6
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).
All of these represent various social mores. I'd have no problem with my kids seeing content involving fantasy violence, but I respect that others might object. As a bisexual myself, I have less respect for those who object to their kids seeing homosexuality specifically, but I can tolerate their existence.
For fairness' sake, I wouldn't mind it if heterosexuality were on the list too.
I think things got lost in translation here. We're not talking about explicit/pornographic content here. There are other tags that cover that. This, however, indicates sexual orientation in general which covers any display of affection that characterizes same gender couples, including kissing, holding hands or be explicitly in a relationship, which is no less appropriate for kids than straight smooching.
Hope that helps
Yes that was clear to me. I was saying that, while I don't find same-sex content objectionable (indeed it makes me happy to see this kind of representation on screen), and I personally think it's something children should be exposed to, many people would disagree. Just like other tags on here which I think children shouldn't be exposed to at a young age but others wouldn't mind. Relative morality.
Politically speaking, I would be happier if those who oppose same-sex relationships were to change their minds. They pose a threat to my life. But FOSS is for everyone, even people I disagree with.
Oh yeah, absolutely. It, unfortunately, a reality.
To mine as well, I'm with you on that one.