NationStates Jolt Archive

Please Endorse the UN propsal Gay Marrige

.. did you atleast spell the stuff in the proposal properly? -.-... or was your other hand too preoccupied ;) naughty ;)

.. besides, i think theres some sort of individual nationside issue for this, it doesnt need to be in the UN, it's up to the individual national governments if they want to discriminate or not -.-

gay marriage is sick it asks for preachers to sanctify there marriage when it goes against the bible either you believe in the bible or you dont not just parts of it but as a whole, if your gay so be it but dont ask us to change for you either!

I was originally opposed to this proposal because I felt it infringed too much on national sovereignty...

But then I saw the basic stupidity of the post above mine and I decided to support this proposal just to spite Adolfus.

The only proposal that matched the search term "gay" follows, so I'll just hope it's the right one:

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=gay

Gay Marrige

Category: Human Rights; A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Metens


Description: Men and Women be allowed to marry members of the same sex.


Approvals: 2 (Metens, Scaraba)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 132 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Fri Dec 19 2003

EDIT: I hadn't noticed the matched spelling error that Londana mentions in the next post. So this is it, then. Thanks.

Considering both this thread's title and the proposal's title spell it "marrige", I'm willing to wager that it's the one.

well atleast scaraba isnt a complete bigot :) what with his sterilize ugly people bill -.-

heh, it could be legal civil marriage, doesnt need to be holy matrimony, does it? -.-

Church and state are separated -.- if religion is the only basis of marriage, then what of religions that do allow the union of same sex individuals? is that not inequality towards that religion?

-.- the church shouldnt meddle in affairs of state, the state should not meddle in theirs and just consider, in this case, the equality of rights it owes to all citizens, regardless of whether or not it offends a group, because it also equally pleases another. -.-

Now we're voting on faggot marriages? They should all be shoved back in the closet.

-.- maybe we should vote to ban bigot marriages instead -.-

As a Canadian citizen, it looks to me like gay/lesbian marriage is soon to be legal as a civil union. (In Canada at least.)

That's the key to the fact that most Canadians either accept or openly approve of legalizing same-sex marriages. It's a civil union, and it does not force anybody other than the Federal/Provincial governments to accept it.

So long as a proposal isn't forcing religious institutions to accept gay marriage, and leaving it up to the individual creeds to decide I'm all for it. Hopefully that will be clear in the proposal.

In Londana, marriage is not a religious matter. Marriages are approved by the secular state.

However, those who marry are free to sanctify their marriages through any religious ceremony of their choosing.

As such, religious institutions are free to deny these ceremonies to any they wish. When it comes to the actual marriage license though, the state does not abide by religious laws.

That's nice, Londana. :)

I wonder if bigotness is hereditory?

I think the gay marriage thing is more of a nattional issue than a potential united nations resolution though.

As a Canadian citizen, it looks to me like gay/lesbian marriage is soon to be legal as a civil union. (In Canada at least.)

OOC: Actually, the Ontario and B.C. courts have rejected the idea of separate "civil unions" for gay and lesbian couples. They struck down the existing marriage laws and ordered that gays and lesbians be given marriage rights that are analagous to those of heterosexual marriages. There is NO difference. Since the federal government has promised not to appeal these rulings, they will be forced to extend this definition of marriage across the country.

IC: Government legislation permitting same-sex couples doesn't affect religions at all. Churches are allowed to refuse people who have divorced to remarry in their churches, but these people still have the right to get married by the government.

Yes, I think it is a national issue, and the UN does not need to impose it.

Londana, thanks for clarifying things!

I heard that Reformed Judaism allows same-sex marriages, but so much of the issue is still cloudy.

One more question: did Ontario make its decisions before the last provincial election? Because the Progressive Conservatives are out of power now. (And not many people here miss them.)

The new Liberal gov't is a bit preoccupied with the massive debt the Tories left behind, but I'm sure they'll get to it eventually.

Just a clarification on the Ontario ruling since Londana's not here right now: it was the Ontario court, not the then-Conservative government of Ontario, that made same-sex marriage legal. And soon in all of Canada. Yay!

As far as IC goes: The argument is moot. UN members are already required to permit gay marriage by resolutions already passed.

Gay Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
*
Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: Kundu
Description: WHEREAS it has been clearly witnessed there is an outspoken minority who wish to oppress gays. We, the People's Republic of Kundu and the other peoples of the world wishing for the preservation of freedom and the respect of all hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life. We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.
Votes For: 12705
Votes Against: 7734
Implemented: Sat May 3 2003

Thanks for pointing that out! It saves a lot of debating :lol:

OOC: The court did strike the law down, but both the then-Conservative provincial government and the federal Liberal government chose not to appeal the decision (which they could have done to the Supreme Court of Canada)

gay marriage is sick it asks for preachers to sanctify there marriage when it goes against the bible either you believe in the bible or you dont not just parts of it but as a whole, if your gay so be it but dont ask us to change for you either!

I was unsure what to label you, bigot, ignorant, and fool came to mind, but I think that gets the point through, oh yeah, not everyone is christian you idiot, there are other religions (Speaking neutrally as an aetheist)

Is that how I spell aetheist? Anyway, its a little bit simple of you to take marriage an an act exclusive to the christian faith, seems pretty little minded.

A Rep of Komokom.

P.S. to all nations posting topics in the U.N. forum, I am angry about the influx of non U.N. topics, and am composing a list on offenders to subit to the mighty mods. If it aint suitable for this forum, than for crying out loud send it into general...

It will be a good thin and I am all for it if the UN approves this resolution butt I think this is a delicate matter and every nation be allowed to set law on this matter as they please butt the UN to set regulation for gay people not to be discriminated against that needs to be the actual resolution.
R\ President of Teracknor Federation
:idea:

the resolution should be that any resolutions that are based on bigotry and/or encourage it should not be entertained at all.

there's apparently already a law protecting gay marriages, btw :)

Although in my particular nation I allow gay marriage I don't believe that all nations should be forced to adhere to that. It's up to an individual government to decide whether gay marriage is acceptable in their culture. Also you shouldn't force the religous to violate one of their tenets by forcing them to marry gays. If this proposal were to pass it would simply be a case of the U.N. overstepping their boundaries. However I would support a proposal that allowed all homosexuals the right to civil union.

My voice has been silenced,
By an angry crowd,
Yelling, pushing, screaming,
Solid hate flying through the air.

From those who preach salvation,
I recieve eternal damnation,
I am told I am a sinner and must repent,
Or that I shall surely go to "hell."
Their word.
They wrote their own book.
They hurl it at me and yell,
"Live by it or you shall pay!"

