NationStates Jolt Archive

It is requested that you endorse the proposal called “TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE”; it defines marriage as “the lawful & voluntary union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.”

If 132 endorsements are received, then the United Nations will put this resolution to a vote.

TO FIND THE PROPOSAL: Click on the “List Proposals” link, under “United Nations” and do a Search for “Marriage”

Thank you.


--------------------------
Resolved: That MARRIAGE is, and should remain, the lawful & voluntary union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.

Rationale: Marriage is the institution which, formalized through various religions, forms the basis for society vis à vis procreation; it is the institution which has preserved the existence of society since time immemorial.

Therefore, it is important that - in light of international pressures - that the institution of marriage be defined such that it:
(i) Be regarded highly, and (ii) Have a clear & consistent definition from nation to nation.

* This resolution does not preclude (nor does it encourage) individual nations from developing civil unions or registered partnerships for other types of relationships.

* This resolution's intent is to define marriage in a certain light AND DOES NOT encourage discrimination or persecution of individuals who do not fit the proposed definition of marriage.

Hmm, what is the resolutions stance on divorce and re-marriage?

* This resolution's intent is to define marriage in a certain light AND DOES NOT encourage discrimination or persecution of individuals who do not fit the proposed definition of marriage.
That is a complete lie. Basically, you are trying to trick people into voting to outlaw homosexual marriages. You are a disgraceful bigot, and you should be locked in a dungeon with a pack of salivating mutant rodents.

Hmm, what is the resolutions stance on divorce and re-marriage?

Outside the scope of the resolution. If people cease to be married, then they can marry again. The resolution is silent on this.

* This resolution's intent is to define marriage in a certain light AND DOES NOT encourage discrimination or persecution of individuals who do not fit the proposed definition of marriage.
That is a complete lie. Basically, you are trying to trick people into voting to outlaw homosexual marriages. You are a disgraceful bigot, and you should be locked in a dungeon with a pack of salivating mutant rodents.

No.

* This resolution's intent is to define marriage in a certain light AND DOES NOT encourage discrimination or persecution of individuals who do not fit the proposed definition of marriage.
That is a complete lie. Basically, you are trying to trick people into voting to outlaw homosexual marriages. You are a disgraceful bigot, and you should be locked in a dungeon with a pack of salivating mutant rodents.

No.
Yes. Your lack of any real response proves your guilt. But I have changed my mind regarding your punishment. Rather than invoking bodily harm on you, you should be hypnotized into becoming homosexual, so that you will hate yourself and will hopefully rip out your own liver. Then you can wear it as a hat.

Traditional for whom? Are you trying to force tradition onto people?

You are a disgraceful bigot, and you should be locked in a dungeon with a pack of salivating mutant rodents.

You should be hypnotized into becoming homosexual, so that you will hate yourself and will hopefully rip out your own liver. Then you can wear it as a hat.

I think it's clear which one of us is filled with hate and it isn't me.



VOTE FOR TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE

Traditional for whom? Are you trying to force tradition onto people?
It's been a tradition since, FOREVER that people have children. If they didn't, humanity would cease to exist.

The one man and one woman (who created the child) can get married and should; it is the best situation for the child. Therefore, Anberica believes that marriage should closely resemble these traditions.

Hmm, what is the resolutions stance on divorce and re-marriage?

Outside the scope of the resolution. If people cease to be married, then they can marry again. The resolution is silent on this.

Okay, just seeking confirmation.

Traditional for whom? Are you trying to force tradition onto people?
It's been a tradition since, FOREVER that people have children. If they didn't, humanity would cease to exist.

The one man and one woman (who created the child) can get married and should; it is the best situation for the child. Therefore, Anberica believes that marriage should closely resemble these traditions.

Who said people have to be married to have kids? Besides, with genetics now, you can eliminate half the equation.

Who said people have to be married to have kids? Besides, with genetics now, you can eliminate half the equation.

The Republic of Anberica understands these "non-traditional" permutations.

Nevertheless, as are most resolutions, there is a normative component.

We believe that People should be married to have kids; and people should endeavour to have kids naturally to be married.

Chief of Staff to the PM
Republic of Anberica

Fine, then, define "man" and "woman"

Can children not marry as well "traditionally"?

Fine, then, define "man" and "woman"

Can children not marry as well "traditionally"?

While Anberica seeks UN approval for this issue, we do not believe that the UN should micromanage all societies. The undefined term "man" and "woman" would be up to the individual nations who probably already have laws on age of consent etc.

Chief of Staff to the PM
Republic of Anberica

"Traditionally" women were considered inferior, therefore, male/male couples were largely accepted because "women lacked brains"

"Traditionally" women were considered inferior, therefore, male/male couples were largely accepted because "women lacked brains"

This is not a position held by the Republic of Anberica.

Executive Assistant to the Chief of Staff of the PM
Republic of Anberica

So, am I correct in thinking your opinion about teh purpose of marriage is that it's only for procreation? That's sort of the idea I got from the proposal.

If that's true, do you think men and women who cannot have children should be allowed to marry? What about people who do not intend on having children? Would you force a married couple to have children?

People lynched blacks and hung them from trees for awhile, so why don't we do that? History has a long line of despotic governments, why don't we go back to those? There's a good history of killing Jews, why don't we keep doing that? Women never used to get to vote, why let them now? Hell, why let anyone vote?

The simple thing is, if the only reason to continue a tradition is that it is a tradition, then there's no real reason to continue that tradition.

One thing people seem to forget is that homosexuality has been around for all of recorded history -- in other words, there is no evidence that it has not always been present. How is that not traditional?

Should the government be in the business of telling us who we can and cannot marry? No. It should not be.

If the purpose of marriage is to bear children, should infertile male-female couples be allowed?

If the only reason you want to outlaw gay marriage is that gays can't have children, what about adoption?

While Anberica seeks UN approval for this issue, we do not believe that the UN should micromanage all societies.

I'd call this micromanagement -- you're telling my citizens who they can and cannot marry. How is this an international issue?

So, he's not a man if he lost his "manhood" in, let's say, a war?

Traditional for whom? Are you trying to force tradition onto people?
It's been a tradition since, FOREVER that people have children. If they didn't, humanity would cease to exist.

The one man and one woman (who created the child) can get married and should; it is the best situation for the child. Therefore, Anberica believes that marriage should closely resemble these traditions.

If it is a tradition since "forever" then there is no need for legislation as you have suggested it will continue.

Sir, I will not endorse, nor shall I vote for your 'traditional' bill, that presents an attack on the traditions of Friedylvania. In Friedylvania, the practice of polygamy has long been accepted. I'm sure there are nations where homosexual marriage, or even inter-species marriage are deemed acceptable as well - perhaps even 'traditional'. Certainly there is nothing untraditional about polygamy for muslims, and I take it you haven't read much Greek history if you believe homosexuality to be untraditional there.
Whereas the world is not a coherent cultural unit, I think it utter hogwash to impose something as traditional values on the world. Furthermore, the free assembly of people isn't based on majority rule in any constitutional liberal democratic society - it is based on the principle of individual rights, whether the majority likes it or not. If the actions of my neighbour do not harm me, then I fail to see why those acts must be arrested simply because they might offend the sensibilities of the intolerant. I think it more appropriate for the morally sensitive to wear very dark sunglasses or put their heads in the sand in some fashion.

For the following reasons, this Resolution is based less on protection of Marriage and more on Blatant Homophobia, and Therefore Should not be Endorsed:

-Marriage is, first and foremost, a legal agreement about property and property rights. It is not an child-bearing arrangement. If this were true, infertile adults would be prohibited from getting married.

-The original premise of marriage was the selling of wives as property. This definition has been altered over the years to better reflect the modern reality and our ideals of equality.

-The notion of marriage as a Christian sacrament and not just a contract can only be traced back to Saint Paul.

-Only in 1563 did the Council of Trent declare that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and two witnesses. Prior to this, the majority of marriages took place without any ceremony whatsoever.

-It is a widely known fact that homosexual relationships have existed for millennia. In fact, in many cultures homosexual marriages were indeed celebrated, contrary to the assumption of this resolution. In some ancient African cultures, successful and respected women were permitted to take wives.

-If the writers of this resolution had any real concern for "traditional marriage", why aren't they going after the #1 killer of marriages today? An estimated 40% of [Londanian] women born in the 1970s will divorce. Why not put forward a resolution that addresses the problem of divorce?

