NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm sure there must be a previously passed resolution that makes this proposed resolution illegal. If not I'm sure there will be!

People can ban homosexuality in their own nations if they want to, i'm not going to do it in mine. I believe people should be able to love who their heart tells them to and marry who ever they love. It's not hurting anyone else. No one says you have to marry gay people, it's really none of your business, or the government's.

Well said, Rangerville.

And Portugal, homosexuality has everything to do with love. Can you help who you fall in love with? Now imagine that everyone you fall in love with, or lust after, happens to be equipped with the same kind of genitals as you. Now imagine yourself widely condemned and abused by people who don't feel the same and to whom you have done nothing. I agree with many of the other posters here in saying that homophobia is the real problem.

And wise up. I'm willing to bet that at least half of the people pretending to take your position are secretly taking the chronic p'@@.

Fellow delegates, we are now seeing a new stage of evolution. Drafting this legislation will only see positive discrimination. Indeed you have voiced arguments that have said it is contrary to the bible but may I remind you this is not a christain world and there are those in this world who have different beliefs. We the Adiemu think the legislation will lead to wars with heteros.. and homos.. in the future and so it is the main interest of peace that this should not be proposed.

yours peacefully
~The Adiemu~

My experience would seem to suggest that those who most vociferously attack homosexuality, do so out of a desire to either hide or self-deny their own same-sex feelings. After all, if the issue doesn't affect you why would you care so much what a person does in the privacy of their own home. Allow me to further give a few examples of this:

1.) When I was in high-school I knew full well that I was gay. But, fearing that others would find out and not wanting to admit it to myself I joined the Young Republicans, the U.S. Army and the John Birch Society, all the time wearing a shirt that said, "How Can a Moral Wrong be a Civil Right?" I can only wonder if anyone who saw me at the time said, "Me thinks the lady doth protest too much?"

2.) The Washington Blade, a gay D.C. newspaper reported last week that Pastor John, who travels from campus to campus preaching about how homosexuality is an abomination, was arrested in Pennsylvania last week for soliciting sex from a male minor. This falls on a report last year where the head of a prominent ex-gay ministry was found in a D.C. gay bar trying to pick people up.

That being said, leave people alone. AIDS is a red herring, this is about what people do in their own bedrooms. If God disapproves, he is more than capable of dealing with the situation himself. He doesn't need your or the government's assistance.

David
Prime Minister
East Colorado

My experience would seem to suggest that those who most vociferously attack homosexuality, do so out of a desire to either hide or self-deny their own same-sex feelings. After all, if the issue doesn't affect you why would you care so much what a person does in the privacy of their own home. Allow me to further give a few examples of this:

1.) When I was in high-school I knew full well that I was gay. But, fearing that others would find out and not wanting to admit it to myself I joined the Young Republicans, the U.S. Army and the John Birch Society, all the time wearing a shirt that said, "How Can a Moral Wrong be a Civil Right?" I can only wonder if anyone who saw me at the time said, "Me thinks the lady doth protest too much?"

2.) The Washington Blade, a gay D.C. newspaper reported last week that Pastor John, who travels from campus to campus preaching about how homosexuality is an abomination, was arrested in Pennsylvania last week for soliciting sex from a male minor. This falls on a report last year where the head of a prominent ex-gay ministry was found in a D.C. gay bar trying to pick people up.

That being said, leave people alone. AIDS is a red herring, this is about what people do in their own bedrooms. If God disapproves, he is more than capable of dealing with the situation himself. He doesn't need your or the government's assistance.

David
Prime Minister
East Colorado

When we see these idiotic proposals being seriously debated, we are reminded of what Goethe said: "There is nothing so terrifying as ignorance in action."

I like Rangerville's and Adiemu's style. We, as governments, have no right to ban or allow what goes on in bedrooms.

Why the hell can't we all just have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy? That would be easier, wouldn't it?

what was that abut the catholic church? It isnt the catholiuc church buddy its the preist who livew in american culture that are messed up you dont hear about that else where in the world! and what about this new english church bishop "gene" who is gay. there are other religions who have homo's inthem but do you know why the catholics are prosecuted for it? because catholics are the wealthies! Also you speak of tolerance for all well i see "tolerance" for all except catholics!

what was that abut the catholic church? It isnt the catholiuc church buddy its the preist who livew in american culture that are messed up you dont hear about that else where in the world! and what about this new english church bishop "gene" who is gay. there are other religions who have homo's inthem but do you know why the catholics are prosecuted for it? because catholics are the wealthies! Also you speak of tolerance for all well i see "tolerance" for all except catholics!

Grammar says alot about intellegence.

I would hate to place myself anywhere near Of Portugal on this issue, because as a practicing Sodomite I hardly think he/she would welcome my assistance. However, I do not think that one needs to practice anti-Catholic bigotry to argue their point. Homosexuality is most likely rampant among the priesthood because it provides many gay Catholics with an opportunity to choose a legitimate lifestyle where not being married would not be considered an anomoly (spelling?) But homosexuality is cross-cultural and crosses religious boundaries as well. I myself am an extremly active Protestant and equally proud of my religious heritage as well as my sexual identity.

On page 14 of the UN proposal there is a new one to ban homosexuality. All states which believe in natural law and decency are urged to support it in the fact of a socialist/liberal onslaught on family life!!

Support the proposal to bring back family values and re-assert hetrosexuality as the mainstay of a healthy country ONCE AND FOR ALL!

Are you homosexual yourself?
Anyways, I don't see the problem with it, so that's my beef.

noo i wasnt going against other faiths colordo i wsa simply depending mine from an earlier country who was speaking out aginsy catholics

noo i wasnt going against other faiths colordo i wsa simply depending mine from an earlier country who was speaking out aginsy catholics

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

On page 14 of the UN proposal there is a new one to ban homosexuality. All states which believe in natural law and decency are urged to support it in the fact of a socialist/liberal onslaught on family life!!

Support the proposal to bring back family values and re-assert hetrosexuality as the mainstay of a healthy country ONCE AND FOR ALL!

Can we just ban Gay Men? I'm OK with Gay Women. Well, atleast the Lipstick type.

ok i think that banning homosexuality is the same as banning dildoes or strap-ons or whips or w/e.... who cares what you like to do in the privacy of your own home? Why should i devote my national attention to whether my people are having sex with the same sex or not? It's like telling your people that masturbation with a dildo is wrong, but with a vibrator it's right. GAY ISSUE (no pun intended) :arrow: MOVE ON

ok i think that banning homosexuality is the same as banning dildoes or strap-ons or whips or w/e.... who cares what you like to do in the privacy of your own home? Why should i devote my national attention to whether my people are having sex with the same sex or not? It's like telling your people that masturbation with a dildo is wrong, but with a vibrator it's right. GAY ISSUE (no pun intended) :arrow: MOVE ON

homos are the devil and should go back to where they came from. HELL :evil:

Hmm, let's see. Who to have in my country? Gays, or you? You, or gays? Tough one. :roll:

Also you speak of tolerance for all well i see "tolerance" for all except catholics!

Sucks when people do that eh?

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

You cannot ban a feeling, emotion, or otherwise. No matter how hard you try, people will still be attracted to the opposite sex.

Instead of trying in vain to ban homosexuality, why not create laws that promote safe sex?

The people of SterlingSea completely abhor and stand against any proposal attempting to bar homosexuality.

This thread is still going? Wowzers... lock this piece of crap :roll:

Pfff.... read the subject... then pick up the sarcasm, which is not only dripping, but FLOWING. What kind of government tries to ban homosexuality and/or homosexual activity? Lets see: China (corrupt totalitarians), a couple of American states (same thing)... Any other sane country has no laws banning homosexuality. I mean, think about it, peoples: there is way too much hatred in the world -- whats wrong with a little extra love? Who CARES? Let the gays love each other and fuck each other and have fun.

also i think on the first page, someone mentioned that sex between children is okay. i agree. well, i think if they're at least 13, its fine. i first got laid when i was 13, for example. i just think there should be stronger safe-sex policies implemented in schools and so forth, since disease and pregnancy are the only real dangers that could come out of sex which is after all between two individuals past the age of puberty. also, i think that the emotions of love, and devotion, and so forth, are just as real at that age as during true adulthood, sometimes. so why not? let the kids have sex, its their life, and they're adolecents anyways.

On page 14 of the UN proposal there is a new one to ban homosexuality. All states which believe in natural law and decency are urged to support it in the fact of a socialist/liberal onslaught on family life!!

Support the proposal to bring back family values and re-assert hetrosexuality as the mainstay of a healthy country ONCE AND FOR ALL!

I'd vote for this.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Just for the record, our priests are supposed to do more than just not marry ... I bet hand is frowned upon too ...

I regret to have to inform you that "hand" is considered a mortal sin in the Catholic religion (see any catechism). I speak as a Catholic who finds it necessary to avail himself of the rite of confession on a more than normal basis.

I am a proud practicing Catholic but we need to keep religion out of this because most people dont use religion standards as a basis of their beliefs anymore. I strongly agree with you but we cant use this as an argument unless we all have the same religion which i doubt we all do.

I am a proud practicing Catholic but we need to keep religion out of this because most people dont use religion standards as a basis of their beliefs anymore. I strongly agree with you but we cant use this as an argument unless we all have the same religion which i doubt we all do.

Good heavens. We weren't advocating that anyone's religion be imposed on anyoine else. Ursoria has complete religious freedom and a total separation of church and state. Our constitution prohibits the government from interfering with sexual activity between consenting adults, and we would be strongly opposed to any attempt to "ban homosexuality" by U.N. resolution. It's just that a majority of our people (including myself) are Catholic, and they often DO use religious standards as a basis for their beliefs. I was simply providing some factual information about the Catholic religion.

But as a Catholic are you you not supposed to stop your neighbor from sinnig?

Greater Canadiana will in no way support such a proposal.

everyone knows that this won't pass, so why argue about it...

personally, im completely against this "proposal". How can you tell genetics that it's wrong?

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

A nice man named Achmed has just sold me some plutonium triggers for my peacekeeper bomb. Look if you want homos doing each other in the seat in your nation-fine by me-but by no means will the morally corrupt nations of the world force their disgusting agenda on us.

we should send homos to their own special territory so they can live how they want without bothering others

Do you know you could fill Europe with homosexuals and have some left over.

Anyway, accept that people are different. This is the 21st century, right?

We have enacted laws that require homosexuals to register as sex offenders. They have thirty days to do so-the ones that do not will be sent to liquidation centers.

[quote="The Global Market"]diseases such as...? You DO know that AIDS spreads just as well heterosexually as homosexually right?[quote]

I guess you are talking vaginal vs. anal sex here. If so, then you are not entirely right. The vagina is meant to be penetrated repeatedly in quick succession, and is made soft and wet to minimize the risk of being bruiced.

The same is not the case for the rectum.

And given that the virus is transmitted via these bruises, the risk of getting AIDS by anal sex is bigger than by vaginal sex.

By vaginal sex, you have to have sex some 200 times on average with a man or woman who has HIV or AIDS before you get it yourself. Anally, the number is far lower.

Incidentally, you can get HIV/AIDS by kissing, too. You just have to exchange something to the tune of 6 litres of saliva, so no big threat there.

Henrik

We have enacted laws that require homosexuals to register as sex offenders. They have thirty days to do so-the ones that do not will be sent to liquidation centers.

What the hell? That isn't right. They should have the right to do as they please! Whether it be with members of the opposite sex or same sex. (even though I find it quite disturbing) The only thing I'm against is those nasty people that like to rape the dead and those sick beastiality people.

everyone knows that this won't pass, so why argue about it...

personally, im completely against this "proposal". How can you tell genetics that it's wrong?

You obviously have no experience in this matter. You but quote.

I will never allow this in my free nation. I will vote down this bigoted proposal with ardour and rest assured that if it by some evil way passes I will resign the UN and declare war on it. :evil:

Darksphere,

And yet the greatest route of new HIV infections, and the fastest rising cause, is through heterosexual sex. So either a lot of heterosexual couples are having unprotected anal sex, or vaginal intercourse is more risky than your source believes. (As it happens, I heard the six tons estimate some years ago - charming image).

Of course, all this talk of sex leaves out the other routes, namely:

Intravenous drug users - 'nough said, really. Personally, I reckon heroin should be clinically available to addicts, and the war on drugs given up except on a personal basis, but that's a whole other topic.

Poor medical hygiene (up to a million in one Chinese province, by some estimates - a truly dire strategy was put into place for blood donation there for some time).

Mother-to-child (during pregnancy, at birth, and by breastfeeding).

Incidentally, while believing that the Catholic church has been unjustly abused on this thread, I would like to condemn their attitude to condoms. But that's yet another debate.

Since when is this thread about sexually transmitted diseases? I don't see that anywhere in the title..

To those of you debating the banning of gay rights:
Do any of you know someone who is gay? Let me rephrase my question... Do any of you know someone who is openly gay and not hiding it from anyone? If you do, can you not tell me that they are not completely confident with everything and open about everything also? Are they not open, nice, and friends with almost everyone? I mean, sure, sometimes they complain about stuff and bitch people out, but that's because (usually... at least around here) people are dissing their sexuality. I don't even think that this issue needs to be brought up. The government cannot tell you not to be gay.

Predudice sucks. I would Leave UN and Have it destroyed if something like that happened. the Family is what causes the problems. The Upper middle class family unit. wanting to feel good about themselves by helping the poor. so they interfere in a family and send the kids to DHS.
Screw the family unit. Go CIVIL RIGHTS!

Dudes, why can't we just drop this damn topic? This resolution won't pass, despite how strongly we all might feel about homosexuality (one way or the other).

But as a Catholic are you you not supposed to stop your neighbor from sinnig?

No, you are supposed to encourage them not to sin. Forcibly stopping people from sinning is (according to the bible) a crime against god.

it seems kinda odd that whenever somebody makes a good comment the first comback of sombody is o you have bad spelling or o u have bad grammer. it seems kinda f--- up to me

You have horrible spelling and horrible grammar. Happy?

Since when is this thread about sexually transmitted diseases? I don't see that anywhere in the title..

To those of you debating the banning of gay rights:
Do any of you know someone who is gay? Let me rephrase my question... Do any of you know someone who is openly gay and not hiding it from anyone? If you do, can you not tell me that they are not completely confident with everything and open about everything also? Are they not open, nice, and friends with almost everyone? I mean, sure, sometimes they complain about stuff and bitch people out, but that's because (usually... at least around here) people are dissing their sexuality. I don't even think that this issue needs to be brought up. The government cannot tell you not to be gay.

for those who don't know any openly gay people, hey guess what... i am one. and this thread is offensive (mostly) and i would like to make another propsal, ban stuiped waste of time threads like this. there are a few good points here, but all in all i think this thread should just die out.