From those who preach conformity,
I recieve violence,
Because I do not fit in with,
Their definition.
They wrote their own dictionary.
So they throw it at me and yell,
"Conform to it or we'll get you!"

From those two who taught me love,
Ultimate compassion and forgiveness,
They who brought me into this world,
I recieve blatant non-understanding.
They also tell me that I'm wrong.
That I'm sinning.
They made me my facade.
So they force it upon me and yell,
"Wear it or we shall disown you!"

From all of the above,
I recieve pain,
Anguish,
Sorrow,
For because who I am they do not like.
They wish to change me.
Well, I am my own person,
I will write my own life.
I will turn to them and yell,
"Screw you all!"

By Luke Miller

I would vote for a resolution that just looks for equal treatment of all people gay, strait or what ever. Let’s clean the plate and submit a new resolution that states that all man are equal and deserve equal treatment. And give the individual countries to decide on the marriage thing

R/ President of the Teracknor Federation

That's the key to the fact that most Canadians either accept or openly approve of legalizing same-sex marriages.

False.

The latest poll showed 31% support for gay marriage.

More Canadians support civil unions, as do I, but there is no desire to change our basic institutions.

As a Canadian citizen, it looks to me like gay/lesbian marriage is soon to be legal as a civil union. (In Canada at least.)

OOC: Actually, the Ontario and B.C. courts have rejected the idea of separate "civil unions" for gay and lesbian couples. They struck down the existing marriage laws and ordered that gays and lesbians be given marriage rights that are analagous to those of heterosexual marriages.

No they didn't.

They struck down laws that didn't allow gays to marry. They were silent on civil unions. Please get your facts straight.

It is a very muddled issue. If someone has a link with a thorough description of the legislation/court decisions, could they please post it?

I think we should allow it even though I oppose it. If we let it be then the gays cant reproduce and there wont be any more gays to worry about but of course it could bring down half of the world population saing that there are a lot of gays.

OOC:
False.

The latest poll showed 31% support for gay marriage.

More Canadians support civil unions, as do I, but there is no desire to change our basic institutions.
Actually, more and more Canadians are supporting full marriage rights for gays and lesbians.

In 1999, support was at 53%
http://www.egale.ca/index.asp?lang=E&menu=1&item=180

In 2003, support is at 57%
http://www.egale.ca/index.asp?lang=E&menu=1&item=483


No they didn't.

They struck down laws that didn't allow gays to marry. They were silent on civil unions. Please get your facts straight.
Wrong. The B.C. Court of Appeals said "the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples... is the only road to true equality for same-sex couples. Any other form of recognition of same-sex relationships, including the parallel institution of RDP's (registered domestic partnerships), falls short of true equality. This Court should not be asked to grant a remedy which makes same-sex couples 'almost equal', or to leave it to governments to choose amongst less-than-equal solutions."
Source: http://www.equal-marriage.ca/info/civilunions.pdf

Sorry if you don't like the facts, but they're true. :roll:

IC: There is already a UN resolution which protects gay marriage rights. If you don't like it, tough.

... the gay allele that factors in the heredity is apparently from the mother anyway -.- even straight people get them :P

and i didnt see anyone forcing straight people to marry people of the same gender @.@

As a Canadian citizen, it looks to me like gay/lesbian marriage is soon to be legal as a civil union. (In Canada at least.)

OOC: Actually, the Ontario and B.C. courts have rejected the idea of separate "civil unions" for gay and lesbian couples. They struck down the existing marriage laws and ordered that gays and lesbians be given marriage rights that are analagous to those of heterosexual marriages.

No they didn't.

They struck down laws that didn't allow gays to marry. They were silent on civil unions. Please get your facts straight.
Marriage has been redefined as "between two people", gay couples in Ontario and B.C. (and I believe Quebec also) are being issued marriage licenses, not civil unions. As already pointed out, civil unions are seen as "separate but equal" and still discriminatory.

In the draft proposals of the federal legislation, which is before the Supreme Court of Canada for them to verify it's constitutionality before the Federal Government votes on it next year, does include one option of a "separate but equal civil union", but the courts are expected to deem that option unconstitutional and choose to redefine marriage as "a legal union between two adults" on a national level. Equality is offering the same thing to everyone, not different but equal options. As well there is a section that specifically states religious institutions are able to choose what marriages they will or will not perform, to protect religious freedoms.

<<Biased Polls>>


You are quoting polls and material from Two groups (egale and equal marriage). They are not representative of the majority of public opinion polls in Canada.

FACTS:
- Support for gay marriage in Canada is below 50% and usually below 40%.

- Our charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically excluded sexual orientation so that the traditional definition of marriage would not be changed.

- The BC and Ontario courts did not mandate gay marriages they only struck down parts of some laws.

- Criteria for people eligible to marry is a federal matter and thus any laws that have been struck down, still do not entitle gays to marry because the federal legislation still says "one man and one woman".

i agree with united Typos it is an individual nations.

gay marriage is sick it asks for preachers to sanctify there marriage when it goes against the bible

Actually, you're wrong. While the Bible does state that practicing homosexuality is a sin, it also says that it's an even bigger sin to force our beliefs on others against their will.

I firmly believe that homosexuality is wrong. I will gladly provide the evidence to back up my beliefs to anyone who is interested. However, Satan was cast out of Heaven for trying to take away our right to choose between good and evil, and anyone else who wants to take away that right to choose is going to end up right there next to him in Hell if they don't repent.

As long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, everyone is free to make their own choice. Even if the choice they make is wrong.

**points to Siece above him** Couldn't of said it better myself.

There are all types of Christians. Most of them are the loving ones and the hating ones.

I see way too much out of the hating ones for my happyness. :(

<<Biased Polls>>


You are quoting polls and material from Two groups (egale and equal marriage). They are not representative of the majority of public opinion polls in Canada.

FACTS:
- Support for gay marriage in Canada is below 50% and usually below 40%.

Meh. McLean's magazine says just over 50%. None of which matters, as this isn't an issue of opinion, nor do the majority get to rule on this one. The courts have quite rightly ruled that equal treatment must be given. That can be a civil union, but ONLY if hetero couples no longer have state sanctioned "marriages", but unions.

- Our charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically excluded sexual orientation so that the traditional definition of marriage would not be changed.

I doubt that that is true, but even if it, it is no longer relevant, as sexual orientation is now part of the Charter.

- The BC and Ontario courts did not mandate gay marriages they only struck down parts of some laws.

Semantics. The ruling was that all couples must be treated the same under the law.

- Criteria for people eligible to marry is a federal matter and thus any laws that have been struck down, still do not entitle gays to marry because the federal legislation still says "one man and one woman".