-There are many gay and lesbian couples who raise children. Why should governments not grant as many rights to these couples as they grant to heterosexual people who don't even have children?

When a resolution that is based on facts as opposed to fearmongering rhetoric is proposed, I will re-examine the issue. Until then, the only possible justification for this resolution is homophobia.

There are so many flaws in the arguements. Was this researched any of this or justwritten from emotion and urban legend?

1- Tradition ... a heterosexual mogomous marriage is not traditional to a large percentage of the world. Cultures in North and South America, Africa, Norhern Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe have historically practiced poligamy either thru' the matriarch or the patriarch. Many stilll do today.

Over the past fifty years "co-habitation without the benefit of marriage" has increased by over 50%. (U.S.) How many people reading this have lived with someone?

2- Your premise that a traditional marriage is best for the children does have studies that support it BUT those studies were very narrow and slanted. They did not include families that had an abusive parent or drug/alchohol using parent or any of the the millions of other problems. Nor did those studies include healthy single parent families, gay parent families etc. In the early to late 1990's studies were done that took a more realistic cross section of traditional and non traditional families. These studies found that as long as there was a loving support system, safetyand security and good parenting skills- the make up the parenting unit had little effect.

At one point you said that one man and one woman who created the child can get married and should. It is best for the child. It is best for the child of a rape victim to have Mommy marry the rapist? It is best for the child of incest to have Mommy and Great Uncle Bobby marry? Oh but wait do we have incest laws? now THERE's TRADITION. OH and lest we forget what if mommy and Daddy are only Ten and Twelve. Now there's a stable parenting unit for you.

3 - Marriage for procreation I think you pretty much got the point from everyone else. If that were true there would be no population explosion.

Just because you say it is tradition doesn't make it right.

pseudoconservatism will call anything traditional if it suits their vested intent

that the mondane world so often falls for this ploy is appauling

that the players of nation states are made of clearer minded and stronger stuff is indeed great relief to everyone of honest conscounse

real traditions are those of indiginous cultures, not those imposed by superpowers for the purpose of their economic convenience

we are not above suspecting that were hetroginous monogamous merrage to be band crime would be reduced by nearly 50% everywhere

that is, granted idle speculation, but this whole bussiness of (pseudo)tradional and so called 'family' values is little more then a lame disguise for the reinstitutionalization of age and gender discrimination. itself a corrupt and perverted abomination with little or no support of objective evidence

we recomend instead that families consist of at least five adults of child bearing age and of mixed genders shairing a bond of some common interest or otherwise individuals living alone as congenial, hospitable and permiscuous hermits, who take every reasonable precaution to avoid creating pregnancies.

we in carlemnaria are also genuinely proud of our recognition and whole hearted endorsement of interspecies merrages as well.

we may have strainge looking children but they love each other and are fun to play with

there are no sex scandles in our land for we reguard no sexual relationship as scandelous.

the nalanuthu and nalanutho alike reguard morality as consisting of the avoidance of knowingly causing avoidable harm, and that what anyone does or does not go to bed with, where, when or how often, as having no bearing on morality what so ever and being of no concern to any party not directly involved.

most carlemnarians do however upon graduation from upper school avail themselves of free human spay and neuter clinics, this along with naturaly occuring enzimes in our nations water supply helps to keep human firtility from being the run away disaster it has become in nations with so called traditional (i.e. right wing looney) mariage 'values'.

=^^=
.../\...

Was this researched any of this or justwritten from emotion and urban legend?


OK, HOLD ON - LET ME STEP OUT OF THE SIMULATION FOR A SEC:
I'm trying to stimulate debate on an interesting and difficult issue.

I live in Canada where this issue is hotly debated. In the United States, one State court has proposed gay marriage to the opposition of the other institutions. In Europe this question is going to become more important in the future.

There is nothing poorly researched about my argument; this is an argument being had in real life.

I AM TRYING TO MAKE THE POINT that IT IS POSSIBLE for a person to NOT oppose gay rights, but TO OPPOSE gay Marriage. Notwithstanding a religious argument, I am advancing a perfectly valid secular argument to the gay marriage debate(courts and governments in Canada, the US, Britain, France and Africa have held this position).

You don't have to agree with it but (1) It is not written from emotion and (2) it's not homophobic.

Tolerance works both ways: We might disagree with basic premises (i.e. is marriage about procreation, about men and women, or about something or things much different) These disagreements cannot be solved. But the logical conclusion of these premises are just as valid as one another.

Some say that to conclude that only straight people should marry is an attack on gays.

Others say that to conclude that any form of marriage outside a moral framework is an attack on their reglion OR way of life OR tradition OR institutions.

Now back to the simulation...

Today the Prime Minister released a statement that he was intrigued by the debate over this issue. Anberica is hopeful that this resolution will be debated and voted on by the United Nations.

He extended an invitation to anyone who is in favor, oppposed, or undecided to contact him by telegram.

Legislative Assistant, External Affairs, to the PM
Republic of Anberica

There is nothing poorly researched about my argument
Then why don't you back up your statements with *facts*, or at least address the concerns we have brought up with this resolution?

I AM TRYING TO MAKE THE POINT that IT IS POSSIBLE for a person to NOT oppose gay rights, but TO OPPOSE gay Marriage.
Is it possible to not oppose the rights of interracial couples, but oppose their right to get married? No. Why is it any different for gays or lesbians?

We might disagree with basic premises (i.e. is marriage about procreation, about men and women, or about something or things much different) These disagreements cannot be solved.
These disagreements can be solved. Simply. Just answer this question: If you think marriage HAS to be about procreation, are you in favour of a resolution forbidding infertile adults from marrying?

Some say that to conclude that only straight people should marry is an attack on gays.
And some say that to conclude that only white people should be free is an attack on blacks. BECAUSE IT IS.

Others say that to conclude that any form of marriage outside a moral framework is an attack on their reglion OR way of life OR tradition OR institutions.
Imposing your beliefs -- religious or otherwise -- on another culture IS in fact an attack on their religion, way of life, traditions, and institutions.

Now, are you going to respond to my concerns, or are you going to simply ignore them again and continue your illogical, baseless rant?

Traditional for whom? Are you trying to force tradition onto people?
It's been a tradition since, FOREVER that people have children. If they didn't, humanity would cease to exist.

The one man and one woman (who created the child) can get married and should; it is the best situation for the child. Therefore, Anberica believes that marriage should closely resemble these traditions.

I am sorry, I have to disagree with you here.

Marriage as you have defined is traditional in Western society only.

For instance, polyandry (one wife, more than one husband marriage) is the traditional marriage type in the highlands of Tibet, while polygyny (one husband, more than one wife marriage) is by far the most common (and traditional in the cultures that practice it) marriage type in the world ranging far and wide from cultures such as the Yanomamo to modern Islamic countries. Before you say something is traditional realize first that your culture is not the only culture on this planet. Some cultures may disagree with you on what is traditional.

Thank you,
Albert G. Brown
Patoxian Diplomat

OOC: I'm an Anthropology undergrad. I'd write more but I don't feel like rummaging through my old papers right now.

I AM TRYING TO MAKE THE POINT that IT IS POSSIBLE for a person to NOT oppose gay rights, but TO OPPOSE gay Marriage.
Is it possible to not oppose the rights of interracial couples, but oppose their right to get married? No. Why is it any different for gays or lesbians?

It's different because many people believe that marriage is essentially a heterosexual institution. No community of homosexuals every survived more than 2 generations; its simple Darwinism. Anthropologists have backed this up time and time again.

Moreover, if one subscribes to the procreation argument, WHICH MANY PEOPLE DO, then there is more reason to see it as a purely heterosexual institution.

We might disagree with basic premises (i.e. is marriage about procreation, about men and women, or about something or things much different) These disagreements cannot be solved.
These disagreements can be solved. Simply. Just answer this question: If you think marriage HAS to be about procreation, are you in favour of a resolution forbidding infertile adults from marrying?

No. Couples that WANT to procreate but can't are still trying to fulfil a wonderful deed of having children. Their inability to have kids is a tragedy. Are you saying that an unwillingness to have children based on lifestyle choices is also a tragedy? I'm not saying that, but YOUR logic would then suggest that.

Some say that to conclude that only straight people should marry is an attack on gays.
And some say that to conclude that only white people should be free is an attack on blacks. BECAUSE IT IS.

