosexual behavior is frowned upon in the Bible, churches have the right to protect their religion by refusing to marry gay people.



shadowhive said:

Well I must say I'm rather disappointed by some of the comments here.

First the glitch itself. I see the glitch part being the males-getting-pregnant part which is obviously strange and could lead to problems. Could there be a fix made to remove that part of the problem and leave same sex relationships in? Probably and who knows maybe they'll fix the glitch first and then wok on that.

However, a lot of people have displayed very shockingly backwards thinking which is a shame. When it comes to marriage no religion owns it although somehow when this is bought up the religious attitude seems to get unjust attention. The bible says divorce is a sin (for instance) yet christians aren't clamouring for the law to change there. The important thing to remmeber is that marriage is know controlled by the state (you need government documentation or a marriage to actually mean anything). As it stands religions only perorm the ceremony and that is not a requirement it is up to the indivduals involved (a marriage in a registry ofice has the same value as one in a church.

Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion. Just because religion x says something is a 'sin' doesn't mean it has any place to force everyone to do it. There are many subjects 'frowned upon' by the bible, but the vast mjority are not enforced by law.

No religion should be strictly forced to do anything, as long as it understands that it equally has no buisness forcing others (especially those outside of it) into doing anything as well. Yet on this issue especially, religions seem to want the exact opposite.

Going away from religion, this is also life sim game. In such games people choose what they look like etc. There are always options for people to choose. Awhile back someone mentioned it shouldn't be a choice because most people are straight. That logic falls part when applied to other things you can choose in such games (ie hair and eye colour) some of which are rare. Should they be removed too under that basis?



Bluezealand said:

We're very glad that in Europe you don't normally have to deal with this sort of thing, but please, let's not make this personal — TBD



Intrepid said:

I feel, in hindsight, that that was something I should have already known, but I failed to considerer that basic fact when I made my last comment. You are right: marriage is no longer controled solely by religion. However, my opinion on marriage still takes religion into consideration, regardless of whether it is civil or religious marriage.

You make a good point on divorce. I feel that divorce is more acceptable to people because it did happen in the past. Usually it was reserved for only the worst circumstances, but over time, people have convinced themselves that their situation is bad enough to warrant a divorce when it isn't. Because of this, the phrase "until death do us part" loses a lot of significance when more people keep divorcing. This sends mixed messages to their children, who witness marriages falling apart both in real life and in the media, and come to the conclusion that when they marry, it isn't as forever as they say it is. Those words of staying together are now just empty words that are repeated back as part of the vow, with both people understanding that they have an easy way out should any problems arise. It's actually quite sad.

I didn't mean to get on a tangent, but you reminded me about how I feel about divorce, and there most likely won't be any other chance to discuss it. That being said, I wonder how Tomodachi Collection handles it.



shadowhive said:

@Intrepid Personally marriage should be seen from a civil standpoint first, religious second. Most obviously this should be the case because not one religion owns marriage so religion x's opinion on what a marriage means is worthless when people that enter marriage come ffrom all religions and none.

As to divorce I belief it should be an option. In the past no divorce was allowe, even under extreme circumstances because 'to death do us part' trumped everything, even if abuse was involved. Personally, the death to us part aspect is a little meaningless anyway. You do not know what will happen in the relationship in 1, 2, 10 or 20 years. Something may happen that you think justifies leaving that person or you simply fall out of love with that person. As such making a 'to death' commitment with no way out seems incredibly foolish.

Kids witness marriages falling apart in life and in media, well that's just a part of life. Some marriages do fall apart and kids should know that happens instead of lying to them that all marriages are forever.

Marriages shouldn't be forever. they should be as for as long as the people involved want it to be. In some cases this may be till death and in other cases it might not be. Marriage shouldn't be about shackling yourself to another person forever with no option of ending it.

I dunno how this game handles divorce though. I can only recall two games I've played with marriage (Harvest Moon and Skyrim) and neither had the option for divorce (although the latter did have same sex marriages).



