Singapore bans Microsoft's video game for sex scene: paper
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore has banned a Microsoft Corp video game which contains a scene showing a human woman and an alien woman kissing and caressing each other, a local newspaper reported on Thursday.
The Straits Times said "Mass Effect" -- a highly anticipated futuristic space adventure game from Microsoft -- was banned by Singapore's Media Development Authority.
In October, Singapore's parliament decided to keep a ban on sex between men, and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that the city-state should keep its conservative values and not allow special rights for homosexuals.
Singapore is the only country to have banned the game, so far, and it is the first Microsoft video game to be banned in the city-state, The Straits Times said.
The move has caused an outcry among local and international gamers who said the decision was too strict, the newspaper said.
The report said Singapore has in the past, banned at least two other video games -- Sony Corp's "God Of War 2", for nudity, and unlisted Top Cow Productions' "The Darkness", for excessive violence and religiously offensive expletives.
Source link
Cant help get the feeling that this game will sell well at Christmas now
<font color=FF9900>Mr Mercury</font> wrote: ...and not allow special rights for homosexuals.
I don't think they should get any special rights either. They're no better or worse than heterosexuals.
deleted user 17.11.2007 10:25
<font color=660066>Carol wrote:
<font color=FF9900>Mr Mercury</font> wrote: ...and not allow special rights for homosexuals.
I don't think they should get any special rights either. They're no better or worse than heterosexuals.
But, unless you're brain-dead (which I hope you're not), you understand that you're taking a quote out of context and that part the 'problem' in Singapore is that they have a legal ban on men having sex with other men.
It's hardly a "special right" to be allowed to do whatever you want on your own personal time as long as, you know, you're not raping kittens or infringing on someone else's rights.
By agreeing in this situation that they shouldn't be given "special rights" and adding nothing more, it seems to imply that you agree that two consenting adults should not be allowed to have sex just because of their genitalia.
No, "homosexuals" shouldn't be given 'special rights' like they all get government-handouts of free doughnuts on Saturdays or government-given gifts of Ferraris on their wedding day. But what you say is all about context, and though I understand your point, it seems ever-so-slightly out of context and you have not backed it up with any of your own, either.
<font color=FF9900>Mr Mercury</font> wrote: ...and not allow special rights for homosexuals.
I don't think they should get any special rights either. They're no better or worse than heterosexuals.
But, unless you're brain-dead (which I hope you're not), you understand that you're taking a quote out of context and that part the 'problem' in Singapore is that they have a legal ban on men having sex with other men.
It's hardly a "special right" to be allowed to do whatever you want on your own personal time as long as, you know, you're not raping kittens or infringing on someone else's rights.
By agreeing in this situation that they shouldn't be given "special rights" and adding nothing more, it seems to imply that you agree that two consenting adults should not be allowed to have sex just because of their genitalia.
No, "homosexuals" shouldn't be given 'special rights' like they all get government-handouts of free doughnuts on Saturdays or government-given gifts of Ferraris on their wedding day. But what you say is all about context, and though I understand your point, it seems ever-so-slightly out of context and you have not backed it up with any of your own, either.
I should have ended my quote with ":P" or one of its cousins, because I was mocking the Singaporean government's view on what "special rights" meant, and nothing else ( although I can understand how it was seen as if I didn't think my post through ).
I did add something to my statement, though; I said homosexuals were no better or worse than heterosexuals. That doesn't leave much else for one to think other than that I meant the two were equals. But needless to say- at least, I hope, to you- I am completely opposed to the law and I think it's ridiculous. And I wouldn't mind at all if everybody was given government- doughnuts.