Marriage is not a right. Homosexuals can have sex with whoever they want. They can have a loving relationship without the title marriage.

If you want to make this an equality thing then consider this: both homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally free to marry members of the opposite sex. :D

Others say that to conclude that any form of marriage outside a moral framework is an attack on their reglion OR way of life OR tradition OR institutions.
Imposing your beliefs -- religious or otherwise -- on another culture IS in fact an attack on their religion, way of life, traditions, and institutions.

Now, are you going to respond to my concerns, or are you going to simply ignore them again and continue your illogical, baseless rant?

I did. Just because you disagree doesn't mean that it's illogical or baseless.

AND WHY DONT YOU REPLY TO MY CONCERN: Your aggressive tone is very consistent with the intimidation-approach that characterizes your side of the debate. I see more vile comments and more intolerance of points of views coming from YOUR side. This is quite ironic and worth commenting on.

Anberica

I think The Black Forest makes a very good point.

No community of homosexuals every survived more than 2 generations; its simple Darwinism. Anthropologists have backed this up time and time again.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. what does Darwinism have to do with this? They do not survive because they are incapable of producing children. Minute changes in the genetic pool over time has nothing to do with this.

We do not feel the UN has a right to rule over this. A culture should decide what is traditional and what is allowable on it's own, since marriage is, after all, a cultural institution.

Albert G. Brown
Patoxian Diplomat

Edit: typo :oops:

It's different because many people believe that marriage is essentially a heterosexual institution. No community of homosexuals every survived more than 2 generations; its simple Darwinism. Anthropologists have backed this up time and time again.
Actually, if you had read the post above yours, you'd see that an anthropologist just refuted all those claims.

Their inability to have kids is a tragedy. Are you saying that an unwillingness to have children based on lifestyle choices is also a tragedy? I'm not saying that, but YOUR logic would then suggest that.
So. It's okay if people who CAN'T have kids get married. Because, you assume, they WANT to. Well, what if a heterosexual couple gets married and DOESN'T WANT to have kids? Should this marriage be annulled? Even more to the point -- should reproduction be MANDATORY for all married couples? Your logic seems to suggest this.

And what about homosexual couples who raise children? Are you suggesting that adopted children are of a lesser concern than biological children?

Marriage is not a right.
Actually, the United Nations would disagree with you there. And since you seem so keen on going out of character, here I'll venture into the real world and produce this from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html), Article 16:
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.
And back we go into character.

If you want to make this an equality thing then consider this: both homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally free to marry members of the opposite sex. :D
If you want to make this an equality thing then consider this: a man and a woman should have equal rights to marry another woman. Denying a woman this right (which a man has) is gender-based discrimination. Are you sexist?

Just because you disagree doesn't mean that it's illogical or baseless.
You have yet to provide one fact to back up any of your assertions about "anthropology" or "history" that you seem to produce out of nowhere.

AND WHY DONT YOU REPLY TO MY CONCERN: Your aggressive tone is very consistent with the intimidation-approach that characterizes your side of the debate. I see more vile comments and more intolerance of points of views coming from YOUR side. This is quite ironic and worth commenting on.
I apologize if you consider my tone "aggressive" or "intimidating". It's hard to hide these feelings when someone advances their personal homophobic agenda and cloaks it in fudged facts and made-up claims.

As a matter of personal opinion, I think it's wrong of a heterosexual couple to get married and to not have children.

Homosexual couples on the other hand, may want to have children, but statistics have shown that this is not a priority in the least. StatsCan showed that over 90% of married couples had kids and other polling by Liberal/left media reported recently that only 16% of homosexual couples/lesbians wanted kids. I have a problem changing an institution, which I believe is dedicated to procreation to a alternate lifestyle which is only 1/6 likely to put raising kids as a priority while 5/6 only marry for each other.

I believe that Marriage is a responsibility and not a right. Notwithstanding your UN quote (the out of character one) I would point out that even the UN specifically excluded sexual orientation. The framers intent of that resolution was to combad anti-interracial-marriage policy; I made sure to distinguished this from gay marriage.

I still, in the end, refute your claim that I am a homophobe. A homophobe, according to my definition hates gay people, or discriminates against gay people only because they are gey. If I am guilty of discrimination, I discriminate - as mentioned - equally against heterosexuals who marry without any intentions of having kids.

I take marriage very seriously.

My parents divorced and chose to live in the same house (different floors) for the purpose of child rearing. I think that altering the marriage institution only makes examples like this less frequent and instances of divorce and irreverance for marriage more frequent.

Sorry we disagree but thats how it goes.

Anberica

Fine, then, define "man" and "woman"

Can children not marry as well "traditionally"?

While Anberica seeks UN approval for this issue, we do not believe that the UN should micromanage all societies. The undefined term "man" and "woman" would be up to the individual nations who probably already have laws on age of consent etc.

Chief of Staff to the PM
Republic of Anberica

We in the Queendom of Zahumlje have a problem with this proposal as We do not believe government should be regulating what is essentially a Religious NOT a State matter. We have minorities in our land who do not happen to be Christian. We do not wish to spark a civil war with them in defense of their rights. The only things which are of interest to Our State are
1. Age of consent, which is 16
2. Consaguinity. We do not allow incestuous unions.
3. Mental fitness of both parties.
4. Financial ability to sustain a family
Many people who are married in other parts of the world do not meet that last concern. They are married regardless of their ability to be financially responsible for offspring. In our Queendom we believe it is wrong to have sexual relations without the ability to meet the needs of children who may be born as a result.
We do not have a problem with the marriage of persons who are same sex. We do not have a problem with polygny provided it is agreed on by all the women involved. We do not have a problem with lifelong marriages between one man and one woman either.
As mentioned before, our land is multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-cultural so micromanageing of people's personal lives by the government only leads to hostility and solves nothing. The U.N. does not need to be involved in this matter.
Far better that the U.N. do more to end the pernicious trafficking in children for the gratification of perverse rich men! Far better to end the world-wide trafficking in women.
If a person does not approve of same sex unions or polygnous unions then they have the simple option of not participating. Since when does it need to be a legal issue?
Our system has worked amazingly well as it is suited to our diverse population. Our nation is a good model for something as complex as the world as we are a multi-ethnic, multi-religious multi-cultural State. We have found flexibility to be more useful than imposeing a one-size-fits all solution on any question.
Best Wishes
Katja
Queen-Kommissar
Zahumlje

I AM TRYING TO MAKE THE POINT that IT IS POSSIBLE for a person to NOT oppose gay rights, but TO OPPOSE gay Marriage.

...except that marriage is a right that should be accorded to all people.

If gays are expected to live together for their entire life without this "meaningless piece of paper" called marriage, can we expect all heterosexuals to do the same without complaint? After all, marraige is not a right -- it should be regulated by the government.

If the sole purpose of marriage is to produce children, why should people be given any say in who they marry? Eh? Shouldn't the government pick for them? That would produce far better Darwinian results, don't you think? Unless of course you're one of those silly people who thinks that people have some sort of fanciful "right" to "choose" who they "marry."

Homosexual couples on the other hand, may want to have children, but statistics have shown that this is not a priority in the least. StatsCan showed that over 90% of married couples had kids and other polling by Liberal/left media reported recently that only 16% of homosexual couples/lesbians wanted kids. I have a problem changing an institution, which I believe is dedicated to procreation to a alternate lifestyle which is only 1/6 likely to put raising kids as a priority while 5/6 only marry for each other.

So they should not be allowed to marry for the express purpose that they love each other and want to spend their lives together, basically?

If I am guilty of discrimination, I discriminate - as mentioned - equally against heterosexuals who marry without any intentions of having kids.

Except that your proposal doesn't make any mention of that. Your proposal was to ban homosexual marriage, not childless marriage.

No community of homosexuals every survived more than 2 generations; its simple Darwinism. Anthropologists have backed this up time and time again.

That would, of course, explain why homosexuality has been around for as long as anyone can tell, right? Because they can't survive, they've survived for a few million years?

If you want to make this an equality thing then consider this: both homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally free to marry members of the opposite sex.

Is that kind of like how in the 1950's US, all the black people were free to eat in the black restaurants, sit in the black bus seats, drink from the black drinking fountains, and relieve themselves in the black restrooms? Yeah, totally equal, just seperate. That's all. No big thing.