8bitforever said:

Sexual context and sexual preferences have no place in games. I don't agree with the Gay lifestyle but I also don't persecute those who practice it. My problem is getting everyone's sexual presence shoved in my face. That should be your own personal business. I don't want or need to know that someone is gay. In this generation it has become something you wear on you like a badge. It is just sad and stupid.



theblackdragon said:

@Intrepid: To add to Aviator's point, you do realize there are also religious groups who are okay with marrying homosexual couples, right? even some Christian ones? certainly not all religious groups are amenable to it, but each group already has its own set of taboos that must be respected by its own adherents, so it's not like that alone would be anything new.



Bluezealand said:


Hey, I wanted to edit my post by myself right now (before I noticed you were more quickly), because I realized it was way over the top. Sorry for that! I'm sometimes a rather impulsive person and write faster than I think. :/

I'm also sorry, if I offended any American. I have some friends from the US who are just the sweetest people you could imagine and I shouldn't have made such a generalization.



AJWolfTill said:

@Zup I don't feel that's the case.
Even though they never meant to enter this situation they are still making a statement by removing this feature.



NintenDude97 said:

They never condemned nor approved of any sort of stance on the subject.. They were just removing an originally unintended bug.



Aviator said:

@8bitforever I guess that then Peach should no longer kiss Mario when he rescue's her.

Link should no longer be friends with Zelda.

Don't get me started on Pokémon breeding.



Ren said:

Clearly people have some personal fear about this when people go out of their way to defend Nintendo about this with all these excuses about: "oh, Nintendo didn't say or do anything, their defending what might possibly be a loss of sales, outrage, angry mobs. Intolerance is just part of their unchanging, 'ancient' Japanesy culture that they have a total responsibility to uphold to the highest standard in every cheeky, fun, sim game". You can make excuses until you're blue in the face but the fact is Nintendo has only recently bothered to get on patching ANY games and they do so begrudgingly, this is not a game breaking glitch by any stretch of the imagination, and more importantly the game is immensely popular in Japan and people have celebrated this feature in the game NOT risen up in anger, it's not likely to loose ANY sales (gain some if anything, from the people who don't already have it.) Many people were drawn to this game because of this feature there. it IS Nintendo that sees this as possible controversy and as a producer of such a cheeky, entertainment that is a window into the culture, this is one of the reasons a culture stays marred in the past. It is their choice to make, and though it was safe to move into the modern age on this one they choose complacency; ignorance. It's just sad; There is no rational defense for it.



shadowhive said:


You do realise that sexual preference also includes hetrosexuality? So if sexual preference has 'no place in games' that includes hetrosexual relationships. Which would mean no married couples, no possibility to have children and no breeding. In practice, though, I suspect you're ok with that sexual preference being present in games, it's just any other you have a problem with which comes off as childish and petty.



Midnight3DS said:

Anyone that truly thinks this is a statement made by Nintendo, and it's as big an issue as some would claim, then maybe withholding one's money from Nintendo products altogether would be a statement matching that claim.



k8sMum said:

@8bitforever Sexual context and sexual preferences have no place in games. I don't agree with the Gay lifestyle but I also don't persecute those who practice it. My problem is getting everyone's sexual presence shoved in my face. That should be your own personal business. I don't want or need to know that someone is gay. In this generation it has become something you wear on you like a badge. It is just sad and stupid.

you may not persecute gays, but you just want them to shut up and stay in the back of the bus. that in itself is a sort of persecution: 'be gay if you chose (which is not how it works), but keep your gayness out of all things in your life so i am not offended'.

do you wear your heterosexuality like a badge? i don't, but it is reflected in my being married, how i am protected if my husband is hospitalised and i have full rights re: visitation, decisions, etc.

we can file taxes as a married couple, which has monetary advantages. if we discreetly kiss in public we are not mocked. if we hold hands we are not met with disgusted looks. some interpret gays doing the same things as 'shoving it in my face'.

you are right: it is sad. but it is not stupid. it is basic human rights. separate but equal has been tried in the past and it does not work.



Alphack3r said:

o_o Is it impossible that Ninty could just be following standard protocol for unintended features? Can we not just give them the benefit of the doubt w/o blowing them away? I mean, it's not like they don't have the freedom to make their own business decisions - we're not the ones making the game!