By vaginal sex, you have to have sex some 200 times on average with a man or woman who has HIV or AIDS before you get it yourself. Anally, the number is far lower.


OOC - OK, I realise this is tangential to the broader issue of the thread, but I have to jump on this. This is incredibly false medical information! It could not be more false. One episode of unprotected vaginal intercourse is more than enough for a person to get AIDS. It is true that there is a slightly elevated risk of transmission of any STD through anal sex, but it is not even remotely as unlikely as this VERY BAD attempt at medical knowledge portrays.

again answer the question, why should the government control what you can and cant do with your body?

"...this government, swollen and arrogant with itself, goes butting into our business...It checks the amount of tropical oils in our snack foods, tells us what kind of gasoline we can buy for our cars and how fast we can drive them, bosses us around about retirement, education, and what's on TV; counts our noses and asks fresh questions about who's still living at home and how many bathrooms we have; decides whether the door to our office or shop should have steps or a wheelchair ramp; decrees the sex and complexion of the people we hire there; lectures us on safe sex; dictates what we can sniff, smoke, and swallow; and waylays young men, ships them to distant places, and tells them to shoot people they don't even know."
--PJ O'Rourke, Parliament of Whores

You know dear, it is rather annoying seeing you at it again, proving how much unregulated abuse of all and everything is better than social responcibility, but seeing how you're from HK, I think I can forgive you. On the other hand, I don't believe everything is the government's reponscibility either...sex laws, largley, are not.

I will not support this proposal. In our nation people are not dictated to about their choice of sexual adult partner.

Sexual abuse of ANY kind is, however, dealt with quickly and severely!

All relationships between consenting adults are equally valid!

AHH!!!! THIS IS NOT A THREAD ABOUT SEXUAL VIOLENCE, STD'S OR ANYTHING OF THAT SORT!!!!! It's about gay rights. God. Talk about being off topic sometimes.

sorry.. :?

"...this government, swollen and arrogant with itself, goes butting into our business...It checks the amount of tropical oils in our snack foods, tells us what kind of gasoline we can buy for our cars and how fast we can drive them, bosses us around about retirement, education, and what's on TV; counts our noses and asks fresh questions about who's still living at home and how many bathrooms we have; decides whether the door to our office or shop should have steps or a wheelchair ramp; decrees the sex and complexion of the people we hire there; lectures us on safe sex; dictates what we can sniff, smoke, and swallow; and waylays young men, ships them to distant places, and tells them to shoot people they don't even know."
--PJ O'Rourke, Parliament of Whores

You might be surprised to know that we agree with most of that. We don't like government butting into our business, lecturing us on "safe sex", or generally treating us like recalcitrant teenagers either. But there are probably things in the world that deserve our sympathy more than middle-class people tired of government intrusion. Like starving children, people with AIDS, homeless pregnant women, etc. We wish there was a way to provide for those in need without saddling our people with an overweening government bureaucracy. We haven't quite found it yet, but we think we're making progress.

AHH!!!! THIS IS NOT A THREAD ABOUT SEXUAL VIOLENCE, STD'S OR ANYTHING OF THAT SORT!!!!! It's about gay rights. God. Talk about being off topic sometimes.

sorry.. :?


:shock: Whoa.

Fair point, Krizith. But when those opposing gay rights back their views on the matter up with false and sometimes malicious contentions concerning STDs and sexual violence, and other things of that sort, I feel it becomes necessary to shoot them down as well as my limited ability allows.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

I would rather ban heterosexuality, at least that way overpopulation wouldn't be such a problem.

That is one of the weirdest things I have ever heard....Why would we ever do that. I disagree that we should ban homosexuality on the grounds that people have the right to choose what they want to do based on religion or any other factors...but banning heterosexuality is absurd!

USB

Like starving children,

... Most of whom live in either anarchies or psychotic dictatorships where you can have all the food in the world and STILL mass starvation. Read Amartya Sen's book. Mass starvation is NOT caused by lack of food.

people with AIDS,

75% of whom got it through consensual sexual intercourse. There is also no cure for AIDS and current medicines have a 100% death rate and actual boost the infection rate because the virus just incubates for longer periods of time.

homeless pregnant women,

Rapes account for a statistically insignificant amount of pregnancies, and even if a woman is raped her chance of getting pregnant is almost 0%, since rape babies (or any other fetuses resulting from a man the woman has never had sex with before like one-night stands) almost always miscarry naturally in teh first week or two because the mother's immune system doesn't recognize the child's DNA and attacks it.

Otherwise, the woman got pregnant due to CONSENSUAL (and that's the key word) sex, and therefore IS responsible for her own problems.

etc.

Etc meaning...?

We wish there was a way to provide for those in need without saddling our people with an overweening government bureaucracy.

Charity maybe? Or education? Or better yet, personal responsibility?

Predudice sucks. I would Leave UN and Have it destroyed if something like that happened. the Family is what causes the problems. The Upper middle class family unit. wanting to feel good about themselves by helping the poor. so they interfere in a family and send the kids to DHS.
Screw the family unit. Go CIVIL RIGHTS!

I am assuming you meant prejudice not predudice. If that is the case, I agree. I am not talking about prejudice against homosexuals because I, being straight, do not feel the brunt of it. I am sure the gays ou there get their fair share of intolerance just for the fact that they get off from the same sex. I do know prejudice in these forums, prejudice against Catholics (or in the abortion forum, believers in general). Although no one is outright starting a forum against us. I am constantly seeing the Catholic Church being referred to as a bigoted intolerant system, hypocrites, you name it we have been insulted in that way. Then there is the abortion forum. They all assume every anti-abortion person is a Catholic, acting solely on belief and not on fact. To top it all off, they constantly rub it in our faces that "God doesn't exist" when we try to tell them to stop insulting our beliefs, they tell us to leave our beliefs out of it.

In short, all the oppressed gays out there, I know where you are coming from when you speak of prejudice. You face a far greater prejudice than me though, as you have to face it outside of NationStates.

For the Glory of God!
Emperor Tony I of Vivelo

I agree with most of this. Except that alot of people are not intolerant to gays as they are opposed to their life style. You can like the person but not the sin as the saying goes. Our goal should be to find out through pshychology whats the disorder of these people are and try to rehabilitate then because this is a clearly unnatural disorder

Predudice sucks. I would Leave UN and Have it destroyed if something like that happened. the Family is what causes the problems. The Upper middle class family unit. wanting to feel good about themselves by helping the poor. so they interfere in a family and send the kids to DHS.
Screw the family unit. Go CIVIL RIGHTS!

I am assuming you meant prejudice not predudice. If that is the case, I agree. I am not talking about prejudice against homosexuals because I, being straight, do not feel the brunt of it. I am sure the gays ou there get their fair share of intolerance just for the fact that they get off from the same sex. I do know prejudice in these forums, prejudice against Catholics (or in the abortion forum, believers in general). Although no one is outright starting a forum against us. I am constantly seeing the Catholic Church being referred to as a bigoted intolerant system, hypocrites, you name it we have been insulted in that way. Then there is the abortion forum. They all assume every anti-abortion person is a Catholic, acting solely on belief and not on fact. To top it all off, they constantly rub it in our faces that "God doesn't exist" when we try to tell them to stop insulting our beliefs, they tell us to leave our beliefs out of it.

In short, all the oppressed gays out there, I know where you are coming from when you speak of prejudice. You face a far greater prejudice than me though, as you have to face it outside of NationStates.

For the Glory of God!
Emperor Tony I of Vivelo

I agree with most of this. Except that alot of people are not intolerant to gays as they are opposed to their life style. You can like the person but not the sin as the saying goes. Our goal should be to find out through pshychology whats the disorder of these people are and try to rehabilitate then because this is a clearly unnatural disorder

We've actually found a gene that makes people predisopsed to homosexuality, buddy. It's not the only factor, but it IS a factor.

show me the evidence. That is not true als o it is suspected of being the "cause". And then tell me how come some people are bi sexual and others turn fairy later in their life?

Our goal should be to find out through pshychology whats the disorder of these people are and try to rehabilitate then because this is a clearly unnatural disorder

The science in your nation must be far behind that of the rest of the world, as the idea of homosexuality being a disorder of any kind was long ago thrown out. Our nation would be happy to send you some intoductory-level psychology books to clear up your ignorance of the matter, if you'd like. As books were long ago obsolete here, we no longer need them, and we hate to see the darkness of ignorance cover anyone's land.

show me the evidence. That is not true als o it is suspected of being the "cause". And then tell me how come some people are bi sexual and others turn fairy later in their life?

It isn't THE cause, it is A cause. Homosexuality comes from MANY different factors. This is just one of them. Just because you have a gene that predisposes you to obesity doesn't mean that you will become fat, that just means that you will be more likely to be fat. If you are bisexual that's when one of your chromosomes has an irregular gene and the other does not. It's a sub-recessive gene, which means that if you have one normal and one abnormal, it goes to a compromise of the two.

Sort of like if you have some genes for blonde hair and some for brown hair, your hair might be a somewhat lighter brown, like an auburn. (though the blonde gene is recessive, so you will NOT have blonde hair if you have even one brown hair gene).

I am sorry but i didnt see any real evidence in there i know all about genes but i didnt see any real evidence. and that thing about being bisexual you just said it yourself it is an abnormality.

Like starving children,

... Most of whom live in either anarchies or psychotic dictatorships where you can have all the food in the world and STILL mass starvation. Read Amartya Sen's book. Mass starvation is NOT caused by lack of food.

Did Ursoria claim it was?

people with AIDS,

75% of whom got it through consensual sexual intercourse.

I'm unclear on the relevance of this. Most suffferers of most communicable diseases got them from doing something consensual. Most SARS sufferers, for example, would not have SARS if they had not gone out in public.

There is also no cure for AIDS and current medicines have a 100% death rate and actual boost the infection rate because the virus just incubates for longer periods of time.

As I wrote elsewhere, this is far from clear. AIDS that is being treated is far less communicable than AIDS that is not being treated. Yes, that is somewhat balanced by the longer lives of AIDS patients when they're under treatment. But you cannot use such simplistic reasoning to argue that AIDS medication increases its spread.

At any rate, your argument here is a bad one. The availability of insulin has arguably massively increased the spread (through heredity) of Type I diabetes, since Type I diabetics are now much more likely to survive into adulthood and have children. There is also, currently, no cure for Type I diabetes. However, I don't think anyone would argue that insulin is a bad thing.

homeless pregnant women,

Rapes account for a statistically insignificant amount of pregnancies, and even if a woman is raped her chance of getting pregnant is almost 0%, since rape babies (or any other fetuses resulting from a man the woman has never had sex with before like one-night stands) almost always miscarry naturally in teh first week or two because the mother's immune system doesn't recognize the child's DNA and attacks it.

This is the second time I've heard this claim on these forums, and I find it baffling. Do you have any evidence for it? Nobody in Gurthark has been able to find any reliable study claiming that first-time sex is less likely to lead to a pregnancy than any other single act of sexual intercourse.

Otherwise, the woman got pregnant due to CONSENSUAL (and that's the key word) sex, and therefore IS responsible for her own problems.

Again, for almost any predicament someone can be in, you can trace a pathway that involved their choice at some point. Most predicaments, however, also involve a fair helping of bad luck, in one way or another. We in Gurthark believe that a just society will do its best to ensure that even the least fortunate have a good, fighting chance to get back onto their feet.

We wish there was a way to provide for those in need without saddling our people with an overweening government bureaucracy.

Charity maybe? Or education? Or better yet, personal responsibility?
Relying on charity to solve social problems has, paradoxically, the same flaw as does communism: It assumes that people will do the right thing without incentive. Some people do, but far from enough.

Education is indeed a powerful tool to combat many social ills, and we in Gurthark place a premium on it. Education, rather than social welfare, should always be the first line of attack on social problems. However, people do fall through the cracks of even the best educational system, and a social safety net is a critical backup.

Personal responsibility is a commendable trait. Education can bolster it. However, everyone--even the strongest character--has occasional lapses of responsibility, and make the one bad choice that can have disastrous consequences. The lucky ones have the right sort of personal safety net to get a second chance. The unlucky ones may need society's help, and we feel it is society's duty to provide that help.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Did Ursoria claim it was?


He claimed that giving people food would solve starvation.

I'm unclear on the relevance of this. Most suffferers of most communicable diseases got them from doing something consensual. Most SARS sufferers, for example, would not have SARS if they had not gone out in public.


Only STDs can be a foreseen consequence of unsafe sex, whereas the chance of getting SARS from going outside is negligible. Either way, you should have to take responsibility for yourself.

As I wrote elsewhere, this is far from clear. AIDS that is being treated is far less communicable than AIDS that is not being treated. Yes, that is somewhat balanced by the longer lives of AIDS patients when they're under treatment. But you cannot use such simplistic reasoning to argue that AIDS medication increases its spread.

That isn't true. the actual AIDS virus remains untouched. Medication changes the receptors on your cells to not respond to the virus.

At any rate, your argument here is a bad one. The availability of insulin has arguably massively increased the spread (through heredity) of Type I diabetes, since Type I diabetics are now much more likely to survive into adulthood and have children. There is also, currently, no cure for Type I diabetes. However, I don't think anyone would argue that insulin is a bad thing.

However, we don't have price controls on insulin, now do we?

This is the second time I've heard this claim on these forums, and I find it baffling. Do you have any evidence for it? Nobody in Gurthark has been able to find any reliable study claiming that first-time sex is less likely to lead to a pregnancy than any other single act of sexual intercourse.


Is Scientific American good enough for you? It was an article a few months back.

Again, for almost any predicament someone can be in, you can trace a pathway that involved their choice at some point. Most predicaments, however, also involve a fair helping of bad luck, in one way or another. We in Gurthark believe that a just society will do its best to ensure that even the least fortunate have a good, fighting chance to get back onto their feet.

The chance of getting pregnant if you have consensual sex is statistically significant (2.5-5% for the first time, and it gets higher and higher for each subsequent time you have sex with the same partner).

Relying on charity to solve social problems has, paradoxically, the same flaw as does communism: It assumes that people will do the right thing without incentive. Some people do, but far from enough.

No, there are plenty enough people who give to charity. Private US citizens donate $40 billion to charities a year, this is more than enough to alleviate poverty. Only the truly undeserving poor, such as retards and physically crippled people, actaully deserve charity. Everyone else shoudl work their way out of poverty.