As a matter of personal opinion, I think it's wrong of a heterosexual couple to get married and to not have children.
So it seems that your problem is not with gays and lesbians having the right to get married. Your problem is with anyone who gets married and doesn't have kids. So why don't you change your resolution to "Procreation is mandatory for all married couples"? Obviously, this resolution would be struck down because it is blatantly totalitarian and oppressive. But it wouldn't be discriminatory against gays and lesbians.

polling by Liberal/left media reported recently that only 16% of homosexual couples/lesbians wanted kids.
Where is this "poll" by the so-called "Liberal/left media"? Can you produce a website link, let alone the name of the media outlet and polling firm? Again, when you make wacky allegations that no one's heard of, you might want to actually make it sound real by at least attributing it to someone.

I believe that Marriage is a responsibility and not a right. Notwithstanding your UN quote (the out of character one) I would point out that even the UN specifically excluded sexual orientation. The framers intent of that resolution was to combad anti-interracial-marriage policy; I made sure to distinguished this from gay marriage.
The point that was being made is you deny marriage as a right. You said you don't think ANYONE has the right to get married. Do you still maintain this? Do you not believe in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

I still, in the end, refute your claim that I am a homophobe. A homophobe, according to my definition hates gay people, or discriminates against gay people only because they are gey. If I am guilty of discrimination, I discriminate - as mentioned - equally against heterosexuals who marry without any intentions of having kids.
Wrong. If you -- as you say -- discriminate equally against heterosexuals who marry without any intentions of having kids, this resolution would be completely different. It wouldn't mention sexual orientation at all. In fact, it would say (as I earlier stated) "Procreation is Mandatory for all Married Couples". However, I can understand why you didn't do that. It's easier for a homophobic resolution to get passed than for a resolution which oppresses EVERYONE to be passed.

My parents divorced and chose to live in the same house (different floors) for the purpose of child rearing. I think that altering the marriage institution only makes examples like this less frequent and instances of divorce and irreverance for marriage more frequent.
Please explain to me how allowing gay marriage would INCREASE the amount of divorced HETEROSEXUAL couples. I'd love to know.

Sorry we disagree but thats how it goes.
Sorry, but that's not how it goes. See, we here in Londana like to believe that human rights exist. And I'm afraid that a lot of other nations feel the same way. So if you'd take your archaic legislation and pass it in your own damn country and leave us alone, we'd be mighty happy.

Thanks.

I believe that Marriage is a responsibility and not a right. Notwithstanding your UN quote (the out of character one) I would point out that even the UN specifically excluded sexual orientation. The framers intent of that resolution was to combad anti-interracial-marriage policy; I made sure to distinguished this from gay marriage.


OOC:
Anberica, it is ambiguous on this issue (not excluded) because the UN wanted to deal with anti-inter"racial" marriage policy and didn't want to deal with legislation about marriage forms because the nations would not agree on the proper type, same reason it's ambiguous towards sexual orientation here too.

[Although the agreement on banning anti-inter"racial" marriage is slightly treading on cultural turf (not that race actually exist, race as you and the UN are using the term is a cultural construct with little basis in human biology).]

Man...after reading this you begin to understand my view that liberals are a disease that should be purged from the world.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Period. Marriage is not a union between two of the same sex. A marriage between two of the same sex cannot exist. If so it is a sick, twisted relationship between sick, twisted people. Marriage is a religiously defined term. It is not acceptable in the Holy Bible. It is refered to as an abomination before the eyes of God.

News flash. Abomination means bad. God doesn't want to see it and neither do I.

Anberica's stats. Right Wing utopia? Civil Rights: Rare?
Uhuh. Because we all trust right wing nazis/rebulicans/fundamentalist christians.

How bout you take your ridiculous homophobic ideas and shove em?
Oh wait, you can't, you don't believe in that.

If homosexuality is so unnatural, why are 10% of people in the world OPENLY gay? What about the other 15% or so that aren't out of the closet.

Silly Christian.

Marriage is a religiously defined term. It is not acceptable in the Holy Bible. It is refered to as an abomination before the eyes of God.



ooh wow. a bible. well la-di-da.
News flash: Evolution. Black rights. Women's rights. Religious rights.
Some people are so pathetic, they need aninvisible friend to give them moral tips thruout life. Moral tips that are so 5000 years ago.
Idiot.

OOC:
You are a disgraceful bigot, and you should be locked in a dungeon with a pack of salivating mutant rodents.Rather than invoking bodily harm on you, you should be hypnotized into becoming homosexual, so that you will hate yourself and will hopefully rip out your own liver. Then you can wear it as a hat.It's hard to hide these feelings when someone advances their personal homophobic agenda and cloaks it in fudged facts and made-up claims.Man...after reading this you begin to understand my view that liberals are a disease that should be purged from the world.Silly Christian.How bout you take your ridiculous homophobic ideas and shove em?
Oh wait, you can't, you don't believe in that. ooh wow. a bible. well la-di-da.
News flash: Evolution. Black rights. Women's rights. Religious rights.
Some people are so pathetic, they need aninvisible friend to give them moral tips thruout life. Moral tips that are so 5000 years ago.
Idiot.

:shock:

Ye Gods! The sheer amount of intolerance, personal attacks, and flames on this topic!
Can anyone here debate without sinking to personal attacks and flames?

I need tips from an invisible friend? No. It's called morality and faith. It is obvious that that is something that escapes you. It requires you to be more aware of your surroundings. Denial is a symptom of a weak, lonely, and self centered mind.

It's ok. I have morals but they do not apply to morons. In a perfect world you and your kind would be the first ones I'd line up against a wall. Your kind are like a disease in this country and the sooner decent people realise it, the better off they will be.

Say what you want. I'm not going to get into this pissing contest with you. Because all you smart asses have answers untill you really need answers, then you yell for decent people to pull your asses out of the fire.

Marraige is outdated, and throughly useless. As a basis for procreation it is foolishness. Procreation is throughly unnessasary as there are more than enough people out there. We don't really need more children, as many children in the world don't have what they need (i.e. safe loving home, proper school, FOOD). Marraige in America only serves for tax purposes. Get hitched, write it off. If marriage does serve ANY useful purpose, it is for two loving humans to formally commit themselves to one another. Who are we to say who these humans are? The world needs more love anyway, lets not restrict it. Don't vote or pass this stupid resolution.

We of Chumba will read said proposal.

Man...after reading this you begin to understand my view that liberals are a disease that should be purged from the world.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Period. Marriage is not a union between two of the same sex. A marriage between two of the same sex cannot exist. If so it is a sick, twisted relationship between sick, twisted people. Marriage is a religiously defined term. It is not acceptable in the Holy Bible. It is refered to as an abomination before the eyes of God.

News flash. Abomination means bad. God doesn't want to see it and neither do I.

Deep breaths. I am a rational, intelligent individual, and I can rise above this pettiness...

And on to an answer.

I am not a liberal. I believe gay marriage is perfectly fine. Those two statements are not mutually exclusive.

A marriage between two people of the same sex evidently can exist, because marriage can be a purely legal arrangement with no religious involvement, and furthermore, it already DOES exist. Denying it is simply stupid. It's like saying that elephants don't exist.

The fact is, marriage is defined in many other places in many other cultures, and it DOESN'T mean between one man and one woman either. In the Bible, it meant between one man and a whole lot of women for a significant time, so your definition obviously isn't in accord with that book, unless you're presuming to tell us you know better than those who formulated the rule you cite in the first place.

Also, things aren't always the way you want them to be. I don't want to give you my money, no matter how much you want it. Other people worship whatever gods they please, wherever they want to, regardless of what you think of them. Or are all Muslims simply 'liberals'?

Make sense.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

This God sounds mean. Can we get another one?

The main problem I have is that is begins a vicious cycle where someone thinks they are morally superior and says we don't know how to run our countries.

You are a disgraceful bigot, and you should be locked in a dungeon with a pack of salivating mutant rodents.

You should be hypnotized into becoming homosexual, so that you will hate yourself and will hopefully rip out your own liver. Then you can wear it as a hat.

I think it's clear which one of us is filled with hate and it isn't me.



VOTE FOR TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE
Yes, I am full of hate for conservative bigots like you who think that your way is the only way. A vote for traditional marriage is a vote to weaken gay rights. In addition, you have yet to provide a single reason for why people should vote for this, besides the fact that it is "traditional."