Hot-air level in this thread > 9000



TrueWiiMaster said:

Which part of your life improves by having what heterosexual couples have? Marriage is union between a man and a woman. Union between man and man, or woman and woman, is something else. Whether it's wrong or right, it's just, by definition, different from marriage.

Though marriage isn't necessarily religious anymore, it does have roots in religion, mainly Judaism. Even if homosexual marriage were legal in every state, the original definition of marriage, which many hold sacred, would still exclude it, and that isn't something the government could change, legally or realistically.

And separation of Church and State is not supposed to be freedom from religion. It's just supposed to be the government keeping its nose out of religion (which it hasn't done very well). Unless America were a purely atheistic nation, it would be impossible to keep traditional religion out of the government anyway. Many people in the government are religious, after all, and you can't leave your faith at the door.



k8sMum said:

And separation of Church and State is not supposed to be freedom from religion. It's just supposed to be the government keeping its nose out of religion (which it hasn't done very well). Unless America were a purely atheistic nation, it would be impossible to keep traditional religion out of the government anyway. Many people in the government are religious, after all, and you can't leave your faith at the door.

no. the separation of church and state is supposed to keep religion out of government. we have no 'state religion'.

people who are responsible for the running of our government are supposed to leave their faith at the door! their god, their religion should not impact the rest of the country. their beliefs are merely that: their beliefs. (it is surprising what many in government leave at the door: ethical behaviour, honesty, decency...seems as if leaving religion at the door isn't that big a thing.)



TrueWiiMaster said:

Precisely. We have no state religion. The government cannot make any religion the national religion, nor can they ban any religion. They're supposed to keep out of it altogether. That doesn't have anything to do with people in the government being religious, or with their religion influencing their decisions.

That's not remotely possible. Religion is at the very foundation of many people's worldviews. The founders never meant for that to be excluded from government.



Bluezealand said:

"Which part of your life improves by having what heterosexual couples have?
Marriage is union between a man and a woman. Union between man and man, or woman and woman, is something else. Whether it's wrong or right, it's just, by definition, different from marriage."

First of all, that's only YOUR definition of marriage. Don't act as if it's the only right definition, because many people would beg to differ.
Also, your argument (even if it were valid, which it isn't) doesn't change the fact, that the "Union between man and man, or woman and woman" should be treated equally, no matter how you name it.



k8sMum said:


you want it both ways: the government having nothing to do with religion, but religion given the right to do whatever with government.

it does not work that way. i haven't spoken with jefferson et al lately so i don't pretend to speak for them. but as most were deists but not christian, i doubt they would fail to protect government from religion.

you say 'religion is at the very foundation of many people's worldviews'. i would add that many things feed into that, including one's self identity and their sexualty. these are things that makes us who we are. you define marriage in a very narrow definition. that may not fit with many people, but that doesn't matter to you. you want to set the rules and be the decider.

i never voted in that election.



shadowhive said:

Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion by definition. For example, freedom of religion means that you can be any religion you like without government interference. That also means that you are free from each individual religions interference. An example is jews aren't meant to eat certain kinds of meat. Jews can choose to follow this law or not, but non-jews aren't forced to follow it. That's just one example there's many more.

No one is saying that the government should be free from religion, but laws should be. Laws shouldn't favor one religion over another, which is exactly what this is doing. This is forcing people to follow a religions belief wheather they like it or not yet it is seen as acceptable for reasons which would never work if applied to anything else.

Marriage as an institution predates most world religions (including judaisism) and it has changed a great deal. Having 'it's roots' in religion is largely irrelevent to the current situation.

The problem with religion in this issue is it's being very static in it's position and it's just not listening to the issue. It's not taking in the new information we have about human sexuality. It's essentilly burying it's head in the sand and utterly ignoring reality because of a few lines in a book by uninformed men millenia ago,

I really do hope relgions see sense and stop trying to dictate people's lives.



TrueWiiMaster said:

It's not just my definition, it's THE definition. It's pretty much the foundation of marriage.

And I never said they should be treated unequally.