Education is indeed a powerful tool to combat many social ills, and we in Gurthark place a premium on it. Education, rather than social welfare, should always be the first line of attack on social problems. However, people do fall through the cracks of even the best educational system, and a social safety net is a critical backup.

Then it is those people's own fault unless they were horribly unlucky and got Leukemia or something, but this happens to rich people as well, and as I've shown earlier, private charity more than covers for it.

Personal responsibility is a commendable trait. Education can bolster it. However, everyone--even the strongest character--has occasional lapses of responsibility, and make the one bad choice that can have disastrous consequences. The lucky ones have the right sort of personal safety net to get a second chance. The unlucky ones may need society's help, and we feel it is society's duty to provide that help.

The real world plays for keeps. Sorry.

why should anyone have a problem with who someone else chooses to love, you cannot love is boundless gay or not
i am definitly against this ignorant proposal

why should anyone have a problem with who someone else chooses to love, you cannot love is boundless gay or not
i am definitly against this ignorant proposal

Your right love is boundless. You can love another man as long as not in a sexual way. True Love in its greatest form is to be between a man and a woman not a man and a man or a woman and woman.

Like starving children,

... Most of whom live in either anarchies or psychotic dictatorships where you can have all the food in the world and STILL mass starvation. Read Amartya Sen's book. Mass starvation is NOT caused by lack of food.


We were talking about people who deserve our sympathy. I fail to see why someone is disqualified because he or she lives in an anarchy or psychotic dictatorship. We were under the (perhaps naive) impression that starvation does have something to do with lack of food.

people with AIDS,

75% of whom got it through consensual sexual intercourse. There is also no cure for AIDS and current medicines have a 100% death rate and actual boost the infection rate because the virus just incubates for longer periods of time.

That leaves 25% who did not.

homeless pregnant women,

Rapes account for a statistically insignificant amount of pregnancies, and even if a woman is raped her chance of getting pregnant is almost 0%, since rape babies (or any other fetuses resulting from a man the woman has never had sex with before like one-night stands) almost always miscarry naturally in teh first week or two because the mother's immune system doesn't recognize the child's DNA and attacks it.

Otherwise, the woman got pregnant due to CONSENSUAL (and that's the key word) sex, and therefore IS responsible for her own problems.

Of course, there have been well-publicised cases of women who did get pregnant because of rape (or one-night stands). But that is rather incidental, isn't it? Are we so lacking in ordinary human feeling that we can only ask "Who is to blame?" and not see the person involved. I don't know about you, but I have had consensual sex many times when it was probably not the wisest thing to do.

etc.

Etc meaning...?

Etc meaning all the other things that tug at our heart.

We wish there was a way to provide for those in need without saddling our people with an overweening government bureaucracy.

Charity maybe? Or education? Or better yet, personal responsibility?

But maybe, if all of those things fail, we still have to help a human being.

Did Ursoria claim it was?


He claimed that giving people food would solve starvation.
That's very different. *Making* more food will not solve starvation, but giving it to the right people very well might. There isn't a supply problem in the world's food market, but there's a severe distribution problem.

I'm unclear on the relevance of this. Most suffferers of most communicable diseases got them from doing something consensual. Most SARS sufferers, for example, would not have SARS if they had not gone out in public.


Only STDs can be a foreseen consequence of unsafe sex, whereas the chance of getting SARS from going outside is negligible. Either way, you should have to take responsibility for yourself.

The chance of getting AIDS, in most parts of the developed world, from a single incident of unprotected sex with a randomly chosen partner is "negligible." But it happens.

As I wrote elsewhere, this is far from clear. AIDS that is being treated is far less communicable than AIDS that is not being treated. Yes, that is somewhat balanced by the longer lives of AIDS patients when they're under treatment. But you cannot use such simplistic reasoning to argue that AIDS medication increases its spread.

That isn't true. the actual AIDS virus remains untouched. Medication changes the receptors on your cells to not respond to the virus.

I quote again from our own Dr. Bixby: "People under treatment for AIDS are *much* less likely to spread the virus. Nobody is quite sure why this is so, but the epidemiological evidence for it is staggering. A pregnant woman who is not taking AIDS medication has a 25% chance of transmitting the virus to her baby. With a regimen of just AZT, this chance reduces to 8% (source: Project Inform's Pregnancy and HIV). More modern AIDS drugs can reduce it even farther."

At any rate, your argument here is a bad one. The availability of insulin has arguably massively increased the spread (through heredity) of Type I diabetes, since Type I diabetics are now much more likely to survive into adulthood and have children. There is also, currently, no cure for Type I diabetes. However, I don't think anyone would argue that insulin is a bad thing.

However, we don't have price controls on insulin, now do we?

No, but we probably should. It's not as critical, since insulin is much less expensive than AIDS drugs.

But you're muddying the waters a bit here. My example was a specific rebuttal to your argument that AIDS drugs make matters worse by upping transmission rates.

This is the second time I've heard this claim on these forums, and I find it baffling. Do you have any evidence for it? Nobody in Gurthark has been able to find any reliable study claiming that first-time sex is less likely to lead to a pregnancy than any other single act of sexual intercourse.


Is Scientific American good enough for you? It was an article a few months back.

Not really. I'd rather see a real study--popular scientific journalism is not known for its scrupulous accuracy. In another thread, I quoted a study that specifically *failed* to find such a link.

I'm afraid pressing diplomatic matters are calling me away now--time permitting, I'll respond to the rest of this later.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Predudice sucks. I would Leave UN and Have it destroyed if something like that happened. the Family is what causes the problems. The Upper middle class family unit. wanting to feel good about themselves by helping the poor. so they interfere in a family and send the kids to DHS.
Screw the family unit. Go CIVIL RIGHTS!

I am assuming you meant prejudice not predudice. If that is the case, I agree. I am not talking about prejudice against homosexuals because I, being straight, do not feel the brunt of it. I am sure the gays ou there get their fair share of intolerance just for the fact that they get off from the same sex. I do know prejudice in these forums, prejudice against Catholics (or in the abortion forum, believers in general). Although no one is outright starting a forum against us. I am constantly seeing the Catholic Church being referred to as a bigoted intolerant system, hypocrites, you name it we have been insulted in that way. Then there is the abortion forum. They all assume every anti-abortion person is a Catholic, acting solely on belief and not on fact. To top it all off, they constantly rub it in our faces that "God doesn't exist" when we try to tell them to stop insulting our beliefs, they tell us to leave our beliefs out of it.

In short, all the oppressed gays out there, I know where you are coming from when you speak of prejudice. You face a far greater prejudice than me though, as you have to face it outside of NationStates.

For the Glory of God!
Emperor Tony I of Vivelo

I agree with most of this. Except that alot of people are not intolerant to gays as they are opposed to their life style. You can like the person but not the sin as the saying goes. Our goal should be to find out through pshychology whats the disorder of these people are and try to rehabilitate then because this is a clearly unnatural disorder

We've actually found a gene that makes people predisopsed to homosexuality, buddy. It's not the only factor, but it IS a factor.

Just as a point of information, that something is genetically predisposed does not equate with it not being "unnatural" (if that term means "unhealthy"). After all, many diseases and illnesses result from genetic predisposition, but one highly doubts that this means one should "celebrate" such a "difference."

Second point - studies are equivocal on the genetic predisposition of homosexuality. Often times the "science" is more directed by the ideology of the scientists on both sides. Especially in statistical studies, this tends to be more of a problem.

Third, and finally, the Royal Commonwealth would not support a ban of homosexuality. However, we would support an overturning of the resolution passed into law some months ago regarding the homosexuality question. Oakeshottland is of the mind that this is an individual state matter, to be handled by each nation according to its own mores and traditions.

With Respect,
Minister of Foreign Affairs Voegelin, Royal Commonwealth of Oakeshottland.

we of teh United Socialists States of Canadian Communists are appalled by this proposal and will take every step to shoot it down


all persosns should be treated equally, and as such no group should be persecuted or discriminated against in society or law

We have had a continuing debate (sometimes friendly, sometimes less so) with "libertarian" nations like TGM, RSI, and Ithuania. In a way it's ironic, since Ursorians are, if anything, a bit fanatic on the subject of freedom. We love it intemperately, and want as much of it as possible.

I think the debate essentially revolves around a question of polarity. The "libertarians" seem to believe that human beings exist for the sake of abstract principles of ethics and rationality, whereas we believe that it's the other way around. If the consequence of applying a set of ethical principles is a society in which human beings suffer unnecessarily, we think it's time to ditch the ethical principles.

Maybe that makes us "immoral", but we sincerely believe that life trumps morality.

On page 14 of the UN proposal there is a new one to ban homosexuality. All states which believe in natural law and decency are urged to support it in the fact of a socialist/liberal onslaught on family life!!

Support the proposal to bring back family values and re-assert hetrosexuality as the mainstay of a healthy country ONCE AND FOR ALL! TEZLAND FULLY AGREES WITH THIS SPEECH :D

We have had a continuing debate (sometimes friendly, sometimes less so) with "libertarian" nations like TGM, RSI, and Ithuania. In a way it's ironic, since Ursorians are, if anything, a bit fanatic on the subject of freedom. We love it intemperately, and want as much of it as possible.

I think the debate essentially revolves around a question of polarity. The "libertarians" seem to believe that human beings exist for the sake of abstract principles of ethics and rationality, whereas we believe that it's the other way around. If the consequence of applying a set of ethical principles is a society in which human beings suffer unnecessarily, we think it's time to ditch the ethical principles.

Maybe that makes us "immoral", but we sincerely believe that life trumps morality.

And how do you define "happiness"? Societies coming close to the libertarian ideals have typically much better overall quality of life and freedoms.

All nations of the world are encouraged to follow Sino's anti-homosexual policies in order to rid this world of this immoral epidemic: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=73776&highlight=

May decency and ethics be with you.

We have had a continuing debate (sometimes friendly, sometimes less so) with "libertarian" nations like TGM, RSI, and Ithuania. In a way it's ironic, since Ursorians are, if anything, a bit fanatic on the subject of freedom. We love it intemperately, and want as much of it as possible.

I think the debate essentially revolves around a question of polarity. The "libertarians" seem to believe that human beings exist for the sake of abstract principles of ethics and rationality, whereas we believe that it's the other way around. If the consequence of applying a set of ethical principles is a society in which human beings suffer unnecessarily, we think it's time to ditch the ethical principles.

Maybe that makes us "immoral", but we sincerely believe that life trumps morality.

And how do you define "happiness"? Societies coming close to the libertarian ideals have typically much better overall quality of life and freedoms.

Too much freedom is a disease. Happiness is an illusion of ignorance. Modern libertarians (hippies) are weaklings that are living on borrowed time.

BUMP

*looks around*

We, the greatest of the new nations, The Imperial Order of the Holy Republic of the Arch Karnov, and the Karnov Daisies, wish to ban homosexuality, at least in the form of marriage.





:roll: that was a big corny...

We have had a continuing debate (sometimes friendly, sometimes less so) with "libertarian" nations like TGM, RSI, and Ithuania. In a way it's ironic, since Ursorians are, if anything, a bit fanatic on the subject of freedom. We love it intemperately, and want as much of it as possible.

I think the debate essentially revolves around a question of polarity. The "libertarians" seem to believe that human beings exist for the sake of abstract principles of ethics and rationality, whereas we believe that it's the other way around. If the consequence of applying a set of ethical principles is a society in which human beings suffer unnecessarily, we think it's time to ditch the ethical principles.

Maybe that makes us "immoral", but we sincerely believe that life trumps morality.

And how do you define "happiness"? Societies coming close to the libertarian ideals have typically much better overall quality of life and freedoms.

Too much freedom is a disease. Happiness is an illusion of ignorance. Modern libertarians (hippies) are weaklings that are living on borrowed time.

Uh... if you've read some works by actual libertarians they are largely anti-hippie.

We have had a continuing debate (sometimes friendly, sometimes less so) with "libertarian" nations like TGM, RSI, and Ithuania. In a way it's ironic, since Ursorians are, if anything, a bit fanatic on the subject of freedom. We love it intemperately, and want as much of it as possible.

I think the debate essentially revolves around a question of polarity. The "libertarians" seem to believe that human beings exist for the sake of abstract principles of ethics and rationality, whereas we believe that it's the other way around. If the consequence of applying a set of ethical principles is a society in which human beings suffer unnecessarily, we think it's time to ditch the ethical principles.

Maybe that makes us "immoral", but we sincerely believe that life trumps morality.

And how do you define "happiness"? Societies coming close to the libertarian ideals have typically much better overall quality of life and freedoms.

Of course, happiness is very much an individual matter--and much of it concerns things that government can never provide. But surely people tend to be happier when they have adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care--and freedom. I don't think that societies whose streets are clogged with homeless beggars, whose children don't get an adequate education, whose workers can be fired if they mention the word "union", and which have to build more and more prisons to control their social discontent are likely to be very happy, ceteris paribus.

All the ban will do is create a black-market in homosexual products. You cannot regulate a person's sexuality. It will cause a significant government expense to police an attitude that is beyond an individual's control. I am hetero and this one is just a moral majority's view of controlling an individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It's not even a moral majority... acceptance of homosexuality is mainstream in today' society...

true dat! it is mainstream today an im also sick and tired of people saying the media is too conservative. The media is infamous for being completely biased and insanely liberal-i could understand the moral majority argument maybe.........50 years ago, but today its just retarded.

We have had a continuing debate (sometimes friendly, sometimes less so) with "libertarian" nations like TGM, RSI, and Ithuania. In a way it's ironic, since Ursorians are, if anything, a bit fanatic on the subject of freedom. We love it intemperately, and want as much of it as possible.

I think the debate essentially revolves around a question of polarity. The "libertarians" seem to believe that human beings exist for the sake of abstract principles of ethics and rationality, whereas we believe that it's the other way around. If the consequence of applying a set of ethical principles is a society in which human beings suffer unnecessarily, we think it's time to ditch the ethical principles.

Maybe that makes us "immoral", but we sincerely believe that life trumps morality.

And how do you define "happiness"? Societies coming close to the libertarian ideals have typically much better overall quality of life and freedoms.

Of course, happiness is very much an individual matter--and much of it concerns things that government can never provide. But surely people tend to be happier when they have adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care--and freedom. I don't think that societies whose streets are clogged with homeless beggars, whose children don't get an adequate education, whose workers can be fired if they mention the word "union", and which have to build more and more prisons to control their social discontent are likely to be very happy, ceteris paribus.