:shock:

Ye Gods! The sheer amount of intolerance, personal attacks, and flames on this topic!
Can anyone here debate without sinking to personal attacks and flames?
No. If people stop posting racist, homophobic, anti-[minority] comments, then I will stop yelling at them. A large group of people on this site seem to think that it would be okay to eliminate everyone who isn't a white heterosexual anglo-saxon christian. That just makes me sick.

Resolved: That MARRIAGE is, and should remain, the lawful & voluntary union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.

Rationale: Marriage is the institution which, formalized through various religions, forms the basis for society vis à vis procreation; it is the institution which has preserved the existence of society since time immemorial.

Therefore, it is important that - in light of international pressures - that the institution of marriage be defined such that it:
(i) Be regarded highly, and (ii) Have a clear & consistent definition from nation to nation.

* This resolution does not preclude (nor does it encourage) individual nations from developing civil unions or registered partnerships for other types of relationships.

* This resolution's intent is to define marriage in a certain light AND DOES NOT encourage discrimination or persecution of individuals who do not fit the proposed definition of marriage.[/quote]

Congratulations,
You just gave the Rogue Nation of Keilani a reason to stay out of the UN. We'll have no part of your bigotry and I'm hoping that there are open minded people in the UN that you put you in your place. I may not be big on the rights thing but at least my citizens have a right to marry whom they will. If you pass this it's going to be amusing to see how many people walk out. What do you think the UN is, the Southern Baptist Convention?

Traditional for whom? Are you trying to force tradition onto people?
It's been a tradition since, FOREVER that people have children. If they didn't, humanity would cease to exist.

The one man and one woman (who created the child) can get married and should; it is the best situation for the child. Therefore, Anberica believes that marriage should closely resemble these traditions.

Ok,
So is it the best situation for the child if the father (or mother) is a drunken loser who beats the crap out of his family? Yea, that's great tradition.... bind people to grief because it's 'the right way.'

I know gay couples who are happier than hetero couples; why shouldn't they have the right to marry who they love?

One more question..... Who's going to be there to adopt the kids that are already here? Not alot of hetero families adopt, and I don't think you have any adopted children either.

Curse traditions like yours which have to be forced upon others because you can't get off your 'morality' trip.

Couples that WANT to procreate but can't are still trying to fulfil a wonderful deed of having children. Their inability to have kids is a tragedy.

So homosexual couples who really really REALLY want to procreate together are still trying to fulfill a wonderful deed of having children, and their inability to do so is a tragedy, but they should still be allowed to marry?

As a matter of personal opinion, I think it's wrong of a heterosexual couple to get married and to not have children.

Homosexual couples on the other hand, may want to have children, but statistics have shown that this is not a priority in the least. StatsCan showed that over 90% of married couples had kids and other polling by Liberal/left media reported recently that only 16% of homosexual couples/lesbians wanted kids. I have a problem changing an institution, which I believe is dedicated to procreation to a alternate lifestyle which is only 1/6 likely to put raising kids as a priority while 5/6 only marry for each other.

I believe that Marriage is a responsibility and not a right. Notwithstanding your UN quote (the out of character one) I would point out that even the UN specifically excluded sexual orientation. The framers intent of that resolution was to combad anti-interracial-marriage policy; I made sure to distinguished this from gay marriage.

I still, in the end, refute your claim that I am a homophobe. A homophobe, according to my definition hates gay people, or discriminates against gay people only because they are gey. If I am guilty of discrimination, I discriminate - as mentioned - equally against heterosexuals who marry without any intentions of having kids.

I take marriage very seriously.

My parents divorced and chose to live in the same house (different floors) for the purpose of child rearing. I think that altering the marriage institution only makes examples like this less frequent and instances of divorce and irreverance for marriage more frequent.

Sorry we disagree but thats how it goes.

Anberica

Well I disagree, and I'm sure others do as well. People like me aren't trying to make you get married and not have children, so why are you trying to put this through to the UN? Get a reality check; some couples CAN'T AFFORD TO HAVE KIDS or WORK ALL OVER THE COUNTRY and won't have time to dedicate to children. Personally if I marry and we can't afford children or don't have time for them, I won't have them. Period. And no law or resolution will make me or others like me do otherwise.

and for the "Sorry we disagree but thats how it goes"

Maybe you should get some counseling it seems that you have some really messed up views on marriage that might have stemmed from your parents' relationship. What are you so afraid of that you have to say such things without solid facts and feel that everyone needs to do what you do?

As a matter of personal opinion, I think it's wrong of a heterosexual couple to get married and to not have children.

Homosexual couples on the other hand, may want to have children, but statistics have shown that this is not a priority in the least. StatsCan showed that over 90% of married couples had kids and other polling by Liberal/left media reported recently that only 16% of homosexual couples/lesbians wanted kids. I have a problem changing an institution, which I believe is dedicated to procreation to a alternate lifestyle which is only 1/6 likely to put raising kids as a priority while 5/6 only marry for each other.

I believe that Marriage is a responsibility and not a right. Notwithstanding your UN quote (the out of character one) I would point out that even the UN specifically excluded sexual orientation. The framers intent of that resolution was to combad anti-interracial-marriage policy; I made sure to distinguished this from gay marriage.

I still, in the end, refute your claim that I am a homophobe. A homophobe, according to my definition hates gay people, or discriminates against gay people only because they are gey. If I am guilty of discrimination, I discriminate - as mentioned - equally against heterosexuals who marry without any intentions of having kids.

I take marriage very seriously.

My parents divorced and chose to live in the same house (different floors) for the purpose of child rearing. I think that altering the marriage institution only makes examples like this less frequent and instances of divorce and irreverance for marriage more frequent.

Sorry we disagree but thats how it goes.

Anberica

Well I disagree, and I'm sure others do as well. People like me aren't trying to make you get married and not have children, so why are you trying to put this through to the UN? Get a reality check; some couples CAN'T AFFORD TO HAVE KIDS or WORK ALL OVER THE COUNTRY and won't have time to dedicate to children. Personally if I marry and we can't afford children or don't have time for them, I won't have them. Period. And no law or resolution will make me or others like me do otherwise.

and for the "Sorry we disagree but thats how it goes"

Maybe you should get some counseling it seems that you have some really messed up views on marriage that might have stemmed from your parents' relationship. What are you so afraid of that you have to say such things without solid facts and feel that everyone needs to do what you do?

As a matter of personal opinion, I think it's wrong of a heterosexual couple to get married and to not have children.

Homosexual couples on the other hand, may want to have children, but statistics have shown that this is not a priority in the least. StatsCan showed that over 90% of married couples had kids and other polling by Liberal/left media reported recently that only 16% of homosexual couples/lesbians wanted kids. I have a problem changing an institution, which I believe is dedicated to procreation to a alternate lifestyle which is only 1/6 likely to put raising kids as a priority while 5/6 only marry for each other.

I believe that Marriage is a responsibility and not a right. Notwithstanding your UN quote (the out of character one) I would point out that even the UN specifically excluded sexual orientation. The framers intent of that resolution was to combad anti-interracial-marriage policy; I made sure to distinguished this from gay marriage.

I still, in the end, refute your claim that I am a homophobe. A homophobe, according to my definition hates gay people, or discriminates against gay people only because they are gey. If I am guilty of discrimination, I discriminate - as mentioned - equally against heterosexuals who marry without any intentions of having kids.

I take marriage very seriously.

My parents divorced and chose to live in the same house (different floors) for the purpose of child rearing. I think that altering the marriage institution only makes examples like this less frequent and instances of divorce and irreverance for marriage more frequent.

Sorry we disagree but thats how it goes.

Anberica

Well I disagree, and I'm sure others do as well. People like me aren't trying to make you get married and not have children, so why are you trying to put this through to the UN? Get a reality check; some couples CAN'T AFFORD TO HAVE KIDS or WORK ALL OVER THE COUNTRY and won't have time to dedicate to children. Personally if I marry and we can't afford children or don't have time for them, I won't have them. Period. And no law or resolution will make me or others like me do otherwise.

and for the "Sorry we disagree but thats how it goes"

Maybe you should get some counseling it seems that you have some really messed up views on marriage that might have stemmed from your parents' relationship. What are you so afraid of that you have to say such things without solid facts and feel that everyone needs to do what you do?

We of the USSZ will not support this resolution, and will openly flaunt it if it is passed. Marriage has been open to all regardless of sexual orientation since our earliest days, and we will not have any part of a resolution like this one. We fail to understand how thousands of loving couples voluntarily choosing marriage has any negative effect upon society, or upon the institution of marriage. If anything, marriage is strengthened.