Exactly. And it does work that way. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". They cannot affect religion. However, religious people are obviously allowed to hold office. It would be impossible for them to just disregard their faith, and would it be illegal to try to force them to do so.

I don't define marriage. It was defined long before this country ever existed. I didn't set or decide it. It is what it is. Some people want to change it now, but the original definition will never stop being the original definition. You can't change history.

I agree that no law should favor one religion or group, but at the same time, there's no escaping some amount of religious influence. Likewise, redefining marriage favors one group over another, which seeks to keep it unchanged.

While the actual origins of marriage would be debatable, religion is undeniably a part of it. To alter the religiously defined would be considered wrong by many people. Also, though marriage has changed to some degree, it has always held one characteristic, and that is heterosexuality.

That isn't the "problem" with religion. If the Bible says something, for example, it can't be rewritten based on "new information". It hasn't changed in thousands of year, even if understanding of it has grown. That's more like a positive if you ask me. And uninformed men? Not at all.



Jukilum said:

@theblackdragon You make a good point that my claim can not be backed up at this point by solid evidence. By the same token however, neither can the opposing view which so many people claim is backed up by scientific evidence.
@k8sMum The whole "the founding fathers were deists" thing is a relatively new interpretation. There's the quote where they said they were "led by providence"--while these days providence means luck it used to mean God. One of the founding fathers said that the constitution was written for a religious people.

I also agree with and support pretty much everything @TrueWiiMaster has said.



k8sMum said:

i give up. saying 'exactly' when someone disagrees vehemently is ridiculous. on another forum, i would be freer to say what i want, but this is not the place.

there are none so blind as they who will not see. what one sees as a good thing, another sees as sacrilege.

this discussion has probably strayed way too far from the gaming interests and will be shut down anyway. it probably should be.



shadowhive said:

No, keeping marriage as it is faors the religious over everyone else. Marriage has already changed since it's inception (originally people didn't have much say who they married and marriage for love was rare,as was divorce). Since marriage has already chnged from it's 'traditional original definition' that definition ahs no meaning. Unless, of course, you propose reverting back to the original one.

Marriage for a long time had many characteristics that stuck for a long time. The ones mentioned above, a ban on mixed marriages (religion or race based). Thse characteristics have been exorcised from marriage. At the time there was as big deal about it as this but now no one bats an eyelid at them.

The simple answer to that is this: do you do everything the bible says? The answer, simply, is no you don't. You pick and choose what you follow and what you don't and justify doing that to yourself. But if someone else does the same with regards to human sexuality, it's a no no.

The men were rather uninformed with regards to human sexuality. At the time many of them were even uninformed with regard to hetrosexuality and wanted people not even to have hetrosexual marriages so it's a bit rich to call them informed on this subject.



k8sMum said:

guys: proselytizing for either side in this debate is a no no. religion has come into this discussion, but religious views are better expressed elsewhere.



shadowhive said:

I do find it strange however that the bible is used as justification to not include same sex relationships in video games, but the same people are oddly silent about the other things the bible mentions as wrong. Murder, for example is considered much more wrong, yet no one is suggesting it be removed from video games.



HeatBombastic said:

@shadowhive I've never heard publishers and developers saying "Oh, the Bible says same sex relationships are bad, so let's not include them".

They don't include them because they don't want to be offending (which is sad), or adding a gay relationship doesn't support the narrative, features, or the point of the game at all.



HeatBombastic said:

As for not adding same sex (romantic) relationships because of certain features, the best example would be Fire Emblem Awakening.


Many complained about no same sex marriage in the game because of discrimination, but there's actually a significant reason for it: marriage between two characters triggers a sidequest, where you can recruit the future child of that couple. They couldn't do that with same sex marriage.



Zup said:

@shadowhive In regards to "for example you can go on a killing spree and god will 'forgive' that sin with no problems. On the other hand if someone goes through life, does the best they can with it, but doesn't follow christianity, they're thrown into hell without a second thought" that would most likely be incorrect. According to the Christian faith, if you do something wrong simply because you believe that you will get forgiveness, then forgiveness is not guarenteed. Only if you are truely sorry will you be forgiven. Also (and this is my personal view of my faith and I'm not sure how many agree) people regardless of religion are judged based on their ability to lead a morally correct life. One is not simply thrown into hell for not being Christian.

