NationStates Jolt Archive

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

The Sanctity of Marriage proposal is basically saying that marriage is between a man and a women, not a man and a man, or a women and a women. Gay marriage is not marriage.

Tragomaschalia is quite unable to discern from this proposal what benefits to the member nations would accrue from such a definition, and asks the proposer to recast the proposal in a form in which these are made clear.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Description: WHEREAS Many nations are calling for "gay marriage", AND WHEREAS this is endangering the holy institution of marriage, let it be RESOLVED that marriage be defined, carried out, and restricted to the Union of one Man and one Woman.

In Tragomaschalia marriage is a civil contract, and whether any faith considers, or does not consider, any particular form of civil contract to be "holy" is quite irrelevant to the state, though we naturally respect their freedom to believe what they will. They are free, for example, to restrict members of their faith to a particular form of marriage as a condition of remaining within their faith, but not to prohibit citizens of Tragomaschalia as citizens from entering into a lawful civil contract with the full protection of our law which that entails.

The proposal, as contrary to our Constitution, will not be receiving our vote.

Description: WHEREAS Many nations are calling for "gay marriage", AND WHEREAS this is endangering the holy institution of marriage, let it be RESOLVED that marriage be defined, carried out, and restricted to the Union of one Man and one Woman.

The Laryngian High Council allows both heterosexual and homosexual marriages to be carried out, and, though not all civilians take advantage of the latter, all except for some rare reactionary political groups respect the choice. The said groups are not enough to overturn our vote if this proposal goes up for a vote.

If the proposal is brought before the United Nations, the High Council will vote against it.

Description: WHEREAS Many nations are calling for "gay marriage", AND WHEREAS this is endangering the holy institution of marriage, let it be RESOLVED that marriage be defined, carried out, and restricted to the Union of one Man and one Woman.

The Laryngian High Council allows both heterosexual and homosexual marriages to be carried out, and, though not all civilians take advantage of the latter, all except for some rare reactionary political groups respect the choice. The said groups are not enough to overturn our vote if this proposal goes up for a vote.

If the proposal is brought before the United Nations, the High Council will vote against it.

If religious bigots don't want to marry gays in their church, that is their decision to make and that's fine. But they should not force the state to deny all people equal rights. What about heterosexual marriages that are performed civily by a judge. Those aren't "holy" unions. Should those be null and void?

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

((((Although I am not in the United Nations, I am gonna post here anyway.))))

I believe that marriage is the engagement in HOLY matromony between a man and a woman. I also believe that being NON-STRAIGHT is immoral and discusting, and it is how I run my country. If you are not straight, you are sent to a death camp, and you will die. I have no room in my Empire for such immoral scum.

Czar Rekjyavich Ivan Andropov II
Holy Czar of the Czar's Holy Empire of Derscon

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

A gay couple would not get the benefits of a marriage, just a civil union.

We find this perplexing, given that in Tragomaschalia all marriages are civil unions. There are no benefits other than the satisfaction of following the prescriptions of one's faith, and any consequential religious benefits of so doing.

We have consulted with our Council of Faiths, and one representative thereto pointed out an effect which you may not have considered, and which, as a presumably religious person, may give you cause for thought. Her denomination considers marriage between couples (for that matter, between multiples) of whatever mix of sexes as a sacrament of their faith, and your proposal, if adopted, would limit their religious freedom to marry certain members of their faith within the practice of that faith.

We no more find it proper to circumscribe the religious practices of our citizens than to abrogate their right to form lawful contracts, and for this reason also we find the proposal unacceptable.

In nations that value the separation of religion (a codification of beliefs that often contradict current knowledge) and state (the organization responsible for enforcing the rule of law), marriage must be either a civil institution, where rights and privileges are given to those who enter into it, and no religions bias is applied to applicants, or a wholly ceremonial institution, where there is no state given benefit for entering into such a contract.

Marriage existed before religion. It has not been proven by scientific method to be a "holy" institution. Lubria values spirituality, however we will not tolerate religious-based persecution on a group of our citizenry. We do not share the values of Cottonisking. Marriage is a useless institution to many of our people. We have many couples who live together for years, have children, and love each other, and never see the need to codify their union with a piece of paper and ceremony. Thus, Lubria offers no benefits to "married" persons. We offer benefits to domestic partners; we offer benefits to parents, but not to people who choose to engage in an archaic practice such as marriage. Marriage began as a way to own another person. It is a contract. Lubria is indifferent to this practice, and thus makes little if any regulation of "marriage"

Lubria would be sorely disappointed in this august body if it allowed such a discriminatory proposal to come to a vote. We will not allow some backwater theocratic dictatorship dictate how our people can live and love.

The Legislative Body of the Rogue Nation of Climaxis has considered your proposal, and agrees with your contention that a 'marriage' consists of the union of man and wife, thus must consist of a male and a female. As spokesperson for the body, I offer my own personal opinion that any man who wants to marry another man should be able to do so, however, not in Climaxis. We will gladly exile the homos to any nation that promotes or at least condones this type of activity. On the other hand, if an attractive female seeks sexual gratification from another attractive female, it should be done with a legislator in attendance and welcome to participate. At which time it would be taken into consideration whether or not to allow that civil union. It would not be recognized as 'marriage', but would be considered 'missmarriage'. :twisted:

Rice Beaterz does not recognize any rights given to homosexuals by any means of marraige nor civil unions. This decision is beyond any moral or religious thinking.

Due to many diseases that are contracted more so between homosexuals, homosexuals cannot be allowed to marry nor be joined in a civil union as the majority of the population, whom are straight, will be forced to pay a much higher cost in their health insurance. That is but one reason for the decision made for Rice Beaterz.

Since pedophiles and other sexual offenders find themselves "cut off" from society, homosexuallity has declined greatly since the pass of the law. Due to much research, findings show that homosexuallity comes about from a sexual abuse at a young age (or as some have come to call it, a 'Bent Antenna').

All I’m saying is, if two men want to be together for the rest of their lives, they can get a civil union. But they shouldn’t get a marriage because a marriage is between a man and a woman. If a judge or a priest marries a man and a woman, fine, that would be accepted. If a judge gives a civil union to a man and a man, fine also. But if a judge or a priest marries a man and a man, not fine. A gay couple would not get the benefits of a marriage, just a civil union.

What proof can you offer us that marriage is universally, that is to say among all member states, recognized as being between one man and one woman. In some places, marriage is between a woman and several men, in others the reverse. In some places, marriage is completely unknown, and women take many lovers. Can you prove any of these forms of "marriage" to be better than the others, within the context of the respective societies. I do not believe you can.

You are attempting to enforce your views on marriage throughout the world. You are trying to limit other peoples, gay and straight, religious, civil, and human rights, and you have offered no proof for your view.

The scribbling of long dead religious zealots is not proof. You have offered no moral argument for your view. Your proposal violates the sovereignty of other nations, and the freedom of other nations and citizens to practice their faith freely, without any government regulation or persecution.

If you wish to allow inequality in marriage in your country, Lubria cannot stop you. However, we will not allow you to persecute our citizens because of who they are, and who they love.

As the representative to the UN for the Most Serene Republic of Lubria, I am offended by your statements Rice Beaterz. I am a homosexual. I am at no greater risk to STIs then other sexually active persons. I engage in no activity that a heterosexual cannot engage in. I find your logic flawed, and your statements hateful.

Homosexuality is not contracted by abuse; it is not associated with abusive pedophilia.

I do not believe for a moment that homosexuality has declined in your country, only the open and free expression of it. You are setting yourselves up for a revolt by a portion of your population. They will not tolerate such discrimination, and outright lying, from their government.

Lubria welcomes debate on any topic, but will not tolerate lying by any nation. Rice Beaterz’s statements are contrary to all established facts. I feel great sorrow for their citizenry, all of them; for they are living in a country whose government funds and encourages hate towards a group of society. What two consenting adults engage in privately is the business of no one.

Peter Javanis
Special Envoy
Office of the Lubrian Prime Minister

I believe that marriage is the engagement in HOLY matromony between a man and a woman. I also believe that being NON-STRAIGHT is immoral and discusting, and it is how I run my country. If you are not straight, you are sent to a death camp, and you will die. I have no room in my Empire for such immoral scum.

Czar Rekjyavich Ivan Andropov II
Holy Czar of the Czar's Holy Empire of Derscon
Which only proves that bigotry, intolerance, and tyrannical religious persecution exists in your country. We don't want it in ours.

As for you, Cottonisking, do what you want in your own nation. You can even post signs at the border disallowing non-standard married folk to visit your miserable little country. That's your right as head-of-state. But ...

Keep your grubby little morals out of MY nation
We'll make our own laws as WE decide.

This is NOT an international issue, and I flat out guarantee it will not be approved for presentation to the UN. I have faith that most Regional Delegates are not as close-minded and intolerant as you.

Christian hetrosexuals shouldn't be the only ones with such benefits as the ones that marraige produces. A ban on homosexual marraige in Sovetkioiv is unconstitutional to the right of equality. Bigotry and intolerance is more of a sin...not love, even if it is between same-sex members.

Religion is a blind fold for those who either fear truth or fear that there is no truth. Religion is an allowed practice for all the citizens of Sovetskioiv, but the condemning of fellow men and women for simply having different desires is lowly looked upon and is just simply ridiculous. Religion was once used to claim that coloured men were evil, yet do we still think that even today? NO!

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Ambassador Karasov states:

MARRIAGE IS NOT THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

Ambassador Karasov states:

MARRIAGE IS NOT THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

We support gay marriage because it brings in more delectable people

Description: WHEREAS Many nations are calling for "gay marriage", AND WHEREAS this is endangering the holy institution of marriage, let it be RESOLVED that marriage be defined, carried out, and restricted to the Union of one Man and one Woman.

*The ambassador emeritus stands, a wizened crone of indeterminate but ancient years. She looks at the delegation from Cottonisking with the patience of one who has seen many children and grandchildren*

Dear little children, you are still small and unlearned. Sit quietly and listen while the adults talk, and you will learn more.

*she nods to the leader of the Cottonisking delegation*

A personal lesson for you: your proposal is based on fear as well as ignorance. Goddess, however you know Her, will help you. Perhaps you will find yourself in a romantic relationship with another man, and learn it is not as evil as you have been taught.

*she nods to the remainder of the attendees*

Sister nations, perhaps we have something less fractious and more important to discuss, like whether passports should include a traveller's favorite color?

*The elderly woman is helped back into her chair by some children and a young man, where she goes back to her braiding*

To Quote Sovetskioiv
"Religion was once used to claim that coloured men were evil, yet do we still think that even today? NO!"
As did when it said they were proven to be inferior, Science, at least you can blame Religion on a false reading...what was Sciences excuse? Wait it didn't have one...and yet Religion is evil? At least Science is more corrupt right? Religion can be blamed on false readings, but science can't... science... has no excuse so that makes it invalid.

Lady Ambessador Emeritus: I am glad to see someone who thinks she has wisdom when inside her apple orchard is bare. Who feels she has knowledge when her mind is gone.
True knowledge comes from realizing you know nothing.
You say:
"Perhaps you will find yourself in a romantic relationship with another man, and learn it is not as evil as you have been taught. "
But even if he turns homosexual, it won't change what he knows. He might lie to himself that being in a romantic relations with another man is evil, but it won't take away the truth.
Because its fornication and fornication is sin.
As is sodomy...does'nt matter if male or female no Sodomy says the Lord...

I say Marriage is only through God, and those who aren't married by a Preist aren't married
Instead they have Civil Unions, much like the ones Homos are to get if the proposal passes. And in that context its okay with me.

And Religion was before marriage; Civil unions may or may not be though and such should be allowed.
Scientific methods cannot deal with Supernatural things, so they will never be useful. Read any science book, they can't be used. At least College Biology says so.(you'd think college would know better than High school lol)

Since Marriage started in the Garden of Eden...wasn't religion first?

Plus Marriage must have Consumation (sex) to legally take place, which is why the Honeymoon was created. Watch Divorce court, it was on one of the episodes, if you don't have sex (once while married) the marriage nulll and void.

And no valid defination of sex fits what Lesbians do...which is nothing more than going to third base and making out.
If making out was sex...that would change a lot of stuff...
Gay men however can kinda...have sex Sodomy wise but its kinda sick...however, I guess legally its possible.

I think perhaps there is only one proper response to Grand Atoll's statements...

"You go girl!"

Our nation is adamantly opposed against this resolution - there can be no room for compromise.

If it is passed, we will resign from the UN.

Plus Marriage must have Consumation (sex) to legally take place, which is why the Honeymoon was created. Watch Divorce court, it was on one of the episodes, if you don't have sex (once while married) the marriage nulll and void.
Wow.

A vigorous proof based on daytime televison.

Color me impressed. I'm converted. I shall henceforth rend my garments and cry asunder, "I am Christian, Lord! Command me to kill homos, in thy mercy!"

Go back to Sunday School and study some more. You ain't got it all down quite yet.

Plus Marriage must have Consumation (sex) to legally take place, which is why the Honeymoon was created. Watch Divorce court, it was on one of the episodes, if you don't have sex (once while married) the marriage nulll and void.
Wow.

A vigorous proof based on daytime televison.

Color me impressed. I'm converted. I shall henceforth rend my garments and cry asunder, "I am Christian, Lord! Command me to kill homos, in thy mercy!"

Go back to Sunday School and study some more. You ain't got it all down quite yet.

I'm sorry if you go around kill Homos I will have to call upon the Lord to strike you down.
Do not mock the Lord they God!
Condemn the act, not the person of Homosexuality. If they lived a life odf sin they will get theirs in the end, if you kill them you will recieve their punishment intensified.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

COTTONISKING UN PROPOSAL DISCRIPTION: WHEREAS Many nations are calling for "gay marriage", AND WHEREAS this is endangering the holy institution of marriage, let it be RESOLVED that marriage be defined, carried out, and restricted to the Union of one Man and one Woman.


THE DOMINION OF SHORTNOW'S OFFICIAL POSITION: There is no circumstance under which the free peoples of The Dominion of Shortnow will tolerate imposition of a single religious definition relating to their personal partnering decisions, or to any other facet of their lives for that matter.



In response to a couple of specific comments made within this discussion...

Rice Beaterz is seriously ill informed in stating that homosexuals are more diseased than heterosexuals within the general world population, though perhaps it is true within their own borders.