Further, we note that this resolution would be legalising discrimination, which is simply not acceptable. Any nation attempting to argue otherwise is engaging in self-delusion. If some nations wish to argue in favour of this resolution, the least they could do is admit that they are acting and speaking out of prejudice. Prejudices that are well grounded in the hateful past of the human race, but prejudices none the less.

Finally, on the issue of tradition, we note that not only is this understanding of marriage a purely Western one, but it is hardly a long standing tradition. Marriage was not normative for the majority of society until relatively recently in societal terms. For the most part, couple cohabited without being married. Furthermore, marriage, as tradition understands it, is about the exchange of property. The woman is traded from her Father-owner to her new husband-owner. That understanding is reflected in much of the language of the marriage ceremony, and in many of the actions. Any intelligent nation abandoned the "tradition" of woman as property some time ago. Why can we not alter other traditions that are based in oppression similarly?

On an OOC note, I'm with Eric on this one. While this attempt at discrimination is very politely worded, that doesn't make it substantially different in kind from the language of some of the racists on this board, or of some of the nut-bar fundamentalists, for that matter. I'm a Christian, a member of the Clergy, in fact, and this kind of abuse and misuse of scripture is really getting to me. I'm trying to be polite, but I can understand Eric's anger, and I share it. This kind of hatred and discrimination should not be tolerated, and should not be accepted. It must be challenged, and it must be challenged in the strongest language possible.

I pose a simple question to anyone who supports this resolution:
How does it harm anyone to allow open marriage to all?

If a homosexual couple gets married, does this somehow reduce your rights? Does it hurt society in some way? Or does it just anger a number of people who think that it "isn't right"?

And for all of you religious people who quote scriptures that differ in every version of the Bible, does it oppress your faith to allow non-Christian homosexuals to marry?

And if a heterosexual couple gets married and doesn't have children, does that affect you personally in some way? And if a non-married couple has a child out of wedlock, is there a reason outside of religion that you give me for why this is wrong? It works both ways.

How can you say that marriage is not a right? Marriage is just a legal bond between two people. Unless you can provide a reason that it is unfair or unjust for a "nontraditional" couple to get married, you have no basis for why certain people should be prohibited from getting married.

There is no magic to marriage. It shouldn't make a difference if a homosexual couple in love are married are not, so why not let them have that bond if it makes them happy?

You are basically saying that marriage is a legal institution provided to those who have or want to have children. Is there some reasoning behind this, besides the fact that you think it is the way it has always been and should remain so?

As far as I am concerned, there are two reasons for marriage. One is a tax issue, which is irrelevant and should be decided individually by each nation. The other is that a couple in love wants something to seal their bond. This has nothing to do with having children or sexual orientation.

Just because you feel a certain way about marriage doesn't mean that you have to impose your views on others. I don't care if you think that it is wrong for a married couple to not have children, as long as you don't prevent them from doing so. My views may be wrong, but at least I am not trying to restrict people who disagree with me from doing something.

As a matter of personal opinion, I think it's wrong of a heterosexual couple to get married and to not have children.

Homosexual couples on the other hand, may want to have children, but statistics have shown that this is not a priority in the least. StatsCan showed that over 90% of married couples had kids and other polling by Liberal/left media reported recently that only 16% of homosexual couples/lesbians wanted kids. I have a problem changing an institution, which I believe is dedicated to procreation to a alternate lifestyle which is only 1/6 likely to put raising kids as a priority while 5/6 only marry for each other.

I believe that Marriage is a responsibility and not a right. Notwithstanding your UN quote (the out of character one) I would point out that even the UN specifically excluded sexual orientation. The framers intent of that resolution was to combad anti-interracial-marriage policy; I made sure to distinguished this from gay marriage.

I still, in the end, refute your claim that I am a homophobe. A homophobe, according to my definition hates gay people, or discriminates against gay people only because they are gey. If I am guilty of discrimination, I discriminate - as mentioned - equally against heterosexuals who marry without any intentions of having kids.

I take marriage very seriously.

My parents divorced and chose to live in the same house (different floors) for the purpose of child rearing. I think that altering the marriage institution only makes examples like this less frequent and instances of divorce and irreverance for marriage more frequent.

Sorry we disagree but thats how it goes.

Anberica

It looks like you are really advocating a breeder's licence, and just calling it marriage. It appears that most others here see a difference between breeding and the civil rights that a government gives with marriage.

A marriage between two of the same sex cannot exist. If so it is a sick, twisted relationship between sick, twisted people.

Okay, you don't like them, but even you apparently admit that they work well together.

Denial is a symptom of a weak, lonely, and self centered mind.

Right back at you.

It's ok. I have morals but they do not apply to morons. In a perfect world you and your kind would be the first ones I'd line up against a wall. Your kind are like a disease in this country and the sooner decent people realise it, the better off they will be.

So mass genocide because of political affiliation is perfectly okay, but homosexuality is such a terrible sin that it will crush society like a tin can?

Marriage is a religiously defined term. It is not acceptable in the Holy Bible. It is refered to as an abomination before the eyes of God.

Marriage is an abomination before the eyes of God? Eh? I suppose we're supposed to infer that "it" means homosexuality, but you may want to be more clear when you condemn things.

What about polygamy? The Bible's got polygamy. The Bible also says you should be worshipping on the sabbath -- today's the sabbath, and here you are, debating in forums and talking about killing people. That's one of the Ten Commandments, even. Whoa. I'm not Christian, but I thought the orthodox types took those Commandments seriously.

The Bible is several millenia old. Interpretations change with the times.

We of the USSZ will not support this resolution, and will openly flaunt it if it is passed.

Whatever THAT'S supposed to mean.

Learn to speak english, dude! :lol:

Anberica

Is this what you were thinking along the lines of, Santin?

Draft of a Constitutional Amendment to Defend Biblical (read: Traditional) Marriage:

* Marriage shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)

* Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

* A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

* Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

* Since marriage is for life, neither the Constitution nor any state law shall permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9-12)

* If a married man dies without children, his brother must marry the widow. If the brother refuses to marry the widow, or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

* In lieu of marriage (if there are no acceptable men to be found), a woman shall get her father drunk and have sex with him. (Gen 19:31-36)

This proposal is a joke - I suggest we do away with it as quickly as possible.

So you're saying it's okay to have more than one wife as long as the woman is widowed?

We of the USSZ will not support this resolution, and will openly flaunt it if it is passed.

Whatever THAT'S supposed to mean.

Learn to speak english, dude! :lol:

Anberica

Ummmm, you're joking, right? To elaborate further, we of the USSZ have passed laws allowing same-sex marriages, and when the issue comes up for reconsideration periodically, it is always whole heartedly supported. We will continue that, even if the UN were to attempt to prevent it.

OOC:

:shock:

Ye Gods! The sheer amount of intolerance, personal attacks, and flames on this topic!
Can anyone here debate without sinking to personal attacks and flames?
No. If people stop posting racist, homophobic, anti-[minority] comments, then I will stop yelling at them. A large group of people on this site seem to think that it would be okay to eliminate everyone who isn't a white heterosexual anglo-saxon christian. That just makes me sick.

So, you feel you must sink down to their level in debates? :?:

Well...

My proposal has been submitted. While it allows nations to refuse gay marriage (and an awful lot besides) it also makes sure that gay people get the property/next of kin rights etc. that marriage provides for (i.e. the secular rights).

It's on the second page of the 'PROPOSAL: International Marriage Rights Act' thread, and hopefully will cut down on how many 'gay marriage/traditional marriage' threads get started by allowing people to choose while remaining in accordance with the UN's laws.

It won't make everyone happy, and will probably never be accepted. However, I hope it will start some interesting debate.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

This Protectorate of the Planetian Empire encourages all other nations to adopt our approach to marriage: leave it to the temples. The government registers only civil unions, which provide certain taxation and other secular benefits, and which may include any number of partners of any gender. As for "traditional" or religiously defined marriage... well, that's an issue that we call "separation of temple and state." Marriage in a moral, religious, or traditional sense is none of the government's bussiness. If any religious organization in our Protectorate (or anywhere in the Empire) chooses to grant marriages, that's up to them. Our government will have nothing to do with it, and will not recognize it for secular purposes.

Office of the Prime Minister

So many people say "seperation of church and state" yet most don't realize they can be one and the same.