Well since 90% of happiness is psychological, what you REALLY mean is quality of life. And capitalist countries routinely trump less-capitalist ones in that category. The USA has the highest cure rates for cancer and per capita income of any large nation. We have the most efficient agriculture and we are tied very closely with Japan for most efficient industry. Right now, our GDP growth is faster than any other major first-world nation. We employ more biotechnology researchers than every other country on Earth combined. Even with Bush's anti-cloning stance. Of course, the average life expectancy in America is lower but this is mostly due to our obesity and drug epidemic that is less apparent elsewhere in the world.

Objectively, America no doubt has the highest quality of life of any large nation. Of course, something like Luxembourg or Switzerland might be higher, but speaking of large nations. Likewise, Hong Kong (extremely capitalist) has a much better quality of life than Taiwan (semi-capitalist since 1949), which in turn has a much better quality of life than Mainland China (semi-capitalist since 1980s).

The best way to improve the quality of life is, realistically speaking, to make money. You need money to do the things like provide healthcare, education, improved quality of life, etc. This is what sets developed countries apart from developing ones.

...what you REALLY mean is quality of life.
... per capita income of any large nation.
... most efficient agriculture
... most efficient industry
... GDP growth
... more biotechnology researchers

Well, you were the one who first used the term "happiness", in asking for our definition of it. So we used your own term in framing our reply. We don't think any of the above things equates directly with either individual happiness or the "quality of life"; though if they are properly applied, they might enable the kind of material well-being that does. A lot depends on how widely society's benefits are spread around. A society might have enormous economic growth, but if it benefits only a few people, it won't contribute much to the overall "quality of life".


Objectively, America no doubt has the highest quality of life of any large nation ... Hong Kong (extremely capitalist) has a much better quality of life than Taiwan (semi-capitalist since 1949), which in turn has a much better quality of life than Mainland China (semi-capitalist since 1980s).

By the measures you used, Singapore has a higher "quality of life" than Hong Kong, Taiwan, or Mainland China. But (like Mainland China) it is a country with almost no individual freedom--so we think that it is probably as far from "libertarian" ideals as it is from our own. Surely there is more to liberty than capitalism.

Well, you were the one who first used the term "happiness", in asking for our definition of it. So we used your own term in framing our reply. We don't think any of the above things equates directly with either individual happiness or the "quality of life"; though if they are properly applied, they might enable the kind of material well-being that does. A lot depends on how widely society's benefits are spread around. A society might have enormous economic growth, but if it benefits only a few people, it won't contribute much to the overall "quality of life".


However, the historical trend has been that countries with rich aristocracies also have rich peasantries. Just look again to America.


By the measures you used, Singapore has a higher "quality of life" than Hong Kong, Taiwan, or Mainland China. But (like Mainland China) it is a country with almost no individual freedom--so we think that it is probably as far from "libertarian" ideals as it is from our own. Surely there is more to liberty than capitalism.

Incorrect. Hong Kong has a better quality of life than Singapore. Though not all capitalist countries are free (mainland China comes to mind), capitalist countries TEND to be freer than command economies.

Capitalism is NOT a guarentee of liberty. However, it is a prerequisite.

i firmly support this. homosexuality is a carnal sin and is morally incorrect. crossing in-holes with out-holes is not what nature intended. an anus is meant to excrete, not 'in'crete (if you will, you understand the meaning as a lack of finding a better word). male homosexuality is worse than female homosexuality because there is nothing 'new' being done to a woman than what could be done to her by a male (minus the penis of course). i ask for everyone's pardon in being so graphic, but when discussing something as graphic, it is necessary in order to explain clearly.

By the measures you used, Singapore has a higher "quality of life" than Hong Kong, Taiwan, or Mainland China. But (like Mainland China) it is a country with almost no individual freedom--so we think that it is probably as far from "libertarian" ideals as it is from our own. Surely there is more to liberty than capitalism.

Incorrect. Hong Kong has a better quality of life than Singapore. ..

According to the report of a Hong Kong-based group, Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, March 2003, Singapore does have a higher "quality of life" than Hong Kong. The rankings are as follows (the lower the score the better):

Best quality of life in Asia: Singapore - Score 2.09; Taiwan - Score 3.20;
Hong Kong - Score 3.88; Thailand - Score 4.19; China - Score 4.43.

To be honest, I haven't had the time to do an in-depth study of the methodology that goes into the rankings, so maybe the situation is not clearcut.

All nations of the world are encouraged to follow Sino's anti-homosexual policies in order to rid this world of this immoral epidemic: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=73776&highlight=

May decency and ethics be with you.

It may be immoral to prejudiced people like you, but it's not to the people who aren't biased about a group of people that are different. The homosexuals are unusual in this world, yes, but it's their preferences about which gender they prefer. I don't see why anyone else should butt into their businesses just because that person thinks homosexuality is "immoral." If it's so immoral to you, then don't be gay. It's that simple! If you think homosexuals are immoral, then don't communicate with them if you don't have to. Keep your prejudice and your opinions to yourself, because truthfully, you have no right to make people do or be something they don't want to be.

Ethics: Your ethics and values may be different from other people's, and FYI my ethics include minding my own business about other people's choices to lead their lives. So if you're talking about ethics, then you're telling me to accept homosexuals.

Decency: Homosexuals are indecent, but prostitutes who flaunt their almost naked bodies aren't? Homosexuals are indecent, but rapists who do their victims right out there aren't? What's your definition of indecency: same-gender love? What had they ever done to you?

Epidemic: You make homosexuality sound like a sickness. That's sick in my opinion.

Also, why don't you put yourself in a world where everyone is homosexual except for a couple of people? Would you still think homosexuality is an immoral epidemic? I'd think not. You probably would think that heteorosexuals are the indecent ones!

Swen wrote:
i firmly support this. homosexuality is a carnal sin and is morally incorrect. crossing in-holes with out-holes is not what nature intended. an anus is meant to excrete, not 'in'crete (if you will, you understand the meaning as a lack of finding a better word). male homosexuality is worse than female homosexuality because there is nothing 'new' being done to a woman than what could be done to her by a male (minus the penis of course). i ask for everyone's pardon in being so graphic, but when discussing something as graphic, it is necessary in order to explain clearly.

Carnal sin? What religion are you apart of, Homosexuals Should Die? So what if people have different preferences than you? If you weren't a "busybody," would you have known so much about how homosexuals "opperate?" Once again, I suggest you mind your own business, and if you don't like some things in the world, too bad, because no one likes everything in this world. But do you see everyone of us complaining about what we don't like about this world and calling everything we don't like sins? I wouldn't think so.

Another thing that occurs to us is that we're not quite sure how to determine how "capitalist" a nation is. For example, the U.S. is generally considered more "capitalist" than Holland. Yet people go to prison for selling marijuana in the U.S., while in Amsterdam you can buy the stuff legally in any coffee shop. In that respect, the Netherlands has more "free enterprise" (i.e. capitalism) than the U.S. Similarly, many European countries allow legal prostitution, whereas the U.S. (with one slight exception) does not. Similarly, the U.S. is the only country in the world that prohibits the sale of Cuban cigars. I could go on and on.

In all of these respects, the U.S. is "less capitalist" than most other developed nations. We think that many "libertarians" do their cause a disservice by linking it to a nation that is, in its essential characteristics, a statist empire and not a truly free society.

what!? does this have to do with anything concerning homo sexual?!

In many ways, China is also more Capitalist than the US. Try to start a labour union, and abracadabra! You disappear.

I am a firm believer that it is not the government's business as to what goes on behind the bedroom door. We are here to address worldly issues, not bedroom issues.

Capitalism is a bad thing. Why should you make thousands more than someone when you are at best, twice as smart or strong?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and big butts!
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

The Most Serene Republic of The Arctic Banana speaks out both against the proposal to ban homosexuality, as it is both largely inpratical and a clear invasion of natural rights, and against the evils of capitalism, in which cheating, lying, stealing and other sins are encouraged for profit. Our nation, on the other hand, works under a planned economy (To be clear, we are not communist or any sort of dictatorship. We are fully democratic.) and we do not have these sort of problems... We are one with the Cheese in all of us

Embrace the cheese,
Hand of His Most Enlightened One

Don'y worry, it gets deadly serious as you read on.

Ahem.

( Deep breath )

HA HA HA HA HA IS THIS GUY A LAUGH OR WHAT !

I MEAN, LIKE, ACTUALLY TRYING TO STOP HOMOSEXUALITY BY KILLING HOMOSEXUALS !

HA HA HA HA HA !

I MEAN, HE'D END UP KILLING MORE PEOPLE THEN HITLER, OR MAO!

HA HA HA HA HA !

AS IF ONE DELUDED PR*CK WOULD ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO DICTATE TO THE HUMAN RACE HOW THEY SHOULD LIVE THEIR LIVES, WHAT DOES HE PROPOSE, TO LOBOTOMISE HIS OWN POPULATION, CAUSE THAT WON'T SOLVE HIS PROBLEM, THEY'LL STILL BE SMARTER THEN HIM, EVEN IF THEY FOLLOWED HIS FASCIST DOCTRINE BROUGHT ON BY HIS MASSIVE IN-SUPERIORITY COMPLEX, AND WHAT MAY BE HIS OWN SEXUAL CONFUSION, I MEAN :

HA HA HA HA HA !

. . .

Oh, he really was serious, well, what a dick. head.

I don't suppose some people could band together and get his butt spanked clear out of Nation States, because,

( Bostoninian or Old English Accent )

" We find his crude inability to deal with the choices made by free thinking individuals and his proposition to create, however realistically fictional, what is in effect a form of genocide, to be, how can we put it, offensive to all free thinking and compassionate human beings, and that in future he should be prevented from accessing or controlling any nation state for fear that his influence ( However fictional ) on such a nation state could be grossly harmful to the inhabitants. And so I conclude by saying, Good day sir, and may our paths never cross, for you are a fascist bigot and we all ( We, the free thinking and compassionate human beings ) spit on you sir, Good day sir! "

That, and quite frankly, he really is an insulting little jack boot wearing pillock, I wish he or she, though probably a sexually confused male, had fallen under a truck.

Then again, I suppose "he" is the price we pay for free speech, unfortunately the idiots get their say too, and, unremarkably, its usually the loudest, because thats about all they realy can manage.

With no respect at all for the jack boot wearing fascist little in-superiority complex suffering sexually confused bigotted, and probably biased little twit, I, A Rep of Komokom end my judgement upon him and his missbegotten little opinion,

Thankyou all for your time, and may you all have a good time, in your respective time zones.

By the way, if my some what colourful prose brings down some kind of censure on me, then so be it, because I am proud of what I said, and what I stand for,

Because if we can't be our own masters, then so we may not be ourselves.

Anyone who attempts to ban homosexuality will be invaded by a rather large coalition consisting of about 100 million soldiers, and many, many aircraft and naval vessels.

Naval vessels filled with seamen! :lol:

No offense intended, it just had to be said.

The Most Serene Republic of The Arctic Banana speaks out both against the proposal to ban homosexuality, as it is both largely inpratical and a clear invasion of natural rights, and against the evils of capitalism, in which cheating, lying, stealing and other sins are encouraged for profit. Our nation, on the other hand, works under a planned economy (To be clear, we are not communist or any sort of dictatorship. We are fully democratic.) and we do not have these sort of problems... We are one with the Cheese in all of us

Embrace the cheese,
Hand of His Most Enlightened One

umm you cannot use it is a violation of natural right because hmosexuality in itself is a violation of what is natural

Anyone who attempts to ban homosexuality will be invaded by a rather large coalition consisting of about 100 million soldiers, and many, many aircraft and naval vessels.

ok guess u have to invade my country witha all of your panzy forces

While their 100 million man army is running around, I'll arm my gazillion billion clone soldiers with their super-duper Buck Rogers ray guns.

I really hate it when someone threatens military force, they lose all credibility...

yeah really . sounds pretty stupid man. MAke and argument realte to the topic

Anyone who attempts to ban homosexuality will be invaded by a rather large coalition consisting of about 100 million soldiers, and many, many aircraft and naval vessels.

ok guess u have to invade my country witha all of your panzy forces

You can't ban homosexuality, you are a UN member, and there are at least two resolutions in the UN for gay rights.

Tough luck.

we didnt ban them we just sent them from us.t

we didnt ban them we just sent them from us.t

Which of course is the same as"We didn't kill them we just prevented them from beathing" :roll:

Ahem.

Excuse me, are we not debating this stupid proposal by that little, well anyway, lets leave the multiple invasions of his territory (Which by the sound of him is what he is afraid of, lol) and stick to making a joke of him and his sad little proposal, you can all beat him with large sticks when his proposal is whacked down itself.

Yours respectfully,

A Rep of Komokom, cheering you on as you stick it to the little turdling.

:wink:

Urm, homosexuality is not exactly something you can ban. That's like banning being right-handed. Or banning being caucasian. Or maybe someone was talking about the actions associated with it... or else, they're talking about exile.

umm you cannot use it is a violation of natural right because hmosexuality in itself is a violation of what is natural

What is natural is not being straight. What is natural is what your instincts tell you is natural. You cannot help who you love. And no law is ever going to stop anyone from being homosexual. Ever. If there is a law against it, it will raise a very large uproar and very much anger. Not that such a law would pass or anything. But they can't ban homosexuality. Banning homosexuality isn't natural.

Like I said, anyone who bans homosexuality will be crushed by The Empire.

I would shoot this down so fast it wouldnt be funny. I think we have no right to say its banned anywhere other then our own countries. (i've banned it in mine and ship out any homosexual's to several allies who take them in.) So i vote NO NO NO and whoever made this idea should be shot dead just for thinking the UN can do that........

I would shoot this down so fast it wouldnt be funny. I think we have no right to say its banned anywhere other then our own countries. (i've banned it in mine and ship out any homosexual's to several allies who take them in.) So i vote NO NO NO and whoever made this idea should be shot dead just for thinking the UN can do that........

The Federation of the 510 Techcropolis is strongly against movements to ban homosexuality.

However, we are adamantly against those whose stances are to supress freedom of speech. Recommending that people should be shot for voicing an opinion, regardless of how extremist or bigotted it may be, discourages freedom of speech. Paradoxically, so is telling others that they cannot advocate shooting people who disagree with them, even though it is a threat. But since your likelihood of having such a person shot is about as likely as Kozina's Armies actually burning an entire nation to the ground, so it's a bit of a moot point.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=World&cat=Gays_and_Lesbians

If you were in my state, you will be put to jail...then you will have a tragical accident, just for thinking what you just said Global Market.

Childrens are not to be included in this related topics.

Homosexuality is not a crime, therefore banning it will only resolve in making more of them (in demonstration).

