The Game of LIFE...

[InflatableBuddha]

I don't see a problem with introducing kids around 6 years old to these concepts. In fact, there are already children's books dedicated to discussing homosexuality.

Example 1

Example 2

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
I don't see a problem with introducing kids around 6 years old to these concepts. In fact, there are already children's books dedicated to discussing homosexuality.

Example 1

Example 2

There's that one with the penguins, too.

Er, I mean STOP MAKING OUR KIDS GAY, YOU LIBERAL COMMIE BASTARD! :|

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: sao123
I think parents have the right to determine when to and when not to expose their kids to sexual issues.

its not unreasonable for her to not want her child to be exposed at six years old to sexual issues. Hell, many parents dont want their children dating until they are 16.

Also, since the game of life is rated for ages 5 to adult, I dont see a problem her logic.
People who create items for young children need to stop the propoganda and issue pushing in childrens products. there is no need for "gay" Life game, "gay" sesame street, or "gay" barbie.

Sao, this question is for both you and TechBoyJK. I notice you mention that children should not be exposed to sexual discussions at six years old. I agree with you. But I'm curious how you talk about heterosexual relationships with your children. Is it impossible to raise the point of a mommy and daddy loving each other because, really, isn't that just talking about sex? At what age would you let your children play the game of Life, since it's just going to raise issues about sexuality in opposite-sex relationships? And since the game also involved procreation, there's really just no way around the issue, is there?

Hey.. some civility.

I'd say 10-12 years old is when I would probably just sit down with my kids and lay it all out for them. Possibly sooner if the situation called for it. But I think 6 is just way too young. I would probably seperate the Loving aspect from the sex aspect. This is where I would bring up homosexuality. I'd leave sex out, but talk about how some people choose to be comfortable with the same gender. That some guys and girls want to spend their lives with their best friends.

With sex, I would discuss from a stricly scientific, biological perspective about reproduction, etc.

OK, so you can discuss a relationship without discussing the sexual nature of it (which of course is important when talking to children). But your response makes it sound as though you would wait until your child was old enough to hear about sexual relationships before bringing up homosexual relationships at all. What if your child came home from elementary school and mentioned that his new friend only had a mom, no dad? What if they came home and tell you their new friend had two mommies? How would you deal with families that fall outside the norm of "one mother, one father," if you're only willing to discuss them from a sexual perspective?

Would you let your children play the game of Life if it didn't offer the option of gay couples?

ill say the same thing as i said earlier.

a child grows up generally having 1 mom and 1 dad, and needs no (non sexual)explanation. Yes, this "typical" child will eventually become aware there are different family formations. When that happens, yes I will explain, at whatever age this may be.
At that time and place, I can also explain what we view as morrally acceptable and not acceptable, by our own family standards, without the intrusion by outside agendas.


What you are losing sight of here is simple... this isnt just a board game life, where some one played the game and just put 2 blue chips in the same car. I have 3 copies of Life which i routinely play with my wife and other mature family members. The computer game of Life (same as board game) asked the child player what type of spouse was wanted, same sex or hetero sex. this is a question that does NOT need to be actively posed to young children. Nothing but pure propoganda aimed at early exposure of young children in hopes that they will be more "ok" with it later in life.


This was an ACTIVE attempt at pushing politically correct gay agenda into a setting which it had no business being, thus prematurely forcing the parent into confronting a situation which she felt her child was not ready to deal with. Maybe her child was too young to be playing the game, and maybe she should have been ready to deal with it. but it is not fair for a toy maker to push her into a situation, which perhaps she felt it best to wait for a natural exposure in real life...

A simple yes or no will do:

Milton Bradley is trying to indoctrinate our children with pro-gay propaganda through their board game, which was invented in 1860.

Yes or no?

apparently you fail at reading.
No. the above events happened on a computer game, NOT the board game.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: sao123
ill say the same thing as i said earlier.

a child grows up generally having 1 mom and 1 dad, and needs no (non sexual)explanation. Yes, this "typical" child will eventually become aware there are different family formations. When that happens, yes I will explain, at whatever age this may be.
At that time and place, I can also explain what we view as morrally acceptable and not acceptable, by our own family standards, without the intrusion by outside agendas.