With regard to sexually transmitted diseases, Rice Beaterz should understand that under circumstances of homophobic oppression homosexuals fall victim to a disproportionate degree of illness when compared to heterosexuals. This is due to their inability to access health care with confidence of an open, and retribution free, dialog regarding their sexual activities with health care providers.


Such disproportionate degrees of illness are also the burden of prostitutes in moralistically oppressive societies... of course these are predominately heterosexual prostitutes receiving their diseases from those who are presupposed to be religiously moralistic men.


I urge Rice Beaterz, and all such nations as subscribe to religiously prescribed sexual cultural paradigms, to provide unrestricted access to health care for all their citizens and they will discover that their sexual minority citizens are subject to the same statistical disease experience as the heterosexual citizenry. This is true, particularly, when statistitions compare men to men, women to women, age groups to age groups, and partnered / unpartnered people to their appropriate cohort. This is excepting the likelihood that lesbians will be determined to be the most disease free component of their society regardless.


Further, the feelings of disgust that some express regarding the lives of homosexual men and women result from culturally restrictive upbringing. The citizens of Shortnow will try to contain their own feelings of disgust for such bigoted thinking in hopes that time and education will enlighten our sibling nations and bring them to a more tolerant and mature level of social intercourse. 8)


UN Member Citizen of Shortnow

I don't believe the sins of Sodom are what you think they are Final Final Infinity. Perhaps you should go read your book of genesis again.

Your god may be your lord, but he is not mine. You have offered no proof as to marriage being a holy institution, or that it must be between a man and a woman.

Marriage in the US carries with it 1000+ federal responsibilities and rights. Confession to a Catholic priest is a holy institution, marriage is not. It is entrenched so deeply in many societies, Christian or not, that no one can claim ownership of the idea.

The ancient religions of Africa had marriage before the Christians. The Romans had marriage before the Christians. The honeymoon is a Roman creation! Christianity is not the world's religion. You have no right to dictate to the world who can marry.

Jesus was a kind and gentle man, who loved all and preached only love for others. He never mentions homosexuality once. If I am wrong, quote me one passage from Jesus' words that speak ill of homosexuality. There is none. The levitican code you appeal to was disavowed by the man you hold to be the son of god, your savior, the head of your church. If Jesus were alive today, I'm sure he'd be very disappointed to have himself associated with hate, and cross burnings, and the murder of a gay college student.

May your god help you find the error of your ways.

Romans didn't have marriage before God was there in a religion. Alpha and Omega dude, never changes who he is.
Before they were named Christians sure if you want to go into Semantics...

And of course you have proof that god does in fact exists, don't you? Any verifiable proof? Any proof that he has said marriage is for a man and a woman alone? Any thing? I think all you have is your beliefs. Your beliefs carry no truth or falsehood, but they also lack any merit in a serious debate. I could believe that there are demons in my wristwatch, and they make it work, but I lack any proof that they in fact exist.

Yes, science is useless when dealing with the god of miracles. But that does not make science useless. One could just as easily say that a religion based on miracles is useless. Science relies on repeatable occurrences; miracles are by definition one time affairs. A nice cop out if you ask me.

Unless someone has already said this:

Where in the bible does it say that marraige is between a man and a woman? I can't remember any area of the bible that says that, Since it's not in the bible, marraige is a human idea and can therefore be altered. If homosexuals want to be married, let them.

If the bible does not say that marraige is between man and woman, the whole argument is now crap. Also, don't use soddam and gomorrah [sic] they were destroyed for things other than trying to rape the two angels, that was just the final straw.

Actually, BLARGistania, even if the sins of Sodom include the rape of angels, that only goes to show that the Jewish/Christian God doesn't like people raping each other, which is okay in my book.

However, there is reason to doubt that the Sodomites wanted to rape the angels...

Actually in the Bible this Hebrew word "to know" rarely means sexual intercourse. Apart from this story and the counterpart tale in Judges 19, it has that meaning in only about fifteen instances out of more than 900, and in all those few instances it denotes heterosexual coitus as, for instance, in Genesis 19:8 ). Some scholars believe that here, because of the circumstances, it has only its usual meaning of "become acquainted with."

~Homosexuality and the Bible, An Interpretation by Walter Barnett

The bible is written in notoriously bad Hebrew, with many grammatical and word use errors. Add to that the bad translations, and the outright editing of the supposed holy and unalterable word of God, and I can put very little faith in the accuracy of the bible. The whole thing seems to have played out like a game of telephone, with the current message having little in common with the original. A substantive moral argument cannot be supported by quotations from this book.

[quote="Final Final Infinity"]
Since Marriage started in the Garden of Eden...wasn't religion first?
quote]

You realize, of course, that marriages were carried out long before the Jewish religion came about? Long before stories of the gardern of eden, as known by jews and christians, were told?

Plus Marriage must have Consumation (sex) to legally take place, which is why the Honeymoon was created. Watch Divorce court, it was on one of the episodes, if you don't have sex (once while married) the marriage nulll and void.
Wow.

A vigorous proof based on daytime televison.

Color me impressed. I'm converted. I shall henceforth rend my garments and cry asunder, "I am Christian, Lord! Command me to kill homos, in thy mercy!"

Go back to Sunday School and study some more. You ain't got it all down quite yet.

I'm sorry if you go around kill Homos I will have to call upon the Lord to strike you down.
Do not mock the Lord they God!
Condemn the act, not the person of Homosexuality. If they lived a life odf sin they will get theirs in the end, if you kill them you will recieve their punishment intensified.

In fact, before you go back to Sunday School, I suggest you take some grammar lessons. Maybe learn about things like commas, when to capitalize, spelling, etc.

According to Final Final Infinity
And no valid defination of sex fits what Lesbians do...

It is likely that millions of Lesbians could provide a “valid” definition of what they do if they could be convinced that it was worth their time. Unfortunately, it is doubtful that they could be convinced to exert energy in a futile attempt to illuminate mindsets, representative of entire misogynistic systems, that think two women can’t “consummate” a marriage.



According to Final Final Infinity
Since Marriage started in the Garden of Eden...

…those who aren't married by a Preist aren't married. Instead they have Civil Unions…

If the general citizenry of Shortnow were ever to stipulate that marriage started in that mythological garden, they’d also have to stipulate that god by definition isn’t a priest (or a ‘preist’ for that matter) so Adam and Eve had the first recognized civil union, ironically enough, witnessed by god.


That’s gotta hurt.

Athough I am a strong supporter of religion and an active member of my faith, you do not seem to want religious explanations on the issue of homosexual marriage. Most of those supporting homosexual marriage have been yurning to science, so I shall follow suit. First let us ask the question of the purpose of sex. While it can be pleasureable, that is not the purpose. The purpose is to reproduce and further the survival of the human race. Nature DID NOT intend for humans to be homosexual. If it did intend to, then we would all be of the same sex and like some animals, be asexual, meaning that we do not need a member of the opposite sex to reprodce.
Mandynesia does not support Homosexual Marriage, though we do not persecute homosexuals, nor tolerate those who do. Please tak these thought into consideration.

President Conrad,
Presdent of the Armed Republic of Mandynesia

Mandynesia would do itself a service to look at dolphins, chimpanzees, and innumerable other animals to see that homosexuality is common in the animal kingdom.

If for a moment, we take this evidence to heart and assume that homosexuality is a genetically inherited trait, like eye color. If that is so, there must be an evolutionary advantage to being homosexual. But how can this be, for homosexuals, as you rightly stated, do not reproduce. However, looking at the list, we see that dolphins and chimpanzees are social creatures, living in groups composed of related members. As are humans. Is there an advantage to only select members of a social group to reproduce? In fact there is, if the social group lives in an area of limited resources, then it is beneficial for there to be little competition between parents for food for their children, and for there to be a maximum number of care givers. Homosexuality satisfies both these requirements. Homosexuals do not have any desire to have sex with members of the opposite sex, and therefore are unlikely to mate. However, they do have a drive to see their genes furthered, and will thus defend their nieces and nephews as if they were their own children. Brothers and sisters share half their genes, and aunts/uncles and nieces/nephews share a fourth of their genes. A good analogy is to think of an ant colony. Only one member of a colony reproduces, the queen, all others are workers dedicated to the care of their mother’s children. There is no infanticide within the colony. Homosexuals are in a sense, the workers. They do not reproduce, but care and protect the children of others. Many non-western cultures have embraced homosexuality in this way, the Native Americans treated homosexuals with reverence, as they were seen to have received a special gift. They often became shaman, and cared for the orphan children of a tribe.

So indeed, homosexuality does exist in nature, and there is an evolutionary advantage for certain members of a species that lives in social groups to be homosexual.

In regards to your second point, that if nature intended us to be homosexual, we'd all be asexual, you fail to recognize two things. One, evolution adapts rather than reinvents. It is easier to turn and arm into a wing than to create a brand new appendage. Likewise, it is easier to change a persons desires than their sexual organs. Also, as I have shown above, the advantage of a population that includes homosexuals is that they don't reproduce. Every member of an asexual species reproduces, and thus is in direct competition for resources with each other, and thus more prone to infanticide.

All this is an evolutionary argument for homosexuality. The issue here however, is the establishment of a recognized ceremony of monogamy for homosexuals. I would state quite clearly, that no such ceremony exists for heterosexuals in the animal world; it is only found in human society. Monogamy is, in fact, exceedingly rare in the animal kingdom. There is no animal marriage. That being the case, marriage is an invention of men (and I do mean only men, as its original meaning is the possession of a woman by a man. In the Torah, adultery is a crime only for women) and thus can be altered by men as they see fit. There is no religious argument to be made, otherwise, why don't rabbits have marriages?

I must disagree, Mandynesia. I think nature did intend for some humans to be homosexual. If nature did not, it is most odd that homosexuality is not limited to just humans. Also, don't you see the evolutionary advantages to having homosexuality? If a population becomes too over-populated, all kinds of problems arouse: shortage of food, lack of space, etc. Although this can sometimes help evolution by leading to competition, it also has the potential to destroy the entire population. But if certain members of the population had no interest in reproducing, the possibility of this occuring lessens. That is why one sees many homosexuals being the third, fourth, or fifth son of someone. It's one of nature's tools for controlling a population.

Ya beat me to it, Lubria. ;)

Our regime, as part of our Constitution, does not recognize gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity or handicap. We tolerate everyone, but we do not tolerate intolerance. In Bharat Mata, if you decide to marry, you may do so in a "church", "temple" or whatever you like, as long as it is a registered religious community, and we will recognize you as married, or you may be married in a local civil court, and we will recognize you as married. Any union of two people who are committed to a long term relationship is a "marriage" in Bharat Mata, we don't care if you are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or transexual, all are welcome.

We are a young country, and wish to join the United Nations as quickly as possible. We will, most assuredly, fight any attempt by UN members to dictate to the rest of us what constitutes a marriage. No public official from any nation who fights for this wretched resolution, will be welcome in Bharat Mata.

*religious communities are only allowed to operate legally if they are registered, to be registered you must adopt our regime's tolerance policy.

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint would not support a proposal mandating all marriages be defined as 2 men and 3 women, nor can we support this proposal for the same reason.

This is not an issue the United Nations should even be addressing.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs

Spigra, and Lubria: You have made valid points, but why must homosexuals be allowed to marry? You have stated that marriage was created by men. Marriage was intended to be between one man and one woman. You have said that homosexuals are like rabbits and dolphins and that they do not marry, so why should human homosexuals?

I do hope you weren't dehumanizing homosexuals just then. Homosexuals are as much like animals as heterosexuals are, and animal heterosexuals do not marry, so the question can just as easily be appplied towards heterosexuals. Do you have some reason that man-man or woman-woman relationships are any less deserving of marriage than a woman-man relationship?

Humans also created slavery, systematic genocide, female circumcision, and male circumcision. None of these things exist in nature, why should they exist in human society? But they all do.

Marriage was not intended to be between a man and a woman, it was meant to be between a man and his property, women. However many women he wanted. There was no monogamy requirement for men, only women.

And this is only in the Jewish/Christian world. In certain tribes in Tibet, polyandry is still practiced. That is one woman and several men, often brothers. This exists for its own reasons, namely to prevent the fractionalization of land among sons, thus all the sons marry one women, and all of them share the land.

How can you claim your practice of marriage is any more valid then theirs? You can’t. Marriage means different things to different people all over the world, and we agree with Greenspoint that this is not an issue for the UN, like so many things.

We have never stated that homosexuals must be allowed to marry. We are not asking for that. We do not want this brought before the UN because it is not a matter for the UN. Lubria views marriage as a dying institution. We do not see any reason to offer state support for it. We understand this is not the view of the entire UN Assembly, and thus we are content to leave it out of international politics.

to answer your questions; no I am not dehumanizing homosexuals, and yes I do have reasons for my stance on homosexual marriages. They are reasons based on morals and religion, but that approach seems to not be working so i thought i would try a different approach.

and your new approach doesn't seem to be working either.

I will agree with that this is not an issue for the U.N. due to diversity in culture, but the topic here is Homosexual Marriage. Homosexuals do have a right to live as they please and not be persecuted because of that fact. If i gave the impression that i am debating that homosexuality should be illegal, I apologize for that was not my intent. My objective was only that of the issue of marriage.

And I would argue that inequality in anything, including the right to marry, qualifies as persecution. If you argument about sex being purely for procreative reasons, then we must by that argument, deny marriage to the infertile, the elderly, etc.

Civil unions are not marriage. Marriage is not a solely religions institution; it often carries with it secular rights and responsibilities.

Greetings, all. It saddens me to see such invective in this forum, yet I am pleased to hear all the voices against the hate speech.

The nation of Zephyrkind happens to be composed largely of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered/transsexual individuals, as our borders are open to the sexually oppressed. This nation offers safety to all who seek it.

Zephyrkind's marriage policy is simple: anyone can marry, provided the parties involved are capable of consent (age is the primary factor in determining consent, although other issues have been known to arise). This policy includes protection for the young in particular. Marriage is not for every relationship and does not provide special legal consideration, tax breaks or protection for those who choose it. In the case of the dissolution of any household, property division is determined on a case-by-case basis.

We will not support any nation that oppresses its members or attempts to oppress the members of other nations. We will work diligently against all attacks and intolerance, not just against the LGBT community, but against any minority or marginalized group.

