Hiya - I'm still not 100% sure that this subject necessarily merits a dedicated page on the Wiki, but I'm working on adding a bit more detailed information just in case. If anybody has any additional info on the subject please add it in. ^_^ Beatrice Monty 11:35, November 26, 2009 (UTC)
on homosexuals can have children or not?[edit source]
None of the games in the Sims series allow homosexual couples to have children that are their biological offspring, although they have always been able to adopt in the same way as heterosexual couples or single Sims.but on the Danish sims 3 forum is there for a report on 2 women who have biological children together.
Someone stated in the article that by using the boolProp cheat, you can view how much a sim is attracted to the two genders. How can I do that? Charmedthree 16:10, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you can see it through SimPE, and by shif-clicking on a Sim while having testingcheatsenabled on there will be an option to see the Sim's gender preference. This only for The Sims 2, though. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 16:13, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
Thank you :) Charmedthree 23:32, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
This back-and-forth won't get us very far. GuyB1, would you explain why you find this offensive? BakeryChaz, can you explain why it's good to keep it? TDIFan13, why is it unnecessary?
Speaking to explain my original comment... the content of the article might be controversial to some people in some places (similar to WooHoo), but I don't really think the content of the article itself is 'adult', or at least not enough to warrant a warning.
Additionally, if we choose to keep the warning, I think it should be re-written - it links to Mrs. Crumplebottom as a way of saying that anyone who is offended by the contents would be more pleased to read about her, which is a joke but which nonetheless may insult some readers. If we choose to keep the warning, I think it should be written to link back to the Main Page instead, rather than to a specific page. -- LiRspeak ~ read 01:47, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
Some people can be uncomfortable with same-sex relationships and they might not like the page. I think it's fine to keep it just to notify them but the "Mrs. Crumplebottom" joke should be removed. BakeryChaz ~ (let's have a chat!) 03:03, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
K, I went ahead and removed the Crumplebottom joke, the warning now directs to the main page instead. As for removing the message completely... I think we should wait for more information/input. -- LiRspeak ~ read 03:12, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
I think it's unnecessary because we live in a time and age where topics like this should be regarded as acceptable. If anyone is uncomfortable with it, why would they be on a wiki for The Sims when EA is known for their support of homosexuality?
Additionally, I agree with GuyB1; it definitely is offensive that same-sex couples have to have a separate warning on their article whereas straight couples don't. It's a little insensitive, that's all. --TDIFan13(My Talk and My Contributions) 04:26, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
I don't really find it offensive, I don't know. Some people might not really think that same-sex relationships are acceptable, e.g. homophobes perhaps? IMO there might be younger readers or at least some people who might want to avoid topics like this, that's why they might need a warning in advance. However, if the straight couple page (there is?) didn't have this warning, I think it should have one instead. NikelTalk–Vote! 05:48, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
For the record, I'm pretty sure there isn't an article for opposite-sex relationships... mostly because opposite-sex relationships are considered "normal" by many, as opposed to a same-sex one, which is somehow not normal. -- LiRspeak ~ read 07:18, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
Exactly what TDIFan13 said.
