I can understand why all the other things would be listed here, and I would understand if sexuality in general was considered inappropriate for children, but why homosexuality in particular? This is strange to me.
<content_rating type="oars-1.1">
<content_attribute id="violence-cartoon">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="violence-fantasy">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="violence-realistic">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="violence-bloodshed">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="violence-sexual">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="violence-desecration">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="violence-slavery">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="violence-worship">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="drugs-alcohol">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="drugs-narcotics">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="drugs-tobacco">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="sex-nudity">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="sex-themes">none</content_attribute>
<!-- this line here -->
<content_attribute id="sex-homosexuality">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="sex-prostitution">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="sex-adultery">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="sex-appearance">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="language-profanity">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="language-humor">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="language-discrimination">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="social-chat">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="social-info">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="social-audio">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="social-location">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="social-contacts">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="money-purchasing">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="money-gambling">none</content_attribute>
</content_rating>
EDIT: as one commenter pointed out, an explanation can be found in a commit on the git repo and the tag has been removed.
Rationale
---
Certain attributes in the specification require some explanation as to why they
are present. This list is not exhaustive and may be added to in future.
* `sex-homosexuality`: As of 2020,
[various countries](https://www.humandignitytrust.org/lgbt-the-law/map-of-criminalisation/)
have laws which criminalise lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT)
people. In order for software and content to be distributed in those
countries without breaking the law, and possible reprisal, it is necessary to
be able to tag software and content which contains LGBT references, so that
it can be hidden in those countries.
However, in other countries (for example, the EU), discrimination laws
explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender or sexuality. So
while LGBT tagging may be available in OARS data, consumers of that data must
only apply it in countries where the law requires that.
It is still strange to me that anyone would add this tag to an age ratings service, if it is a legal issue and not related to age appropriacy. Anyway, thanks for all the answers (except for those who failed to stay civil and/or brought up american politics for no reason).
Cos there are people who are not interested in homosexual stuff cos they are not homosexual?
Tha makes no sense unliss there was also a hetero tag for homosexuals to use.
Maybe it should be but as homosexuals are a minority in human nature I believe there is no point for developers to do it as they are more interested into making their software work for the majority of people.
Um, equality? Accessibility? Not siding with autocrats violating human rights?
Nah, let’s be honest, this is so that parents can make sure precious little Bobby doesn’t catch The Gay. LGBT themed cinema is going to let you know, this is for making sure there isn’t a trace of homosexuality to darken Bobby’s pure little heart.
I think it’s more about homosexuality being an anti-natural behavior, animal and human(as we are animals) females and males are meant to reproduce, so from the pointview of biology homosexuality goes against the reproductive needs of the specie to keep being alive. I believe it’s not about homosexuality being evil/bad or wrong.
At the same time the factor time-money it’s pretty relevant.so it’s more important developing for a general userbase than a minority userbase.
That argument is obviously wrong.
Homosexuality (and other sexualities) exist in nature. This is not uncommon knowledge.
Also, the whole “they don’t make babies so they’re unnatural” thing. How long have you thought this argument through?
Humans and animals are born sterile, they grow too old and become infertile. All of that happens in nature.
That fantasy world of yours is verifiably not how nature works, and it wouldn’t take you more than 5 minutes to disprove the bullsh*t.
It makes it hard to believe you are arguing in good faith.
You can find ~5% homosexuality in nearly all animals, it also increases with overpopulation. It can not get more natural.
This is outright false. If there aren’t graphical or explicit illustrations that are deemed pornographic, then homosexuality and heterosexuality should enjoy the same status as encyclopedic knowledge. This is some “Don’t say gay” stuff.