The nation of Zephyrkind will soon be a member of the UN and as such will actively support any nation that has a comparable civil rights policy.

And I would argue that inequality in anything, including the right to marry, qualifies as persecution. If you argument about sex being purely for procreative reasons, then we must by that argument, deny marriage to the infertile, the elderly, etc.

This matches my argument as well. Marriage is a civil contract, invoked to stabilize relationships, provide mutual support, and provide a solid foundation for children.

Even if the third part is removed, the other two still stand. And if we are concerned with the destruction of marriage, perhaps we should first outlaw divorce (Note: This is NOT a serious proposition, but merely an observation that divorce is destructive to marriage by definition)


Civil unions are not marriage. Marriage is not a solely religions institution; it often carries with it secular rights and responsibilities.

I have argued before another body that we should institute 'Civil Unions' as the standard non-religious marriage, performed by the state and granting all the civil benefits, and leave 'marriage' as a religious ceremony only. A Civil Union would be necessary concurrent to a 'marriage' to be joined in the eyes of the State. Then we could grant all consenting adults who want to share their lives (including the responsibilities of sharing their lives) a Civil Union and not offend the religious, who seem to see marriage as something more holy than it is. Since everyone who wishes to 'marry' would be obtaining a Civil Union, there would be no question of discrimination. Since 'marriage' would convey no civil rights, except in the eyes of a religious group, it would be appropriate for the religious groups to individually determine if they would 'marry' a couple.

What say you?

To Quote Sovetskioiv
"Religion was once used to claim that coloured men were evil, yet do we still think that even today? NO!"
As did when it said they were proven to be inferior, Science, at least you can blame Religion on a false reading...what was Sciences excuse? Wait it didn't have one...and yet Religion is evil? At least Science is more corrupt right? Religion can be blamed on false readings, but science can't... science... has no excuse so that makes it invalid.

I'm sorry if I miss something, but science had no relevance to what I said. And science isn't a good argument because I think science fanatics are no better than religious ones.

I hope you're not assuming because I've completely thrashed religion in a single post (and yes I realize I have done just that and probably more without pointing out that I AM Christian) that I favour science in return. That would be a false acquisition. I do however believe one scientific/philosophical reasoning above all, brought up by Aristotle...that moderation was the golden mean. Thus the reason I don't trust fanatics to any special interest.

One supporting sentence doesn't make the entire reasoning of a paragraph, but I am intrigued by your comment none the less. I agree, but in general you don't believe science can have misreadings either? Is that not what the trial-and-error process is for? I do however agree that science is another blind fold to the truth or lack of truth for people to hide behind by certain means.

====
To someone else, I read a statement they made that science didn't mean for humans to be homosexual. I agree with what was said about "sex is only for reproduction", but not the science part. To whom do you credit this finding of yours? Because I remember from anthropology studying that even the primates we evolved from literally rolled around giving each other homosexual blow jobs.

I believe that marriage is the engagement in HOLY matromony between a man and a woman. I also believe that being NON-STRAIGHT is immoral and discusting, and it is how I run my country. If you are not straight, you are sent to a death camp, and you will die. I have no room in my Empire for such immoral scum.

Czar Rekjyavich Ivan Andropov II
Holy Czar of the Czar's Holy Empire of Derscon
Which only proves that bigotry, intolerance, and tyrannical religious persecution exists in your country. We don't want it in ours.

I AM intolerant of immorality, and I won't say anymore because I'll probably be reported for flamming if I say my personal beliefs on this issue. . . .again.

Keep your grubby little morals out of MY nation
We'll make our own laws as WE decide.

Good for you.

This is NOT an international issue, and I flat out guarantee it will not be approved for presentation to the UN. I have faith that most Regional Delegates are not as close-minded and intolerant as you.

I do agree with you here, though -- it is not an international issue.

Most of those supporting homosexual marriage have been yurning to science, so I shall follow suit. First let us ask the question of the purpose of sex.

I need do little other in response to this than quote a response sent to us by the Tragomaschalian Academy of Sciences.

"Science and morality differ in one crucial aspect. Science is directed toward discovering what is; morality toward what should be. Teleology, the faulty ascription of purpose to natural phenomena and processes, conflates the two and brings heat rather than illumination to discussions between scientists and moral philosophers. Careful practitioners of both scientific and moral philosophy, therefore, take the greatest pains to detect and to eliminate teleological reasoning as at best fruitless and at worst an unwarranted and unwanted trespass on each other's proper domain.

A V Anand,
Russell Professor of the Philosophy of Science,
University of Nestoria"

Tragomaschalia's leading scientists and religious finding no merit in the proposal, our constitution prohibiting its discriminatory consequences, and our people indisposed to its imposition of restriction on their social and religious freedoms, we once again reject the proposal and suggest that it be withdrawn from consideration.

Morality is only a tool for humans to rationalize between what is wrong and what is right. What is wrong may feel right and what is right may feel wrong, but who is anyone to say what IS and what ISN'T in an already ambiguous world. Humanistic laws will always be just that...humanistic. In other words, beliefs, opinions, assumptions, ideas, judgements, positions, trusts, theories, surmises, theses; they aren't fact. Just because something is uncomfortable to you doesn't mean it's wrong and I laugh at anyone who uses the argument of "immorality." You might as well say incomprehension then.

I AM intolerant of immorality, and I won't say anymore because I'll probably be reported for flamming if I say my personal beliefs on this issue. . . .again.

Tragomaschalia considers it vital to the wellbeing of the international community, as represented by the UN, that free exchange - free civil exchange - of opinion is not only permitted, but actively encouraged, in our debates. What other purpose can we have in being here?

Derscon is entitled to hold its beliefs and principles, as we are entitled to hold ours. Tragomaschalia and, we hope, all other free nations would encourage Derscon to feel able to express these in a civil and reasonable fashion. We do not hold with censorship.

This proposal to destroy the rights of homosexuals. disgusts me. Are we so primitive that we can't be tolerant of others, and, despite our own beliefs on the matter, know that ALL people must be given equal rights? Whether or not you think gay marriage is moral, you must acknowledge that homosexuals have the right to marry those they love. Period. Being a strong supporter of homosexual rights especially in my own nation, I must also swear that I shall resign from the UN should this proposal be passed.
The morality argument against homosexuals is a fallacy. There is VERY solid evidence that homosexuality stems from a genetic difference from heterosexuals. Not a personal choice (anyone who still believes that homosexuals chose to be as they are is clearly not thinking logically). Would you say to someone that they were immoral and should have their rights limited because they had, say, a different hair color than most people? Of course not. Any idiot would know that to be moronic and discriminatory. Discriminating against homosexuals is like discriminating against those of different ethnic backgrounds. Nothing can or should be done to change the way people are, and thus it is unfair to discriminate against others based on a characteristic entirely beyond their control.

-M3N7H0L%P7U$

We of the Holy Empire of Kokablel find that while we do not approve of homosexuality, we approve less of nations meddling in our internal politics. Leave this matter to individual states. It is bad enough that 'marriage' must include homosexuality. Now you would define what marriage is in our nation? Preposterous. We will define the legal structure of our marriages as is seen fit by our people and our national code of law.

Get out of our nation's private affairs. You are not wanted.

Civil unions are not marriage. Marriage is not a solely religions institution; it often carries with it secular rights and responsibilities.

I have argued before another body that we should institute 'Civil Unions' as the standard non-religious marriage, performed by the state and granting all the civil benefits, and leave 'marriage' as a religious ceremony only. A Civil Union would be necessary concurrent to a 'marriage' to be joined in the eyes of the State. Then we could grant all consenting adults who want to share their lives (including the responsibilities of sharing their lives) a Civil Union and not offend the religious, who seem to see marriage as something more holy than it is. Since everyone who wishes to 'marry' would be obtaining a Civil Union, there would be no question of discrimination. Since 'marriage' would convey no civil rights, except in the eyes of a religious group, it would be appropriate for the religious groups to individually determine if they would 'marry' a couple.

What say you?[/quote]

That would be acceptable so long as marriage carries no legal benefits that a civil union does not, and that any religion could marry anyone, so long as the religion choose to do so. Marriage as a "religious" civil union is something I have no problem with. What I do have a problem with, is that few federal governments recognize such civil unions, meaning that the Full Faith & Credit clause in most marriage contracts is useless with civil unions. FF&C means that if a person is married in one area of a country, they are married in all areas of that country, and in most of the world. Civil Unions, lacking federal support in many countries, do not fall under FF&C.

If Civil Unions were instituted at a federal level in countries, and carried a FF&C clause, then these problems are no longer an issue.

We have never advocated forcing religious institutions from marrying, or refusing to marry, people. However, nor do we provide tax breaks for any religious institution that are not available to other not for profit organizations. Lubria values religious freedom, but that means the freedom of anyone to practice their faith so long as it does not interfere in the civil rights of others. Thus, we have allowed religions that allow same sex marriages. We see no reason to protect marriage. In Lubira, to be joined in domestic partnership, be joined in union, or to be married, all carry the same legal rights and responsibilities. The only distinctions are that the first requires no ceremony and minimal paperwork, the second is preformed by a judge or appointed member of the government, and the third is preformed by a registered member of a religious organization.

:? First I must agree with the Nation of Lubria because it seems to make the most sense to our Nation.
To the religiously institutionalized: Since your nation views the union of a male and a female as sacred, it is your values that make it sacred or holy or a sanctity.

There is nothing wrong or right about that since those are your values and you are allowed to keep your values and enshrine them if you want.

We believe differently in Filanthropoland since all people may join themselves as male-female, male-male, female-female or in threesome or foursome unions if they want as long as they abuse no one and live in harmony with those around them, then there is no problem.

That is why we have no need for prostitution (ie selling oneself for sex in order to survive), since all are provided with the basic necessities (ie; food, shelter, universal day care, schooling, medical care, psychotherapy and counselling and all other necessities of life) in our nation.

Therefore the idea, of allowing all unions to be blessed by the state as civil unions is okay and the religious doing the ceremony for the male-female in a religious setting and having a professional religious leader perform a ritual that makes their union into something transcendant and everlasting is perfectly alright.
Nevertheless if these same "religious" ones force, by UN mandate, everyone around them who disagree with their stance to believe and practice the same rituals so as to make these 'religious ones' feel better, we find this cruel and destructive towards bringing more peace and understanding in the human race as a whole. This flies in the face of what these religions pretend to call compassion and brotherly/sisterly love. :twisted:

Marriage in Boreal Tundra is a legal document between two or more persons. The genders of those involved is not important, only that they be legally competant and of age of consent.

Religious unions are perfectly fine though they have no legal standing without a Marriage. Due to the freedom of religion guarentees in Boreal Tundra'a Constitution, the State makes no interference in the operations of religious organizations. Within their own organization, like any other private, civic or associative organization, they may make whatever rules and restrictions they like. HOWEVER, they may not invoke or apply those rules upon any other segment of the population.

Even ignoring the fact that this proposal would be invalid under our constitution and immoral within our society, we find the proposal to be an intolerable imposition on our sovereignity. We would vote against this proposal and would strongly petition our regional delegate to do so as well.

Arianna Delassa
Minister for Health and Welfare
Boreal Tundra

.....Whether or not you think gay marriage is moral, you must acknowledge that homosexuals have the right to marry those they love. Period.

No, I DO NOT have to.

.....The morality argument against homosexuals is a fallacy. There is VERY solid evidence that homosexuality stems from a genetic difference from heterosexuals. Not a personal choice (anyone who still believes that homosexuals chose to be as they are is clearly not thinking logically).

When I first heard that the first thought that came to my head was "BULLS*IT. As I hear more, the thought that comes to my head is "Does that mean non-straights have a mental disorder?" If so, FIND A WAY TO CORRECT IT! Or......(censored for possible anti-Political correctness/flamming, etc. I'm NOT going to be reported again) Please post evidence, and a lot of it.

Discriminating against homosexuals is like discriminating against those of different ethnic backgrounds. Nothing can or should be done to change the way people are, and thus it is unfair to discriminate against others based on a characteristic entirely beyond their control.

I would agree with you, had I not still be believing that being non-straight is immoral and all (Censored so I won't get reported. . . .again)

Description: WHEREAS Many nations are calling for "gay marriage", AND WHEREAS this is endangering the holy institution of marriage, let it be RESOLVED that marriage be defined, carried out, and restricted to the Union of one Man and one Woman.


Cottonisking, dude, i would agree that TRADITIONALLY marriage is this, and to many religions this is true, but how does two members of the same sex affect some religous nut. Does it infringe on their rights? NO, so let gays get married, let them do what they want, as long as they dont hurt anyone whats the problem. And if in your country u dont want that, thats fine, but to ask the UN approve and pass this is directly infringing on the sovereignty of nations to pass laws relating to their people.

So dude, chill out its not that big a deal, if you think people of the same sex who love eachother and want to commit themselves is a sin and theyre goin to hell, fine, but dont push it on the rest of us who dont really care what they do. I dont think the problem in the world is that to MANY people want to get married, but that to MANY break off their marriage.

Thats all i gotta say, thanx

The ancient religions of Africa had marriage before the Christians. The Romans had marriage before the Christians. The honeymoon is a Roman creation! Christianity is not the world's religion. You have no right to dictate to the world who can marry.

Jesus was a kind and gentle man, who loved all and preached only love for others. He never mentions homosexuality once. If I am wrong, quote me one passage from Jesus' words that speak ill of homosexuality. There is none. The levitican code you appeal to was disavowed by the man you hold to be the son of god, your savior, the head of your church. If Jesus were alive today, I'm sure he'd be very disappointed to have himself associated with hate, and cross burnings, and the murder of a gay college student.

May your god help you find the error of your ways.


I agree completely, if God created everything, and it is proven that homosexuality is not a choice, and if God loves everyone, than He certainly loves gays, and if you are a true christian you would live up to Jesus's teachings of peace, love, and understanding!

ps, im not a religious person, but i do believe in j.c. and the message he sent, and i think if you believe in the ressurection or not, you will agree that the things he said were fundamentally good for all people. Love your enemy, and treat others as u want to be treated, i dunno it makes sense to me.

Jesus was a kind and gentle man, who loved all and preached only love for others.

True, very true.

He never mentions homosexuality once. If I am wrong, quote me one passage from Jesus' words that speak ill of homosexuality. There is none.