What you are losing sight of here is simple... this isnt just a board game life, where some one played the game and just put 2 blue chips in the same car. I have 3 copies of Life which i routinely play with my wife and other mature family members. The computer game of Life (same as board game) asked the child player what type of spouse was wanted, same sex or hetero sex. this is a question that does NOT need to be actively posed to young children. Nothing but pure propoganda aimed at early exposure of young children in hopes that they will be more "ok" with it later in life.


This was an ACTIVE attempt at pushing politically correct gay agenda into a setting which it had no business being, thus prematurely forcing the parent into confronting a situation which she felt her child was not ready to deal with. Maybe her child was too young to be playing the game, and maybe she should have been ready to deal with it. but it is not fair for a toy maker to push her into a situation, which perhaps she felt it best to wait for a natural exposure in real life...

What about a child who grows up with two same sex parents? What if they wanted to log in and play this game with the family unit they had grown up in? Should they not be allowed to make a family unit that they are familiar with because it makes you uncomfortable? That seems a little far-reaching for me. It's one thing to say that the concept of a same-sex couple makes you uncomfortable and you don't want your children playing the game that way. But you are advocating that the game shouldn't allow the option solely because you are uncomfortable with it, which is unfair to all the homosexual families out there. One could easily argue that having the option to decide what family you want to have in the game is more inclusive than dictating that all relationships in the game will be heterosexual. Where do you draw the line?

If you've done a good job of parenting and your children understand your moral exception to homosexual unions, don't you think they'll pick an opposite-sex spouse, even if the option for a same-sex spouse exists within the game?

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
I agree, and even in my position, I see murder as something incredibly worse than homosexuality. But I would also feel like my child is being harmed pyschologically if he is being taught that it isn't immoral to engage in homosexual behavior. So I condemn it.

I can think of no logical basis for this statement.

Because it's my opinion, not yours. Any opinion you don't agree with is probably not going to make sense to you, and that's understandable.

You are quite incorrect, sir. I can understand how a great many opinions I don't agree with make sense to the people that hold them. That's different than there being a logical basis for belief that a child could be psychologically harmed by the above. I can understand how your belief makes sense to you--but it's still illogical.

How is it illogical? Please explain and I'll give it some thought.

 

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: sao123
I think parents have the right to determine when to and when not to expose their kids to sexual issues.

its not unreasonable for her to not want her child to be exposed at six years old to sexual issues. Hell, many parents dont want their children dating until they are 16.

Also, since the game of life is rated for ages 5 to adult, I dont see a problem her logic.
People who create items for young children need to stop the propoganda and issue pushing in childrens products. there is no need for "gay" Life game, "gay" sesame street, or "gay" barbie.

Sao, this question is for both you and TechBoyJK. I notice you mention that children should not be exposed to sexual discussions at six years old. I agree with you. But I'm curious how you talk about heterosexual relationships with your children. Is it impossible to raise the point of a mommy and daddy loving each other because, really, isn't that just talking about sex? At what age would you let your children play the game of Life, since it's just going to raise issues about sexuality in opposite-sex relationships? And since the game also involved procreation, there's really just no way around the issue, is there?

Hey.. some civility.

I'd say 10-12 years old is when I would probably just sit down with my kids and lay it all out for them. Possibly sooner if the situation called for it. But I think 6 is just way too young. I would probably seperate the Loving aspect from the sex aspect. This is where I would bring up homosexuality. I'd leave sex out, but talk about how some people choose to be comfortable with the same gender. That some guys and girls want to spend their lives with their best friends.

With sex, I would discuss from a stricly scientific, biological perspective about reproduction, etc.

OK, so you can discuss a relationship without discussing the sexual nature of it (which of course is important when talking to children). But your response makes it sound as though you would wait until your child was old enough to hear about sexual relationships before bringing up homosexual relationships at all. What if your child came home from elementary school and mentioned that his new friend only had a mom, no dad? What if they came home and tell you their new friend had two mommies? How would you deal with families that fall outside the norm of "one mother, one father," if you're only willing to discuss them from a sexual perspective?