No, it doesn't, because it's been struck down. That's what sturck down means. The court in Ontario (haven't read the BC ruling) says:

To remedy the infringment of these constitutional rights, we:

(1) declare the existing common law definition of marriage to be invalid to the extent that it refers to "one man and one woman";

(2) reformulate the common law definition of marriage as "the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others";

(3)order the delcartion of invalidity in (1) and the reformulated definition in (2) to have immediate effect;

(p. 200, 65 O.R. (3d) Part 3, October 17, 2003, other clauses pertaining to the specifc individuals snipped)

Since there was no appeal, this ruling is the law. It doesn't matter whether you, or any other Canadian likes it or not, it is the law. The courts in Canada are non-political for a reason: it lets them make the decisions that we need, not the ones we want. The Federal government can, of course, pass a new law that will make all marriages civil unions, that will specify that religious institutions have the freedom to discriminate ( :roll: ) and so on, but it will have to satisfy the above restrictions. They CANNOT institute a second stream for them gays, who are clearly lesser people, obviously not capable of true love an relationships.

We of the USSZ consider the experience of the people of Canada to be important legal precedent. While local governments have the right to set their own marriage policies, of course, we don't see how it is even remotely appropriate for the U.N. to mandate something which many of our court systems would deem illegal.

Furthermore, while the government of the USSZ is avowedly secular, this representative is a Christian, one who posseses graduate level education in theology, and I would like to make it clear to the other members of this discussion, that not all Christians are so misguided as to think that a God whose primary concern is justice and love would practice discrimination. Were the UN a religious body, we could have an interesting discussion on that front.

We of the USSZ consider the experience of the people of Canada to be important legal precedent.

You obviously have no understanding of Canada or the legal system. I can't keep wasting my time with this.

If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that PROVINCES solemnize marriage, but the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT defines who can marry. The laws that were struck down were PROVINCIAL laws and so any marriages being had by same sex couples are not being validated.

Second, another instance of your misunderstanding is vis a vis our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If you go back to the newspapers and Parliamentary debates, you'll see that there was consensus, spearheaded by Prime Minister Trudeau (the most popular PM in Canadian history and the Prime Minister most responsible for giving gays rights in Canada) and the Justice Minister (Who later became Prime minister, winning 3 consecutive majority governments)...

... both argued that Sexual Orientation should be excluded from the Charter because it would one day change the definition of marriage if it were included.

The fact is that Canadians, most Canadians, Liberals and Conservatives, regard Marriage as a traditional institution. Many tie it to religion but MOST tie it to procreation. Even the BC court (the same one you cite) only a few years ago ruled that Marriage was exclusively an institution of procreation. This doesn't mean that some gays don't want children, but the fact is that most don't and can't based on biology. This also doesn't mean that couples that can't have children are wrong; this is a tragedy. BY AND LARGE, marriage is the legal, societal, moral and to many religious set of obligations to the next generation of human beings. This makes it a heterosexual institution. Don't give me the "separate but equal" argument, it's a poor analogy.

That's all for me on this topic.

You obviously have no understanding of Canada or the legal system. I can't keep wasting my time with this.

If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that PROVINCES solemnize marriage, but the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT defines who can marry. The laws that were struck down were PROVINCIAL laws and so any marriages being had by same sex couples are not being validated.


As one legally empowered to perform marriages, I am aware of how they work through experience, and through education. The provincial laws in question defined marriage on the basis of s. 91(26) of the Constitution Act, 1867. As you have said, the definition of eligibility is Federal, and the ruling in question (refer to my earlier post) not only altered the Provincial law, but also the Federal definition. I have re-read the transcript of the ruling, consulted with my higher-ups (including the lawyers), and obtained a separate legal opinion from a friend who is a lawyer, and the opinion is universal. You are wrong, and that's all there is to it. So please insert you attitude in your nether regions.

Second, another instance of your misunderstanding is vis a vis our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If you go back to the newspapers and Parliamentary debates, you'll see that there was consensus, spearheaded by Prime Minister Trudeau (the most popular PM in Canadian history and the Prime Minister most responsible for giving gays rights in Canada) and the Justice Minister (Who later became Prime minister, winning 3 consecutive majority governments)...

... both argued that Sexual Orientation should be excluded from the Charter because it would one day change the definition of marriage if it were included.

I have no particular historical knowledge, and I will take your word for it. It's not terribly pertinent, however, as considerable time has passed since then. That same former Justice Minister, and now former PM, has changed his opinion on the issue, and supported the change in the definition of legal marriage. Time has passed, get over it.

[quote=Anberica]The fact is that Canadians, most Canadians, Liberals and Conservatives, regard Marriage as a traditional institution. Many tie it to religion but MOST tie it to procreation. Even the BC court (the same one you cite) only a few years ago ruled that Marriage was exclusively an institution of procreation. This doesn't mean that some gays don't want children, but the fact is that most don't and can't based on biology. This also doesn't mean that couples that can't have children are wrong; this is a tragedy. BY AND LARGE, marriage is the legal, societal, moral and to many religious set of obligations to the next generation of human beings. This makes it a heterosexual institution. Don't give me the "separate but equal" argument, it's a poor analogy.

That's all for me on this topic.

Once upon a time most Canadians, liberal and conservative, thought it acceptable to arrest all citizens of Japanese origin, strip them of their possessions, and intern them in camps in the wilderness of BC. If you were correct that most Canadians thought as you say, then the conclusion is that most Canadians are morally and ethically wrong. As it is, the more correct assesment is that opinions are split about 50-50.

And actually, I cited the Ontario ruling, as that's where I live, and that's the one I have access to.

You are quoting polls and material from Two groups (egale and equal marriage). They are not representative of the majority of public opinion polls in Canada.
Actually, if you had actually read the links I posted, the polls were conducted by Environics Research Group (http://www.environics.ca), one of the most reputable polling agencies in Canada. Your "facts", on the other hand, were not backed up by anything.

Our charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically excluded sexual orientation so that the traditional definition of marriage would not be changed.
Actually, the Charter of Rights says "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination". It then proceeds to name *examples* of prohibited grounds of discrimination. Other grounds of discrimination are also prohibited under this section. ( Source: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/#egalite )

The BC and Ontario courts did not mandate gay marriages they only struck down parts of some laws.
Is there something you don't understand about "The existing common-law definition of marriage violates the couple's equality rights on the basis of sexual orientation under [the Charter]", as stated in the 61-page ruling of the Ontario Court of Appeals? Is there something you don't understand about them ordering that city clerks issue marriage licences to same-sex couples IMMEDIATELY? ( Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030610.wrule0610/EmailBNStory/Front )

Criteria for people eligible to marry is a federal matter and thus any laws that have been struck down, still do not entitle gays to marry because the federal legislation still says "one man and one woman".
"The Appeal Court also declared Ottawa's definition invalid and demanded it be immediately changed to refer to 'two persons' instead of 'one man and one woman.'" (Source : http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030610.wrule0610/EmailBNStory/Front )

If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that PROVINCES solemnize marriage, but the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT defines who can marry. The laws that were struck down were PROVINCIAL laws and so any marriages being had by same sex couples are not being validated.
Wrong. Read above.