No, in fact, Jesus never did mention homosexuality. But that wasn't exactly his message, now was it? However, his apostles did, and if you'll remember correctly, they learned from Jesus. The verses are:

Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and 1 Timothy 1:9-11

The levitican code you appeal to was disavowed by the man you hold to be the son of god, your savior, the head of your church.

Matthew 5:17 (Jesus speaking) - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them."

If Jesus were alive today, I'm sure he'd be very disappointed to have himself associated with hate, and cross burnings, and the murder of a gay college student.

Of course he would. Violence and discrimination against homosexuals is unwarranted, and might I add, un-Christian.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

As the representative to the UN for the Most Serene Republic of Lubria, I am offended by your statements Rice Beaterz. I am a homosexual. I am at no greater risk to STIs then other sexually active persons. I engage in no activity that a heterosexual cannot engage in. I find your logic flawed, and your statements hateful.

Homosexuality is not contracted by abuse; it is not associated with abusive pedophilia.

I do not believe for a moment that homosexuality has declined in your country, only the open and free expression of it. You are setting yourselves up for a revolt by a portion of your population. They will not tolerate such discrimination, and outright lying, from their government.

Lubria welcomes debate on any topic, but will not tolerate lying by any nation. Rice Beaterz’s statements are contrary to all established facts. I feel great sorrow for their citizenry, all of them; for they are living in a country whose government funds and encourages hate towards a group of society. What two consenting adults engage in privately is the business of no one.

Peter Javanis
Special Envoy
Office of the Lubrian Prime Minister

Hate? That is hilarious. There is no HATE being pushed. Your response is typical of those who have nothing else in statement against what another has said in contrary to what you wish others to believe. Never was hate mentioned nor implied in my statement and ~I~ am offended that you would dare call me, let alone my nation, to be enforcing hate against a group of people.

YOUR logic is flawed. Private business, yes, but marriage, no. My citizens will not be forced by pay for two homosexuals becoming married nor joined in a civil union so that one of them who has an STD which will render that person in the hospital to be paid for.

No hate is implied in that and fact has been founded solid by research to the facts as I have made mention. Just as crime has dropped because my citizens own fire arms and can do so in a concealed manner, so to has sexual assault and abuse declined, thus driving down homosexuality in the younger generations.

Perhaps I did not make that part clear. Homosexuality has not declined in the age groups before the laws were passed, but it has for those of the youth.

Tell me, if you can in a VALID manner, where I am spreading HATE towards homosexuallity. If you can, then I will continue this conversation. If you cannot, and can only state that by me saying homosexual are not to be allowed to marry because of the medical reasons (which is one of many, outside of religious and moral thinking), then this is the last time I will post anything further about this.

------------------

Let me not forget to mention that it is a sickening TREND that if you're gay, then you are so very cool :roll:

Let me not forget to mention that it is a sickening TREND that if you're gay, then you are so very cool :roll:

I not only agree with you there, but I think it is going a lot farther.

(I apologize for all offended at the following comment, but I will censor myself no longer)

As you probably should know by now, I consider non-straights scum,(there, I said it) otherwise I would not execute them along with prostitutes, Communists, socialists, pornographers, etc, so everything I say might sound wrong.

At the moment, it seems (((((OCC: It also seems this way OCC, too.))))) that the homosexual community is not only trying to get our acceptance of them, but also PUT OUR STAMP OF APPROVAL ON THEM! Now granted, I already think they are scum, and I do NOT even TOLERATE THEIR EXISTANCE, never-the-less will approve of them.

Czar Rekjyavich Ivan Andropov II
Holy Czar of the Great Empire

(((((OCC: PS -- I still have not seen sufficiant proof proving this point, please post evidance. And I don't want the evidence stating homosexualaty is a mental disorder like pedophilia (which is BS in either case), because that was proven false A LONG time ago.)))))

I also must ask the following and make the following statements:

I suppose, then, that you all haven't heard of a group that call themselves "The Bug Hunters". These are homosexuals that look for other homosexuals to have sex with because the chance of catching the bug is a thrill. If you do not think this is a large organization, think again.

Also, I am SEVERLY offended by the fact that place such as Disney World have a "Gay Day" available. This event was FILLED with unbelievable peversion that straights never come out and display. After all, isn't every day "straight day", and yet you don't see people sucking each other off in the middle of Disney World. http://www.inoohr.org/disneygayday.htm and also http://www.linda.net/gayday.html

This is SICKENING. The benefits of all of that went to Digital Queers/Florida, a nonprofit organization.

As you probably should know by now, I consider non-straights scum,(there, I said it) otherwise I would not execute them along with prostitutes, Communists, socialists, pornographers, etc, so everything I say might sound wrong.

To disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle is one thing, but to call those who are not heterosexual scum is quite another. Your message of hate is completely unwarranted.

IC and OOC, I disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle. However, my religious beliefs also call upon me to love my neighbor as myself and to not judge. I believe the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman must be preserved. That does not stop me from believing that homosexuals should be allowed the same rights and benefits that heterosexual couples receive. This is why I fully support the idea of civil unions. Through it, equal rights are available to all, which is not solely a religious idea, but an idea sprouting from common sense.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

YOUR logic is flawed. Private business, yes, but marriage, no. My citizens will not be forced by pay for two homosexuals becoming married nor joined in a civil union so that one of them who has an STD which will render that person in the hospital to be paid for.


And this would be different then a heterosexual couple getting married when one of them has an std.... how?

I also must ask the following and make the following statements:

I suppose, then, that you all haven't heard of a group that call themselves "The Bug Hunters". These are homosexuals that look for other homosexuals to have sex with because the chance of catching the bug is a thrill. If you do not think this is a large organization, think again.

Also, I am SEVERLY offended by the fact that place such as Disney World have a "Gay Day" available. This event was FILLED with unbelievable peversion that straights never come out and display. After all, isn't every day "straight day", and yet you don't see people sucking each other off in the middle of Disney World. http://www.inoohr.org/disneygayday.htm and also http://www.linda.net/gayday.html

This is SICKENING. The benefits of all of that went to Digital Queers/Florida, a nonprofit organization.

The term "group" is very charatible. Bug Hunters constitute a small minority of the gay population, and are by no means organized like a group. I do not deny that the threat of AIDS is lost on some of the younger generation, however, you over-generlize the population. Bug Hunters are looked down on, or at least pitited, by the majority of the gay community.

Second, Gay Day at Disneyland is not sponsered by Disney, it is held at disney. The sites you refer to are Christian Propaganda site, that have posted images of innocent PSAs on disney property, and late night parties held at rented sites off disney property. The video advertised there is trumpted up nonesense. All such "lewd public displays" are overblown. Tell me, if a group of straight people did this(http://www.stopgaydays.com/Magic_Kingdom_DSC01001w.jpg) offend you? The PSAs are no more grevious than those conducted by non-gays, and the private parties are none of their concern. Disney does nto descriminate against private groups, but does not "sponser" Gay Day. It is a private celebration. Disney provides no services to the Gay Day that they do not provide to any other large private gathering at Disneyland.

Jesus was a kind and gentle man, who loved all and preached only love for others.

True, very true.

He never mentions homosexuality once. If I am wrong, quote me one passage from Jesus' words that speak ill of homosexuality. There is none.

No, in fact, Jesus never did mention homosexuality. But that wasn't exactly his message, now was it? However, his apostles did, and if you'll remember correctly, they learned from Jesus. The verses are:

Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and 1 Timothy 1:9-11

The levitican code you appeal to was disavowed by the man you hold to be the son of god, your savior, the head of your church.

Matthew 5:17 (Jesus speaking) - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them."

I belive he also commanded "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" to a group about to stone an adultress. I'm sorry, that's a denoncement of the punishment ascribed to adulteres, who by the way, were all women.

As far as his disciples speaking against them, well, again, translations (if not outright editing) being what they are, their condemnations are actually directed most likely at hetrosexuals engaging in homosexual activity rather than homosexuals following thier nature. Even if these were true condemnations of natural homosexuals, it doesn't prove that Jesus was against homosexuality. It only proves his disciples were. I can recall no direct, or even attributed, quotes from Jesus mentioning homosexuality.

I belive he also commanded "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11, which is where this passage is taken from.

As far as his disciples speaking against them, well, again, translations (if not outright editing) being what they are, their condemnations are actually directed most likely at hetrosexuals engaging in homosexual activity rather than homosexuals following thier nature.

Romans 1:27 says: "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men comitted indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

What this verse is saying is that all homosexual acts are indecent, and that these heterosexual men made the CHOICE to commit them, showing then that homosexuality is indeed a choice, at least in this case.

Even if these were true condemnations of natural homosexuals, it doesn't prove that Jesus was against homosexuality. It only proves his disciples were. I can recall no direct, or even attributed, quotes from Jesus mentioning homosexuality.

The aformentioned verse and the other verses I spoke of earlier do prove that his disciples were against homosexuality. It is safe to assume, then, that Jesus was also. The disciples called it a "perversion" among other things, and their source of learning about spiritual matters was Jesus, whom they followed. As I stated before, we are in agreement on the matter that Jesus never spoke directly about homosexuality. But his disciples were firmly against it, and they walk and talked with him for a good portion of their lives. He was their teacher, rabbi, etc.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

I will not enter into a length debate on the meaning of scripture, because 1) it is not my strong suit, and 2) it adds nothing to the debate. The Bible is a ~2000 revision of a much earliest document, with some new material thrown on. The point of this debate is not that homosexuality is tolerated by the bible, I will not argue such a point. The point of this debate is that there is no logically reason to deny homosexual couples the right to marry. Religion is not based in logic for the most part, and if it was originally based on some form of logic (e.g the banning of pork by the levitican code for fear of the widespread diseases found in porn then.) it is long sense lost such logic through the improper translations and outright editing done by later generations.

Homosexuality is found throughout nature. That point is uncontested. Monogamy is not found in nature as a rule. That point is uncontested. Modern marriage (in the strict western jeduo/chrisitan sense) is contractual monogamy between a man and a woman. That point is uncontested. However, who is to say that that is the view of the world? It is not. Marriage laws vary from culture to culture. Some have polyandrous marriages, some polygamous. Some have monogamous. Some don't even have marriage! You cannot demonstrate a logical reason to restrict marriage to men and women. Tradition is not logic, it is habit. For several millennia, it was traditional for men and women to be kept as property, as slaves for others. That is no longer the way of the world. It is currently the tradition of certain Muslim nations to force women to wear garments to conceal their bodies, all but wiping them out from society. That tradition too, is soon to be in the past. It is not a matter of benign cultural difference, it is a matter of persecution and state sponsored humiliation. It was once the tradition that blacks and whites could not marry, that is gone.

If you cannot provide a logical argument why marriage must be between one man and one woman, if all you can fall back on is, "that’s the way it’s always been," then you have lost. You have to accept that you hold prejudices, and learn to let them go. Otherwise, you will lose more than an argument; you will lose focus on the world. There is no shame in being wrong, the only shame is in refusing to accept you are wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Christianity is a 2000+ year old institution. The Catholic church is the longest surviving institution in the western world. It has committed terrible acts in its history; it is corrupt, a perversion of the vision of that simple carpenter long dead. You who cling to Christianity and its dying sects, you cling to an abomination. you stay faithful to a church that has allowed the abuse of children to continue for years. You stay faithful to a church that has fought countless wars in the name of god. You pray to a wizened idol upon a throne. This is not the vision of your savior; this is the shortsighted vision of men.

After commissioning an inquiry into the theological (that is to say Biblical) foundations of denying homosexuals the right to marry, the government of Ottoman Empire finds itself in an odd position. Based on Biblical precedents, THE SULTAN WILL BE REQUIRED TO REVISE ALL CHRISTIAN MARRIAGES to comply with the following requirements laid out by the Bible.

* 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) (This is where Governor Romney's resurrection of the Death Penalty will come in handy.)

* 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 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)

Christian theologians from other countries are invited to refute the inquiry's findings.

Sultan Omer
Keeper of the Gate of Felicity

Lubria thanks the Ottoman Empire for putting their theologians to work to show the idiocy that the bible contains, and its irrelevance to the modern world. Lubria would have done so, but though 90% of our country claims to be religious, only 10% attend any formal temple or church services, so we have a great lack of religious scholars.

besides Ottoman Empire's ideas, if marriage is to have kids (like some here have suggested), then i guess it would also make sense to abolish the marriages of:

infertile couples

couples who have adopted (they didn't make the kid, so the kid doesn't make the marriage count)

couples who choose to have no children (in this case they're really just living in sin, aren't they?)


in other words, most of the people who are selectively using the good book to judge other people should shut up and look at their own friends and families.

The Confederacy of Caligatio's leading theologians wish to point out that all of the verses cited (save Mark 10:9-12) are based in the Old Testament and pertain to Old Testament law, some of which has been fulfilled by Christ, others of which have been refuted in the New Testament.

Caligatio's theologian's point to:

Mark 10:6-9 (Jesus speaking to the Pharisees)
"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

1 Corinthians 7 (summarized by me due to length)
Each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone, but also to her husband. The husband's body does not belong to him alone, but also to his wife.

And so on. Paul goes into greater detail, but I won't list them all here.

What is important, then, is that the Ottoman Empire would not have to revise all Christian marriages, but all Jewish marriages. The Ottoman Empire's reference to Mark 10:9-12 is incorrect. Those passages state that a man who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and vice-versa, not about the law not permitting divorce.

Again, this debate could all be solved if the word marriage was left alone, and the idea of civil unions, which allow homosexual couples the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples, was accepted. But, I must add that the issue of "marriage" is indeed a religious and moral one, and thus, should be left up to each sovereign nation.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

besides Ottoman Empire's ideas, if marriage is to have kids (like some here have suggested), then i guess it would also make sense to abolish the marriages of:

infertile couples

couples who have adopted (they didn't make the kid, so the kid doesn't make the marriage count)

couples who choose to have no children (in this case they're really just living in sin, aren't they?)


in other words, most of the people who are selectively using the good book to judge other people should shut up and look at their own friends and families.

Marriage's sole purpose is not procreation, and to not procreate is not a sin. Such an idea is preposterous. Paul himself was never married and even wrote about the joy of being single, so he could devote his life to the Lord. He certainly never procreated. Neither did Jesus.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

One is not required to be married in order to propogate our species...

