Then disable them from viewing random profiles, and the problem is solved. It isn't likely, and you aren't building even a half decent case. You can't claim to use parental controls for one scenario, but magically forget in others. Reality simply doesn't work that way.

I did the extra work for you on this one too. http://www.xbox.com/en-US/support/familysettings/live/xbox360/familysettings-profileview.htm 1 in a trillion is being generous. You either use the parental controls, and thus this is a non-issue, or you don't and there is far worse. Can't have it both ways.

Again I state that is being generous. Some bigot reported the profile upon viewing it, and that caused action to be taken. There is almost no chance for a child to have seen it, asked their parents about it, and then caused the woman to be banned. The situation just doesn't play out like that.

And yes, you are claiming people magically forget the parental controls. Either the parent is using them, or they aren't. If the parent is using them responsibly, then they won't let the child view random gamertags. This is especially true since Microsoft specifically warns that it might not be appropriate for children. If they aren't using them responsibly then there are far far worse things the child will encounter. Pick your poison.

No worries about the wait: I had to get to bed myself!

Anyhow, I see Gnizmo's already handling the plausibility scenario, so I'll press forward with the other half of my post instead.

You find homosexuality (and not just the intercourse portion) disgusting. Very well, I won't pass judgement. But where is the harm in telling your hypothetical child that "a man can love a woman"?

You earlier stated that you were equally concerned with explaining the outlines of even heterosexual relations to a young child. I don't believe that's true. I'm fairly certain that you only object to homosexual relationships. After all, despite your earlier statement that pre-pubescent children should be shielded from even the vaguest allusions to the existence of any adult intimacy, you've not given any reason why this should be offensive to anyone beyond "don't you see it?!", and you've continued to focus exclusively on the homosexual aspect.

So I'd like to know now: do you stand by your statement that children should not know the existence of heterosexual relationships? Or is it solely homosexual ones that you object to?

And to repeat my earlier question almost-verbatim: "What is so shocking and harmful to a child to be told that a lesbian is a woman who loves another woman? Where  is the harm in being told that a human being can love another human being? Many of us were informed of this simple fact early in our lives. I don't think that reality scarred me. Are you prepared to say that it scarred you, to the point where it would be "offensive" to "force" a parent to tell his/her child that yes, adults fall in love with each other?"

the word lesbian shouldn't be offensive to anyone not even a parent, if the parent does not want their kid to see the word on a random profile bio then use the parental control's to block their kids account, working in retail i can guarantee that there is much worse the kids see by just walking into a gamestop. And also if a kid happens to wander across the word then a responsible parent would say something like "its when a girl prefers to hang out with other girls", instead of "its when a women doesn't like a mans penis", shit just sending your kid to to a public school is worse than that.

I appreciate your continued indulgence. But I suppose we've about hit the productive limit of this conversation. I acknowledge that lots of people find homosexuality disgusting. I'm just not sure why anyone would consider the very word to be offensive, since modern American culture openly revels in using sexuality (of all sorts) to push products.

And it seems you're not certain either, but you are willing to hypothesize that a subset of parents would take offense to the word "lesbian." In a population over 300 million in just the United States alone, you're probably right that this parent(s) exist somewhere out there. But neither of us can articulate any justification for why our hypothetical parent(s) would feel "offended." We've hit an impasse, as you (understandably) can't give me the information that I really want to know.

For what it's worth, your citation to people feeling offended at the posting of the Commandments et. al. is well taken. I lump those people in with our hypothetical parents: while I can vaguely see why some people might object, I can not for the life of me see what's "offensive" about the thing they're objecting to. But that's a discussion for another time.

No need to apologize; I rather enjoyed our discussion, and I hope you did too.

Oh boy :P

It's not that simple.

Atheist just don't believe in something, and they (or some of them, and I'm sure some people from other religions too) take offense from the Commandments being in a court house mainly because it's a violation of the separating between state and church. I'm sure if you had saying from other religions/beliefs there, the Christian people too wouldn't like it. I mean, most people don't like when someone tries to impose their religious views and I guess they feel kind of like that. The point is, this has nothing to do with hatred and actually has a bit of reason behind.

Homophobia, on the other hand, is pure and simple hatred for something which is different, and it's everyday less fitting of our society, to the point where it's a crime. Now, of course anyone is allowed their opinion and to fell disgusted towards whatever they want, but that doesn't mean they are entitled to attack that.

Also, since I'm already replying, I wanted to add something to the discussion on the possibility of people finding that tag offensive. Some of what I'll has obviously been already stated, so feel free to ignore it if you feel so :)

First, of course some people do find it offensive. But the point is, lots of people will find lots of different things offensive. I'm sure there's a good deal of people who find WWII or, even worse, modern war games really disturbing. I'm also sure lots of people would find the premise of many games themselves offensive, say God of War or Dante's Inferno, for example. And there's a lot more that different people won't want to see, so you can't ban things just because some people may find it offensive, there must be a line.

Talking about wars, how could a parent be more concerned about their children not knowing the concept that "a woman can love another woman" but be totally OK with war and bloodshed and offense in general? I mean, sure, you can restrict the games your child plays on Live, but it's not just about the games. You can't hope to take every reference on the subjects of the vast majority of games out of the network. That's why we have parental control options, and they should be used, so the whole parent thing is a big non-issue.

And, really, unless the kid goes to some religious-only schools with a lot of protection and has every kind of media restricted and is raised in a bubble, he'll get to his 12s without ever knowing about Lesbians. And the way it was put there their "learning" would be a lot less abrupt than it would be with most other media. Besides, if the Bible itself says it's wrong, that means they're also gonna restrict the kids access to the Bible? Maybe tear some pages apart or tell the kid it's a forbidden book?

So, yeah, I think it's an unnecessary rule, and they probably just have it there to avoid problems, but then it's their right, so the girls have nothing to complain about.

They probably do that just to try and protect all the little brats on live to keep them from getting traumatized or something. Not like it really matters though

Considering your account shows you on here as male. I highly doubt this is your rant.