Would you let your children play the game of Life if it didn't offer the option of gay couples?

ill say the same thing as i said earlier.

a child grows up generally having 1 mom and 1 dad, and needs no (non sexual)explanation. Yes, this "typical" child will eventually become aware there are different family formations. When that happens, yes I will explain, at whatever age this may be.
At that time and place, I can also explain what we view as morrally acceptable and not acceptable, by our own family standards, without the intrusion by outside agendas.


What you are losing sight of here is simple... this isnt just a board game life, where some one played the game and just put 2 blue chips in the same car. I have 3 copies of Life which i routinely play with my wife and other mature family members. The computer game of Life (same as board game) asked the child player what type of spouse was wanted, same sex or hetero sex. this is a question that does NOT need to be actively posed to young children. Nothing but pure propoganda aimed at early exposure of young children in hopes that they will be more "ok" with it later in life.


This was an ACTIVE attempt at pushing politically correct gay agenda into a setting which it had no business being, thus prematurely forcing the parent into confronting a situation which she felt her child was not ready to deal with. Maybe her child was too young to be playing the game, and maybe she should have been ready to deal with it. but it is not fair for a toy maker to push her into a situation, which perhaps she felt it best to wait for a natural exposure in real life...

A simple yes or no will do:

Milton Bradley is trying to indoctrinate our children with pro-gay propaganda through their board game, which was invented in 1860.

Yes or no?

apparently you fail at reading.
No. the above events happened on a computer game, NOT the board game.

...

You're correct. It should have read:


Milton Bradley is trying to indoctrinate our children with pro-gay propaganda through their computer game, based on their board game, which was invented in 1860.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: sao123
I think parents have the right to determine when to and when not to expose their kids to sexual issues.

its not unreasonable for her to not want her child to be exposed at six years old to sexual issues. Hell, many parents dont want their children dating until they are 16.

Also, since the game of life is rated for ages 5 to adult, I dont see a problem her logic.
People who create items for young children need to stop the propoganda and issue pushing in childrens products. there is no need for "gay" Life game, "gay" sesame street, or "gay" barbie.

Sao, this question is for both you and TechBoyJK. I notice you mention that children should not be exposed to sexual discussions at six years old. I agree with you. But I'm curious how you talk about heterosexual relationships with your children. Is it impossible to raise the point of a mommy and daddy loving each other because, really, isn't that just talking about sex? At what age would you let your children play the game of Life, since it's just going to raise issues about sexuality in opposite-sex relationships? And since the game also involved procreation, there's really just no way around the issue, is there?

Hey.. some civility.

I'd say 10-12 years old is when I would probably just sit down with my kids and lay it all out for them. Possibly sooner if the situation called for it. But I think 6 is just way too young. I would probably seperate the Loving aspect from the sex aspect. This is where I would bring up homosexuality. I'd leave sex out, but talk about how some people choose to be comfortable with the same gender. That some guys and girls want to spend their lives with their best friends.

With sex, I would discuss from a stricly scientific, biological perspective about reproduction, etc.

OK, so you can discuss a relationship without discussing the sexual nature of it (which of course is important when talking to children). But your response makes it sound as though you would wait until your child was old enough to hear about sexual relationships before bringing up homosexual relationships at all. What if your child came home from elementary school and mentioned that his new friend only had a mom, no dad? What if they came home and tell you their new friend had two mommies? How would you deal with families that fall outside the norm of "one mother, one father," if you're only willing to discuss them from a sexual perspective?

Would you let your children play the game of Life if it didn't offer the option of gay couples?

ill say the same thing as i said earlier.

a child grows up generally having 1 mom and 1 dad, and needs no (non sexual)explanation. Yes, this "typical" child will eventually become aware there are different family formations. When that happens, yes I will explain, at whatever age this may be.
At that time and place, I can also explain what we view as morrally acceptable and not acceptable, by our own family standards, without the intrusion by outside agendas.