Yes, but I'm speaking in Biblical terms (as were you), specifically the New Testament, where it is required to be married to procreate.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

We too believe this to be an issue best left to individual nation states. However, the word marriage is not in any way sacred. When you must take a blood test in order to become married, it is not a sacred act. When you must obtain a marriage license, it is no longer a sacred act.

Equality is just that, equal. Restricting homosexuals from marrying simply because you dislike the use of the word is bigotry. Civil unions do not allow the same rights as marriages. For instance, if I had a civil union, I can't say I'm married. That example alone proves that I don't have the same rights, no further proof is needed, but here's some more anyway. A heterosexual couple can be married, they can also join in a civil union, but a homosexual couple can only be joined in a civil union. This is analogues to the Birmingham bus laws, where whites could sit in any seat, but blacks could only sit in the back seats. Simple bigotry, nothing but bigotry.

Want to make civil unions for homosexual couples only, still got a problem. That’s analogues to having separate drinking fountains, separate schools. It’s a segregated system. And though, in theory, segregation can be separate and equal, this has never proven so in practice.

What you call something is almost as important as what it is. Civil Unions may be just as beneficial to the couple as marriage, but they aren’t marriage.

besides Ottoman Empire's ideas, if marriage is to have kids (like some here have suggested), then i guess it would also make sense to abolish the marriages of:

infertile couples

couples who have adopted (they didn't make the kid, so the kid doesn't make the marriage count)

couples who choose to have no children (in this case they're really just living in sin, aren't they?)


in other words, most of the people who are selectively using the good book to judge other people should shut up and look at their own friends and families.

Marriage's sole purpose is not procreation, and to not procreate is not a sin. Such an idea is preposterous. Paul himself was never married and even wrote about the joy of being single, so he could devote his life to the Lord. He certainly never procreated. Neither did Jesus.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

Paul also said that celibacy wasn't for everyone. He also had a dislike for the company of women, one could read volumes into such statements.

Are you sure Jesus never procreated? I believe the Apocrypha says otherwise.

The Confederacy of Caligatio is swayed by the effective arguments of the nation of Lubria and will take this matter under deeper consideration.

((OOC: Which basically means you've brought up some excellent points that I didn't expect, I'm complimenting you, and I will take the idea under serious consideration and contemplation.))

What does the nation of Lubria feel about leaving the word marriage to those who wish to have a religious ceremony and creating civil unions for both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples? Under this circumstance, the word marriage would no longer be applied to just heterosexual couples, but instead, the title civil union would be applied to both, creating true equality.

My recent enlightenment on this issue is deeply disturbing to me...

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

Are you sure Jesus never procreated? I believe the Apocrypha says otherwise.

Might I ask where in the Apocrypha, because I've never heard that before...

And, the Apocrypha is only canonized in the Catholic faith. It is denied by Protestantism.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

Lubria thanks Caligatio for their great compliment.

Your proposal would be most agreeable, if We understand it correctly. Lubria law on commitments of love are as follows:

Domestic Partnership rights and responsibilities apply to any 2 or more persons in consent who live together in a state of love for each other.

Civil Union is state contract between 2 or more persons of consent that codifies their love and commitment for each other and lays out their rights and responsibilities.

Marriage is a religious ceremony, it is the celebration of a civil union within a religious context. No religious institution shall be forced to perform marriages that do not comply with their stated beliefs.


-------------------

I believe the Gospel of Mary makes certain references,to his relationship with the female apostile. I cannot recall specific verses. There is also his apparent tryst with a boy in Mark 10: 34, 35, which is evidence used by some that Jesus engaged in homosexual acts. Here is the text for those without a bible handy:

"And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God".

I personally find this quote ambiguous, but for some it is a rallying cry. There are various other claims, that the disciple in St. John that, “Jesus loved" was actually a reference to Jesus' gay boyfriend. Also that the centurion’s servant that Jesus healed was actually the centurion’s gay boyfriend, and that Jesus did not denounce their relationship.

So Jesus never taking a wife may actually be a double edged sword.

The Confederacy of Caligatio fully agrees with the nation of Lubria on the issue of domestic partnership, civil unions, and marriage.
----------
I believe the Gospel of Mary makes certain references,to his relationship with the female apostile. I cannot recall specific verses. There is also his apparent tryst with a boy in Mark 10: 34, 35, which is evidence used by some that Jesus engaged in homosexual acts. Here is the text for those without a bible handy:

Quote:
"And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God".


I personally find this quote ambiguous, but for some it is a rallying cry. There are various other claims, that the disciple in St. John that, “Jesus loved" was actually a reference to Jesus' gay boyfriend. Also that the centurion’s servant that Jesus healed was actually the centurion’s gay boyfriend, and that Jesus did not denounce their relationship.

So Jesus never taking a wife may actually be a double edged sword.

I've never read the Gospel of Mary, so I would't personally know, though I'll research it. And your reference to Mark 10:34, 35 is incorrect. Mark 10:34, 35 reads, "...who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise. Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. 'Teacher,' they said, 'we want you to do for us whatever we ask.'"

And that has absolutely nothing to do with what you're talking about. Typo?

I've heard speculation about the disciple that Jesus loved, but frankly, it's all very ridiculous. In the Biblical context, where Jesus proclaims to be God, why would he have a homosexual or a heterosexual relationship? It's never mentioned in the Bible, and despite other claims, not even alluded to.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

Lubria --

Your reference to the book of Mark is actually the Secret Gospel of Mark.

It is a writing included in the Apocrypha and also a Gnostic writing.

Just to clear that matter up.

I looked up the Gospel of Mary, but could not find anything referring or alluding to a sexual relationship between Jesus and her.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

Yes, apologies. Dr Morton Smith, a bible scholar at Columbia University says he has found a fragment of a manuscript at the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem in 1958. The fragment is from St. Mark, the fragment posted falls between verse 34 & 35 in the standard Bible.

http://www.365gay.com/newscontent/122503gayJesus.htm


[edit: wrong link]

Couldn't a lot of controversy, flawed regulations, human rights violations, and outright discrimination be avoided if marriage (or "civil unions" for that matter) were just stricken from the law books? I mean, if you were an alien of some sort and you came to Earth, you would easily see the point in, for example, anti-murder laws, but you'd most likely think, "What the f*** is this marriage s***?" In all honesty, marriage is all well and good, but it doesn't seem like there need to be any legal definition of it anyway. We have joint property (stock, for example), and we have joint custody of children for people who aren't marrried (mine, for example). I just don't see why we have to throw a totally social institution in with all that to mess everything up. If anything, it would be a lot less aggravating, no?

Completely agree Erubia, but people often have difficulty letting go of the old ways.

Great, anybody else?

Despite being a deeply religious person OOC-wise, I've come to the conclusion, with the help of Lubria, that the only way to create complete equality, as most of the nations in this forum have said they would like to, is to set aside the term and ritual of "marriage" to those who wish to participate in a religious ceremony and to create, instead, civil unions for homosexual and heterosexual couples.

This way, no one is "discriminated" against, and those who wish to be "married" still have that opportunity in a religious setting.

The Confederacy of Caligatio would support a bill that outlined those above statements.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

In nations that value the separation of religion (a codification of beliefs that often contradict current knowledge) and state (the organization responsible for enforcing the rule of law), marriage must be either a civil institution, where rights and privileges are given to those who enter into it, and no religions bias is applied to applicants, or a wholly ceremonial institution, where there is no state given benefit for entering into such a contract.
Marriage contracts become necessary ( of course in addition to their religious value) not with loving couples who stay together through thick and thin anyway, but serve to protect the rights of the husband and wife should one of them prove unloyal, brutal, etc. Marriage contracts ensure that couples have a legal obligation to carry out their civil (and, if married by clergy, religious) duties to each other.

The Sanctity of Marriage proposal is basically saying that marriage is between a man and a women, not a man and a man, or a women and a women. Gay marriage is not marriage. UN delegates, please approve my proposal.

The DSH will not agree with this proposal, simply because it goes completely against local Hirotan laws already enacted, and enjoyed with great success. We see no need for this proposal, and can see no positive benefits.

This proposal fails to address grey areas. How do transexuals fit into this tightly defined piece of legislation (if it could be called that). I suspect that the Delegate from Cottonisking should in future look to more specific instructions from their government.

Moreover, We also note that this proposal goes entirely against current legislation - the resolution titled "Gay Rights" specifically says "We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations." Therefore this proposal cannot be endorsed, and certainly cannot be passed due to rule mechanics forbidding such proposals.

We urge the Delegate from Cottonisking to review resolutions set in the past....it has the unfortunate effect of making them appear foolish.
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (DSH) (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

.....The morality argument against homosexuals is a fallacy. There is VERY solid evidence that homosexuality stems from a genetic difference from heterosexuals. Not a personal choice (anyone who still believes that homosexuals chose to be as they are is clearly not thinking logically).

When I first heard that the first thought that came to my head was "BULLS*IT. As I hear more, the thought that comes to my head is "Does that mean non-straights have a mental disorder?" If so, FIND A WAY TO CORRECT IT! Or......(censored for possible anti-Political correctness/flamming, etc. I'm NOT going to be reported again)

About as much a mental disorder as having different-colored hair, eyes, or skin, yes. I guess you could argue that being a blonde was a disorder as most of the human population is not blonde, but that is your choice. Or that being one gender instead of the other is a disorder. Whatever you want to call it, it still occurs naturally in nature, so maybe you just don't understand thge connotations of the word "disorder." It certainly could be called an "irregularity," but disorder implies that it is an ailment. I could understand you believing that is was an "ailment" if you also believed that same thing about a different gender, skin color, eye color, and hair color, and if you went with the "perfect race" sort of thing. Otherwise you are just being inconsistant and not thinking about your vews logically.

The Confederacy of Caligatio's leading theologians wish to point out that all of the verses cited (save Mark 10:9-12) are based in the Old Testament and pertain to Old Testament law, some of which has been fulfilled by Christ, others of which have been refuted in the New Testament.

This is a most perplexing response. Our Christian theologians have assured me that the Bible is both the literal and infallible word of God. It is not possible to "soften" the literalism and infallibility of the Old Testament and emphasize these same things in the New Testament; they are parts of the same Bible, which must be accepted in its entirety. If one rejects passages of the Old Testament forbidding men's ability to take extra wives or concubines, why not then reject the Ten Commandments?

I remain unconvinced that parts of the Old Testament can be contradicted by events or statements in the New. If there are contradictions in a book presented as literal and infallible, then the book is neither literal nor infallible.

As a result, this could have extreme ramifications for marriages between Christians in Ottoman Empire.

Sultan Omer
Keeper of the Gate of Felicity

Keep your grubby little morals out of MY nation
We'll make our own laws as WE decide.

I'm new to the forums and relatively new to the game, but suffice it to say I support the above statement.

Well, I am calling intermission while every body takes a seat and cools off before finishing their tea and cookies, and then getting back into this text fillled bi-atch fight.

...

(P.S. If people devoted as much time to learning sciences as they do to bitiching on an on about sexuality till the words lose all meaning, we'd all be rocket scientists be now.)

Okay, roll text!

...

A time not so very long ago,
I can still remember,
(If I try)

How that music used to let me lift a smile…
And I knew if I had just one chance,
I’d like us all to enjoy one final dance,
And perhaps,
We’d all be happy for once upon a while…

But that September,
Made me shiver,
With every paper that got delivered,
Always more bad news on my front step,
I could not stand for one more “step”…

I’ll not remember if I cried,
When they fell and burned,
And the people died,
It seems there’s nothing we’d had learned,

While the days last light was left to die.

Did you ever read the book on love?
Do you still find god so far…
Up above?
Is it only if the bible tells you it is so?
Do you still look for something to make you whole?
I s it faith or love that will raise your soul?
And can your belief make time go slow?
Do the angels truly know?

I can see your still in love with Him.
While you both ignore your mortal “sin”.
While you both kick off your shoes,
We’re left for CNN to roll the news…
Maybe I was just a prom danc’in,
Young screw up
While that Man Up Stairs,
Tuned out the coughing of my old pick up truck,
I knew for sure we were all,
Out’a Luck,

While the days last light was left to die.

For 2000 years,
We’ve been mostly on our own…
While the preachers ignore those,
Dinosaur bones,
Is this how its always,
Going to be…

Now that bearded jester sang to the crowd,
And to our kings and queens,
Respectively,
Though not all that,
Person-ally…
(By that I mean, proxim-ity…)

And while we all looked at him so far on below,
He jumped up to snatch at our golden show,
The giant justice hall was soon adjourned,
Each verdict every jury would,
Over-turn…

The whole sat down while Lenin read,
That book on Marx,
While Mao sat talking in quiet park,
While men and women were slain for their skin,
Which was found to be “too dark”…

While the days last light was left to die.

And helter, skelter, in a white - hot swelter,
We run to wiser early birds,
In their fall-out shelters,
The suns a few miles high and,
Falling way too fast…

And they landed foul, on the summers grass,
While players play the political pass,
And that bearded jester left to the side - lines,
In a cast,

Well the half time air may be sweet perfume to you,
To me it smells like anthrax too,
While that rag’ard band played their march’in tune,
While the crowds stood for a violent dance,
Wiser men called for the ambulance,

Those players tried to claim the field,
But that rag’ard band just would not yield,
I stayed still when the truth was revealed,
It seemed all our fates are sealed,

While the days last light was left to die.

As the world fell from its former place,
We still argued over another planets face,
We’ve no time left to start looking at each others once again,

So George be nimble,
George be oh so quick,
Would tar us all with a nuclear candle stick?
While men in power plot,
To turn our countries into parking lots,

I watched that couple on that glowing stage,
As a happy crowd was turned to a vocal rage,
How dare they try to steal this one nights crown
With its stars so shining (And not just down.)
While some – where,

Satan smiled in complete delight.
As they defiled this,
Forgetful night.
As those planes plunged from even greater high,
To light that that self sacrificial blight,
Satan sat laughing in his constant delight,

While the days last light was left to die.

I met this girl who sang about the whole worlds blues,
I asked her if there was any happier news,
But she just smiled and the channel changed,
And she was tuned away…

While the days last light was left to die.

You still wail at your wailing wall,
While others kneel and pray in a big old hall,
And in another a man talks about what a long dead one saw,
But is any one actually listening?

On that street the children screamed,
While lovers, all sorts, horrified,
While the poets up and leaved,
Not one word really spoken,
Hearts were all too broken,

I’m left think those three you admire most,
Father, son, and that holy ghost,
Long ago,
Caught the final train to a distant coast,

And all the while, mourners in new darkness, cried.