Second, another instance of your misunderstanding is vis a vis our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If you go back to the newspapers and Parliamentary debates, you'll see that there was consensus, spearheaded by Prime Minister Trudeau (the most popular PM in Canadian history and the Prime Minister most responsible for giving gays rights in Canada) and the Justice Minister (Who later became Prime minister, winning 3 consecutive majority governments)...

... both argued that Sexual Orientation should be excluded from the Charter because it would one day change the definition of marriage if it were included.
Actually, when then-Justice Minister Jean Chretien was introducing the Charter of Rights, he was asked by gay MP Svend Robinson whether discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation would be prohibited. Chretien's response was "We say other types of discrimination and we do not define them... It will be for the courts to decide." ( Source: http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/oct03/fraser.pdf )

Don't give me the "separate but equal" argument, it's a poor analogy.
If it's such a poor analogy, then why don't you disprove it? Oh, that's right. You don't provide arguments. You make up facts to spout bigotry.

That's all for me on this topic.
Let Londana be the first to state unequivocally: THANK GOD.

I agree with those members who state that this is a nation issue, and the will of the UN should not come into play over the will of individual nations one way or the other.

That's all for me on this topic.
Let Londana be the first to state unequivocally: THANK GOD.

Okay, you got me for one more post:

Londana,

I really want to ask you (OOC). Do you believe that a Canadian or American (I can only speak for the countries that I know best), can be tolerant of all cultures and religions and still oppose his or her society allowing polygamy?

If you take your position to it's logical conclusion, people are bigoted for opposing gay marriage, and thus would also be bigoted for opposing polygamous marriages which are desired by certain cultural and religious minorities.

While you would probably believe that sexual orientation should not be placed below religion or culture, what basis do you have to put it above?

I believe that Marriage is a social construct and that society and legislators are in charge of defining it. Reasonable people can disagree but it doesn't make them bigoted; it only reflects a difference of opinion over what marriage is supposed to be in society.

If you aren't prepared to say that Canada and the United States must allow gays to marry AND allow polygamous people to marry, then you are using a double standard.

And if you are saying that denying polygamous people the right to marry in their own way is itself bigoted, well then my disagreement over what is truly bigoted is certainly justified.

Cheers,

Anberica

Dunno what's been said... but there is already a resolution that says that gay marriages must be allowed to happen in all UN nationstates.

(OK... I was bored and read through all the resolutions that had been passed as of about a month ago).

Therefore, redundant, but feel free to keep arguing about... uhhh... polygamy? Hmmm.... strange.......

--EDIT: Oh... it was an analogy. I see. A pretty good one too. Nice.

Please Endorse the UN propsal Gay Marrige

This proposal goes against UN Resolution 254A, "Proper Grammar".

I firmly believe that homosexuality is wrong. I will gladly provide the evidence to back up my beliefs to anyone who is interested.

Am interested. Would love to see see said evidence.

You obviously have no understanding of Canada or the legal system. I can't keep wasting my time with this.

If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that PROVINCES solemnize marriage, but the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT defines who can marry. The laws that were struck down were PROVINCIAL laws and so any marriages being had by same sex couples are not being validated.

Gay couples are being issued legal marriage certificates in Ontario and B.C., and regardless of what happens federally, they will always be able to marry in these provinces and they are federally recognized marriages.

The federal government chose to not appeal the provincial court rulings and are having the Supreme Court of Canada look over legislation and then will vote on gay marriage next year some time. By deciding to not appeal those rulings the federal government is showing that they accept it and are planning to bring it in nationwide. So regardless of whether the provincial law changes the federal one directly, they're planning on changing it soon enough (to include them in marriages, not civil unions).


As for polygamy, I have no problem with people who choose to be polygamous and think they should be allowed to live as they want, however, their relationships aren't marriages and shouldn't be given that label, as marriages are legal unions between two people to the exclusion of all others and people can only legally marry one other person at a time. That definition of marriage should not change, marriages are meant to be monogamous, polygamy, by definition, is not that at all.

As for polygamy, I have no problem with people who choose to be polygamous and think they should be allowed to live as they want, however, their relationships aren't marriages and shouldn't be given that label, as marriages are legal unions between two people to the exclusion of all others and people can only legally marry one other person at a time. That definition of marriage should not change, marriages are meant to be monogamous, polygamy, by definition, is not that at all.

You have no logical basis to claim that marriage MUST BE DEFINED AS "between two people" but MAY NOT BE DEFINED as a "man and a woman."

As for your misrepresentation of Canadian law, the marriage licences are invalid if they conflict with the Federal definition of marriage. Check the CONSTITUTION OF CANADA.

And until that definition changes the licences will be as valid as driver's licences given to 5 year olds: They exist, but they won't be honoured.

Anberica

In the Confederacy which I represent, the government does not recognize such a thing as marriage; it is done by contract between parties who choose to make their sharing of responsibilities and rights legal. That contract can be made between any two adults, no matter their sexes. Therefore, a U.N. resolution supporting or banning same-sex marriage appears singularly pointless with respect to the conditions within my country.

As for other countries, while I personally feel couples of all sorts should be given leeway to do as they like in the marital sense, I do not think the U.N. should be enforcing a morality that is not universal or even held by the majority.

gay marriage is sick it asks for preachers to sanctify there marriage when it goes against the bible either you believe in the bible or you dont not just parts of it but as a whole, if your gay so be it but dont ask us to change for you either!

[OOC:] Sorry, I know this moron posted a long time ago, but as far as the Bible goes, I doubt even YOU follow all of it. Parts of Deuteronomy and Leviticus state, among other ridiculous laws, that if a friend or relative tries to convert you, it is lawful for you to stone them to death, or if your children disobey you, it is lawful for you to stone them to death, or if an army conquers another nation they are required by God to kill all of the men of the conquered peoples, and so forth and so forth.

Basically, no matter what fundamentalists and ultra-right-wingers say, there is no such thing as following the Bible "as a whole." And even then, since all Bibles are translated from the Greek and Latin, primarily, and also from Hebrew, a great amount of spin comes into play, especially when it comes to words like "kill" and "damn," etc. etc.