What you are losing sight of here is simple... this isnt just a board game life, where some one played the game and just put 2 blue chips in the same car. I have 3 copies of Life which i routinely play with my wife and other mature family members. The computer game of Life (same as board game) asked the child player what type of spouse was wanted, same sex or hetero sex. this is a question that does NOT need to be actively posed to young children. Nothing but pure propoganda aimed at early exposure of young children in hopes that they will be more "ok" with it later in life.


This was an ACTIVE attempt at pushing politically correct gay agenda into a setting which it had no business being, thus prematurely forcing the parent into confronting a situation which she felt her child was not ready to deal with. Maybe her child was too young to be playing the game, and maybe she should have been ready to deal with it. but it is not fair for a toy maker to push her into a situation, which perhaps she felt it best to wait for a natural exposure in real life...

A simple yes or no will do:

Milton Bradley is trying to indoctrinate our children with pro-gay propaganda through their board game, which was invented in 1860.

Yes or no?

apparently you fail at reading.
No. the above events happened on a computer game, NOT the board game.

...

You're correct. It should have read:


Milton Bradley is trying to indoctrinate our children with pro-gay propaganda through their computer game, based on their board game, which was invented in 1860.

Of which is still messed up. Why can't we select multiple underage wives? I want my car to have 4 pink pegs.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: sao123
ill say the same thing as i said earlier.

a child grows up generally having 1 mom and 1 dad, and needs no (non sexual)explanation. Yes, this "typical" child will eventually become aware there are different family formations. When that happens, yes I will explain, at whatever age this may be.
At that time and place, I can also explain what we view as morrally acceptable and not acceptable, by our own family standards, without the intrusion by outside agendas.


What you are losing sight of here is simple... this isnt just a board game life, where some one played the game and just put 2 blue chips in the same car. I have 3 copies of Life which i routinely play with my wife and other mature family members. The computer game of Life (same as board game) asked the child player what type of spouse was wanted, same sex or hetero sex. this is a question that does NOT need to be actively posed to young children. Nothing but pure propoganda aimed at early exposure of young children in hopes that they will be more "ok" with it later in life.


This was an ACTIVE attempt at pushing politically correct gay agenda into a setting which it had no business being, thus prematurely forcing the parent into confronting a situation which she felt her child was not ready to deal with. Maybe her child was too young to be playing the game, and maybe she should have been ready to deal with it. but it is not fair for a toy maker to push her into a situation, which perhaps she felt it best to wait for a natural exposure in real life...

What about a child who grows up with two same sex parents? What if they wanted to log in and play this game with the family unit they had grown up in? Should they not be allowed to make a family unit that they are familiar with because it makes you uncomfortable? That seems a little far-reaching for me. It's one thing to say that the concept of a same-sex couple makes you uncomfortable and you don't want your children playing the game that way. But you are advocating that the game shouldn't allow the option solely because you are uncomfortable with it, which is unfair to all the homosexual families out there. One could easily argue that having the option to decide what family you want to have in the game is more inclusive than dictating that all relationships in the game will be heterosexual. Where do you draw the line?

If you've done a good job of parenting and your children understand your moral exception to homosexual unions, don't you think they'll pick an opposite-sex spouse, even if the option for a same-sex spouse exists within the game?

You want that rational working on a 6 year old?

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
How is it illogical? Please explain and I'll give it some thought.

I don't think you need anything from me in order to give it some thought
Could you explain how it's logical?

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Of which is still messed up. Why can't we select multiple underage wives? I want my car to have 4 pink pegs.

You have to buy the fundamentalist LDS version for that option.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Of which is still messed up. Why can't we select multiple underage wives? I want my car to have 4 pink pegs.

You have to buy the fundamentalist LDS version for that option.

Ahh so you agree anything deviant from the norm should have its own version?

LDS version
Homosexual Tolerance version
Islamic Version (if you put two blu pegs in teh same car, it blows up and game over?)

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Of which is still messed up. Why can't we select multiple underage wives? I want my car to have 4 pink pegs.

You have to buy the fundamentalist LDS version for that option.

Ahh so you agree anything deviant from the norm should have its own version?

LDS version
Homosexual Tolerance version
Islamic Version (if you put two blu pegs in teh same car, it blows up and game over?)