Inspired by world events, and Don McLean’s American Pie.

Written by The Rep of Komokom.

Anyone got a place for me to put the GLBT population in my country before I execute them? :lol: They have no place here in my very moralistic society. :twisted:

A moral society would easily realize that GLBTs are people too, and would realize that the morally correct way of handling the situation would be equal rights, as all humans deserve.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

I believe the representative of Ron Jermey may have meant to describe his nation as "moralistic", rather than "moral".

The Confederacy of Caligatio's leading theologians wish to point out that all of the verses cited (save Mark 10:9-12) are based in the Old Testament and pertain to Old Testament law, some of which has been fulfilled by Christ, others of which have been refuted in the New Testament.

This is a most perplexing response. Our Christian theologians have assured me that the Bible is both the literal and infallible word of God. It is not possible to "soften" the literalism and infallibility of the Old Testament and emphasize these same things in the New Testament; they are parts of the same Bible, which must be accepted in its entirety. If one rejects passages of the Old Testament forbidding men's ability to take extra wives or concubines, why not then reject the Ten Commandments?

I remain unconvinced that parts of the Old Testament can be contradicted by events or statements in the New. If there are contradictions in a book presented as literal and infallible, then the book is neither literal nor infallible.

As a result, this could have extreme ramifications for marriages between Christians in Ottoman Empire.

Sultan Omer
Keeper of the Gate of Felicity

The leader of Rethelanium strongly agrees with this view. As far as I know, the goal of the New Testament involved stressing the importance of following Old Testament law, not changing it. Furthermore, the Old Testament covers a range of many generations living under different conditions and in different time periods. Therefore the conclusions repeatedly mentioned in the Old Testament provide practical and considerably universal guidance tested ((like I mentioned earlier)) by generations of Israelites.

Is there any possibility we can arrange some counselling for Derscon & Ron Jermey? They're suffering from a severe case of repressed homosexuality and I'd hate to see them suffer any more.

In response to Ron Jermey, Ecopoeia will happily rescue your LGBT population from genocide. We'll even throw in a free counselling session for you.

Here in Ecopoeia we take the view that people should not be judged on the basis of gender, race, sexuality, religious beliefs, political beliefs, etc. Polymory is common, as many feel that one partner for life is not enough. It also enables them to savour a fuller range of sexual experiences. Children do not suffer; our commune system ensures that they are always cared for, by men and women of all sexual preferences (with the obvious exception of paedophiles but that's not an issue to delve into here).

However, those who wish to live a less permissive/liberal lifestyle do so and suffer no disapproval or exclusion in our society. We've worked hard to get to this position and will not tolerate ludicrous proposals that threaten our way of life.

John Boone
Speaker for Welfare

(with the obvious exception of paedophiles but that's not an issue to delve into here).


This intrigues me.
When discussing sexuality and sexual preferences there are just 2 options surely. One is everything goes - including paedophilia, bestiality etc
OR
you draw the line somewhere - based on some belief on what is correct and what is not correct - and for people playing 'NationStates' - it is surely pertinent to point out the law is based on what the leaders believe is best for people or not.

So - people who draw the line at paedophilia need to explain why they can justify that decision and find that people who draw the line at homosexuality are wrong/incorrect/any more bigotted than them.

Tim
Still searching for the fake Pacificans

Marriage is an institution of love and union. To use it as a divisive weapon against unpopular minorities is a crime of the basest sort.

The Commonwealth of ClarkNovinia unconditionally denounces this narrow-minded, hind-brained proposal to further diminish the already restrictive definitions of matrimony in most civilizations on this planet.

Marriage should not only be a legally-recognized sacrament between two consenting members of the same sex, but between consenting entities, regardless of age or species. The reputation of the institution is already deeply tarnished by the reactionary, theocratic limitations imposed on it by moralistic traditions.

The definition should also be expanded to include alchemical weddings.

Our commonwealth is currently seeking endorsements from South Pacific nations. If we receive the prerequisite 2 endorsements ClarkNovinia shall make a proposal to this effect.

REAL PACIFICA: "So - people who draw the line at paedophilia need to explain why they can justify that decision and find that people who draw the line at homosexuality are wrong/incorrect/any more bigotted than them."

This is a very good question, it's just that I didn't want divert the thread into another hysterical slanging match. Also, many of the, ah, less enlightened nations keep insisting that homosexuality and paedophilia are one and the same. The cretins.

OK...the reason we do not accept paedophilia (but at the same time do not hysterically condemn the perpetrators to a witch-hunt) is that it is a sexual act involving a human that is not fully developed, be it physically, emotionally, etc, etc. It is not a mutually desired act between two or more) people capable of fully understanding the consequences of such an act.

As for bestiality, we made no comment on this in our original statement. It is not illegal in our nation, though many find the idea distressing. A vote on the issue is due later this year, prompted by the campaigning of an animal rights group.

I hope this answers your question.

Best wishes

Lubria has always drawn the line at consent. If the participants are able to consent, and have, then they activity is permissible.

Children (who in Lubria are normally defined as those 16 and younger) are not able to give consent. Those with mental illnesses are not able to give consent. A drugged person is not able to give consent. An animal is not able to give consent. Thus, all this acts are outlawed. The only method for sound and reasonable policy is to establish a yardstick, and stick to it. If you feel uncomfortable with the parameters established by your yardstick, then it is either an incorrect standard, or you have some prejudice. Yardsticks must be universally applied, and logically sound. All other policy, in Lubria's opinion, is arbitrary and counterproductive.

An eloquent response, Lubria. We are in agreement - I'm pretty sure bestiality will be an illegal act in Ecopoeia by the end of the month.

In Raging Lunatics marriage is a union of one man and one woman and we think that any nations, which allow marriages different to this format, are immoral and disgusting.

However we do not support this resolution as it violates national sovereignty and we feel that it is an issue that should be decided by individual states rather than the UN. I do support the repeal of the past UN resolution, which legalised gay marriage. If forcing this resolution on liberal countries is immoral then forcing the Gay Rights Resolution on conservative or religious nations is also highly immoral. It is fortunate there is a loophole to avoid such resolutions or we would been forced to have left the UN for good.

the nation of nercoza would like to say that gay marriages are unecesary. they provide no use whatsoever and greatly slow the nation reproduction rate. i think that these marriages should be stoped but not to outlaw homosexuality completely. (ambassidors note) in my personal opinion i find gay marriages to be fine but from a personal note there not productive.

Komokom, your nation's words are very touching.

Nercoza, that statement is partially valid only if marriage is necessary for procreation and vice versa. I do not see how gay marriages slow the reproduction rate, and their use is to receive certain rights not gained by a civil union.

the nation of nercoza would like to say that gay marriages are unecesary. they provide no use whatsoever and greatly slow the nation reproduction rate. i think that these marriages should be stoped but not to outlaw homosexuality completely. (ambassidors note) in my personal opinion i find gay marriages to be fine but from a personal note there not productive.

This is exactly the illogical stance that Army of Lovers pointed out. If gay marriages should be forbidden because they are not biologically "productive," then married couples who do not have children - whether by choice or not - should not be allowed to stay married either.

They aren't "producing," so their relationships are utterly useless to society.

Tell that to the next straight couple you meet who have decided not to have children, or better yet a couple struggling with infertility. I'd love to know how they react.

Nercoza, gay people, by definition do not naturally reproduce, so their marriages have no negative effect whatsoever on population growth, they may even increase the population. Gay marriages often entail adoption. Adoption can be an alternative to abortion in some cases. Some women would rather give their children to parents who will love them and cherish them; sounds like a perfect match for gay parents.

The Wiccan Theocracy of Shirresh looks on the matter in the following way.

Within our borders, Marriage is a binding and holy vow to love, honor and cherish a partner to death do you part and this union is allowed and blessed. This is a religious institution and any two that wish to partake of it shall be allowed within their religion. In addition, there are civil unions that exist for the purposes of binding the income, estates and lives for the purposes of conserving capitol and raising children. As there are many capable parenting couples among homosexual pairs that chose to adopt as heterosexual couples, there is no discrimination based on gender composition of such civil unions. Most marriages are also civil unions under the laws and most civil unions are marriages but not all of either one are the others.

Despite this being the law of Shirresh, we do not support making this into the law for any other nation and impinging on their sovereignty in this matter. We will oppose any and all proposal that attempts to force legalization of homosexual or heterosexual marriage or the banning of such as well. It is the will of the nations of the region which Shirresh is delegate to support all issues in the manner that protects national Sovereignty for all internal matters and Marriage is such a case.

Description: WHEREAS Many nations are calling for "gay marriage", AND WHEREAS this is endangering the holy institution of marriage, let it be RESOLVED that marriage be defined, carried out, and restricted to the Union of one Man and one Woman.

In Tragomaschalia marriage is a civil contract, and whether any faith considers, or does not consider, any particular form of civil contract to be "holy" is quite irrelevant to the state, though we naturally respect their freedom to believe what they will. They are free, for example, to restrict members of their faith to a particular form of marriage as a condition of remaining within their faith, but not to prohibit citizens of Tragomaschalia as citizens from entering into a lawful civil contract with the full protection of our law which that entails.

The proposal, as contrary to our Constitution, will not be receiving our vote.

I think people should note that gay marriage is already legal as it was passed in the Gay Rights Resolution.

How do the nations who complain about this resolution justify the Gay Rights one? They are based on the same principle after all. I’m really interested to hear your answers.

People should also note that the original proposal this thread covered is no longer in existance.

I am not surprised. It never had any chance of passing. The UN has a huge bias towards the socialist liberal point of view. This is clearly seen by the recent resolution legalising prostitution and the Gay Rights Resolution.

COTTONISKING UN PROPOSAL DISCRIPTION: WHEREAS Many nations are calling for "gay marriage", AND WHEREAS this is endangering the holy institution of marriage, let it be RESOLVED that marriage be defined, carried out, and restricted to the Union of one Man and one Woman.


THE DOMINION OF SHORTNOW'S OFFICIAL POSITION: There is no circumstance under which the free peoples of The Dominion of Shortnow will tolerate imposition of a single religious definition relating to their personal partnering decisions, or to any other facet of their lives for that matter.



In response to a couple of specific comments made within this discussion...

Rice Beaterz is seriously ill informed in stating that homosexuals are more diseased than heterosexuals within the general world population, though perhaps it is true within their own borders.

With regard to sexually transmitted diseases, Rice Beaterz should understand that under circumstances of homophobic oppression homosexuals fall victim to a disproportionate degree of illness when compared to heterosexuals. This is due to their inability to access health care with confidence of an open, and retribution free, dialog regarding their sexual activities with health care providers.


Such disproportionate degrees of illness are also the burden of prostitutes in moralistically oppressive societies... of course these are predominately heterosexual prostitutes receiving their diseases from those who are presupposed to be religiously moralistic men.


I urge Rice Beaterz, and all such nations as subscribe to religiously prescribed sexual cultural paradigms, to provide unrestricted access to health care for all their citizens and they will discover that their sexual minority citizens are subject to the same statistical disease experience as the heterosexual citizenry. This is true, particularly, when statistitions compare men to men, women to women, age groups to age groups, and partnered / unpartnered people to their appropriate cohort. This is excepting the likelihood that lesbians will be determined to be the most disease free component of their society regardless.


Further, the feelings of disgust that some express regarding the lives of homosexual men and women result from culturally restrictive upbringing. The citizens of Shortnow will try to contain their own feelings of disgust for such bigoted thinking in hopes that time and education will enlighten our sibling nations and bring them to a more tolerant and mature level of social intercourse. 8)


UN Member Citizen of Shortnow

Rice Beaterz is actually correct and not badly informed in regard to this issue. In general terms homosexuals are far more diseased than heterosexuals. In the UK, for example, the majority of people contracting HIV are heterosexual. This has only happened recently and you may think that this supports your argument, but it does not. This means in statistical terms that homosexuals are far more likely to contract HIV than heterosexuals as less than 3% of the population is homosexual. This is in a country, which is becoming increasingly tolerant of gays, so your argument is clearly disproved. The reasons for higher rates of STD’s in homosexuals are down to two reasons. These are that anal sex is the most dangerous was of spreading STD’s and while heterosexuals can perform this act not many do. Secondly homosexuals are far more sexually active than heterosexuals. The average straight person has about six partners throughout their life whereas it is between 100-150 for homosexuals.

Who gave you the right to get on such a moral high horse? Have you got any evidence for your claim that distaste for homosexual relationships is caused by culturally restrictive upbringings? I have not grown up in and “culturally restrictive” way and one of my parents is in fact very tolerant of homosexuality and I still find it disgusting. We have a similar policy to that nation and our population is educated and our anti gay policy is based on education. Your not always right you know. People’s opinions that are different to yours should not be scorned or ignored. You are the one who should grow up not the other way around.

Also as an interesting side note the most efficient and best state to ever exist in the real world was anti gay, which also says a lot.

Also as an interesting side note the most efficient and best state to ever exist in the real world was anti gay, which also says a lot.
I'm almost terrified to ask, but which state was this?

I am not surprised. It never had any chance of passing. The UN has a huge bias towards the socialist liberal point of view. This is clearly seen by the recent resolution legalising prostitution and the Gay Rights Resolution.
The UN also has a bias towards proposals being in the right category, whether liberal, socialist, conservative, libertarian or Martian - but we'll let something as elemental as that slide in the name of partisan rhetoric.

Also as an interesting side note the most efficient and best state to ever exist in the real world was anti gay, which also says a lot.
I'm almost terrified to ask, but which state was this?

You won't be thrilled by the answer.

I see once again you return, RL.

As the representative to the UN for the Most Serene Republic of Lubria, I am offended by your statements Rice Beaterz. I am a homosexual. I am at no greater risk to STIs then other sexually active persons. I engage in no activity that a heterosexual cannot engage in. I find your logic flawed, and your statements hateful.

Homosexuality is not contracted by abuse; it is not associated with abusive pedophilia.

I do not believe for a moment that homosexuality has declined in your country, only the open and free expression of it. You are setting yourselves up for a revolt by a portion of your population. They will not tolerate such discrimination, and outright lying, from their government.

Lubria welcomes debate on any topic, but will not tolerate lying by any nation. Rice Beaterz’s statements are contrary to all established facts. I feel great sorrow for their citizenry, all of them; for they are living in a country whose government funds and encourages hate towards a group of society. What two consenting adults engage in privately is the business of no one.