The solution reside in just making it "Has Been", ppl will just loose interest after a certain amount of time.

"If you talk about something, it became real to evrybody; dont talk about it: it will be forggotten..."

At no time will the nation of Blumploslovakia support this proposal. First, this proposal deals with an internal issue, not a world-wide issue. Each nation should be able to handle it on they're own. Second, I fear the motivation behind this can be defined as bigotry, which the UN should not support in any way, shape or form. I fear this resolution could be the beginning of a second Halocaust, which the UN should have no place in starting. I move that all other nations do not support this proposed resolution, for its inpact may be the beginning of the end for all of us.

At no time will the nation of Blumploslovakia support this proposal. First, this proposal deals with an internal issue, not a world-wide issue. Each nation should be able to handle it on they're own. Second, I fear the motivation behind this can be defined as bigotry, which the UN should not support in any way, shape or form. I fear this resolution could be the beginning of a second Halocaust, which the UN should have no place in starting. I move that all other nations do not support this proposed resolution, for its inpact may be the beginning of the end for all of us.


umm this is nothing like a "second halocaust" all it is, is to ban homosexual relatonships its not like we are killing or takeing away any given privlege. And anyone who believe it is a given right please show me where the founding fathers wrote in the constitutions that men can go around haveing realtionships with each other!

"With Liberty and Justice for all."?

Not too sure though. :oops:

This is an excerpt from my psychology textbook you might find interesting.

Homophobia consists of feelings of fear, discomfort, and aversion that some people experience interacting with gay individuals. This syndrome is much more common in men than women because men are under more pressure to avoid any behaviour characteristic of the other sex. Because homophobia is associated with conservative religious beliefs, traditional gender roles, rural upbringing, and being less educated, analyses of its roots have focused on socialization processes that foster negative attitudes. However, psychoanalytic theorists have long argued that homophobia among men may be rooted in anxiety about the possibility of being or becoming homosexual. In other words, psychoanalytic theorists posit that homophobia results from repression of one's latent homosexuality and reaction formation, which leads some men to accentuate their masculinity and to be especially hostile towards gays.


There you go!

Because homophobia is associated with conservative religious beliefs, traditional gender roles, rural upbringing, and being less educated...

That would pretty much explain everything, actually.

yeah, unfortunitly a rich high class well educated person will still crack your skull against the pavement just becouse you were holding hands with your boyfriend. and the cops, who are there to "serve and protect" basicly do didly. so a few months later your friend gets jumped becouse "he looked gay", (wich is the under state ment of the century, i could light a ciggeret aff of him he was soo flaming) by a bunch of scum. and becouse the cops didn't do any thing months ago about hate crimes, your friend has to under go 15 stitches to the head. with no health insurence.
so it occurs in all levals of "people".

Yes but does it say that homo sexuality is right NO! you are twisting the words! It clearly states that GOD had wrath to these people! nd it even says that turn against what is natural and their minds became darkened!

It matters not what the bible says. God has not spoken to you has she? what evidence have you that the bible is the word of god?

Until you can prove

1) god exsists
2) god exsists in the terms you belive
3) god exsists in the terms you belive AND is agaist homosexuality

Then you can't base you argument on the exsistance of god.

If it is what you belive then you must defend it on the basis why you agree with the scriptures you have read.

It is natural, it is not "just wrong".

Who are you to restrict the freedoms of other people? On what basis to you feel you have the right to do this. Dont you think it is selfish to restrict other people just on the basis you want to get into what you percive is eternal happiness in an afterlife?

I'm new to this forum and have only just discovered Nation States a few months ago, but would like to contribute my opinion.
Portugal, I passionately affirm your right to free speech, and would encourage anyone who has unnecessarily censured you to remember that you have a constitutional right to it. However, I will respectfully disagree with you.

There was a double-blind neural study conducted by one by the name of LeVay (I don't know his first name; took AP psych last year and only remember so much). Anyway, Levay discovered that a certain neural cluster in the frontal lobe was actually larger in females and homosexual men. Meaning, you could look at brain scans of a person and literally tell whether they were gay or straight. Also, twin studies have indicated a genetic link to homosexuality (identical more likely to be gay than fraternal). Finally, studies have indicated that exposure to female hormones during critical periods of neonatal development may cause one to become attracted to males.

I found the above information fascinating, and it indicated (to me at least) that there is a physiological and/or genetic difference between homo and heterosexuals, and that one's orientation is not a conscious choice. I hope I've helped clear a few things up for you, and that I haven't offended anyone (this is my first post so be nice please!).

Oh, and Global Market, I went to Catholic school as well, and had to watch a friend get expelled because he was gay (they called him "cancer of the school" if I remember correctly). Thank you for your passionate support of homosexuality; it has helped me cling to the belief that not all Catholics are intolerant.

Respectfully,
Azelma

I was just wondering if any of the homophobics posting had thought about what it is actually like to be a young homosexual. especially in a place as untolerante as school with other children. If any of you had thought about how confusing and scary it must be, about how if someone was to call another child a '******' or some other offencive racist term they could be suspended. However if a child called another child a gay lord or fag, or whatever it may be the teacher will hardly batter an eyelid. It must be awful to think your the only person on the planet who is gay and thinking everyone would hate you if they found out. Even the teachers who are there to teach and preotect you. I was just wondering.

I was just wondering if any of the homophobics posting had thought about what it is actually like to be a young homosexual. especially in a place as untolerante as school with other children. If any of you had thought about how confusing and scary it must be, about how if someone was to call another child a '******' or some other offencive racist term they could be suspended. However if a child called another child a gay lord or fag, or whatever it may be the teacher will hardly batter an eyelid. It must be awful to think your the only person on the planet who is gay and thinking everyone would hate you if they found out. Even the teachers who are there to teach and preotect you. I was just wondering.

No I dont but good point. I doubt they have

If this proposal ever comes to vote, which I doubt, I will vote against it in a second. What a stupid idea.

IT is alright to be gay....there should not be banning of any sort aginest it. it is a natrual thing and lots of people do it..and also...think about it...its not real life its just a computer thing...but no matter what...it is wrong to ban homosexuality form the nations...its about their personal freedom not the judgments that people have about it :x

:evil: PERSONALLY IF IT WAS UP TO ME I WOULD KILL EVERY FAG ON THE PLANET...BUT ITS NOT UP TO ME SO I GUESS THEY ARE GONNA LIVE JUST AS LONG AS THE DONT BE GAY AROUND ME......AND SINCE THEY ARE GONNA LIVE AND NO ONE LIKES THEM THEY SHOULD BE PLACED ON THERE OWN LITTLE FAG ISLAND!.....(AND WE CAN SECRETLY PLANT A BOMB ON IT AND KILL THEM ANYWAY) :evil:

IT is alright to be gay....there should not be banning of any sort aginest it. it is a natrual thing and lots of people do it..and also...think about it...its not real life its just a computer thing...but no matter what...it is wrong to ban homosexuality form the nations...its about their personal freedom not the judgments that people have about it :x

YEAH YOUR GAY!

IT is alright to be gay....there should not be banning of any sort aginest it. it is a natrual thing and lots of people do it..and also...think about it...its not real life its just a computer thing...but no matter what...it is wrong to ban homosexuality form the nations...its about their personal freedom not the judgments that people have about it :x

YEAH YOUR GAY!

**Points at Benadus** YEAH YOU'RE HUMAN!


:roll:

IT is alright to be gay....there should not be banning of any sort aginest it. it is a natrual thing and lots of people do it..and also...think about it...its not real life its just a computer thing...but no matter what...it is wrong to ban homosexuality form the nations...its about their personal freedom not the judgments that people have about it :x

I dont see how you can that it is natural it is anything other than natural. Human developed into two destinct sexes for a reason and haveing a "realtionship" between two people of the same sex is unnatural.

o sry did i use to big of a word?

Oh the irony...

Well we wouldnt have to see it if we killed them all. there problem solved!

And I wouldn't have to see the soldiers fighting if they were all dead...

See, it doesn't work does it.

Killing things because you dont like them is not equal to good...

The Government of Dinoponera condemns in the strongest terms this repressive and hateful proposal. We recommend that our fellow nations unite to denouce hatred and persecution of minorities by so-called 'family values' bigots.

Of portugal wrote:
its is not so much the genes as it is the the surrounding a child is brought in!


what? a homosexual household can be just as moral as a heterosexual household.

This isn't about morals here. If a child is raised in a homosexual household, they're gonna grow up thinking homosexuality is A-OK. I know you all think it is. And some of the greatest people in history were homos. Da Vinci was gay and there's even speculation that the Mona Lisa is him crossdressing, but I just don't think homosexuality should be OK. I don't think it should be illegalized though because that would not solve the problem. People would just do it behind closed doors and raise suspicion and whatnot. I propose homosexuality be illegal within 20 miles of my glorious palace.

For the Glory of God!
Emperor Tony I of Vivelo

Archimedes cheated on his boyfriend, Turing was a queen, Charles Babbage, the man credited with creating the first 'computer', was gay...

stupid homo should be killed choped up and fed to crazy monkeys! an thats that no more queers or we could create a zoo for them call queers are us!

Please tell me this troll's been IP banned...

I am proud to say my government has triumphed against these faggots. We started by simply forcng them to sew big pink triangles on all their clothes so they could be easily identified. The homos were then denied the few rights and freedoms to be granted to normal citizens of my orderly society. They were given an unfair trial for crimes against humanity. Then they were publicly executed in the most gruesome ways. I've had their lungs punctured, hangings, burnings, shootings, drownings in public aquariums, lethal overdoses of hallucinogenic and seizure-inducing drugs, just to name a few. I tell ya, there ain't a fag around in my country and we're better for it. Follow in the footsteps of Excellence.

...

Wow, sounds just like a virtual recreation of Alabama...

Ok because some book says that monkeys have homosexual tendencies that make sit ok for humans? i dont know about you but i wont bring myself down to the level of an ape!

I'd be more worried if the ape went down to your level...

It is a well known and well founded fact that we evolved from some species of monkey or ape. Whether it is the Orangutan or the Bonobo is unsure, but these two are the most likely.

For the record, the Bonobo chimpanzees are 100% bisexual.

Everything on the planet has homosexual tendencies. There is no such thing at 100% heterosexual.

Why should we ban straights? We need to have hot hot guy-on-girl SEX to keep the species going. We don't need fags. I don't wanna hear any of that BS about scientists almost figuring out how to place a womb in a guy's body because that is just wrong and should never have been a topic in the first place, now all nations supporting faggots' rights should take a tip from Kaglar and me. We got the right idea. kill off the faggot gene. Publicly execute them so they may atone for the sin of lust, or shove them in zoos so that they can be mocked and more importantly kept separate from society. It's like Hitler burning the heretical Jews, and the lustful faggots, and the greedy, cheating, stealing, gypsies. Or the Fourth Crusade to avenge the Jews for their murder of a false messiah. Or torturing political prisoners like Saddam did, because they commited the more venial sin of speaking badly of his government. All perfectly normal, lawful, unextreme, acceptable, methods of cultural purification.

The 'gay gene' if it exists, is either an insertion, deletion, or a substitution of one of the four bases in the human DNA sequence, resulting in increased testosterone levels in females and increased oestrogen levels in males.

In order to eradicate it, you would have to kill everyone. It's part of our evolution, our 'programming' if you will. It's here, and it's here to stay.

ooc: why is it that every few weeks there is an anti gay post...

Unfortunately, the people who are too afraid to protest against homosexuality in public find other means of airing their 'displeasures'...

i've said it once, i'll says it a million times. :evil: PEOPLE NEED TO STOP WORRING ABOUT HOW OTHERS GET OFF AND START WORRING ABOUT THEMSELVES. exactly what is wrong about being gay? thats all i have to say. if you have a problem, let me know. have a nice day. 8)

say^^

we should send homos to their own special territory so they can live how they want without bothering others

I'm all for that. Means more sex for me. :P

But, I'll only do it on these conditions...

The Turkish stay in Turkey.
The Americans stay in America.
The French stay in France.
The Germans stay in Germany.
The Dutch stay in the Netherlands.
The Japanese stay in Japan.
The Arabs stay in Saudi Arabia.
The Indians stay in India.
The Morons stay in Moronia.
Likewise for the fundamentalists.
Oh, and America resorts to slavery, George Bush must commit suicide, and the Queen should streak on the BBC News.

Only then will the Gays stay in Canada. :P

Since when is this thread about sexually transmitted diseases? I don't see that anywhere in the title..

To those of you debating the banning of gay rights:
Do any of you know someone who is gay? Let me rephrase my question... Do any of you know someone who is openly gay and not hiding it from anyone? If you do, can you not tell me that they are not completely confident with everything and open about everything also? Are they not open, nice, and friends with almost everyone? I mean, sure, sometimes they complain about stuff and bitch people out, but that's because (usually... at least around here) people are dissing their sexuality. I don't even think that this issue needs to be brought up. The government cannot tell you not to be gay.

for those who don't know any openly gay people, hey guess what... i am one. and this thread is offensive (mostly) and i would like to make another propsal, ban stuiped waste of time threads like this. there are a few good points here, but all in all i think this thread should just die out.

Hehehe.

We should start a thread on funny coming out stories... :D

BAN IT!!! The problem today is that people have no moral and couldn't care less about natural laws. Think of it this way, your neighbors are gay, each morning you go to work, you see the gay couple kiss each other. I certainly wouldn't want my kids near them. Plus, a appeal in the state of Kentucky wants all schools and churchs to teach us that gays are the exact same as us.

All nations of the world are encouraged to follow Sino's anti-homosexual policies in order to rid this world of this immoral epidemic: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=73776&highlight=

May decency and ethics be with you.

Oh hell, you're not still keeping that thread going are you?!

Can I point out that you should take a good look at the people you know before launching a facade against Homosexuality...

*frowns*

i firmly support this. homosexuality is a carnal sin and is morally incorrect. crossing in-holes with out-holes is not what nature intended. an anus is meant to excrete, not 'in'crete (if you will, you understand the meaning as a lack of finding a better word). male homosexuality is worse than female homosexuality because there is nothing 'new' being done to a woman than what could be done to her by a male (minus the penis of course). i ask for everyone's pardon in being so graphic, but when discussing something as graphic, it is necessary in order to explain clearly.

By the Bible, homosexuality is no greater as a sin than anything else.

The word is ingest, not increte.