Conclusion: you have no idea what you are talking about you scared, sad little boy. I suggest you crawl out from under your desk chair and face the harsh light of the day.


Post-Script: In case you are wondering, "Adolfus Hitler," no, I am not a "faggot." I am a straight (yet sympathetic) 18-year old American college student who believes very much that gays should be awarded equal rights.

Conclusion: So, no, I won't come over and touch your weiner, Adolfus. Sorry to disappoint.

Our Empire belives that marriage is a holy item that should only be shared between a man and a woman. Gay marriage is morally wrong and not to mension that most people don't like seeing gay couples. Another thing is that we belive that getting married is a very sacred and respected thing that should only take place as it was suppposed to be. The Empire is working around the clock to get Gay Marriage outlawed in our country and hopefully, one day, we can take it to the UN

That's all for me on this topic.
Let Londana be the first to state unequivocally: THANK GOD.

Okay, you got me for one more post:

Londana,

I really want to ask you (OOC). Do you believe that a Canadian or American (I can only speak for the countries that I know best), can be tolerant of all cultures and religions and still oppose his or her society allowing polygamy?


Notice how Londana is awfully quiet now; she doesn't want to answer this question.

Anberica

gay marriage is sick it asks for preachers to sanctify there marriage when it goes against the bible either you believe in the bible or you dont not just parts of it but as a whole, if your gay so be it but dont ask us to change for you either!

I was unsure what to label you, bigot, ignorant, and fool came to mind, but I think that gets the point through, oh yeah, not everyone is christian you idiot, there are other religions (Speaking neutrally as an aetheist)

Is that how I spell aetheist? Anyway, its a little bit simple of you to take marriage an an act exclusive to the christian faith, seems pretty little minded.

A Rep of Komokom.

P.S. to all nations posting topics in the U.N. forum, I am angry about the influx of non U.N. topics, and am composing a list on offenders to subit to the mighty mods. If it aint suitable for this forum, than for crying out loud send it into general...

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2423265#2423265 <-- I've finally gotten fed up with non-UN stuff in this forum. ModAlerts are being filed.

This has been an OOC post.

If you aren't prepared to say that Canada and the United States must allow gays to marry AND allow polygamous people to marry, then you are using a double standard.


Actually, no, you are using a false comparison. Comparing Homosexual Marriage and polygamy is laughable at best.

Polygamy is most definitely a social choice. Admittedly, it is a choice heavily influenced by cultural biases, but ultimately, no one is born polygamous.

As for homosexuals, the verdict is still out, both in the scientific and psychological community. Substantial evidence exists to suggest that homosexuality is a genetic condition, however no conclusive proof has been uncovered. Additionally, many other studies have shown that homosexuality and it's occurance in society may be the product of envirnomental pressures, including everything from external biological forces to family structure. This further muddies the issue and leaves homosexuals in existance, but without a concrete explanation for how they got that way.

Therefore, you are comparing a social choice versus what may be a biological commandment. This is unfair, unjust and inappropriate. While the Nation on Berkylvania has no problems with either polygamy or homosexual marriage, we do feel that it is unreasonable to depend the rights of one group upon the rights of another, wholly unrelated group. Until more evidence comes in proving conclusively what portion of nature and what portion of nuture go into making your average homosexual, denying them the right to marry may very well be the same as denying someone with brown hair the right to marry. Denying polygamists the right to marry and be recognized as a marriage conglomeration is more akin to denying someone the right to break the speed limit.

If you aren't prepared to say that Canada and the United States must allow gays to marry AND allow polygamous people to marry, then you are using a double standard.

Polygamy is most definitely a social choice. Admittedly, it is a choice heavily influenced by cultural biases, but ultimately, no one is born polygamous.

As for homosexuals, the verdict is still out, both in the scientific and psychological community.

Until more evidence comes in proving conclusively what portion of nature and what portion of nuture go into making your average homosexual, denying them the right to marry may very well be the same as denying someone with brown hair the right to marry. Denying polygamists the right to marry and be recognized as a marriage conglomeration is more akin to denying someone the right to break the speed limit.

Sorry, the burden of proof isn't on the current Canadian, American and Anberican leaders to redefine marriage until we can produce other evidence. It's up to evidence to the contrary to be brought forward; only then would we consider allowing gay marriage.

In the meantime, I see one's religious affiliation, or ideological/philosophical essences as no less important as sexual practices and attractions. These concepts come after the establishment of order in society.

Anberica

IF GAY MARRAGE IS GOING TO BE LEGAL I WILL DROP OUT OF THE UN BEFORE IT HAPPENDS

IF GAY MARRAGE IS GOING TO BE LEGAL I WILL DROP OUT OF THE UN BEFORE IT HAPPENDS

Then you should resign immediately.

Gay Rights

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kundu

Description: WHEREAS it has been clearly witnessed there is an outspoken minority who wish to oppress gays. We, the People's Republic of Kundu and the other peoples of the world wishing for the preservation of freedom and the respect of all hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life. We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.

Votes For: 12705

Votes Against: 7734

Implemented: Sat May 3 2003

I suggest that the proposal be ammended to read civil union, rather than marriage. A marriage is something sanctified by a church, or is generally thought of as such, and churches should not be made to marry those they feel should not be. Lets face it, the churches don't really want to acknowledge homosexuals so they should not have to marry them. A civil union allows for the country's government to do it, if they see it fit that gays should be married. I also believe that this issue should be decided by individual countries. Every country has its own beliefs and should not have new ones forced upon it. I realize this is trying to provide more equal rights for homosexuals...but each nation should be allowed to decide for itself because everyone believes in different things. Forcing beliefs on a population goes against what the UN stands for and therefore, this proposal should not go to a vote.

The world was made for Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

The world was made for Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

Wow, that was so original and intelligent. :roll:

you know, i couldnt care who or what people want to marry, but i'll be
damned if their right to do so will be infringed upon.

free love, brother!

I suggest that the proposal be ammended to read civil union, rather than marriage. A marriage is something sanctified by a church, or is generally thought of as such, and churches should not be made to marry those they feel should not be. Lets face it, the churches don't really want to acknowledge homosexuals so they should not have to marry them. A civil union allows for the country's government to do it, if they see it fit that gays should be married.

You are suggesting that a heterosexual couple that go to the registry office will not be married. You are also suggesting that a committment ceremony held in a church should be called marriage, even if it does not have the recognition of the state.

A marriage is a contract between a couple and the state. A church simply witnesses it.