Actually, you can just put 4 pink pegs in the car anyways. What if I want to save the environment and burning fossil fuels is bad? I want my life game piece to be a kayak.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Of which is still messed up. Why can't we select multiple underage wives? I want my car to have 4 pink pegs.

You have to buy the fundamentalist LDS version for that option.

Ahh so you agree anything deviant from the norm should have its own version?

LDS version
Homosexual Tolerance version
Islamic Version (if you put two blu pegs in teh same car, it blows up and game over?)

Actually, you can just put 4 pink pegs in the car anyways. What if I want to save the environment and burning fossil fuels is bad? I want my life game piece to be a kayak.

I agree, 4 women sharing one cack is good for the environment. They need mopeds too

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Of which is still messed up. Why can't we select multiple underage wives? I want my car to have 4 pink pegs.

You have to buy the fundamentalist LDS version for that option.

Ahh so you agree anything deviant from the norm should have its own version?

LDS version
Homosexual Tolerance version
Islamic Version (if you put two blu pegs in teh same car, it blows up and game over?)

The Islamic one only blows up if you land on the same square as an infidel's car.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
What about a child who grows up with two same sex parents? What if they wanted to log in and play this game with the family unit they had grown up in? Should they not be allowed to make a family unit that they are familiar with because it makes you uncomfortable? That seems a little far-reaching for me. It's one thing to say that the concept of a same-sex couple makes you uncomfortable and you don't want your children playing the game that way. But you are advocating that the game shouldn't allow the option solely because you are uncomfortable with it, which is unfair to all the homosexual families out there. One could easily argue that having the option to decide what family you want to have in the game is more inclusive than dictating that all relationships in the game will be heterosexual. Where do you draw the line?

If you've done a good job of parenting and your children understand your moral exception to homosexual unions, don't you think they'll pick an opposite-sex spouse, even if the option for a same-sex spouse exists within the game?

You want that rational working on a 6 year old?

I don't understand this question. Did you mean rationale? Or are you asking about the logical processing skills of a 6 year old? Regardless, I'll attempt to address the question.

I was raised by lesbian mothers, so I knew about homosexuality at a much younger age than most. But being raised by lesbian mothers also put me in a unique position as a child to watch parents have the "sometimes women like women" talk with their own children. I actually had it with a few of my friends:
"What does your dad do?"
"I don't have a dad, I have two moms."
"How is that possible?"
"Sometimes a mommy and a mommy like each other and have a family."

I didn't need to resort to talking about the sexual habits of my mothers, which I still don't want to think about, to explain how a lesbian couple could have a family. I was having this conversation with my friends in kindergarten. And they accepted it. So I don't exactly know what you mean by the rational working of a 6 year old being any sort of detriment to understanding homosexual family units from a strictly non-sexual perspective.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
What about a child who grows up with two same sex parents? What if they wanted to log in and play this game with the family unit they had grown up in? Should they not be allowed to make a family unit that they are familiar with because it makes you uncomfortable? That seems a little far-reaching for me. It's one thing to say that the concept of a same-sex couple makes you uncomfortable and you don't want your children playing the game that way. But you are advocating that the game shouldn't allow the option solely because you are uncomfortable with it, which is unfair to all the homosexual families out there. One could easily argue that having the option to decide what family you want to have in the game is more inclusive than dictating that all relationships in the game will be heterosexual. Where do you draw the line?

If you've done a good job of parenting and your children understand your moral exception to homosexual unions, don't you think they'll pick an opposite-sex spouse, even if the option for a same-sex spouse exists within the game?

You want that rational working on a 6 year old?

I don't understand this question. Did you mean rationale? Or are you asking about the logical processing skills of a 6 year old? Regardless, I'll attempt to address the question.

I was raised by lesbian mothers, so I knew about homosexuality at a much younger age than most. But being raised by lesbian mothers also put me in a unique position as a child to watch parents have the "sometimes women like women" talk with their own children. I actually had it with a few of my friends:
"What does your dad do?"
"I don't have a dad, I have two moms."
"How is that possible?"
"Sometimes a mommy and a mommy like each other and have a family."