Nikel, are you saying that we should support/accept homophobia? Or that "younger readers" shouldn't read an article about same-sex relationships between Sims? Also, the article's title is "Same-sex relationships", so I think people can understand what it is about. GuyB1 • Talk 13:18, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying they shouldn't read about it. They might just not want to. There's still a possibility they ended up here like random pages, but that's unrelated (scrap this). Frankly, I don't have any good or strong reasons to oppose or support this, so just count me out anyway. NikelTalk–Vote! 14:16, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
Relationship is general even when talking about romantic relationships, and doesn't really address the genders of the Sims involved, the the section on The Sims 2 mentions gender preference in that game. Marriage and WooHoo pretty clearly state that both same-sex and opposite-sex couples are possible. Dharden (talk) 14:24, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
For the most part, I think the article separates out information about same-sex relationships in the series that is available elsewhere, and puts it in one place. Dharden (talk) 14:41, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
Marriage doesn't have a warning, though. It just seems weird that this is the only page to have a warning, excluding WooHoo, which is more of a joke warning since it redirects to Mrs. Crumplebottom. --TDIFan13(My Talk and My Contributions) 06:21, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to know if this discussion has come to an agreement or not... which, I think, has not... yet. NikelTalk–Vote! 13:41, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
(Reset indent) I do not believe it has. -- LiRspeak ~ read 17:40, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
Is this page and the WooHoo page the only ones with this type of warning? Just out of pure interest y'know? Simply because if they are the only pages with this warning, then why would this page have the same type of warning as WooHoo? I mean, WooHoo has a very suggestive theme to it. I understand the warning with WooHoo, but I personally feel that a warning for this page isn't needed. AsherÉireI'm a lonely person, so please talk to me... 18:28, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
To me, I don't mind it being removed, and even better, use the Mrs. Crumplebottom joke. Nonetheless, we should see it from the PoV of the more conservative folks: It does seem like that the general consensus seems to think it's unneeded. However, I doubt that most of them would be in the "It should be removed" camp. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 02:54, October 5, 2012 (UTC)
It's time we settled this once and for all. We've just been going around in circles and we haven't come to a final decision. Here's a poll that will end on the 10th October 2012 (the New Zealand 10th October), and whichever has the most votes will be the final decision. BakeryChaz ~ (let's have a chat!) 07:07, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
(poll deleted)
Using polls (as in the <poll> tag) is probably the worst method ever to reach consensus with. You could easily influence the poll by using proxies and so forth. A proper vote would be in order. 1358(Talk) 11:06, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
Ok then, I've deleted it. Let's have a vote, but instead by adding a bit here instead of a poll. Again, it will end on the 10th October 2012. BakeryChaz ~ (let's have a chat!) 11:15, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, a proper vote is in order. However, voting procedures state that votes should last a week. I'll start it in a new section below. - LiRspeak ~ read 21:54, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
Question: Do you support or oppose the removal of the Warning posted at the top of Same-sex relationships?This poll will last for one week, and expires in 21:52:00 October 14, 2012 UTC.
Please note that only registered users may vote here.
- I believe the warning is unnecessary and could possibly be insulting, as I indicate in the discussion above. -- LiRspeak ~ read 21:54, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with LiR, it could offend a large audience if we keep it and homophobic people should not be offended as the page is not about them at all. Colin the Panda - Meow 22:03, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
- per the above ―ฬђtalk04:01, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
- After reading all the comments about this and looking at the page, I don't think we need a warning as such, as the page is merely about informing people about same-sex relationships in the game. However, I do think that a simple warning could be in order. ~ Waikikamukow (talk) 04:12, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
- Last time I checked, we were in the 21st Century, where people who are in same-sex relationships are accepted and their relationships are as valid as opposite-sex relationships (or at least it should be). Also, I find it insulting. DanPin • talk • contribs 06:16, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
- I think unfair all the stright stuff get no warning and this does, it is unfair 109.148.197.107 (talk) 06:46, October 8, 2012 (UTC) Only registered users may vote here. NikelTalk–Vote! 07:00, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
Unfair and insulting. And even badly done: if one thinks the page and it's theme can be disturbing, then ALL the pages dealing with some sort of same-sex relationship should be flagged (ex: the fanon pages about Lucas Dortheimer, Jake Gannon, The Case of the Gunshot Wounds, etc). Yet I hope we won't have to take extreme measures like these and we wll simply accept that same-sex relationships are not more shocking than the others and therefore should not be treated differently.JM9193 (talk) 10:57, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
