Once Again GamePolitics Misses the Point To Stir Hornets Nest
This is starting to become a trend over at GP.? They sure don’t miss an opportunity to throw the Christian community under the bus.? Which I probably wouldn’t have an issue with if they were putting all religions that didn’t agree with their agenda under the gun.? But alas, they seem to only sniff out stories about Christians and the homosexual agenda.
GamePolitics latest story, Conservative Christian Site Slams Same-Sex Couple Option in Game of Life, begins with its completely misleading title and then picks and chooses it’s quotes to mislead their audience pertaining to a story at WorldNetDaily.
What follows is a slew of comments, and you can imagine the tone, hate mongering religious intolerance.
First of all, what don’t you get?? The Christian community has a total conviction that they answer to a higher power, and that power deems homosexual relationships inappropriate.? Do you really think they care what you think?? Furthermore, religious intolerance is no less wrong than homophobia or racism. Your hate for them or what they believe is absolutely no different than the hate “you perceive” they have.
Finally, and most importantly, and I’ll try not to be too bold about this, LEARN TO READ.
The entire article was not “slamming” in any way shape or form homosexual lifestyle in the Game of Life.? In fact, GamePolitics notes that WND had recognized that homosexual relationships in Game of Life were essentially available to the player since 1960.
What the WND asked for in its comments to Shockwave.com was consideration for young children that may not be ready to deal with those concepts or parents that feel like their children are not ready to discuss the issue at 6 years old.
And there is certainly a difference in the option to shove two pegs in the front seat of a plastic car and visual images of same sex couples being married in a computer game for young children.
Self-regulation of game content is something that GP lobbies for and that I agree with them on.? This is an opportunity to say, “We understand that some people don’t agree with this agenda, and they don’t want their young children being exposed to content that would normally be rated
M T by the ESRB, so maybe they have a point that young children should be protected here.”
Ignoring this simple concept is how we get enforced regulation on us like out in Utah.
Bravo guys, way to fail at your own agenda.? -Insert your doing it wrong image here.-