I didn't need to resort to talking about the sexual habits of my mothers, which I still don't want to think about, to explain how a lesbian couple could have a family. I was having this conversation with my friends in kindergarten. And they accepted it. So I don't exactly know what you mean by the rational working of a 6 year old being any sort of detriment to understanding homosexual family units from a strictly non-sexual perspective.

I'm sorry to hear all that. I wouldn't want my kids to be isolated out like that too. And yes, rationale. SP on my part.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: sao123
ill say the same thing as i said earlier.

a child grows up generally having 1 mom and 1 dad, and needs no (non sexual)explanation. Yes, this "typical" child will eventually become aware there are different family formations. When that happens, yes I will explain, at whatever age this may be.
At that time and place, I can also explain what we view as morrally acceptable and not acceptable, by our own family standards, without the intrusion by outside agendas.


What you are losing sight of here is simple... this isnt just a board game life, where some one played the game and just put 2 blue chips in the same car. I have 3 copies of Life which i routinely play with my wife and other mature family members. The computer game of Life (same as board game) asked the child player what type of spouse was wanted, same sex or hetero sex. this is a question that does NOT need to be actively posed to young children. Nothing but pure propoganda aimed at early exposure of young children in hopes that they will be more "ok" with it later in life.


This was an ACTIVE attempt at pushing politically correct gay agenda into a setting which it had no business being, thus prematurely forcing the parent into confronting a situation which she felt her child was not ready to deal with. Maybe her child was too young to be playing the game, and maybe she should have been ready to deal with it. but it is not fair for a toy maker to push her into a situation, which perhaps she felt it best to wait for a natural exposure in real life...

What about a child who grows up with two same sex parents? What if they wanted to log in and play this game with the family unit they had grown up in? Should they not be allowed to make a family unit that they are familiar with because it makes you uncomfortable? That seems a little far-reaching for me. It's one thing to say that the concept of a same-sex couple makes you uncomfortable and you don't want your children playing the game that way. But you are advocating that the game shouldn't allow the option solely because you are uncomfortable with it, which is unfair to all the homosexual families out there. One could easily argue that having the option to decide what family you want to have in the game is more inclusive than dictating that all relationships in the game will be heterosexual. Where do you draw the line?

If you've done a good job of parenting and your children understand your moral exception to homosexual unions, don't you think they'll pick an opposite-sex spouse, even if the option for a same-sex spouse exists within the game?

Maybe we should start including pegs to start representing black, mexican/hispanic , east asian, and other races too? Maybe they should be offended by having to use blue and pink pegs? Maybe the enviro natzees should be offended that the cars dont have the option to look like a hybrid, instead of an SUV? Heck, lets add some spaced for aborting a child, selling cocaine, and prostitutes as a profession...


Choices like all of the above are completely unnecessary, because they dont affect or change the game in any measurable way. Its just cosmetic fluff which attemptes to add social commentary to the game.

i draw the line at companies inserting any or all political correctness in products (especially those targeting children) which are completely unrelated to the commentary provided, just for the sake of beating their own drum.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
I don't understand this question. Did you mean rationale? Or are you asking about the logical processing skills of a 6 year old? Regardless, I'll attempt to address the question.

I was raised by lesbian mothers, so I knew about homosexuality at a much younger age than most. But being raised by lesbian mothers also put me in a unique position as a child to watch parents have the "sometimes women like women" talk with their own children. I actually had it with a few of my friends:
"What does your dad do?"
"I don't have a dad, I have two moms."
"How is that possible?"
"Sometimes a mommy and a mommy like each other and have a family."

I didn't need to resort to talking about the sexual habits of my mothers, which I still don't want to think about, to explain how a lesbian couple could have a family. I was having this conversation with my friends in kindergarten. And they accepted it. So I don't exactly know what you mean by the rational working of a 6 year old being any sort of detriment to understanding homosexual family units from a strictly non-sexual perspective.

Yeah, at that age, it's not really a big deal to kids unless someone in their life has taught them that it's a big deal.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: sao123
i draw the line at companies inserting any or all political correctness in products (especially those targeting children) which are completely unrelated to the commentary provided, just for the sake of beating their own drum.