DanPin has said exactly what I think- we're at the time and age where same-sex relationships are completely normal. I see it as insulting as well. AsherÉireI'm a lonely person, so please talk to me... 15:12, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
Per above. GuyB1 • Talk 16:10, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
I find it offensive. This is the kind of stuff that is causing LGBT youth and older to hurt themselves. Especially those still struggling with it and/or those of the LGBT community who live in areas where it is not accepted and can have conciquences such as execution. It's in the game, a man can marry another man and woohoo with them. For those against this, you have to remember that EA is an American company based in San Fransisco California, the birthplace of the LGBT equality movement and LGBT cival rights. If this article/page was censored or removed, I would leave this Wiki and would not be able to condone said negative actions to this article.The Black Scorpion (talk) 20:04, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
Well, the warning's message was never wrong. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 22:42, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
I believe a warning label should be present to redirect any person opposed to same-sex relationships, however, it should be reword in the least offense way possible. Freedom50000 (talk)
I agree with Freedom, there are a lot of people who disagree with this and changing the wording would be better. Star-Talk 08:27, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
I think we should leave the warning; I'd just write "... deal with adult themes" instead of "... deal with themes that some may not agree with". (See my reason below) Life just wouldn't be the same without the Sims!Talk 18:22, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
The warning should be kept. Sure, people in the section above may think that homophobia is something from the Dark Ages, but there's still a lot of people that, while they might accept homosexuals in society, they might not completely agree with their lifestyle. I mean, let's suppose that a 11 or 12 yrs old kid knows how to play The Sims, right?, and he/she happens to know this site, and he knows that Sims can get into a relationship, get married, have a family... to this point it's still alright. But now lets suppose that his/her parents are very conservative people, that regularly check what their son/daughter is doing on the Internet. What happens when little Timmy/Sally, either accidentally or curiously clicks on a Same-sex relationship link? His/her parents may not allow the kid to play the game again, and controversy may arise. Meanwhile, if we keep the warning, the kid, who is old enough to understand and not old enough to be "rebelious" and continue anyway, it's more probable that they'll go back to what they were doing originally, just like with the WooHoo page. With this I'm not saying that they shouldn't know about the fact that there can be homosexual relationships in The Sims, there can be references or short descriptions, to let know young or newbie simmers that doing that is posible, but that the page with most content, the one that clearly says "Same-sex relationships", should keep the warning, which could be less serious anyway. Don't see me as a neanderthal man who thinks that homosexuality is completely wrong. I don't hate it, but I'm not a supporter of it. I'm in a more neutral area about that. The thing is, that we should look to both sides of this, and see what would be the "least bad" solution (because not everyone will agree with all of them), and I thnk that it would be to keep the warning, which, in my point of view, is still not the best solution, but, (at least in my humble point of view), it could be the most accepted, just like democracy. My two cents. サンティ!!! (talk) 15:21, October 9, 2012 (UTC)
Maybe like Freedom said, changing it to the least offensive way possible. NikelTalk–Vote! 04:29, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
There are good reasons to remove the warning and good reasons not to, so truth be told I'm not really bothered what happens. I would like to add however that if the warning is removed completely from this page then they should also be removed from other pages that contain them (i.e. WooHoo) as they're just as "normal", both in-game and in reality, as same-sex relationships. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 16:49, October 9, 2012 (UTC)
Isn't WooHoo, as Ash mentioned earlier, too suggestive to not have a warning? BakeryChaz ~ (let's have a chat!) 21:17, October 9, 2012 (UTC)
Also, the title "WooHoo" doesn't seem to be a well-known name for what it really is and the people who haven't heard of it could be curious to find out what it is and will probably need the warning. BakeryChaz ~ (let's have a chat!) 22:16, October 9, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with GG. While I believe the warning isn't inherently offensive, I also see the reasons to support and oppose it's removal. To be honest, I think the best options right now are to either reword the warning as Freedom mentioned earlier (possibly changing it to a "Notice" rather than a "WARNING") or delete the page altogether and merge it with the other articles related to relationships and marriage. —Random Ranaun(Talk to me!) 23:19, October 10, 2012 (UTC)