Notice how Londana is awfully quiet now; she doesn't want to answer this question.

Anberica

Londana is on vacation, as a qick glance at his region's notice board would show you. Moral: don't make stuipd assumptions.

As to your question, it is a huge red herring. Polygamy has nothing to do with homosexuality.

I know people who were once forbidden to marry because "mixed-race" marriage was illegal in some of the US states. One day, forbidding gay marriage will look as old-fashioned and bigoted as forbidding mixed-race marriage.

New Havenedge wrote:
You are suggesting that a heterosexual couple that go to the registry office will not be married. You are also suggesting that a committment ceremony held in a church should be called marriage, even if it does not have the recognition of the state.

A marriage is a contract between a couple and the state. A church simply witnesses it.

I'm not saying a commitment ceremony in church should be called marriage...I'm saying that's what it is called. There was no consent from the state when people were married back in the day when government was virtually non-existent. The only reason that the state is even mentioned in marriage is because the country has to allow such unions to exist now...which is total crap. If I want to be married I shouldn't have to have the consent of the government, I should only have to have the consent of either the church, or the people involved with me and my future wife, the family. Yes, I am not homosexual, but I don't really care if people are gay. I can deal with that, and I realize that in most countries church and state are "sperate" but, if you look at the Bible, and many other religious scriptures, they speek of marriage and there is generally only one man and one woman. There are exceptions where thers is one man and multiple women, but there is very rarely, if at all, any passage about a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

In no way am I against two homosexuals sharing their lives together but if they wish to make their relationship exclusive as is implied in religious scripture, they should have it done by the state. Like I said before, churches should not have to marry homosexuals unless they want to. If a church does not want to form such a union than the state can do it, a civil union as it is called.

New Havenedge wrote:
You are suggesting that a heterosexual couple that go to the registry office will not be married. You are also suggesting that a committment ceremony held in a church should be called marriage, even if it does not have the recognition of the state.

A marriage is a contract between a couple and the state. A church simply witnesses it.

I'm not saying a commitment ceremony in church should be called marriage...I'm saying that's what it is called.

So jews, muslims and hindus are not married in your eyes, as they did not get married in a christian chruch? How about people who got married in a civil ceremony?

There was no consent from the state when people were married back in the day when government was virtually non-existent.

and there wasn't the 1000+ federal rights the government gave with civil marriage

The only reason that the state is even mentioned in marriage is because the country has to allow such unions to exist now...which is total crap. If I want to be married I shouldn't have to have the consent of the government, I should only have to have the consent of either the church, or the people involved with me and my future wife, the family.

Why do you need the consent of the church?

Yes, I am not homosexual, but I don't really care if people are gay. I can deal with that, and I realize that in most countries church and state are "sperate" but, if you look at the Bible, and many other religious scriptures, they speek of marriage and there is generally only one man and one woman.

Generally, yes, and when (not if) gay marriage is commonly accepted world wide, you will find that marriage is generally only one man and only one woman

There are exceptions where thers is one man and multiple women, but there is very rarely, if at all, any passage about a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

So what about the marriages performed by the early christian church inviolving two men and no women?

In no way am I against two homosexuals sharing their lives together but if they wish to make their relationship exclusive as is implied in religious scripture, they should have it done by the state.

You are describing a specific committment ceremony. Marriage is just one form of committment ceremony.

Like I said before, churches should not have to marry homosexuals unless they want to. If a church does not want to form such a union than the state can do it, a civil union as it is called.

It is good to see that you fully support the Metropolitan Community Church performing gay marriages. Your argument is confused up to this point though.

I think this is a delicate matter and every nation be allowed to set law on this matter as they please but the UN to set regulation for gay people not to be discriminated against that needs to be the actual resolution.
Aside from the bad grammar, I must agree with the idea. The UN's responsibility includes preventing discrimination against gays,and the leader of Rethelanium gladly accepts such a proposal, but the definition of marriage does not lie in the UN's power to change; the definition of marriage, a civil and religious issue, depends on the civil and religious laws governing an individual nation.

Everybody doesn't get married by a preacher or whatnot. Like hand Fasting is another way to get married. Many other ways. Why do you people think that there is only one religion that is the right way to do things? Gay marriage is not sick in my eyes but just because you don't like it doesn't mean everybody else is gonna agree.

I believe it is the Right of a Nation to decide for it self what is a legally binding marriage. It is a Nations internal affair, which no International body has the right to infringe upon. This body exist to help nations coexist more peaceably, and to encourage dialogue. It should not be used to force agenda's down powerless nations throats. Remember it is not for the UN to interfere in internal matters of a nation, nor for the UN to rob a nation of it's sovereignty; to force a Nation to accept gay marriage is to violate a Nation's Sovereignty.

I support it, all love is good

I am in on the tail end of this one. I can;t support Gay marriages, due my religious beliefs, but I will let the people decide.

New Havenedge,
I'm not saying that the Christian form of marriage is the only form, I'm merely sighting that as an example because it is one of the largest religions in the world and most people understand the concepts and process of a Christian marriage. In no way am I saying that gays should not be able to share their lives together and have the same rights as a couple who is married. My main issue is that the government should not make it so a religious group must marry a homosexual couple. The religions should be given the option and if they will not do it, then gays should have a civil union that allows the same rights as all other married couples.

I hope this clears up what I am trying to say...if not, you can clearly state what may confuse you. Please do not get angry or attack me though. These are merely my views and I'm here to try and better understand yours and see the errors that might be hidden in my thinking.

Thank you for all of the time that is put in here. I think this is a great way for people to expand their thinking and learn what others believe too.

accepting gay marrige is like accepting a dog marring a human, or a human marrying a donkey or monkey. it just doesn't work

I'll support Gay marrige...But not Gay Honeymoons!! Eeeew

I support it.

down with gay marriage! gays should die!

New Havenedge,
I'm not saying that the Christian form of marriage is the only form, I'm merely sighting that as an example because it is one of the largest religions in the world and most people understand the concepts and process of a Christian marriage. In no way am I saying that gays should not be able to share their lives together and have the same rights as a couple who is married. My main issue is that the government should not make it so a religious group must marry a homosexual couple. The religions should be given the option and if they will not do it, then gays should have a civil union that allows the same rights as all other married couples.

I hope this clears up what I am trying to say...if not, you can clearly state what may confuse you. Please do not get angry or attack me though. These are merely my views and I'm here to try and better understand yours and see the errors that might be hidden in my thinking.