The government of Londana and many other countries in the Region of Babble already allow gay marriages.

Any proposal to disallow *any* marriages -- homosexual or heterosexual -- will force us to annul the marriages of millions in our population. Such an action would be very unpopular with our people.

Please leave countries alone to decide their own marriage laws.

Some cultures have multiple marriages and multiple spouces.

The United States of Oppressed Possums
"Eat, drink, and be married."

Good rp'ing, OP

OOC:

:shock:

Ye Gods! The sheer amount of intolerance, personal attacks, and flames on this topic!
Can anyone here debate without sinking to personal attacks and flames?
No. If people stop posting racist, homophobic, anti-[minority] comments, then I will stop yelling at them. A large group of people on this site seem to think that it would be okay to eliminate everyone who isn't a white heterosexual anglo-saxon christian. That just makes me sick.

So, you feel you must sink down to their level in debates? :?:
No. The comments and/or proposals that I attack are prejudiced and bigoted. My responses on the other hand are fiery and rude, but are in no way prejudiced. It is true that I could respond in a more peaceful tone, but the overwhelming bigotry on the forums disgusts me, so I feel that it should be dealt with accordingly. If a proposal such as this is blatantly against homosexuals, I do not refrain from expressing my extreme distaste.
The other thing that angers me is when people quote religious texts and use them to justify prejudices against certain groups. I am not a Christian, but I have always been under the impression that tolerance is an important Christian doctrine. Therefore, I cannot see how someone can quote some translation of the Bible, claiming that it teaches that homosexuality is a sin. People should keep their bigoted beliefs to themselves.

And in response to Oppressed Possum's comment, I cannot think of any examples in which church and state existed together as one entity, without discriminating against those who do not follow the religion. The Jews were kicked out of many religious nations, the Christians were oppressed when they were first started, the Romans killed a certain religious figure who you all know of, the Catholics and Protestants had political wars after the Reformation, and the Shi'ites and Sunnis have constant fights in the Middle East. These conflicts, and others, were all partly due to governments with religious bearings. Especially on an international level, it is best to keep religious beliefs out of politics.

And in response to Oppressed Possum's comment, I cannot think of any examples in which church and state existed together as one entity, without discriminating against those who do not follow the religion. The Jews were kicked out of many religious nations, the Christians were oppressed when they were first started, the Romans killed a certain religious figure who you all know of, the Catholics and Protestants had political wars after the Reformation, and the Shi'ites and Sunnis have constant fights in the Middle East. These conflicts, and others, were all partly due to governments with religious bearings. Especially on an international level, it is best to keep religious beliefs out of politics.

Does that matter? How are they to say what religion you have to be? Marriage is a contract between people enforced by their nation; not the UN.

And in response to Oppressed Possum's comment, I cannot think of any examples in which church and state existed together as one entity, without discriminating against those who do not follow the religion. The Jews were kicked out of many religious nations, the Christians were oppressed when they were first started, the Romans killed a certain religious figure who you all know of, the Catholics and Protestants had political wars after the Reformation, and the Shi'ites and Sunnis have constant fights in the Middle East. These conflicts, and others, were all partly due to governments with religious bearings. Especially on an international level, it is best to keep religious beliefs out of politics.

Does that matter? How are they to say what religion you have to be? Marriage is a contract between people enforced by their nation; not the UN.
Either you misunderstood me or I misunderstood you. You said that many people were talking about "separation of church and state," but that they are often "one and the same." I am siding with the people who were talking about the separation of church and state because a government should not be able to say that you can't, for instance, practice polygamy solely because it is against Christian teachings or other religious doctrines. Therefore, the UN should not be able to say that polygamy and homosexual marriages are illegal due to religion, which is what many others were saying.

Man...after reading this you begin to understand my view that liberals are a disease that should be purged from the world.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Period. Marriage is not a union between two of the same sex. A marriage between two of the same sex cannot exist. If so it is a sick, twisted relationship between sick, twisted people. Marriage is a religiously defined term. It is not acceptable in the Holy Bible. It is refered to as an abomination before the eyes of God.

News flash. Abomination means bad. God doesn't want to see it and neither do I.

News flash. Quoting the Bible is not gonna win debates, except in church. Because, you know, some of us don't believe. Duh. Why the hell can't the religious get that through their skulls??

The Republic of ElFreak cannot vote for this resolution. Marriage standards in our country are not decided by the central government, except to stipulate that marriage can only occur between two persons of legal age(17).The matter of homosexual marriage is left completely in the hands of local communities. Furthermore, we feel that a UN resolution on this matter would seriously infringe on national sovereignty.

Are these traditional marriages going to be the kind where the husband could beat and rape the wife without repercussion? Are these marriages - being traditional - going to ensure that wives stay home and cook and clean and stuff? Can we make it nearly impossible for two people who hate each other to divorce?

Or are they going to be REALLY traditional, where Man beats Woman over the head with a club?

How far back in tradition are we gonna go? And who is to decide? Or is this not about "traditional marriage" at all?...

Okay, what's the point of a traditional marriage, it always ends up in divorce or murder, usually the man being murdered (or is it just me) i say that peeps be allowed to do as they please so toodle pip until next time :twisted:

Okay, what's the point of a traditional marriage, it always ends up in divorce or murder, usually the man being murdered (or is it just me) i say that peeps be allowed to do as they please so toodle pip until next time :twisted:

Well Sarah, even if I did want to get married to you, I think that would put me off pretty quickly! Especially with the recent reports of the 'Black Widow' police caught recently...

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Does that matter? How are they to say what religion you have to be? Marriage is a contract between people enforced by their nation; not the UN.
Either you misunderstood me or I misunderstood you. You said that many people were talking about "separation of church and state," but that they are often "one and the same." I am siding with the people who were talking about the separation of church and state because a government should not be able to say that you can't, for instance, practice polygamy solely because it is against Christian teachings or other religious doctrines. Therefore, the UN should not be able to say that polygamy and homosexual marriages are illegal due to religion, which is what many others were saying.

Perhaps you misunderstand me. People are using religion for the basis of argument but the UN has no place dictating what religion everyone should be.

I said that religion and government CAN be the same. The UN shouldn't force them or anyone to change that unless that is their wish.

Well...

My proposal has been submitted. While it allows nations to refuse gay marriage (and an awful lot besides) it also makes sure that gay people get the property/next of kin rights etc. that marriage provides for (i.e. the secular rights).

It's on the second page of the 'PROPOSAL: International Marriage Rights Act' thread, and hopefully will cut down on how many 'gay marriage/traditional marriage' threads get started by allowing people to choose while remaining in accordance with the UN's laws.

It won't make everyone happy, and will probably never be accepted. However, I hope it will start some interesting debate.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Thank you, Jordan! I will vote for this proposal if it becomes a resolution and encourage others to do so as well! :lol:

Well...

My proposal has been submitted. While it allows nations to refuse gay marriage (and an awful lot besides) it also makes sure that gay people get the property/next of kin rights etc. that marriage provides for (i.e. the secular rights).

It's on the second page of the 'PROPOSAL: International Marriage Rights Act' thread, and hopefully will cut down on how many 'gay marriage/traditional marriage' threads get started by allowing people to choose while remaining in accordance with the UN's laws.

It won't make everyone happy, and will probably never be accepted. However, I hope it will start some interesting debate.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Thank you, Jordan! I will vote for this proposal if it becomes a resolution and encourage others to do so as well! :lol:

Well...

My proposal has been submitted. While it allows nations to refuse gay marriage (and an awful lot besides) it also makes sure that gay people get the property/next of kin rights etc. that marriage provides for (i.e. the secular rights).

It's on the second page of the 'PROPOSAL: International Marriage Rights Act' thread, and hopefully will cut down on how many 'gay marriage/traditional marriage' threads get started by allowing people to choose while remaining in accordance with the UN's laws.

It won't make everyone happy, and will probably never be accepted. However, I hope it will start some interesting debate.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Thank you, Jordan! I will vote for this proposal if it becomes a resolution and encourage others to do so as well! :lol:

We of the USSZ will not support this resolution, and will openly flaunt it if it is passed.

Whatever THAT'S supposed to mean.

Learn to speak english, dude! :lol:

Anberica :?

Anberica - Learn to read english!!!!! I will translate in very little words so you can understand. USSZ will not say that this idea is ok and if it is made into a law break the law on purpose.