I see some comments in-vote about changing the wording of the warning. I fail to see how this would avoid the idea that having a warning at all is insulting, regardless of the wording of the warning. The very fact that there is a message at all might be considered offensive, as is clear by at least some of the votes in favor of removing the warning. Even if this weren't true, what would the warning be re-worded to say? -- LiRspeak ~ read 08:44, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
It's apparent that the opposing voters don't have strong standpoints to oppose this discussion. If we're going to see the quality over quantity, the opposing side will surely have nothing to stand out, like having no solution about the re-wording suggestion. NikelTalk–Vote! 09:43, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
I think people find the warning offensive because it says "... deal with themes that some may not agree with"; to solve the problem I'd write "... deal with adult themes" (as on the WooHoo page) which is more appropriate because it's kind of true. The point is that people who doesn't agree with same-sex relationships won't visit this page, but younger ones maybe don't know anything about it and might visit it and that's why we need a warning. Life just wouldn't be the same without the Sims!Talk 18:22, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
Same-sex relationships is not an "adult theme". And why shouldn't "younger ones" read this article?! GuyB1 • Talk 18:31, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
If they're younger than 13, they shouldn't be on the wiki anyways. -- LiRspeak ~ read 19:05, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
Do you think that's really stopping people? There are users on this wiki who I would be surprised if they turn out to be five. I think an "adult theme" warning would be fine, or if the warning is removed completely then a semi-protection could be put on it to stop unregistered users from vandalisming. Freedom50000 (talk) 21:16, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
Remember, we need to consider readers, not just registered users. AFAIK, there's no way to check the age of a reader. Dharden (talk) 13:19, October 9, 2012 (UTC)
True, but younger children should have adult supervision when using any website, including ours. We can't be responsible for what one underage person might stumble upon because before long we'd have to post warnings and notices on half the pages here. -- LiRspeak ~ read 18:20, October 9, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with that statement. C.Syde65 (talk) 01:30, January 22, 2014 (UTC)
Is a relationship between two Sims an adult theme? Additionally, if they are five and somehow find themselves offended by the contents of this page, why did they go to it in the first place? The title 'Same-sex relationships' pretty accurately sums up what the article is about, so if a person were not in support of that, why would they choose to read the article? My thought is if they chose to read it, they know what it's about and therefore we don't need to warn them what the contents are. -- LiRspeak ~ read 21:38, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
If ignoring the things you disagree with were the case here, half of the vandalism on the wiki would vanish but that's not the case. I mean look at this entire column! It's all about people going after what they do or do not support. People attack what they feel is not right. And as for your comment "Is a relationship between two Sims an adult theme?", yes, it's more than just a relationship, it's a concept, while we shouldn't include everything on same-sex relationships on this page we should at least warn people that they may not agree with content of this page. Freedom50000 (talk) 22:09, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
I still fail to see why the warning should be removed. Sure, homosexuals will naturally find the warning offensive (because it is directed towards them), but homosexuality is a subject not to be taken lightly. A warning needs to be in place. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 00:03, October 9, 2012 (UTC)
Who said anything about ignoring things? I'm saying that reading this article is a matter of conscious choice, and if a person chooses to consciously read something, they very well ought to understand the ramifications of that. It's not our job to coddle our readers and warn them about every piece of information if they chose to seek out the information in the first place. If they are offended by something they read, then it was frankly their fault for looking up the page and reading it to begin with, because as I said before, with a name like 'Same-sex relationships' there's no way that someone doesn't know what the page is about. The warning is completely redundant and unnecessary; let's not even get into whether having a warning itself is insulting because the fact that it's a pointless warning is itself justification enough to get rid of it. -- LiRspeak ~ read 04:35, October 9, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with LiR: If one has problems with said article, that person doesn't have to read it. DanPin • talk • contribs 06:18, October 9, 2012 (UTC)
If there is any kind of a note, I don't think it needs to be a WARNING. As noted elsewhere, other articles mention that same-sex relationships are possible in the series, and do it without a warning, much less a WARNING. Dharden (talk) 14:24, October 9, 2012 (UTC)
As an answer to Santi990's arguments, I'd dare say that the "some people do not accept homosexuality" argument should not be at all. It is a part of the sims gameplay. If people don't accept it, I would advise them not to buy the game to their kids (moreover, EA is well-known about conservative people for blatantly supporting LGBT rights).