Female homosexuality is just as equal as male homosexuality. Do you actually know what some lesbians get up to? Trust, me, it'd make you feel ill... :?

as Supreme Dictator of Kaluknukala, I oppose this idea. in my country, people have Freedom of Speech, and discrimination on the basis of race, religoin, gender, or sexual orientation is prohibited.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=World&cat=Gays_and_Lesbians

]..."I agree with 3,000 years of recorded history," the Republican governor said...

Ahhahahaha!

It's 2,000 years. :P

:evil: PERSONALLY IF IT WAS UP TO ME I WOULD KILL EVERY FAG ON THE PLANET...BUT ITS NOT UP TO ME SO I GUESS THEY ARE GONNA LIVE JUST AS LONG AS THE DONT BE GAY AROUND ME......AND SINCE THEY ARE GONNA LIVE AND NO ONE LIKES THEM THEY SHOULD BE PLACED ON THERE OWN LITTLE FAG ISLAND!.....(AND WE CAN SECRETLY PLANT A BOMB ON IT AND KILL THEM ANYWAY) :evil:

Ah, hello Fred Phelps...

Jesus says: I don't give a fuck, so shut your mouths and stop complaining you whining, insolent bitches. 'Nuff said

Jesus says: I don't give a f---, so shut your mouths and stop complaining you whining, insolent bitches. 'Nuff said

Buddha says: "It's alright! All is well, and as it should be..."

[quote="Peng-Pau"]By the Bible, homosexuality is no greater as a sin than anything else.



Before using the Bible, read the part where God destroyed a city full of gays.

I dont see how you can that it is natural it is anything other than natural. Human developed into two destinct sexes for a reason and haveing a "realtionship" between two people of the same sex is unnatural.

What is natural is not something for man to decide... and we did not develop into two genders. We developed from something else with two genders, and two genders only made it's appearance on the scene, because one cell 4 billion years ago learned that it could grab favourable genetic material from another cell if it didn't go anywhere and another cell learned to swim real fast to get on the good stuff. Egg and Sperm. Simple, energy conversation. One got big and doesn;t move, the other got smaller and moves way faster.

Additionally, there is a genetic predelection for homosexuality. Explain why most species have homosexual members (cats and sheep have been studied extensively) if it is not natural? We do not understand the genetic function of homosexuality yet.

What genetic function?

Most species do not have strictly homosexual members... our species included. Most gay men and women have been with the opposite sex, but bisexuality has a worse stigma than homosexuality (because you're not playing for either team) and as such one is culturally forced into a particular lifestyle. Yes, gay people sometimes want children, and yes they will be the genetic donor. So these homosexuals have passed their genes on, nothing particularly unnatural about that.

Nice Narrow view of the world Of Portugal. Read more, type less.

The Kingdom of Humanistic Advancement
(looking for U.N. sponsorship)

By the Bible, homosexuality is no greater as a sin than anything else.



Before using the Bible, read the part where God destroyed a city full of gays.

It actually says that all sins are equal in the eyes of God, if you buy that sort of thing. Sodom and Gemorah were destroyed because they were massively corrupt and there were not "10 good men" to be found in the city. It was destroyed because of wide spread sinning, not homosexuality. A city full of people saying "God Damn" could have faced a similar fate.

http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/sodomy/bible/

Plus, what did gays ever do to bother you? So you think it's gross, deal with it. I think aspargus is gross, but I don't have any particular desire to see it banned or people that indulge in it punished (eternal or otherwise).

Kingdom of Humanistic Advancement - where people eat asparagus

By the Bible, homosexuality is no greater as a sin than anything else.



Before using the Bible, read the part where God destroyed a city full of gays.

It actually says that all sins are equal in the eyes of God, if you buy that sort of thing. Sodom and Gemorah were destroyed because they were massively corrupt and there were not "10 good men" to be found in the city. It was destroyed because of wide spread sinning, not homosexuality. A city full of people saying "God Damn" could have faced a similar fate.

http://www.rotten-com/library/sex/sodomy/bible/

Plus, what did gays ever do to bother you? So you think it's gross, deal with it. I think aspargus is gross, but I don't have any particular desire to see it allowed or people that indulge in it punished (eternal or otherwise).

Kingdom of Humanistic Advancement - where people eat asparagus

Once again i bring up the quote of Romans ch1, 26-27.

Once again i bring up the quote of Romans ch1, 26-27.

Romans 1

26 - Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27 - In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

An excellent description of the particular sin. Not the reason the city was destroyed. It also doesn't say "homosexuality is a greater sin." You should really read more of the bible. Entirely pointless if you think this "God" thing is a big joke.

Address, my previous post on this subject, if you really think you are up to it. Creationism is a joke... so don't even try to use that.

The Kingdom of Humanistic Advancement

I believe banning homosexuality is ridiculous.
The people should have the right to choose whether or not they want to be gay, not the government.
This a good example of the government being given the oppurtunity to gain too much control over peoples lives.
What are we sheep?
Whats next, banning the freedom of speech?

Ban heterosexuality! Heterosexuals should not be able to marry, because I personally believe that it is sick and wrong, and my religion states that it is a sin. Because of this personal opinion, other poeple must sacrifice in their life and not do what they personally want when it does not hurt anyone in any way.

PS
That was sarcasm and only put to reverse the situation.

Ok because some book says that monkeys have homosexual tendencies that make sit ok for humans? i dont know about you but i wont bring myself down to the level of an ape!

I'd be more worried if the ape went down to your level...

It is a well known and well founded fact that we evolved from some species of monkey or ape. Whether it is the Orangutan or the Bonobo is unsure, but these two are the most likely.

For the record, the Bonobo chimpanzees are 100% bisexual.

Everything on the planet has homosexual tendencies. There is no such thing at 100% heterosexual.

"Evolved from" is a comon misconception. We shared a common ancestor. In the path that led to us, the Orangutan, Gorilla, Chimpanzee all split off at certain times.

If you go by DNA counts the chimp and the Bonobo are our closest cousins as we share 98% of our DNA(I think the gorilla was about 75% and the Orang is about 60%).

As to Bisexuality wellllll yes and no. It is not the same thing as with humans. There is no act of same sex penitration(that I know of); it is mainly manipulation, rubbing for stress reduction. But you have to give them credit as violent acts on one another is extreamly rare.

Kaglar: The example is the fact that it happens in nature which is a solid argument to the statement it is not natural.

Other questions to consider. Self-awareness is not unique to humans. The concept of lying is not unique to humans. Chimps have done both.

The Bible is not a legitimate source for laws on how we should govern our society for one reason:

No matter how divinely inspired it may be, the actual writing was done by scholarly men, not God himself.

Plus, many people are born homosexual. It's been shown that sexual orientation is actually linked to genes. Are you going to tell people that they don't have a right to be who they were born to be?

Also, Homosexuality does not have a detrimental effect on society, banning it, thuse becoming oppressing society, would.

Why would your God create the possibility (i.e. the physical ability and mental tendency) of homosexuality if He didn't want it to happen?

Or do you worship a sadistic god who enjoys sending people to Hell?

I thin that homosexuality is gross, unnatural, and against most religions beliefs. However, unless your a nation who makes laws that promotes religion, then this ban makes no sense. Politiclay speaking, sex between to consenting adults should be allowed. To pass a law against a one sexual orentation is a slippery slope. Next they may tell you only a brown haired guy can sleep with a blond women, or vice versa. As a christian I believe god will ultimaltly do what he says in the bible. He said he will destroy "men who lay with men" and women kept for unatural puposes. As a law maker I'll give the people the right to decide if they want to incur the wrath of god or not.

This proposal will not stop nations from allowing homosexuals to be married in their nations. It will only allow for all nations to decide for themselves if they want unions between gays to exist.

Please tell your Regional Leaders to vote for the proposed Devolution Revolution. This will help to limit the UN's power.

If you don't want to see gay's kissing in public, ram a fork up your eyeballs. Everyone happy. :D

confucious say: ah hell, I dunno what he would say. but I say yall should just shut up. you disgust me. 'nuff said.

Hahahahahaha! Ban homosexuality! That's hilarious! But seriously, my country is considering decriminalising heterosexual intercourse. We don't really want to discourage the bisexual men here from staying, and it helps clear up confusion with the transgender community. Any thoughts?

All the ban will do is create a black-market in homosexual products. You cannot regulate a person's sexuality. It will cause a significant government expense to police an attitude that is beyond an individual's control. I am hetero and this one is just a moral majority's view of controlling an individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It's not even a moral majority... acceptance of homosexuality is mainstream in today' society...

true dat! it is mainstream today an im also sick and tired of people saying the media is too conservative. The media is infamous for being completely biased and insanely liberal-i could understand the moral majority argument maybe.........50 years ago, but today its just retarded.

How about the fact that an extremist group of far-right republicans who literally are bent on world domination (incidentally, that's the group that's currently in office; see their webpage at www.newamericancentury.org ) bought out all the news stations while Clinton was in office in preparation of their plan to take over the whitehouse as soon as his term was up?

A liberal media would not make a huge deal out of the fact that Clinton slept with his secretary. I'm not saying that liberals are smarter than conservatives, I'm just saying that only a conservative, and one who was being opportunistic at that, would give a damn about something so trivial. JFK was sleeping with Marilyn Monroe, and not only that, but if you saw the video of her singing happy birthday to him, they were both very blatant about it... and no one but the CIA cared back then. Well, and the Mafia and probably Jackie. But he wasn't impeached or something over it. Now, Clinton's affair was DRAGGED into the public eye by overzealous Republicans. So yeah, no Liberal media would give a rat's ass about something like that. Maybe they just look liberal to you because you're so damn far to the right that Jerry Falwell looks liberal in comparison.

By the Bible, homosexuality is no greater as a sin than anything else.



Before using the Bible, read the part where God destroyed a city full of gays.

It actually says that all sins are equal in the eyes of God, if you buy that sort of thing. Sodom and Gemorah were destroyed because they were massively corrupt and there were not "10 good men" to be found in the city. It was destroyed because of wide spread sinning, not homosexuality. A city full of people saying "God Damn" could have faced a similar fate.

http://www.rotten-com/library/sex/sodomy/bible/

Plus, what did gays ever do to bother you? So you think it's gross, deal with it. I think aspargus is gross, but I don't have any particular desire to see it allowed or people that indulge in it punished (eternal or otherwise).

Kingdom of Humanistic Advancement - where people eat asparagus

Once again i bring up the quote of Romans ch1, 26-27.

You misquoted me.

By the Bible, homosexuality is no greater as a sin than anything else.



Before using the Bible, read the part where God destroyed a city full of gays.

The original passage written in Greek states that it was in fact a city of sinners, not gays.

BAN IT!!! The problem today is that people have no moral and couldn't care less about natural laws. Think of it this way, your neighbors are gay, each morning you go to work, you see the gay couple kiss each other. I certainly wouldn't want my kids near them. Plus, a appeal in the state of Kentucky wants all schools and churchs to teach us that gays are the exact same as us.

IC: Any of our coupled citizens who do not have at least one makeout session in front of their house on any given morning are fined 100 twinks. Your point is moot.

OOC: Realistically, that wouldn't happen. There's too much stress from our society for gay couples to keep their business under wraps. A gay couple would unlikely kiss in your children's view. Hell, I've never seen ANY of MY neighbours kiss, and they're all straight to the best of my knowledge!
Now, another thing, why are you afraid of gay people being around "your kids"? Do you think they like to abuse children or something? Contrary to what the Catholic Church has officially stated, gay people are just as likely to molest children as straight people are. If an adult man molests a prepubescent boy, he is not gay, he's a pedophile. For one thing, prepubescent children are relatively asexual-looking. For another thing, any giving straight person probably would not be attracted to a prepubescent member of the opposite sex. Why would a gay person be any more likely to find a prepubescent person of the same sex attractive? Psychologists believe that being attracted to children is a different sexual preference from homosexuality and heterosexuality and bisexuality. Those terms don't apply, as children are not, by nature, sexual at all. An adult who is attracted to children would theoretically always be heterosexual because the sort of ambiguous gender that children appear to be is different from the defined gender that most adults are.

Now, as for the situation you're talking about... In a situation like that, if I were a parent, I'd explain to my children if they didn't know already that some people are attracted to members of the same sex, and that's okay. If I were the child in question in this situation, I'd get a boner. I mean, if I were a guy. And assuming the guys were at all attractive. I've liked watching guys snogging since 8th grade. Why is it that guys aren't considered weird if they like watching lesbians, but girls are considered weird if they like watching gay guys? Although the lesbians in porn aren't real lesbians, whereas usually the men in gay porn are gay. It's funny, I hear men who know a lot of lesbians mention how lesbians in porn aren't real lesbians and how they look different... I don't see a difference. Maybe it's because I myself am queer. Or maybe it's like how straight women have a tendency to be attracted to gay men by accident... whereas straight men tend to be repelled by real lesbians. Interestingly, this is backwards from the porn-watching habits of these genders... hmmm...
Also interestingly, it seems to me that practically all women are almost lesbian... in that they tend to want men to behave like women. Most women seem to want men to display their emotions in a way that is biologically unnatural to most men, for example. A lot of younger women also tend to be attracted to feminine-looking men. Just look at how popular Nsync and the Backstreet Boys are. And in Japan, half the musicians there dress like girls with makeup and all because the female fans love it.
Let's face it: the world is a wacky place. There's no point in trying to make judgements on the sexual attractions of others, so long as they only involve willing partners who are able to make those kinds of decisions...
Which leads me to wonder, if children are barred from sex with adults because they can be easily manipulated into doing things that are harmful to them, shouldn't gullible people be similarly protected? Oh well, I suppose it's not my problem as I'm not gullible or a minor, and I'm not attracted to minors and gullible people.

Okay, I'm done now. Back to fascist mode. *salutes*

Well since 90% of happiness is psychological, what you REALLY mean is quality of life. And capitalist countries routinely trump less-capitalist ones in that category. The USA has the highest cure rates for cancer and per capita income of any large nation. We have the most efficient agriculture and we are tied very closely with Japan for most efficient industry. Right now, our GDP growth is faster than any other major first-world nation. We employ more biotechnology researchers than every other country on Earth combined. Even with Bush's anti-cloning stance. Of course, the average life expectancy in America is lower but this is mostly due to our obesity and drug epidemic that is less apparent elsewhere in the world.

Objectively, America no doubt has the highest quality of life of any large nation. Of course, something like Luxembourg or Switzerland might be higher, but speaking of large nations. Likewise, Hong Kong (extremely capitalist) has a much better quality of life than Taiwan (semi-capitalist since 1949), which in turn has a much better quality of life than Mainland China (semi-capitalist since 1980s).

The best way to improve the quality of life is, realistically speaking, to make money. You need money to do the things like provide healthcare, education, improved quality of life, etc. This is what sets developed countries apart from developing ones.