Peter Javanis
Special Envoy
Office of the Lubrian Prime Minister

You are more likely to contract STD's (look at my other post).

If homosexuality is not caused by abuse, what is it caused by? There is no genetic cause or "gay gene". Homosexuality is caused by environmental factors or is purely a choice in my opinion.

How do you know if the number of homosexuals has decreased in his nation? I do not think that his population will rebel either. Homosexuals in National Socialist Germany or Fascist Italy did not rebel and those regimes were not tolerant of gays. I would actually think that a lot of them would be thankful if Rice's country actually promotes a way out of homosexuality.

How Is Rice lying and what established facts has he gone against exactly? I do not think that he is encouraging hate towards a group of society as he is only denying them marriage or civil partnership rights. I generally agree that what adults do in private is no business of the state and I did not realise that Rice was restricting this. I only restrict this if the consenting adults are committing violence on each other.

Also as an interesting side note the most efficient and best state to ever exist in the real world was anti gay, which also says a lot.
I'm almost terrified to ask, but which state was this?

You won't be thrilled by the answer.

I see once again you return, RL.
I'm hoping the answer isn't "Nazi Germany" or "Fascist Italy" (based on the wonderful adage that BA Mussolini made Italy efficient 'because the trains ran on time'), but I'm not holding my breath.

Although I must admit, trains running on time in Italy would be a major event...

I am not surprised. It never had any chance of passing. The UN has a huge bias towards the socialist liberal point of view. This is clearly seen by the recent resolution legalising prostitution and the Gay Rights Resolution.
The UN also has a bias towards proposals being in the right category, whether liberal, socialist, conservative, libertarian or Martian - but we'll let something as elemental as that slide in the name of partisan rhetoric.

Really? What do you mean by this exactly?

I am not surprised. It never had any chance of passing. The UN has a huge bias towards the socialist liberal point of view. This is clearly seen by the recent resolution legalising prostitution and the Gay Rights Resolution.
The UN also has a bias towards proposals being in the right category, whether liberal, socialist, conservative, libertarian or Martian - but we'll let something as elemental as that slide in the name of partisan rhetoric.

Really? What do you mean by this exactly?
The proposal that this thread was about was classified incorrectly. I forget exactly whereabouts it was classified, but basically the description and the actual effect didn't line up. An extreme example would be if I made a proposal banning guns and classed it as a "Gambling" proposal.
My comments about partisan rhetoric were directed at the interminable drone of those who complain about the ideological bias of proposals without making ones in line with their own views and which are valid under the rules. If the liberal viewpoint is constantly being adopted, might it be because the liberal proposers lobby harder and more effectively?

Also as an interesting side note the most efficient and best state to ever exist in the real world was anti gay, which also says a lot.
I'm almost terrified to ask, but which state was this?

You won't be thrilled by the answer.

I see once again you return, RL.

I have indeed returned Soviets.

How have you been? I will provide an answer later as I have a tutorial in a few minutes.

I think people should note that gay marriage is already legal as it was passed in the Gay Rights Resolution.

How do the nations who complain about this resolution justify the Gay Rights one? They are based on the same principle after all. I’m really interested to hear your answers.

Bah, you don't expect them to realise that do you?

We had already pointed out the inconsistencies of this proposal earlier in this thread....last time we looked, nobody had commented.

A perfect example of how the UN is dominated by members who have no idea of how to work within the UN.
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (DSH) (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

It's probably best I don't respond directly to many of RL2's comments as I'm likely to slip into an epic rant that'll get me kicked out...

RAGING LUNATICS2: "I am not surprised. It never had any chance of passing. The UN has a huge bias towards the socialist liberal point of view. This is clearly seen by the recent resolution legalising prostitution and the Gay Rights Resolution."

Clearly. In what way is legalising prostitution socialist? Surely the sale of sexual favours is inherently unsocialist?

Good day, you peculiar little child.

It's probably best I don't respond directly to many of RL2's comments as I'm likely to slip into an epic rant that'll get me kicked out...

RAGING LUNATICS2: "I am not surprised. It never had any chance of passing. The UN has a huge bias towards the socialist liberal point of view. This is clearly seen by the recent resolution legalising prostitution and the Gay Rights Resolution."

Clearly. In what way is legalising prostitution socialist? Surely the sale of sexual favours is inherently unsocialist?

Good day, you peculiar little child.

I would like to point out that I am neither a child nor peculiar. Now that that is cleared up I would like you to respond to my comments, as I always like to engage in rational and civil debate.

In answer to your question prostitution is not socialist and i did not claim that it was. You should read what I posted more clearly. Those resolutions I named are an example of how liberal the UN is, not how socialist it is. There are plenty of other resolutions, which are socialist in nature.

I think people should note that gay marriage is already legal as it was passed in the Gay Rights Resolution.

How do the nations who complain about this resolution justify the Gay Rights one? They are based on the same principle after all. I’m really interested to hear your answers.

Bah, you don't expect them to realise that do you?

We had already pointed out the inconsistencies of this proposal earlier in this thread....last time we looked, nobody had commented.

A perfect example of how the UN is dominated by members who have no idea of how to work within the UN.


I did not expect them to realise it that is why I brought it up. I would like an answer now that I have raised it.

I have not seen the entirety of the thread, but i am glad that other people are pointing out the inconsistencies in the UN. I hope someone replies to you, but I doubt it.

It's probably best I don't respond directly to many of RL2's comments as I'm likely to slip into an epic rant that'll get me kicked out...

RAGING LUNATICS2: "I am not surprised. It never had any chance of passing. The UN has a huge bias towards the socialist liberal point of view. This is clearly seen by the recent resolution legalising prostitution and the Gay Rights Resolution."

Clearly. In what way is legalising prostitution socialist? Surely the sale of sexual favours is inherently unsocialist?

Good day, you peculiar little child.

I would like to point out that I am neither a child nor peculiar. Now that that is cleared up I would like you to respond to my comments, as I always like to engage in rational and civil debate.

In answer to your question prostitution is not socialist and i did not claim that it was. You should read what I posted more clearly. Those resolutions I named are an example of how liberal the UN is, not how socialist it is. There are plenty of other resolutions, which are socialist in nature.

Legal prostitution is more of a liberterian idea than a liberal one.

The UN has a huge bias towards the socialist liberal point of view. This is clearly seen by the recent resolution legalising prostitution and the Gay Rights Resolution.

Sticking "socialist liberal" together like that seems like a fairly unambiguous statement that Raging Lunatics considers them to be essentially the same. Unless it was just badly phrased.

In any case, legalising prostitution isn't necessarily a liberal issue either - many liberals are entirely opposed to it. And rampant capitalists, one would have thought, would be in favour.

To RL2: I apologise for the delay in responding. I'll address your points as fully as possible given the limits on my time:

Peculiar - I find you peculiar, you think you are not. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Little - OK, I can't back this up. Consider it retracted.

Child - I'll take your word for it.

Prostitution/Gay Rights & Socialism - Please see East Hackney's reply.

UN liberal socialist bias - Have you not seen the proposals for mandatory gun ownership and eliminating income tax? Regardless, if the proposals strike you as liberal/socialist, then that's because more people are prepared to vote for them, for whatever reason.

Homosexuals as disease carriers - You seem to be basing your argument on statistics from one country. In African countries, where HIV/AIDS is far more prevalent and on a horrific scale, sexual diseases are predominantly carried by heterosexuals. But regardless of this, one could easily use the UK statistics to state that men are the substantial carriers of sexual disease and that the problem lies with gender, not sexuality. In short, I disagree with your interpretation of the 'facts' you have at your disposal.

As for the 'explanations' for why homosexuals supposedly are more prone to disease - firstly, the disparity in promiscuity strikes me as highly exaggerated and secondly, a large number of homosexuals do not engage in anal intercourse either.

Gay rights/marriage - I wasn't around when the original resolution was passed so I can't comment on the specifics there. However, marriage does not strike me as being within the UN's mandate. As for rights, I believe that these transcend national boundaries so you're damn right I'll try and push for measures that support this belief. OOC, I'm a member of Amnesty International.

Incidentally - I support you right to express your opinion, please don't think I want you censored.

Best state in the world - Justify, please.

Homosexuality, Genetics/Environment - Frankly, I don't care. Either way, I have no problem with it. It occurs naturally in the animal kingdom. There's evidence for a genetic link but even if this is not proven that's not a justification for condemning homosexuality. Forcible conversion to heterosexuality is an abominable practice; if people have a sexual preference then they have that sexual preference and will not be happier changing their ways. I'm not surprised there were few protests in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy - people were either terrified and keeping quiet, being shunted off to concentration camps or already dead. You astonish me.

I could spend all day on this but I'll finish now. I hope you have the answers you were looking for.

Regards

Whether homosexuality is a genetic fact, a genetic predisposition or a completely social upbringing result is not something that is relevant to the discussion at hand.

The issues of disease for world health perhaps is. The homosexual populations in some countries carries certain diseases more than the heterosexual populations carry others. This is based on the fact that once a disease is introducted into one or the other, it is not likely to spread freely to the other due to infrequent overlap. This is why AIDS is most heavily found among the Homosexual population of the United States and England but primarily among the heterosexual population of Africa. In the same tone, Syphillis and Herpes are primarily heterosexual diseases in the United states.

Based on this fact, neither sexual orientation is more inherently a disease carrier but rather unsafe sexual practices are responsible for the spread of such diseases. Action on behalf of world health to perhaps quarintine or confine such diseases from international travel is appropriate to United Nations action. Prostitution and Homosexual Marriage is not.

It is the sad fact that the United NAtions passed such issues that violate sovereignty prior to this nation's rise to United Nations Membership and delegate status and we would support repeal and restriction in such a way as to restore member internal sovereignty.

Whether homosexuality is a genetic fact, a genetic predisposition or a completely social upbringing result is not something that is relevant to the discussion at hand.

The issues of disease for world health perhaps is. The homosexual populations in some countries carries certain diseases more than the heterosexual populations carry others. This is based on the fact that once a disease is introducted into one or the other, it is not likely to spread freely to the other due to infrequent overlap. This is why AIDS is most heavily found among the Homosexual population of the United States and England but primarily among the heterosexual population of Africa. In the same tone, Syphillis and Herpes are primarily heterosexual diseases in the United states.

Based on this fact, neither sexual orientation is more inherently a disease carrier but rather unsafe sexual practices are responsible for the spread of such diseases. Action on behalf of world health to perhaps quarintine or confine such diseases from international travel is appropriate to United Nations action. Prostitution and Homosexual Marriage is not.

It is the sad fact that the United NAtions passed such issues that violate sovereignty prior to this nation's rise to United Nations Membership and delegate status and we would support repeal and restriction in such a way as to restore member internal sovereignty.

I wholeheartedly concur with Shirresh's previous statement. The subject of Gay Marriage should be a sovereign issue, not one for the UN to decide. However, it is quite disconcerting to see that so many here at NS are against Gay Marriage, as it seems quite hypocritical that heterosexuals should receive the right to marriage, whereas homosexual marriage is frowned upon sheerly upon the basis of their gender preference. I hope that the delegates, if an anti-gay-rights/marriage proposal should reach the UN floor, will be kind and wise enough to vote against such a proposal.

Rice Beaterz does not recognize any rights given to homosexuals by any means of marraige nor civil unions. This decision is beyond any moral or religious thinking.

Due to many diseases that are contracted more so between homosexuals, homosexuals cannot be allowed to marry nor be joined in a civil union as the majority of the population, whom are straight, will be forced to pay a much higher cost in their health insurance. That is but one reason for the decision made for Rice Beaterz.

Since pedophiles and other sexual offenders find themselves "cut off" from society, homosexuallity has declined greatly since the pass of the law. Due to much research, findings show that homosexuallity comes about from a sexual abuse at a young age (or as some have come to call it, a 'Bent Antenna').

That has to be the single most IGNORANT thing that I have ever read in my life!

Oh and The Grand Duchy of Lexiy will defenitly not be voting for this absurd and ridiculous proposal!

U r all gay !!!

All Im saying is, if two men want to be together for the rest of their lives, they can get a civil union. But they shouldnt get a marriage because a marriage is between a man and a woman. If a judge or a priest marries a man and a woman, fine, that would be accepted. If a judge gives a civil union to a man and a man, fine also. But if a judge or a priest marries a man and a man, not fine. A gay couple would not get the benefits of a marriage, just a civil union.

I do not see how this issue falls under UN jurisdiction. The kinds of unions allowed between citizens, and which citizens are allowed to participate in which kinds of unions, is a matter that should be left up to the individual nation. If Cottnisking does not choose to allow marriages between same-sex couples, that is their decision. But it is not a matter they should be attempting to push on other nations whose views may not match up with those of Cottonisking.

I would also like to state the observation that some statistics show that many homosexual relationships are more stable, both as relationships and as family environments, than many heterosexual marriages. If two people choose to devote their lives to each other, in love and respect, and according to a form recognized by their government, why should the gender of each individual effect how the government supports (or does not support) such a union?

Fred Marinesk
Minister of Internal Affairs

U r all gay !!!

oh, that's a clever one...everyone who posts here is gay? few people here would even bother finding that an insult staight or not.

someone get that nation a closet.

I would like to agree those who say that homosexuality has no place in our culture as humans. While homosexuality comes from both Genetics and the Environment it is still unacceptable and abnormal for a person to be gay.
As a sidenote I would like to put out the fact that in the 1940's during World War II, Hitler went about to "create" the ultimate race, the Aryans.To do this he killed thousands of Jews, of one of which was no doubt some of my grandmother's family, In addition to the Jews Hitler also killed homosexuals, because he found them unacceptable to the sanctity of marrage and completly outside the "social norm" Now I can assume that everyone here knows what Hitler did was disgusting and completly unacceptable he knew how to contol a nation. It is close to impossible to control a large group of people that have different views. If people can't even agree on what makes a marrage a marrage how can they be content not to fight amongst themselves and cause chaos.
While I am more pasifistic than aggressive (I also do NOT believe that anyone should be murdered), I would like to also mention that marrage has been around since God created Adam and Eve in the garden, Why change it now?
From UltimateEnd
-Bahamut

what Hitler did was disgusting and completly unacceptable he knew how to contol a nation.
"Hitler made the trains run on time and created what became the Autobahn system. Let's kill all the gays!"