Aside from that, like I said before, this page is not the only one that deals with such a theme, and they don't need a warning at all. And finally, it is not with such mindless warning that we will change then mentalities and make the LGBT's sometimes hard lives better, as it might drive easily-impressed people into thinking that homosexuamity is "not normal". Which is a toxic, threatening and so totally insultng nonsense. JM9193 (talk) 16:15, October 9, 2012 (UTC)
Totally agree with JM. Same-sex relationships are a part of the game, so if a person deeply disagrees with homosexuality, they should be playing a different game.
I've seen a lot of comments about how this is all for the protection of younger children that might come onto the page and either be confused by its contents or risk upsetting his/her conservative parents. This is a weak excuse for keeping a warning. Firstly, Wikia terms of service require users to be 13 years old, or older. Granted, unregistered users could come on here at any age, but keep in mind as well that the game itself is geared towards a teenaged and older audience; it's not a game designed for younger children. It is the responsibility of the parent(s) to monitor what their children are playing and what websites their kids visit. If a parent knowingly allows the child to play a game that is 'too mature' for the child and allows that child to then visit a website based on the game without adult supervision, I can't really see how it would be justifiable for that parent to then flip out over a single article on same-sex relationships.
If we allow this warning to stand, we set a very dangerous precedent for the future of how we deal with questionable (or even less-than-questionable) content. Ultimately the question being answered is this: Are we responsible for protecting children from the content of this website, or is it the responsibility of the parent(s)? For the sake of the wiki, I'd hope you agree that it is the latter. -- LiRspeak ~ read 18:20, October 9, 2012 (UTC)
I honestly can't believe that the decision to remove a tiny template from one page has spiraled out of control to be this big of a deal. Honestly people, this is not the dark ages. I think that a discussion of this magnitude could be, in the eyes of some, more insulting than the actual warning. If someone had just been bold and removed it this whole kerfuffle would have been averted. I'm honestly really disappointed its came to this. I am very tempted to close discussion & the vote and go ahead and remove the template, right here, right now, because I see this becoming some sort of flame war. Everyone, chill out. Please. Sorry if I'm coming across as harsh or something, but this is kinda reflecting bad upon us. Thanks for reading. ―ฬђtalk08:06, October 10, 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Agreed all the way. ~ Waikikamukow (talk) 08:18, October 10, 2012 (UTC)
My apologies if I had a part in it escalating out of control like it has. It's very easy for people who are passionate about an issue to go too far, so if I have done that, I am sorry. There are so many comments and different threads to address, I wanted to make sure I was making the most effective argument I could. However, I don't want to contribute to any sort of developing flame war, so from now on I'm going to be stepping aside and refraining from commenting further. Besides, I think my opinion on this issue is already pretty well-known. -- LiRspeak ~ read 08:26, October 10, 2012 (UTC)
Aside from insulting, I don't really see any point to keep the sign anymore. If it's been removed, I don't think anyone would consider to put back the sign again, as it's pretty much inconsiderate compared to removing it. NikelTalk–Vote! 11:00, October 10, 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to throw my hat in here, and say that as someone involved in the LGBT community, I find the whole thread strangely disproprtunate to such a small matter. People are so worried about offending another, that they lose all common sense. I'm not offended, nor do I feel anny of my friends would be. I just wanted to say that. GothLoliManda (talk) 23:37, October 10, 2012 (UTC)
Just because two people are gay doesn't mean they have the same opinions and feelings. I am gay, and as I said, I do find it offensive. GuyB1 • Talk 00:24, October 11, 2012 (UTC)
But what is the point in finding it offensive? This message was only meant to ensure readers were knowing what they were reading. I actually find this thread to be very familiar to this.