What in God's name is your source? Last I heard from the real life United Nations, the top three countries as far as quality of life is concerned are Norway, Sweden, and Canada. The first two are purely socialist, and Canada is relatively socialist for a North American country. America was way down there on the list. So much for corporate bureaucracy causing happiness...

Another thing, it's easy to think that most people are well off if you're in the middle class. The truth is, something like 99% of the wealth in America belongs to something like 5% of the people. Sure, there are more people in the middle class here than in, say, Ethiopia, but there's way more poverty than anyone wants to believe. Most people on the internet don't know much about that, because if you can afford a computer and internet access, you probably aren't poor, and those citizens who aren't poor are shielded, at least in this country, from seeing those who are... mostly because rich people dislike seeing poor people, it makes them uncomfortable. And it's less expensive to pay the police to put all the homeless into jail than it is to donate money to charity to help them get into a halfway house.

That's another thing, it's very difficult to get a job if you're poor (ESPECIALLY if you're homeless), partly because people discriminate against you in job interviews if you don't look well-kept... and it's hard to look well kept when you can't afford to. In our economy, it's hard enough for even middle-class people with tons of training to get work, especially with the technology industry's version of sweatshop use: outsourcing.
Now, if you're poor and don't have a lot of training (which you probably don't, because non-essential education and training is DAMNED expensive) then you don't have a prayer of finding a job that pays anything decent. And it's impossible to get skilled jobs unless you have the money to pay for post-secondary education.
You have to have money to earn money, and that's the way it works in this country. The argument that poor people should go out and get jobs doesn't work, especially with all the corporate fatcats outsourcing and using sweatshop labour and whatnot.

If you're homeless, your only chance of living off something other than panhandled money is a halfway house, and since there are so many poor people, the lines for halfway houses are endless. If you aren't born into a relatively well-off family in this society, you're doomed to being poor forever unless you're an incredibly lucky bastard.

Sorry for the hugely off-topic post, but I felt compelled.

Doesn't this qualify as a repeal? (Because you have to override the gay rights resolution?)

Doesn't this qualify as a repeal? (Because you have to override the gay rights resolution?)

No. A repeal removes a resolution.

This I believe would count as a counter-resolution or an opposition resolution, as it is in direct contradiction.

Once again i bring up the quote of Romans ch1, 26-27.

Romans 1

26 - Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27 - In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

An excellent description of the particular sin. Not the reason the city was destroyed. It also doesn't say "homosexuality is a greater sin." You should really read more of the bible. Entirely pointless if you think this "God" thing is a big joke.

Address, my previous post on this subject, if you really think you are up to it. Creationism is a joke... so don't even try to use that.

The Kingdom of Humanistic Advancement

i only brought up this because others brought up the bible firsr!

Once again i bring up the quote of Romans ch1, 26-27.

Romans 1

26 - Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27 - In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

An excellent description of the particular sin. Not the reason the city was destroyed. It also doesn't say "homosexuality is a greater sin." You should really read more of the bible. Entirely pointless if you think this "God" thing is a big joke.

Address, my previous post on this subject, if you really think you are up to it. Creationism is a joke... so don't even try to use that.

The Kingdom of Humanistic Advancement

i only brought up this because others brought up the bible first!

The Grand Duchy of the Lateran will throw all its weight behind this motion and declares its unreserved, whole-hearted support of it, not only for moral reasons but also because the 'love that dared not speak its name' is now the love that won't shut the hell up and His Imperial Majesty is quite sick of listening to poofters prattle pompously and endlessly.

The Grand Duchy of the Lateran will throw all its weight behind this motion and declares its unreserved, whole-hearted support of it, not only for moral reasons but also because the 'love that dared not speak its name' is now the love that won't shut the hell up and His Imperial Majesty is quite sick of listening to poofters prattle pompously and endlessly.

i am in full support of this.

The Grand Duchy of the Lateran will throw all its weight behind this motion and declares its unreserved, whole-hearted support of it, not only for moral reasons but also because the 'love that dared not speak its name' is now the love that won't shut the hell up and His Imperial Majesty is quite sick of listening to poofters prattle pompously and endlessly.

i am in full support of this. ohh and nicely said

Personally,I don't consider it right.I won't hold it against you if you are a homo but I don't agree with you. If man could survive with just another man than what is the point of having women? And vice versa.

Women are not just meant to reproduce and take care of the children and men are not just meant to be the worker and bringer of money and food. We need each other and not just for sexual reasons.

Of course, someone will probably argue on my phrasing.Such as the word 'meant' but I am simply stating my opinion.

I would ban homosexuality from my nation if given the choice but I'm not going to hate someone for being one.I am not a homo so I cannot say that
it is genetics or chose or any of that rot,but I shall say it again.I do not believe man was created to have sex with another man nor a woman with
a woman.

The Hope-filled Nation of Animeforever105

Whoa... you've crossed the line. Woman on woman? I am okay with that. Anyone who is okay with that, must also be okay with man on man, for it is really bad to accept one, but reject the other, and they are pretty much one in the same.

yeah, did any of you breeders pick up on the fact, you ban homosexuality, you also ban lesbians?

The ones who care about that fact don't want to ban homosexuality; they just don't like gay guys.

No I let them do as they do. Love does not matter on race, sex, or anythig. It is all about love.

While I do not think such a proposal should pass, mainly because I think it is unenforcable and the Gov. has no right to dictate what two consenting adults do in the privacy of thier homes, In AnteNicea homosexuality is in no way promoted as "an alternative lifestyle" nor do we feel that a personal choice is warranted of any type of special rights. Homsexuality is viewd as a habitual choice much like smoking. At some point in thier non-smoking lives a would be smoker was naturally attracted to smoking; so they chose to become a smoker and they can quit when they have decided that it is not healthy for them or their future.

In my opinion, there is no reason to fill up the UN with sex related laws, regardless of right or wrong. It pointlessly raises the target age group of the site. By avoiding such topics, we could make the site "safer" withought making it less interesting.

In my opinion, there is no reason to fill up the UN with sex related laws, regardless of right or wrong. It pointlessly raises the target age group of the site. By avoiding such topics, we could make the site "safer" withought making it less interesting.

Ah!yes!I must agree with that.Just don't bother with it.

And yes,I realize that if I banned homos I'd be banning lesbians.Sorry if I offend you but that is me.I don't think there will ever be a world where no one is offended.

Homosexuality was only made illegal recently in Isochronous to stop a wave of illegal immigrants flooding in. Citizens simply look down upon those who have decided to be that way for whatever disgusting reason.

By the Bible, homosexuality is no greater as a sin than anything else.



Before using the Bible, read the part where God destroyed a city full of gays.

It actually says that all sins are equal in the eyes of God, if you buy that sort of thing. Sodom and Gemorah were destroyed because they were massively corrupt and there were not "10 good men" to be found in the city. It was destroyed because of wide spread sinning, not homosexuality. A city full of people saying "God Damn" could have faced a similar fate.

http://www.rotten-com/library/sex/sodomy/bible/

Plus, what did gays ever do to bother you? So you think it's gross, deal with it. I think aspargus is gross, but I don't have any particular desire to see it allowed or people that indulge in it punished (eternal or otherwise).

Kingdom of Humanistic Advancement - where people eat asparagus

Once again i bring up the quote of Romans ch1, 26-27.


Ahhhh. Bible quotes by the ignorant. My absolute favorite.

Here's one: 1 Samuel 19, 25-27 Then Saul said, "Thus shall you say to David, 'The king desires no marriage present except a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, that he may be avenged of the king's enemies.'" Now Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines. And when his servants told David these words, it pleased David well to be the king's son-in-law. Before the time had expired, David arose and went along with his men, and killed two hundred of the Philistines; David brought their foreskins, which were given in full number to the king, that he might become the king's son-in-law.

What are we to make of this, hmmmm? The ignorant and unthinking would probably take this to mean you can aquire a wife simply by redeeming 200 foreskins. Hopefully, society has progressed beyond that point. And that's the idea. A careful study of the Bible will reveal many of these little gems. That, if taken literally, would wreak havok. And often they are taken literally, and often they do wreak havok.

People, God gave you a heart, soul and mind. Not to talk about, but to USE. Taking literally a text written over 2000 years ago, and translated and edited multiple times in the interim, is just plain stupid. And no it's not about faith. Even Christ admonishes many times against blind faith and strict adherence to dogma. I am sick and tired of Christianity and the Bible being vilified because idiots, hate mongers and power hungry assholes constantly use it to justify thier own distorted view of reality.

You want a Bible quote? Here is my favorite. It's from the Gospel. The only part in the Bible to directly quote Christianity's founder.

Matt 7, 1-2 Judge not, that you be not judged. For the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.

you do have a point about the other religions thing, but buddha would probabely say to deny any kind of sexual urge anyway.

Clearly you don't know much about Buddhism. At the most he might have suggested people to deny their sexual urge... which is a very contentious point anyway; but Buddha preached that no-one should impose their own opinions on another.

no they don't. it goes against instinct. humans are the only animals that have sex for pleasure. animals wouldn't have any need for homosexuality. especially considering that a primary point in an animals life is to reproduce.

There are actually GAY animals. That is, animals who, given the choice between (assuming the animal in question is male) a male and a female of the same species, will pick a male every time. Most animals will copulate with an animal of the same gender if there is not one of the opposite gender available. Therefore animals DO have sex for pleasure. Oh, and there are species of monkies that masturbate.

We will back this proposal.

Leftist airy fairy fundaloonies should NOT be allowed to take over the world! Hypocritical, suicidal, moronic, idiotic tree huggers!

Name caller.

Now I will put in my 2 cents (If non U.N. Members aren't allowed to please correct me) About this issue. I am a Christian in RL, but will use examples from a evolutionist point of view. Now homosexuals are effectivly removing themselves out of the gene pool, now in an evolutionists point of view it could be a good thing if only weak dumb people were "gay", but like normal straight folks "normal" homosexuals want to have sex with healthy attractive people.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

no they don't. it goes against instinct. humans are the only animals that have sex for pleasure. animals wouldn't have any need for homosexuality. especially considering that a primary point in an animals life is to reproduce.

There are actually GAY animals. That is, animals who, given the choice between (assuming the animal in question is male) a male and a female of the same species, will pick a male every time. Most animals will copulate with an animal of the same gender if there is not one of the opposite gender available. Therefore animals DO have sex for pleasure. Oh, and there are species of monkies that masturbate.

So what? Humans don't have to act like animals!

no they don't. it goes against instinct. humans are the only animals that have sex for pleasure. animals wouldn't have any need for homosexuality. especially considering that a primary point in an animals life is to reproduce.

There are actually GAY animals. That is, animals who, given the choice between (assuming the animal in question is male) a male and a female of the same species, will pick a male every time. Most animals will copulate with an animal of the same gender if there is not one of the opposite gender available. Therefore animals DO have sex for pleasure. Oh, and there are species of monkies that masturbate.

So what? Humans don't have to act like animals!

Okay. I nominate you to pioneer the absolute abstinence frontier. Also, try going without breathing and eating and drinking water and defecating. Animals do all those things, too, so I'll bet we'll be better -- which is to say, we'll PROVE our SUPERIORITY -- if we avoid doing them! See how well that works for you. I'll be waiting over here. I'm not giggling... I'm... uh... I've got a cold? :roll:

no they don't. it goes against instinct. humans are the only animals that have sex for pleasure. animals wouldn't have any need for homosexuality. especially considering that a primary point in an animals life is to reproduce.

There are actually GAY animals. That is, animals who, given the choice between (assuming the animal in question is male) a male and a female of the same species, will pick a male every time. Most animals will copulate with an animal of the same gender if there is not one of the opposite gender available. Therefore animals DO have sex for pleasure. Oh, and there are species of monkies that masturbate.

So what? Humans don't have to act like animals!


so does this mean that humans are no longer animals? i must not have gotten that memo. the last one i got said something about evolution and coming from monkeys. i see i am not the only one who didn't pay any attention. and yes, there are plenty of gay animals who (for lack of a better word,) mate for life. (yes, they don't mate, but they stick with eachother for life) in fact they even took a gay sheep and put it in a field with a feamle and another male sheep. the gay sheep went right for the male and begun.. well... balling. humans are animales, we just act different becouse we evolved better.

On page 14 of the UN proposal there is a new one to ban homosexuality. All states which believe in natural law and decency are urged to support it in the fact of a socialist/liberal onslaught on family life!!

Support the proposal to bring back family values and re-assert hetrosexuality as the mainstay of a healthy country ONCE AND FOR ALL!

Why don't you go and look at the post Thoralbania has put on Nation States? Our Government has a much better idea. I really do think you should you should look at our ideas you know. Those that agreed to such a law as you propose would be putting their very souls in danger if it was ever put on the statute books.

If you do read our proposal, and you are true to yourself, you will realise of course that you are eaten alive with jealousy because in your heart you know that what Thoralbania acknowledges about art, culture and everything where original thinking and plain high intelligence are required has always been done mostly by gay people. I promise it is true. If you can be bothered to do a little research you will soon prove beyone doubt that the very best in society that we all rely on today, infact anythng worth having was created by gay people.

Accept it, nature or God's plan, however you choose to think of it is saying loud and clear:

GAY PEOPLE ARE INTELLIGENT AND CREATIVE, THEY HAVE BEEN RELIEVED OF THE BURDEN OF CREATING CHIDREN SO THAT THEY CAN CREATE ART AND SCIENCE AND BEAUTY. THEIR CREATIVITY MOVES THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE ONTO THE NEXT STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT. WITHOUT GAY PEOPLE, THE WORLD WOULD JUST RUN ON REPEAT.

GAY PEOPLE ARE NOT NATURE FODDER - THAT IS YOUR JOB

See it really is very simple.

Yours in absolute seriousness,

Clarice Cockett
Minister for Culture and the Economy

BRAVO! you deserve a standing ovation for that! *stands and claps loudly.......then sits down hoping everyone will stop staring*

yes well.....BRAVO!

I almost got all bent out of shape, then I realized we're dealing with someone unable to spell heterosexuality.

no they don't. it goes against instinct. humans are the only animals that have sex for pleasure. animals wouldn't have any need for homosexuality. especially considering that a primary point in an animals life is to reproduce.

There are actually GAY animals. That is, animals who, given the choice between (assuming the animal in question is male) a male and a female of the same species, will pick a male every time. Most animals will copulate with an animal of the same gender if there is not one of the opposite gender available. Therefore animals DO have sex for pleasure. Oh, and there are species of monkies that masturbate.

