are you sure it was the sims? you are not mixing up reality and games again?

I'm a guy. Contrary to what I may look like it would be a little hard for me to have a same sex relationship with a girl. :P

hmm..... I am not quite convinced yet....

You being a woman would be quite an epic plot twist, though.

Congratulations on being a disgusting shitstain.

So your avatar is just a mask?! O_O!
Don´t tell me Barney and the Teletubbies are people too, that would be to much to handle.

I'm kinda 'meh' on this.

Yeah they don't have same sex marriage, but I'm sure they don't have a LOT of what the Sims has to offer out of the box. When you buy a cheap knockoff what do you really expect?

Honest question : world or US pop ?

I don't know who eurogamer thinks it is talking for, but I don't think many Europeans really feel offended/relieved by such an omission.
I can imagine that in the US the fight for the rights is on a whole other level though.

There's no technological reason not to allow same-sex couples. If players don't want one, don't have one. Just like real life, funnily enough.

Sad to see some of the indifferent or even outright hateful responses here. Reminds me of those "discussions" when men talk about women's issues. If you're not part of the excluded group, guess what, you don't get to decide what offends that group either. Sexism, racism, homophobia, religious intolerance - if you don't suffer from it, you don't speak for those who do.

Linked below are sexuality demographics (per wikipedia, reliability uncertain) showing the make-up of GLBT in various countries, to say it covers 10% of the population in the US or internationally is being generous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation#Modern_survey_results

None of Bioware's stuff was banned.
Fun fact: since the laws are allegedly anti-pedo, Maria Maksakova, a lawmaker and an opera singer, proposed an extension to it protecting children from all sorts of "sexual propaganda", not just gay. She got turned down by (following wingnut logic) the straight pedo lobby.

Why are you posting on the forum while there are thousands of much more important things to do?

---
Now, to anyone still under GOG's age limit and actually wondering about the answer, rather than being a bigoted asshat on purpose, here's your answer:

People pick their battles. A single person can't do shit about a foreign state's policy when it has been conclusively proven they can't even influence those of their own country, but they might just rise enough of a ruckus to make a for-profit company think twice. Homophobia relies on social consent to perpetuate. Distributng games which portray same-sex relationships as normal erodes that social consent. And that will, in turn, make more people come to protest Brunei's human rights violations. Eventually, not being an asshat will become the new standard and shit-eaters like Vestin will enjoy their homophobic fantasies in the privacy of their basements rather then posting them for all to see.

Telling a for-profit company you are going to boycott their product unless they implement a change for the better isn't just easy, it's also a credible threat - at least from the gay community - which is very likely to have immediate effect. Because for-profit companies take notice when their profits are threatened.

I understand your point; but respectfully as a world we all need to be socially conscious. If social groups don't work together and instead chose to isolate themselves - they perpetuate the type of exclusion alleged here by biasing themselves against society (or visa versa) and creating prejudice. The subtext could be misinterpreted as "this is a problem for the gays, and I'm not gay" or "this is a hispanic issue, stay out of it white guy." If we look at it from a social perspective assuming that no group is self contained and that there is overlap in races, sexual preferences, etc along with the relationships those people have with others then... responsible social ettiquette is an obligation of every person and rightful for them to discuss.

Maybe I'm not gay, but if my sister or best friend is - does that mean what effects them is no business of mine?

I would be outraged if Nintendo contained some anti-minority slur, but that doesn't seem to be the case here, and I do support equal righs for GLBT. I think this is an example of how lack of being socially conscious resulted in the unintentional omission of a group - which begs the question, can all groups be represented in all things? What omissions are tolerable/benign?

Estimation vary between 10% and 5% of the population. Reported numbers vary by country due to those countries legal and social pressures against gays (in some countries being gay can lead to execution). Since homosexuality is a biological state rather than a cultural one, the numbers are most likely about the same in every nation, excepting very small nations where lesser biological diversity might skew the numbers.

It's useful to keep in mind that if the world population is 7 billion, then even the low-end estimated 5% incidence of homosexuality means there are more gays globally than the entire population of any but the two most populous nations.

If that's your attitude shouldn't you be happy to see people like myself be indifferent? After all, I'm not part of it, don't suffer from it and as such don't get any say and am not speaking for those who do.

Not at all. I applaud you if you are joining the discussion constructively. I am instead merely railing against the too-frequent cry of "those X need to quit crying and shut up about it" attitude. This happens when straights bitch about gays getting upset over something, or men talking about women taking offense, or the majority race downplaying the concerns of minorities. That is what I mean when I say that you don't get to speak for them. If you want to join in common cause then that is great, but you don't get to say it shouldn't matter to them just because it doesn't matter to you.
I don't find keeping silent in the face of injustice praiseworthy, even in a relatively trivial incident such as this. Naturally I am more pleased that you don't care than if you actually aligned with the haters, but that silence is not something I find laudable in and of itself.

It seems my point about having a say didn't come across clearly, as I had to clarify with undeadcow too. I'm not saying that you don't get to have an opinion on it, nor that you don't have a right to speak on it. Rather, I am saying that if you don't suffer from it, you don't get to decide whether the issue matters or not. One would think this would be elementary, yet time and again I encounter people in the world who seem to think they can decide whether an issue is important even though they don't have a dog in the fight.