So DON'T BUY IT.
But don't YOU force other people to not even have the option of buying it because it's too big for your tiny worldview.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

I was going to post something rational, but screw it. You bigots are unworthy of a rational/civil debate. In my eyes you are the scum of this planet.


TechBoyJK and the rest of the bigots in this thread...

Fuck you and the horses you road in on.

How dare you even compare a homosexual to a pedophile. You drones can take your religion you blindly follow and shove it up your fucking ass.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Thank you Sao And Techboy for chiming in on the ignorant, twisted, and bigoted side of the issue. It's always nice to see both sides represented.

I'm sure pedofiles feel the same way about people who don't understand them too. Their just ignorant and twisted because they don't understand their love for little sally. She looks so good in that little school girl outfit you know.

I feel embarrassed for your woeful lack of intellect if you equate pedophilia with homosexuality.

I feel sorry for your soul if you don't realize both are sinful.

admit it:

You really want to try the gay thing, just a little bit...don't you?

It eats you up inside. Makes you feel a little dirty, but try as you might, you just can't get those wicked thoughts out of your head. No amount of self-flagellation will excise that burning desire to rub ass with your gym buddies.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: sao123
Maybe we should start including pegs to start representing black, mexican/hispanic , east asian, and other races too? Maybe they should be offended by having to use blue and pink pegs? Maybe the enviro natzees should be offended that the cars dont have the option to look like a hybrid, instead of an SUV? Heck, lets add some spaced for aborting a child, selling cocaine, and prostitutes as a profession...


Choices like all of the above are completely unnecessary, because they dont affect or change the game in any measurable way. Its just cosmetic fluff which attemptes to add social commentary to the game.

i draw the line at companies inserting any or all political correctness in products (especially those targeting children) which are completely unrelated to the commentary provided, just for the sake of beating their own drum.

Actually, this is a very good point. Why not do away with sexes in the game at all? They're completely irrelevant to the game. Why should you have to play as a man or woman and have a husband or wife? Why can't you pick any particular color piece you want, pick any other piece, call it your spouse, and choose whatever colored pegs you want for your kids? Why have any gender identity associated with it at all? Everyone could play it the way they wanted without any concern that it was somehow indoctrinating them or their children in defense of a particular lifestyle. They'd have to change the avatars, though I suppose you could just create your own, which is a pretty popular feature in games these days, and you could do the same for your spouse and kids. There'd be no tacit approval or disapproval of anyone's choice in how they wanted to play the game.

What would you say to that idea?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Proprioceptive
This is fun! My wife and I are getting a good chuckle out of all this "conversation". :laugh:

Gays are cool, but I don't plan on buying a game which accepts it as "the norm".

...how do you interpret this as "Life" considering gay to be "the norm?" It's simply an available option, no? ...Just like in life, those that are straight go their route, those that are gay go theirs...

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: JujuFish
Good ol' ATOT. Absolutely fine with Christianity bashing, but make a hint of anything anti-homosexual and you better protect your hind quarters.

rather consistent, I'd say. when you consider that the vast majority of the gay-bashing comes from the staunch Christians (the anti-homosexuality argument only comes via the flavor of "sin," "unnatural," and any other FUD that springs from a religious perversion of reality).

it's by and large the same people being bashed, no?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

WTF. that's a shallow attempt. So by any definition anybody who doesnt approve of anything is a Bigot. weak sauce man. From someone I would actually respect as a better debater than I, that's weak.

Tell me something you don't approve of.

Maybe what I'm saying is that we are all bigots then.

you just dont seem to get it...
Christians arent bigoted against gay people. They are against homosexuality.

It is possible to both love a murderer and yet despise his actions at the same time.
It is possible to both love a gay person and yet despise his actions at the same time.

A man and his actions are not the same thing. Gay is not what you are... gay sex is an act you perform.

And who explained this personality trait to you? Let me guess: Pastor Willy?

It's sure as shit anathema to the understanding of the world of Psychologists Behaviorists, Biologists, Medicine, et al.