On a side note, that was a good point about the killing in video games not being banned. It does basically nullify all religious arguments about same-sex marriage in a game.



shadowhive said:

It seems with both those things it's not exactly clear cut and in many instances it makes little to no sense. On top of tht a 'morally correct' life seems to mean many things and it all just comes off as rather... well, a mess.

It does doesn't it?



8bitforever said:

Some married references may not be an issue but you will never satisfy all of the views out there and will no doubt create a debate. Again, I came here to learn about new games, not be hassled about my views. I won't bother posting anything again to avoid this mess. Totally my fault as I knew better than to respond.



jedisquidward said:

Well, I was serious at the time, but I wasn't thinking straight. Why would you have no problem with this, though? I think that it's awful that Nintendo might remove this.



theblackdragon said:

hey guys, bottom line: this isn't the place to argue religious law, and we've already asked that the arguments not be made personal. we're discussing the article at hand, not one another, thanks!



HeatBombastic said:

@jedisquidward You're joking right? My sense of irony is a bit low today so sorry if I get the wrong impression.

The glitch was that the game saw the male mii as a female mii. Male mii's would talk differently, and would get pregnant. I think it's okay if they fix that.



jedisquidward said:

@CaptainSquid Why? By refusing to talk about any current issues, we belittle what video games have the potential to be. If we say that we do nothing more than craft toys, we will be forever disrespected.



jedisquidward said:

Sorry, I saw something wrong. Either way, Nintendo needs to keep this in . No matter what. Under any circumstances at all. It is a choice, people who have a problem with it can ignore it.




Well, I conducted a brief look-up of homosexuality in Japan via YouTube: many people in Japan don't seem to hold a favorable view of same-sex love. There are people over there who identify as gay or other non-hetero normative sexuality, but their way of life doesn't seem hold up as well as people in other countries such as the US, Australia, and Israel.

As for this bug in the Tomodachi game, I do wish Nintendo could incorporate same-sex love. But as an entertainment company engaged in the risky video games business, they are probably not in the authority to socially promote controversial phenomenon like same-sex love (at least in Japan). If I had to blame someone for Nintendo removing the capability of same-sex love, I'd have to mostly blame Japan and its standard environment that the people of Nintendo were raised in. But I don't like to blame anything in general




And another interesting thing to note is that the Japanese demographic is becoming increasingly composed of older people. At least, that's what it is believed to be.



SKTTR said:

A glitch is a glitch. You could marry a man but screentext and animation still suggest you're marrying a woman. It's a messed up experience, so it's fair they fix this issue.
I guess the kind of gay male that talks to his partner as if he was female would have liked this, but what's with the other gays that want their partner to be a full-feature male and not just a female with a male Mii-skin?

If it was an intentional feature of the game, then yes they should have included female marriage as well, but with no line of code that differentiates male-male and male-female marriages this was simply a bug and should be removed.

However, since this isn't likely to be released outside of Japan it doesn't concern most of us anyway.



odd69 said:

wow I didn't realize how racist/phobic everyone was, good job. that deserves a pat on the back from readers and Nintendo alike.

Actually, im not surprised. as far as being offended, eh, Kinda sorta? Its hard not to when you read comments from readers. The article was offensive enough and a lot to suck in all at once, but then you have the comments which I find the most offensive of all.

How does one react to something like this anyway?? its just another way to get picked on by the media. But don't put to much thought into this article, it was just a glitch.

My question is will Nintendo ban a non-glitched gay themed game?? That would make it bad enough to sell my wii u.



odd69 said:

And yes Nintendo DID make a statement there. people of all nations forget that gay guys and gals make the world go round too.



scrubbyscum999 said:

This really sucks, they should have people marry whoever they want and fix the glitch so it is possible to just do it normally. Sadly, Japan isn't the most progressive place in the world on marriage, so this doesn't surprise me.

Leave A Comment

Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...