Thank you for all of the time that is put in here. I think this is a great way for people to expand their thinking and learn what others believe too.

thank you for your explanation. Just as there is no requirement for the catholic chruch to perform marriages involving anyone who is divorced, there will be no requirrement for a church to perform the ceremony of gays, or anyone else they consider unsuitable, including atheists. At no time have I insisted that a church perform a committment ceremony of anyone they do not wish to. There are many other options to a committment ceremony that do not involve a church/mosque/synagogue etc.

OK I will support voluntary gay marriage on the grounds that in all reality it is already happening in as much as gays are already living together in a permanent relationship. However to answer a previous statement, it will incur costs to the member nation as recognising such would have implications with pensions and social welfare, therefore I am not sure if the UN is the place for such a debate.
Secondly I currently have a proposal 'The Freedom from incorrect Grammar' that would allow us to be able to read the posts without getting a headache in the attempt to juxtapose what the originator meant, I only ask that you view it and perhaps comment on the post in the forum.

down with gay marriage! gays should die!

Dear Spokesperson, even in a virtual forum such statements are obviously hateful and inappropriate. The Nation of LoreSong officially sanctions Kwaswhakistan from any future interactions until they're under more civil leadership.

There are some in this thread who argue that gays are already protected under the previous resolution asserting homosexuals are to have equal rights. However, if it is a matter of disputation as to whether marriage constitutes a civil right (which it does, check the UN declaration of human rights) as seems to be the case here then I see no harm in clarifying this.

Others argue that the bible is very clear on this subject. They are, of course, referring to the book of leviticus, which also bans touching the skin of a dead pig, eating pork, shaving on the sabbath and wearing clothes made of goat hair. It also tells us it is better to let your daughter die than have sexual relations out of wedlock. There is a passage in Luke which quite clearly says we can jettison these archaic rules unless you wish to take holy orders, and other indications that it can be ignored completely . Anyone saying homosexuality and christianity are incompatible is an idiot and should talk to a man called Gene Robinson. It is offensive to man and to God to use the holy book as a crutch for your bigotry.

Lastly, there has not been a resolution on the separation of church and state, but there should be. If human rights and respect for religion conflict, the UN should have no difficulty in knowing where its duty lies.

We endorse this resolution.

accepting gay marrige is like accepting a dog marring a human, or a human marrying a donkey or monkey. it just doesn't work

Why not? Your parents seem to have managed pretty nicely.

accepting gay marrige is like accepting a dog marring a human, or a human marrying a donkey or monkey. it just doesn't work

Why not? Your parents seem to have managed pretty nicely.

He's just projecting.

The Gay Marriage Proposal is long past its voting date, but it is an interesting issue nonetheless.

Salliston disagrees with the proposal because it forces the legalization of homosexual marriage even if a member nation does not formally recognize marriage as a legal union. In any member nation in which marriage is purely a matter of church (rather than state), this proposal forces the religious acceptance of homosexuality, an action that is not in the spirit of the UN Charter.

It ought to declare, "In states that legally recognize a union between two individuals, that union cannot be denied on the basis of the sex of the two partners to be united." This declaration - though not perfect - prevents the aforementioned difficulties from becoming issues.

Catholic Europe can not support this proposal. We believe marriage, defined, is the union of a man and a woman and is a scared bond commited under the eyes of God. We can therefore, not allow gay marriages as they do not fall in line with this defintion.

However, Catholic Europe is willing to grant gay partners some rights and priveleges that married couples have as a compromise to the fact that they cannot get married.

Here's my stance people can do whatever they want. I will not ban it nor will endorse any gay/lesbian marriage

Holy republic of trip rolo Will Not Support!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Holy republic of trip rolo Will Not Support!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Would you care to elaborate as to why not?!

I support it because i see no diffirence between normal marriage and gay marriage. Simple as hell and the church in my country has nothing to say about it.

I support it because i see no diffirence between normal marriage and gay marriage. Simple as hell and the church in my country has nothing to say about it.

That's very nice for you....why did you bring the Church into it?

I can see the Problem and there is not and easy answer. I propose the Government grant civil marriage rights to gay’s and lesbians. The government cannot get into the church and change what ever it wants or force people to do something that they think is wrong. But the Government can set law on it self and grant full civil marriage status to gay people.

R\ President of the Teracknor Federation
8)

gay marriges should be the same as normal marrigies. but we dont need extra suport on this.

If you aren't prepared to say that Canada and the United States must allow gays to marry AND allow polygamous people to marry, then you are using a double standard.

Polygamy is most definitely a social choice. Admittedly, it is a choice heavily influenced by cultural biases, but ultimately, no one is born polygamous.

As for homosexuals, the verdict is still out, both in the scientific and psychological community.

Until more evidence comes in proving conclusively what portion of nature and what portion of nuture go into making your average homosexual, denying them the right to marry may very well be the same as denying someone with brown hair the right to marry. Denying polygamists the right to marry and be recognized as a marriage conglomeration is more akin to denying someone the right to break the speed limit.

Sorry, the burden of proof isn't on the current Canadian, American and Anberican leaders to redefine marriage until we can produce other evidence. It's up to evidence to the contrary to be brought forward; only then would we consider allowing gay marriage.

In the meantime, I see one's religious affiliation, or ideological/philosophical essences as no less important as sexual practices and attractions. These concepts come after the establishment of order in society.

Anberica

No, actually, it is. If you are going to deny a category of world citizens the rights that others enjoy based on what may be, at least in part, a genetic trait, you need to justify that stance in light of human rights guarantees. Otherwise, this organization, both the real one and the fictional one we're playing around with here, is a useless tool and should be disbanded immediately.

Notice how Londana is awfully quiet now; she doesn't want to answer this question.
Actually, I was on Vacation Mode, as a quick visit to my page would have shown. But now that I'm back, I'll attempt to answer you adequately.

I really want to ask you (OOC). Do you believe that a Canadian or American (I can only speak for the countries that I know best), can be tolerant of all cultures and religions and still oppose his or her society allowing polygamy?
After reading the responses, I felt that one poster answered this question sufficiently, but since you sent me a telegram asking me to respond, I will.

By denying gays and lesbians the right to marry, you are infringing on their equality rights -- to not be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation.