So what? Humans don't have to act like animals!

That, sir, was not the point being made. He was disputing the contention that homosexuality is unnatural, which it eminently is not - one could as easily declare that heterosexuality is unnatural.

- Jordan

no heterosexuality is completely natural. man "evolved" (or whatever) a certain way with two distinct sexes for the use of reproduction.

I wouldn't go so far as to state that gay people are responsible for most everything worth having today... there really isn't anything to back that claim up, nor could one be sure of knowledge of this sort without asking everyone who's ever accomplished something noteworthy if he/she are gay. And as for this proposal to ban Homosexuality? Trying to regulate a persons' sexuality will not work, plain and simple, and it's foolish to even attempt it. Whether being gay is condemned in the Bible or any other religous texts is a moot point. Why? Because you will not stop homosexuality with anything less than being in a person's home to keep him\her from having gay sex - and I for one truly don't see why some people have such a problem with it. I hear denounciations based on scripture or the fact that it isn't natural, (even suicidal) but I don't see how what one couple does in their private tme pertains to anyone outside that relationship. It would be different if gays were trying to convert straight people, but I've never seen or heard of that happening. Live and let live - as long as two consenting adults wish to engage in an act like same sex lovemaking, they should be allowed to. I won't walk into a person's bedroom and condemn him or her for taking part in group sex, and I wont do it to homosexuals. This is my long winded way of saying, it really isnt even any of your business.

howabout we also ban same sex friendships while we're at it just to be certain.

why do i have a feeling this thread will never be resolved?

no heterosexuality is completely natural. man "evolved" (or whatever) a certain way with two distinct sexes for the use of reproduction.

I would like to ask the delegate for the portugese how, exactly, he knows this. I have studied genetics and psychology, and particularly this issue, and would like him to make clear what evidence he possesses that I do not.

This reminds me of a Monty Python sketch... 'No it isn't!' 'Yes it is!' ad infinitum...

I can corroborate my statement with evidence. Can you do this, please?

With respect, of course.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

You might be interested in my proposal for the International Marriage Act...

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

no heterosexuality is completely natural. man "evolved" (or whatever) a certain way with two distinct sexes for the use of reproduction.

I would like to ask the delegate for the portugese how, exactly, he knows this. I have studied genetics and psychology, and particularly this issue, and would like him to make clear what evidence he possesses that I do not.

This reminds me of a Monty Python sketch... 'No it isn't!' 'Yes it is!' ad infinitum...

I can corroborate my statement with evidence. Can you do this, please?

With respect, of course.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Heterosexuality is natural, procreation doesn't really work any other way in nature.

Now that fact that one is natural does not make the other unnatural. This is like saying since brown eyes are natural blue eyes must be unnatural

On page 14 of the UN proposal there is a new one to ban homosexuality. All states which believe in natural law and decency are urged to support it in the fact of a socialist/liberal onslaught on family life!!

Support the proposal to bring back family values and re-assert hetrosexuality as the mainstay of a healthy country ONCE AND FOR ALL!

How about a 'ban' on ignorant mentally challenged, quasi-schizophrenic people who hide behind their blinded so called conservative values and or religions seeing homosexuality as some socialist liberal agenda.

I propose people such as yourself are sent to camps and sytematically exterminated for the greater good of moral decency and preservation of genotypes responsible for non psycho-patholgical behavior.

no heterosexuality is completely natural. man "evolved" (or whatever) a certain way with two distinct sexes for the use of reproduction.

I would like to ask the delegate for the portugese how, exactly, he knows this. I have studied genetics and psychology, and particularly this issue, and would like him to make clear what evidence he possesses that I do not.

This reminds me of a Monty Python sketch... 'No it isn't!' 'Yes it is!' ad infinitum...

I can corroborate my statement with evidence. Can you do this, please?

With respect, of course.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Heterosexuality is natural, procreation doesn't really work any other way in nature.

Now that fact that one is natural does not make the other unnatural. This is like saying since brown eyes are natural blue eyes must be unnatural

Correct, and a particularly astute point. Can I add that the 'naturalness' of a behaviour (if you will) is in no way dependent on the purpose it serves - the tonsils and the appendix are completely natural, and utterly pointless, parts of the anatomy.

Homosexuality is a natural impulse that is rooted firmly in genetic tendancy and deep psychological conditioning and preference. Trying to change it or prevent it is asking humanity to act contrary to its nature. This doesn't make it right, but it certainly doesn't make it wrong.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Hi I am from The United States of Puliton and This proposal has no merit and is Socially illegal. If the commi who proposed this anyway wants to prevent disease add more money to Health care and as far as the social aspect LET PEOPLE BE WHO THEY WANNA BE why are you making their decision. I am a hetrosexual so why should i dictate somebody's life from the other side of the fence?

Let's put aside all the moral and religious issues, and look at this in a practical way.
How could this kind of proposal be realistically enforced? Unless you approve of the government installing cameras in peoples' bedrooms ala "1984," there's not really anything anyone can do about it.

Besides, it really is very stupid to complain so much about something that doesn't actually affect you in any way. Get over it already.

WAKE UP, DROP THE ISSUE.

Every week another "Gays Are Okay ! , No there Not, Their Bad, Very, Very, Very, Bad, Let's Kill Them ! , Ah, Lets Not, You Freek !" argument rears its ulgy head and angers a whole lot of liberal individuals while also pissing off the extremists. not that they count.

Now I am gonna try to make this as clear as I am able, so, Ahem,

HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SEXUAL PREFERANCE, WHICH MEANS, THAT PEOPLE WILL DECIDE TO DO IT IF THEY CAN, AND AS SUCH, THEY WILL, AND I SOME HOW DOUBT THAT SOME POXY LITTLE RED-NECKS ARE GONNA WIPE IT OUT JUST BY CLICKING THEIR FINGERS.

If ya see what I am getting at . . .

Oh, yeah, and contrary to popular belief, Homosexuality has been around for as long as hetrosexuality its just in the last few centuries, well, two mabye, and especially in the last, that it has become more widely excepted by the educated peoples of the world as being a valid way of life.

Oh, yeah, and before people start quoting the bible and such, about how "it is written" that homosexuality is a sin, well, kindly flip to the bit the explains about the dinosaurs, and the ice ages ? You know, widely excepted, proved, no doubt about it, fact? Hmmm, oh look, silence.

OH, YEAH, And for crying out loud let it rest, its pathetic people are running around screaming, "GAYS ARE EVIL", Because there are more important things in the world then trying to shame someone for their lifestyle.

( * * * Takes deep calming breath * * * )

Jeez the ignorant p*ss me off something shocking.

Its like ground hog WEEK in the U..N. forums.

A Rep of Komokom.

The Empire of Kheldon votes -against- this proposal.

The Grand Duchy of the Lateran will throw all its weight behind this motion and declares its unreserved, whole-hearted support of it, not only for moral reasons but also because the 'love that dared not speak its name' is now the love that won't shut the hell up and His Imperial Majesty is quite sick of listening to poofters prattle pompously and endlessly.

There is a certain irony here. Exaclty who is pompously and endlessly prattling? We have in human civilization, at least two main religions that 'appear' to condemn homosexuals. Personally I do not care what either says unless those followers of their respective religions follow the code to the letter of the law, then again if they did they'd eitehr be in prison or a mentla asylum. Then again there is a certain selective nature how peole pick and choose and paraphrase verse that is inaccurately translated. Take for example the verse from Corinthians. It is really intersting how a word that is predated by the Bible by nearly two millenia appears in it. :idea: *cough* fake religion *cough* false doctrine *cough* religioegocentrism *cough* vociferous projection *cough* bullcrap

Then there's the Leviticus verse. It is widely known that abomination as used in this chapter refers to what goes against tribal purity, not sin. Leviticus also speaks of eating pork and a number of other innoccuous activities which is zeroed in on by the likes of the pompous endlessly prattling several religious leaders and personalities as being proof how "god hates fags' while bits of pork are stuck between their teeth. As for the rest of the verses in the bible, people seem to be confused with the practices of what was known as Spartan homosexuality and the keeping of young boys for sexual enjoyment (ganymede).

Pompously and endlessly prattling huh? How about stupid douchebags who seem permitted to use derogatory slurs here and elsewhere either by hiding their hatred behind a religion that does not condone their behavior in any regard, and the act of 'roleplaying' which also shelters and legitimises the stupid, the pompous, the prattlers, who have had their loud slabbering rhetoric heard for far too long.^^

If I see one more utterance of this BS, I will pull out of this site, but not before going out in a blaze of glory. I'm gonna use religion and roleplaying and if I recieve any flack from the admin of this site or anyone else, there will be hell to pay. :twisted:

The Grand Duchy of the Lateran will throw all its weight behind this motion and declares its unreserved, whole-hearted support of it, not only for moral reasons but also because the 'love that dared not speak its name' is now the love that won't shut the hell up and His Imperial Majesty is quite sick of listening to poofters prattle pompously and endlessly.

There is a certain irony here. Exaclty who is pompously and endlessly prattling? We have in human civilization, at least two main religions that 'appear' to condemn homosexuals. Personally I do not care what either says unless those followers of their respective religions follow the code to the letter of the law, then again if they did they'd eitehr be in prison or a mentla asylum. Then again there is a certain selective nature how peole pick and choose and paraphrase verse that is inaccurately translated. Take for example the verse from Corinthians. It is really intersting how a word that is predated by the Bible by nearly two millenia appears in it. :idea: *cough* fake religion *cough* false doctrine *cough* religioegocentrism *cough* vociferous projection *cough* bullcrap

Then there's the Leviticus verse. It is widely known that abomination as used in this chapter refers to what goes against tribal purity, not sin. Leviticus also speaks of eating pork and a number of other innoccuous activities which is zeroed in on by the likes of the pompous endlessly prattling several religious leaders and personalities as being proof how "god hates fags' while bits of pork are stuck between their teeth. As for the rest of the verses in the bible, people seem to be confused with the practices of what was known as Spartan homosexuality and the keeping of young boys for sexual enjoyment (ganymede).

Pompously and endlessly prattling huh? How about stupid douchebags who seem permitted to use derogatory slurs here and elsewhere either by hiding their hatred behind a religion that does not condone their behavior in any regard, and the act of 'roleplaying' which also shelters and legitimises the stupid, the pompous, the prattlers, who have had their loud slabbering rhetoric heard for far too long.^^

If I see one more utterance of this BS, I will pull out of this site, but not before going out in a blaze of glory. I'm gonna use religion and roleplaying and if I recieve any flack from the admin of this site or anyone else, there will be hell to pay. :twisted:

OFFICIAL RESPONSE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THORALBANIA

Yes, Yes, Yes. Good for you - get angry with these fools, someone needs to. Personally, OUR way is to tell them some home truths about gay intelligence and contributions to art, science and the advancemet of the human condition. It probabaly annoys them even more than getting angry. They advance unproven ideas and quote their religions to 'prove' how 'e-vil' (said like Davros, if you ever watched Doctor Who) we all are.
The Government of Thoralbania simply points out the obvious to them in the hope that at least some of the poor, misguided creatures see it at last. However, I am afraid that most are happy with their acrid, sulphurous and plain wrong interpretation of the holy texts.

Feel free to visit the discussion about our new Gay County and contribute a thought or two.

Clarice Cockett
Minister of Culture and the Economy for Thoralbania

I am firmly in agreement with this! not only will it help to creat a more productive culture it will stop the spreading of many dieseases

Look you tiresome little pipsqueak. Visit the discussion that Thoralbania has initiated for some intelligent thought on this subject. I could rant on here and scream enlightenment into your face, but I have this feeling that you are unforgivably ugly and I've just eaten. Also, I cannot be arsed, I never did like talking to thick peasants.

Clarice (getting riled) Cockett
Minister for Culture and Employment for Thoralbania

I am firmly in agreement with this! not only will it help to creat a more productive culture it will stop the spreading of many dieseases

Look you tiresome little pipsqueak. Visit the discussion that Thoralbania has initiated for some intelligent thought on this subject. I could rant on here and scream enlightenment into your face, but I have this feeling that you are unforgivably ugly and I've just eaten. Also, I cannot be arsed, I never did like talking to thick peasants.

Clarice (getting riled) Cockett
Minister for Culture and Employment for Thoralbania

I've always wondered... these diseases gays spread, who do they spread them to? Since gays generally have sex only with other gays, they spread those horrible, deadly diseases to other gays, right?
So why don't I see homophobes dancing and singing in the streets, celebrating "The fags will all be dead soon" Day?
Hey, I guess gay's *don't* 'spread diseases'.

Let it be known that the people of Reagani wholeheartedly support the effort to ban the sickening and immoral behavior of homosexuality. Let it be known that Albionica has a political ally in the fight against the dark forces of socialism and liberalism

uhoh not the dark forces of liberalism

Let it be known that the people of Reagani wholeheartedly support the effort to ban the sickening and immoral behavior of homosexuality. Let it be known that Albionica has a political ally in the fight against the dark forces of socialism and liberalism

Let it be known that homosexuality is only sickening to non-homosexuals. Also, can I ask, would you (a) have sex with another man, or (b) live a celibate life if these were the only moral options? I suspect the former 'sickens' you and the latter sounds impossible. Well, that's the same as what you're asking homosexuals to do on account of your own feelings. There's a word for this, sir, and it's 'arrogance'.

I have chosen to live a life of celibacy. I find sex disgusting. Should I therefore declare that all sexual activity is immoral just because I feel like it? No, because I have developed a 'Theory of Mind' like most intelligent, non-autistic persons, and understand that some people have needs and motivations which are different from my own.

- Jordan

uhoh not the dark forces of liberalism

il·lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-lbr-l)
adj.
Narrow-minded; bigoted.
Archaic. Ungenerous, mean, or stingy.
Archaic.
Lacking liberal culture.
Ill-bred; vulgar.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Latin illberlis : in-, not; see in-1 + lberlis, liberal; see liberal.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
il·liber·al·ism n.
il·liber·ali·ty (--rl-t) or il·liber·al·ness n.
il·liber·al·ly adv.



illiberal

\Il*lib"er*al\, a. [L. illiberalis; pref. il- not + liberalis liberal: cf. F. illib['e]ral.] 1. Not liberal; not free or generous; close; niggardly; mean; sordid. ``A thrifty and illiberal hand.'' --Mason.

2. Indicating a lack of breeding, culture, and the like; ignoble; rude; narrow-minded; disingenuous.

3. Not well authorized or elegant; as, illiberal words in Latin. [R.] --Chesterfield.



illiberal

adj : narrow-minded about cherished opinions [syn: intolerant]