This is exactly the point: There is no need to "ensure readers know what they are reading", because there is nothing wrong with same-sex relationships between Sims in The Sims series. And again, the title of the article is very clear. GuyB1 • Talk 01:22, October 11, 2012 (UTC)
That wasn't the point at all. Perhaps you should start looking at other point of views with a more perceptive eye. There may be nothing wrong with same-sex relationships, but there are still those that don't believe in sexual equality. This wiki was always meant to be neutral - cater to all users. We can't just go with one opinion because it might be right. But what benefit do we get out of removing one sign from an article casual "Simmers" may read? An applause from GLAAD? Ha! Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 20:31, October 12, 2012 (UTC)
The proposal to merge with Relationship was made by an IP (24.99.25.56) that has no other edit history. I am opposed to a merge, as the pages don't have much in common except the word "Relationship". Relationship deals with the way the relationship system works in the different games, which is basic game mechanics. This article deals with an aspect of game mechanics that's largely optional, and mostly talks about how that works, but it's not connected to the relationship system. Dharden (talk) 00:14, October 11, 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of my own opinion on the matter of merging, I say we should postpone that idea until we're finished with the matter above. -- LiRspeak ~ read 00:22, October 11, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the merge. I feel it's one of the best possible ways to solve the issue regarding the warning template. —Random Ranaun(Talk to me!) 00:38, October 11, 2012 (UTC)
K, if we're talking about it... I'll say that I'm opposed to a merger. Firstly, this page is too long to be comfortably merged into another full page, without sacrificing some of the detail on this page. Secondly, Relationship is written in such a way where it would need to be re-written to accommodate the style of this page, or vice versa. A link should exist on Relationship to this page (as well as a summary section) but I believe the pages should be separate. -- LiRspeak ~ read 00:49, October 11, 2012 (UTC)
That was actually me who proposed to merge the article. I proposed to merge the article as having a same-sex article seems more like a double standard, as opposed to having a opposite-sex relationships article as well. As Beatrice_Monty stated way back in 2009, this article doesn't necessitate its own article and can be covered in others (in her case, she wasn't sure). This blown-out-of-proportion discussion has been a large push factor in my decision to call for a merge. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 00:54, October 11, 2012 (UTC)
Neutral - I'm not sure, I don't know why I'm not sure, but I am. BakeryChaz ~ (let's have a chat!) 05:16, October 11, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - While I agree with LiR (page is too detailed, it could be a big hassle to merge the articles), we could simply add a small, summarised section describing the topic and then link to this page. Also, there is currently no linking to this page from the Relationship page. DanPin • talk • contribs 11:12, October 11, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - Aside from what LiR said, I guess both pages have totally different contexts to actually be merged... I'm just saying it's different in comparison of context, okay. But what Auror said made this become an even bigger issue to deal with... NikelTalk–Vote! 15:40, October 11, 2012 (UTC)
In actuality, Nikel, this issue was already a big one. I don't see how I could have made it any bigger. I also never wanted a vote to start on this, seeing as there's clearly another one going on, but I also see where the general crowd is heading. Unless somebody else would like to support a merge, there won't be one. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 20:38, October 11, 2012 (UTC)
Per the above. No. ―ฬђtalk02:43, October 12, 2012 (UTC)
I think this is getting out of hand, I'm closing the vote & discussion. Result was to remove the template through a vote of 10-3-6. Consensus against merge was reached as well. ―ฬђtalk21:13, October 12, 2012 (UTC)
• (c) • (b) 16:49, October 9, 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