You may argue that denying people to have polygamous marriages infringes on their equality rights -- perhaps to not be discriminated against on the basis of conscience or religion. However, in most democratic societies we believe in reasonable limits on rights. The Canadian Charter of Rights states in Section One that all rights are subject to limits as can be reasonably justified in a free and democratic society. Denying government-recognized polygamous marriages can be reasonably justified because polygamous marriages would fundamentally change the institution of marriage; legal problems regarding divorce, separation, and asset splitting; not to mention the fact that it would take away the rights of currently married couples by allowing spouses to marry -- therefore entitling others to one's assets without consent. Denying government-recognized same-sex marriages, however, CANNOT be reasonably justified. It does not fundamentally change the institution of marriage. All that has to be changed in the law is gender-specific terms and granting rights to couples, who just happen to be homosexual. Laws and rights which applied to heterosexual couples will be applicable for same-sex couples. Gay marriage does not infringe on ANYONE's rights, no matter what right-wing nuts may say. I have yet to hear one person detail exactly how the allowance of same-sex marriages is trampling on their rights. That is why the denial of polygamous marriage *can* be justified in a free and democratic society, but denial of same-sex marriage *cannot*.

Lastly, I think linking same-sex marriage to polygamous marriage is a tired and inaccurate comparison. Marriage is a legal contract between two persons. Denying people the right to sign a government contract with each other because of their sex, race, or sexual orientation is an infringement of their rights. However, denying people the right to alter the terms of a government contract (making it between three persons as opposed to two) is not an infringement of their rights.

People in polygamous relationships are free to campaign for the government to recognize them (however fruitless their attempts may be), but it is faulty logic to assume the government is *obligated* to legally recognize these relationships -- they are not being discriminated against because the government doesn't allow ANYONE to have legally recognized polygamous relationships. They aren't being denied some right that is granted to another class of people.

i am strongly against gay marriages.

I am strongly for gay marriages. That they are being denied the right to marry the person they love is an atrocity.

i am strongly against gay marriages.

Don't worry, it won't be compulsory. You will still be allowed to have a heterosexual marriage, even if your church doesn't want to perform the ceremony (e.g. divorecd catholics)

This decision is not a religious one it is a matter for the government not the church as marriage is acknowledged by the state as a couples right to issues such as pensions and duty as next of kin and so on. We can look at this as a matter for the church or for the government and I believe that it is a matter for the government only.

I am strongly against homosexuality, and the ideals of marriage for two homosexual poeple.

I am a christian and homosexuality is a sin. Plain and simply, black and white. Although the devil would have many of you to believe these folks are born this way, or some other line of bull he has decieved you with. That fact is the devil is a lier, and comes to kill and destroy you. His greatest weapon is your own ignoracnces. Although this is probably a little to spiritual for many of you to get it still needed to be said.

Lets look at a few "religious" points.

Much of our society has embraced many perverted sexual practices that are considered in the Bible as abominations to God. Homosexuality is among the list of deviate or abnormal sexual practices however, there are many other practices that can be included as well. Pornography, pedophilia, prostitution, bestiality, just to name a few of them.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination."

DING DING DING

Homosexuality is also referred to as the sin of sodomy. This reference comes from an account in the Bible of two exceedingly wicked cities, Sodom and Gomorrah, which the Lord destroyed. Sodom was known for its rampant homosexuality and unrestrained sexual lust, as well as other sins such as arrogance, haughtiness, and disregard for the poor. When the Lord sent angels to warn Lot who lived in the city that it was about to be destroyed, the men of the city actually wanted to rape the angels! Genesis 13:13: "But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly."

Let me just point out that some argue the point that God didn't not destroy the city because of homosexuality but because of their unrighteousness. This is also true, but they were not seen as righteous do to the many sins that they had. Again the major sin being homosexuality.

In the Old Testament the penalty for this sin was severe. Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Today the penalty of death comes in the form of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. It also brings death to the soul and spirit of man because the life of God is pushed out by indulging in something that is an abomination to God. God wants to deliver all who are trapped in this unholy practice and He will if anyone calls out to Him with a sincere heart

Let me just remind everyone that God love everyone, including homosexuals. But he hates the sin, or the deeds that they do.

Basically this is a spiritual battle.
2 Corinthians 10:4 For the weapons of our warfare are not physical [weapons of flesh and blood], but they are mighty before God for the overthrow and destruction of strongholds,

Ok so that is what I think....and that is why I DO NOT SUPPORT HOMOSEXUALITY, GAY RIGHTS, OR ANY OF THAT GARBAGE!!!!

The Dictatorship of Toothy will vote for gay marriage, however, only if they stop being so "gay" in public, and will not display their homosexualness in public.

Punishments for infractions: Death.

I do not support Gay Marriages, Gay oppression is justified.

Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination."

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:17-21 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination."

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:17-21 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

I just jumped on the computer to see if anyone had posted a reply to my recent post when I say yours. I don't have much time, but I would like to make a very quick comment. I will post more later if you would like.

First, thank you for response and I do have some answers for you questions.

There is a big difference between the old and new testiments of the Bible. Testament means "covenant" or "contract."

The New Testiment is the New Contract or coventant that Christians today are to live by. The old contract was done away with after Christ's death on the cross, thus the new testiment.

Basically what that means is that the old testiment LAWS are no longer binding on Christians today. Teachings however are different than laws.

So your guestions that asked about..

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I have great news. You no longer need to burn a bull as a sacrifice to the Lord. Jesus paid the price for you when he died on the cross. As you may recall the reason for the burt offerings, was an atonement for sins. Since Jesus bore all our sins on the cross, you no longer need to burn your bulls. I think you will find this most pleasing. You get the keep your bulls, and your neighbors don't have to smell them!

I'm sorry but I really must go. However I will just say that most of your question were taken care of with the New Testiment. We as Christian are not under obligation to obey the old testiment laws. Again I remind you that teachings and laws are different.

I'm sorry to have to leave this dicussion unfinished but I really do need to go. I hope you are able to find this post most helpful. I look forward to talking with you more.

Have a wonderful day!

This is not a religious debate and never will be... its a secular debate.

The question is... gay marriage or not.

It is clear after reading this that there is every reason for gay people to not not get married.

I blame Yes Prime Minister for my confusing syntax

However I will just say that most of your question were taken care of with the New Testiment. We as Christian are not under obligation to obey the old testiment laws. Again I remind you that teachings and laws are different.

Therefore, we can ignore Leviticus 18:22 also.

As a gay Christian, let me also point out that Jesus said nothing at all against homosexuality. St. Paul's exhortations are based on mistranslation. What Jesus did say was that we must love one another, and not cast stones. Jesus ate with prostitutes, and treated all people as equally human.

But all this is irrelevant. Marriage does not belong to the church. The state must either make it available to all people, including same-sex couples, or it must leave marriage entirely to churches. If it is left entirely to churches, then some churches will perform same-sex marriage, and the other churches must recognize this as marriage.

Either way, Old Testament morality and homophobia has no place in this debate.

Tanah Burung Ambassador to the UN

That was beautiful thing to say and so true. I like the way you think if there where more people like you this would be a better world.

R\ President of the Teracknor Federation