Do you understand now what USSZ means?
That's a good little country.
Now go sit down

This is a stupid proposal. Why is the west chosen as the basis of traditional marriage? That's very eurocentric. In old Tu'lîmû(ethnic group that composes much of Letila) culture, there was a lot of variation of traditions, anyway. Some parts allowed polygyny and others opposed it staunchly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

I have a real problem with your definition of marriage. From my personal and professional point of view as an anthropologist you have not a bloody clue what marriage is. May I also point out that there are many societies which have homosexual marriages (see the Azande of Africa, Cheyenne of the Americas, Nandi of Africa, and Etoro of New Guinea).
For me marriage is a socially approved sexual and economic union that is presumed to be more or less permanent, and that subsumes reciprocal rights and obligations between the two spouses. I find your proposal completely unacceptable and will not support it.

Resolved: That MARRIAGE is, and should remain, the lawful & voluntary union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.

Rationale: Marriage is the institution which, formalized through various religions, forms the basis for society vis à vis procreation; it is the institution which has preserved the existence of society since time immemorial.

Therefore, it is important that - in light of international pressures - that the institution of marriage be defined such that it:
(i) Be regarded highly, and (ii) Have a clear & consistent definition from nation to nation.

* This resolution does not preclude (nor does it encourage) individual nations from developing civil unions or registered partnerships for other types of relationships.

* This resolution's intent is to define marriage in a certain light AND DOES NOT encourage discrimination or persecution of individuals who do not fit the proposed definition of marriage.


1) You are effectively arguing that we ought to allow heterosexual couples to unite and call that marriage, then call homosexual unions "civil unions" or "registered partnerships." This does nothing save create useless international jargon.

2) One cannot legally impose different titles for heterosexual marriages and homosexual marriages, then expect it not to be used towards "persecution of individuals." Again, the distinction is ultimately useless.

Salliston will not be supporting this proposition. It offers nothing toward the betterment of Mankind; rather, it adds unnecessary jargon to an already complex international legal community.

The Great Nation of Putergeeks does not endorse this proposal.

Traditional for whom? Are you trying to force tradition onto people?

this is a very good question. Why should government be involved in the private decisions of companionship, love and other emotional issues? Would it not be better to review and revise, if necessary, those issues which are affected by partnerships, marriages, etc.? Such as hospital visitation, inheritance, power of attorney, and the like.

TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE- the lawful & voluntary union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.

Rationale: Marriage is the institution which, formalized through various religions, forms the basis for society vis à vis procreation; it is the institution which has preserved the existence of society since time immemorial.
Therefore, it is important that - in light of international pressures - that the institution of marriage be defined such that it:
(i) Be regarded highly, and (ii) Have a clear & consistent definition from nation to nation.
* This resolution does not preclude (nor does it encourage) individual nations from developing civil unions or registered partnerships for other types of relationships.
* This resolution's intent is to define marriage in a certain light AND DOES NOT encourage discrimination or persecution of individuals who do not fit the proposed definition of marriage.

Although my nation is not a member of UN, the resolution has a full support of my nation, the parliment, and me, as a leader.

I'm a little behind, but what the hell, here I go...

*personally, I don't see the need for marriage, especially considering the level of divorce. It would be easier and cheaper for couples to NOT get married. You can have a loving secure relationship with someone you trust without a meaningless piece of paper telling you so. Plus it has been proved time and time again by real people in the real world that marriage is not the most secure place for children to grow up in. It is traumatising for a child to have to go through a divorce process if their parents do split up, and equally so if they know that the only reason their parents are together is for the kid, not because they love each other.

It's ok. I have morals but they do not apply to morons. In a perfect world you and your kind would be the first ones I'd line up against a wall. Your kind are like a disease in this country and the sooner decent people realise it, the better off they will be.

*Ok, fine, thats your personal opinion and I respect that, which means I can respectfully disagree with it. You say you wish to purge the world of people who happen to have a different political/moral position to you? Somehow reminiscent of such "great" leaders as Hitler and Stalin wouldn't you say?
Also, define "your kind." That phrase implies that people with a more liberal approach to life must be of a whole different species to you "normal" people (that is to say, White, Middle Class, Christian Americans). It's just another example of the "us" and "them" stance, the belief that just because someone believes something different to you, they must be inferior to you. I suppose your definition of a "moron" must be someone who believes in free and basic human rights?
The bible also says that women are inferior, and should be sold as slaves, do you also agree with this?
Finally, how are we "like a disease" as you so eloquently put it? Do we detract from "your" country in anyway? Do we harm it? I assume you mean that by giving every person equal rights and opportunites we must somehow be harming everyone, not doing them good?

Right, that's all, sorry if all of that has been said before or if it makes no sense. Feel free to contradict me, after all I'm just a stupid little kid.

I believe the idea of marriage is symbolic. Like all symbols I believe they ought to be interpreted however they wish by any individual or nation.

Same sex marriage has little impact on daily activity such as trade and defense and harms no one physically, nor does it take away any rights.

I really do not care how the "marriage" is defined, its just symbolic. It is wrong to impose a definition on other countries however.

I support diversity, and that includes diversity in vocabulary and language.

I will not support this proposal and will vote against it if it reaches the floor. If this manages to pass I will resign from the UN.

Nomadic Peoples of Anthonycha Emperor Elect
Chang Buck Yunn

Plus it has been proved time and time again by real people in the real world that marriage is not the most secure place for children to grow up in. It is traumatising for a child to have to go through a divorce process if their parents do split up, and equally so if they know that the only reason their parents are together is for the kid, not because they love each other.


And You think, that if they're not in a marriage, they're split up shall not harm the little ones? It will be a trauma, much easier to the parents, but not for the kid. Plus a marriage is anyhow needed as a form of legalizing the relationship, so for example you could visit your partner in hospital or in case he/she dies, be secured.

I believe the idea of marriage is symbolic. Like all symbols I believe they ought to be interpreted however they wish by any individual or nation.
Agreed. Therefore maybe this should appar in the "issues", not in the UN?

Same sex marriage has little impact on daily activity such as trade and defense and harms no one physically, nor does it take away any rights.
But it allows the couples to addopt children. Children from such relationships will have disturbed sense of proper family, might grow up thinking they are homosexuals(because so are their "parents"), although they really won't be. Not mentioning, that if we allow marriages of homosexuals, why not allow marriages of pedephiles with children, or zoophiles with i.e. goats? And then allow them the addoption.

I really do not care how the "marriage" is defined, its just symbolic. It is wrong to impose a definition on other countries however.
Agreed to the second one. The first one, see how I erlier talked of security.

I support diversity, and that includes diversity in vocabulary and language.
Can't say anything about that.. So why am I saying this

I will not support this proposal and will vote against it if it reaches the floor. If this manages to pass I will resign from the UN.
A fair decision.

With all respect:
PM of The Commonwealth
of Poles & Other Nations
Mike Voznak

Plus it has been proved time and time again by real people in the real world that marriage is not the most secure place for children to grow up in. It is traumatising for a child to have to go through a divorce process if their parents do split up, and equally so if they know that the only reason their parents are together is for the kid, not because they love each other.


And You think, that if they're not in a marriage, they're split up shall not harm the little ones? It will be a trauma, much easier to the parents, but not for the kid. Plus a marriage is anyhow needed as a form of legalizing the relationship, so for example you could visit your partner in hospital or in case he/she dies, be secured.

*surely this is true for homosexual couples too, they need the legal aspect of marriage to secure their rights? Why should we deny them that?
*I did not mean that it is not traumatising to a kid, I'm sorry for writing that, I am an idiot. To be honest I have no right to comment on this as my parents are still together, althought they don't appear to like each other all that much.

Traditional for whom? Are you trying to force tradition onto people?
It's been a tradition since, FOREVER that people have children. If they didn't, humanity would cease to exist.

The one man and one woman (who created the child) can get married and should; it is the best situation for the child. Therefore, Anberica believes that marriage should closely resemble these traditions.

You're trying to impose the traditions of Anberica on the rest of the world. It's crap like this that keeps Portsurmer from joining the UN. We keep our own traditions very well without the "help" of foreign interlopers who think their way is best.

Traditions vary.

Selecting one to the exclusion of all others is like using inly one color of thread in a tapestry.

The staunchly hip and tragically free nation of Berkylvania is beginning to think the totalitarian and oppresive nation of Anberica is trying to harsh it's buzz.