Great argument. Next?

Controlling a nation becomes remarkably easy if you threaten to kill anyone who disagrees with you. It's like that "Simpsons" episode with the hooks which make people smile - they're not smiling because they want to, they're smiling because they can't do anything else.

Wasnt it mousollini who made trains run on time? or perhaps that is a comment near and dear to the hearts of all fascist dictators

Well, I'm sure Hitler made them run on time too, otherwise the holocaust would have become quite inefficient.

It may not be directly related, but...
I saw an article that mentioned that homosexuality was found in over 450 species. The article was more of a three-line thingy mentioning that two gay penguins were raising a son in a zoo.
So, it's partially relevant to the mention of homosexuality as a genetically related thing.
I don't mean to go off-topic or anything.

Well, I'm sure Hitler made them run on time too, otherwise the holocaust would have become quite inefficient.
I guess, but having been to both Germany and Italy, I can tell you for free that only one of the two has carried on that legacy post-fascism/nazism...

Interestingly, it's actually a Swiss stereotype that the trains run on time and not a German one. In fact, the Swiss are renowned (quite rightly) for the most fearsome efficiency...and cookoo clocks (Third Man reference).
We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THE U.N. TODAY?

I always though marriage was about the love between two people, not about bible bashing freeks thumping their morally this and moraly that wares to the crowd of startled on-lookers, I mean in the name of all that is common sense, leave homosexuality alone, what, is it the new black?

Are you like some Ex KKK support group, finding something new to persecute people about, need a new differance?

I mean really, last I checked, a hell of a lot more "straight" black africans (Apologies if thats not the politically correct term, its just my coffee pot is heating up rather rapidly and I need caffeine goodness NOW!) had AIDS and HIV type illnesses then all the homosexual sufferers in the world combined, so realisticaly, what do you plan to do about that you freeky deeky meeky's?

Planning on opening any walk in gas ovens soon, after all, if god is supposedly okay about a man blowing up an abortion clinic, or about a woman blowing up a check point, and oh... alll the civilians standing around it, of coarse I am sure he'd be okay with that. I mean, what, according to the bible he pretty much did the ye olde equal of nuking a city, and oh, dragging people through a desert for a heck of a long time, making people suffer, well, hey, kjust to make sure they had faith in him.

Personally, I have faith more in that if the bible in its current form is correct then god is a mean prick.

Oh yeah, another thing, all the arguments I hear seem to involve your basic christians ethos on religion... pretty biased, are all religions full of clsed minded twerps?

Hey, I've got and idea, lets stop society accepting people who are tall from announcing their love for each other publically and legally, lets stop, oh I don't know, short people too? Middle sized people? All people!

WHERE WILL IT ALL END.

The Rep of Komokom.

"O Athenians, I am far from pleading, as one might expect, for myself; It is for you who I plead." - No evil can happen to a good man, Socrates.

And let me just say plato got that title wrong... interesting how one of the most "faithful" men I ever new died an agonising death as cancer ate away at his cells...

Ultimate End - you make the presumption that marriage has to be Christian and that Adam and Eve existed. The first assumption is simply not true and the second is unproven.

If you're going to make strident statements concerning these issues, you need to appreciate that not everyone even agrees with your basis for reasoning. You should not impose your views on others. I will not let you will not impose your views on me.

Again I say: if non-heterosexuals are not welcome in your nation, we will gladly welcome them to our shores.

Also as an interesting side note the most efficient and best state to ever exist in the real world was anti gay, which also says a lot.
I'm almost terrified to ask, but which state was this?

The best state to exist, in my humble opinion, in the real world was National Socialist Germany.
A lot of people will dispute that it is the best state to have ever existed, but it is very hard to argue that it was not the most efficient regime to have ever existed.

RL2: "The best state to exist, in my humble opinion, in the real world was National Socialist Germany.
A lot of people will dispute that it is the best state to have ever existed, but it is very hard to argue that it was not the most efficient regime to have ever existed."

Depends on how you define 'efficient' in national terms. Economically? Socially? Politically? No offence intended, but I find this a bit of a woolly statement. I'd be interested in a clarification if you have one.

Is waging a war that you eventually lose a mark of efficiency?

Marriage is just a word in reality. The amount of couples that are together for years without getting married is alot. Marriage isjust another day to spend alot of money and recieve gifts. I dont really care about gay , lesbian etc marriages because it is up to the people getting married. If religion does not allow same sex marriges then why was the religion started - someperson wanting to have power over people and to be remembered forever more so they set up a religion. Thebible was probably written 2000yrs ago by a few people in a barnover a few covents of the old ale. but i still think there is a holy being.

In addition to the Jews Hitler also killed homosexuals, because he found them unacceptable to the sanctity of marrage and completly outside the "social norm" Now I can assume that everyone here knows what Hitler did was disgusting and completly unacceptable he knew how to contol a nation.

Not exactly. The Nazis didn't see homosexuality as a state of being, but rather only as a behavior. Hitler's wish to propagate a super-race meant that genetically "desirable" adults needed to pop out as many superkids as possible.

Homosexual acts were not a way to this goal. Nazis did not believe that men should be "wasting" their seed on other men when it could be used to impregnate women and build up the new race. It was also unacceptible that a man should humiliate himself by taking the passive, "womanly" role, which offers a glimpse into how rigidly they held onto gender roles.

Homosexuality among women was frowned upon, but was not punished quite as severely as male homosexuality. Lesbians were perceived as confused, and a sexual encounter with a man was thought to be enough to snap them out of it.

Lesbians were occasionally sent to concentration camps, where they generally wore the black triangle, which represented the broad category of "asocials." Male homosexuals, on the other hand, were given the pink triangle, and as such were the absolute bottom of the totem pole in the camps. The Nazis believed that by forcing male homosexuals to perform the most difficult and physically demanding work, they would be become somehow manlier and leave their homosexual desires behind. As a result, the mortality rates of male homosexuals were as above average for inmates.

It is also telling that when camps were liberated towards the end of the war, homosexuals were generally the only group that was not freed, and were shipped off to new prisons.

Since Cottonisking's Sanctity of Marriage proposal has long since disappeared ...
... and given that Cottonisking does not currently have any endorsements and thus can't put it back into queue...
... and given that it's started to devolve into a discussion of Hitler's antipathies ...

Isn't it time somebody requested that this topic be moved to General?

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

I always though marriage was about the love between two people...

Marriage is about love between two people, a man and a woman as defined by most churches, temples, mosques, etc.

Marriage should be strictly related to religious affairs, and both heterosexual and homosexual couples should be joined in civil unions as a matter of the state.

...not about bible bashing freeks thumping their morally this and moraly that wares to the crowd of startled on-lookers...

Bible bashing "freeks" huh? I would suggest learning how to spell before you attempt to insult a religious belief. Here you are, defending equality and civil rights, yet you bash those who hold the Bible dear to them. Very hypocritical. Very.

...I mean in the name of all that is common sense, leave homosexuality alone, what, is it the new black?

I'm fairly certain homosexuality has been around just as long as black people. Could be wrong though. Is it a choice? Is it genetic? Were the first people black? Were they beaten? All these questions come to my mind.

The fact is, discussion about serious issues is for intelligent folk, not for blathering idiots like yourself who put down religious beliefs in the name of equality.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

I always though marriage was about the love between two people...

Marriage is about love between two people, a man and a woman as defined by most churches, temples, mosques, etc.

Marriage should be strictly related to religious affairs, and both heterosexual and homosexual couples should be joined in civil unions as a matter of the state.

...not about bible bashing freeks thumping their morally this and moraly that wares to the crowd of startled on-lookers...

Bible bashing "freeks" huh? I would suggest learning how to spell before you attempt to insult a religious belief. Here you are, defending equality and civil rights, yet you bash those who hold the Bible dear to them. Very hypocritical. Very.

...I mean in the name of all that is common sense, leave homosexuality alone, what, is it the new black?

I'm fairly certain homosexuality has been around just as long as black people. Could be wrong though. Is it a choice? Is it genetic? Were the first people black? Were they beaten? All these questions come to my mind.

The fact is, discussion about serious issues is for intelligent folk, not for blathering idiots like yourself who put down religious beliefs in the name of equality.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

:roll:

Oops, there I go again, exercising my right to air my opinions.
There I go, thinking this was a place of free speech, silly silly me.
Oh, please, do forgive me. I am SO sorry.
Did I accidentallly slight your religious beliefs, because I think them incorrect, oh, how terrible of me, oh, the shame, the sorrow, I weep for your injured being, oh the humanity.
Oh no, how could god have let this happen, oh if only I was not a free thinking human being made by his hand... hey, now a wait a sec, there's something!

(Wipes dripping sarcasm off of his desk) :wink:

1) I always thought marriage was about the declaration of love between two people, and yes, including as defined by churches, etc, however I was some what more trying to point out, clearly not well enough I admit, I was feeling rather passionate at the time, my bad, that why can't I (for examply) be catholic, and have belief in the catholic interpretation of the bible, but yet not end up being portrayed as some evil do-er to burn in hell simply because I disagree with one minor clause in gods earthly contract, by being (Once again, theoretically,) gay. And wanting to marry while being in da faith.
Oh yes, that would make me SO evil, I'll have to get around to marrying some one of the same sex later though, right after I finish spreading AIDS and abusing childeren, oh yeah, and doing drugs, and dragging down moral society. :wink:

Simply put, if god made me, and I believe in Him so much, why should I be made second class by other believer's for exercising a capability He allowed me to have, the ability to love another of the same sex as one other could love one of the opposite sex? :(

2) Geez, if your picking on my spelling your obviously having a slow moment, I am sure you'll pick up on a better argument against my post any second now.... :wink:

(Also, that is how I usually spell "freek" as I simply prefer it when not in an environment involving uber srtict grammar and spelling, like, oh, you know, relaxed net chat/posting? I mean, what are the spelling police going to slam my door down, and read my rights to me in "proper" english? :) )

3) Ah, here it is, my bit on bible bashers, okay, maybe I actually do deserve this one, its just in so many cases a debate inloving anything to do with homosexuality ends up having religion used in it by "members of the faith" as some kind of all purpose excuse as to why good people I know should automatically be kept seperate from the rest of society for their differences, you know, the loving the same members of the sex bit, being made to suffer in some way. Oh yeah, they so deserve to be kept away from all us good, upstanding fine folk. I mean, I've never heard of a catholic, or a baptist, or in fact even a jew, or a muslim, doing anything bad, oh heck no. :wink:

I am just trying to single out here the people who slam religion down on the argumentative desk and say, here is why your wrong, with no other evidence, ignoring the fact that I am more likely to read a bible as every other fictional book I know went up in a house fire. :D

3) I clearly didn't put this too well either, I am just trying to point out that for heck knows to long people made other pople second class citizens for having a different skin colour, and while we seem to mostly have gotten over that, bing! we find something else to rip into people about. And yes, homosexuality has been about as long as differance in skin color, it just seems sad to me we can't accept these differences and get on with things, no, we gotta make those people see they are wrong for being who they are, they gotta suffer. Which I am sure makes perfect sense to you.

4) Oh, I loved your last comment, I makes me all the more glad to know I must have serioussly annoyed you something bad. :D

So, in like two lines, you accuse me of being unimtelligent, a blathering idiot, and I am a very very bad man in summary for even hinting that equality is of slight importance in comparison to religion. Well, may god help you people try to find some love for each other, rather then for him and yourselves. :(

Pfffrt. Hmmm, If your only argument is personal then I think your missing the point of the discussion yourself.

The Rep of Komokom.

"Religion, ah, yes, when ever your right because you say god says you are."

U r all gay !!!

oh, that's a clever one...everyone who posts here is gay? few people here would even bother finding that an insult staight or not.

someone get that nation a closet.

Heh heh heh, in an twisted interllectual sense it could also mean a LOT of people here are hipocritters. :wink:

The Rep of Komokom.

[quote]...not about bible bashing freeks thumping their morally this and moraly that wares to the crowd of startled on-lookers...

Bible bashing "freeks" huh? I would suggest learning how to spell before you attempt to insult a religious belief. Here you are, defending equality and civil rights, yet you bash those who hold the Bible dear to them. Very hypocritical. Very.

He said "Bible bashing freeks", not "Christians".
I do hope you know the difference, since you seem to be so insulted.

Honestly, marriage, homophobia and this proposal all suck.

And what dare i ask is wrong with gays? And why should they have their cival rights taken away like with discrimination twards blacks, because their different? You discust me, Because your in charge, you want the minoritys to be stamped out. A cival union doesn't give anywhere near the rights to healthcare and other needed sirvices, Put this to the UN and it will be voted down. Also, you will not like the war you will start with California. :evil:

ok here is my opinion... gays are people i feel that we are all part of the same barell of shit so i feel nobody should be treated differently no restrictions OR ADVANTAGES. i feel that we should all have the same opprutuniities i think affermative action is bullshit and that gays should be able to do exactley the same fukin things as us. :twisted:

What sactity of marrage? OOC: what about the drive through weddings in Las Vegas? IC: We have none to speak of.

u ppl need to get a lie its a game.

*Peter Javanis strides into the committee room*

"Oh look, a dead horse, has it been beaten enough yet?"

yeesh.

Portu, you're the one dragging up a thread 5 days after it died.

I didn't read all the posts, but this proposal is essentially a repeal of something passed in the Gay Rights act, and as such will probably be deleted by a moderator.

I didn't read all the posts, but this proposal is essentially a repeal of something passed in the Gay Rights act, and as such will probably be deleted by a moderator.
The proposal itself is long dead, and in fact was the final warning for the proposing nation before he was ejected from the UN. As well as being a repeal in some fashions, it was also classified wrongly.

Homosexuals are still people. As such they deserve the same rights as anyone else including Marriage.
Marriage isn't a 'holy contract' between people anymore. People who are athiest get married just for the benefits the government provides when you are married.

Somewhere there was a definition of marriage according to the church and it was, "Marriage is for procreation," which .. if that's holy then we have some serious problems.

If you were to outlaw Gay Marriages you would be discriminating against certain people just because of their sexual preference. Which to my country, is pitaful.

In America they had it banned where interracial marriages could not take place and considering that was a step back then, to outlaw gay marriages would be the same mistake America made then.

The nation of Rehochipe will not recognise any religion-motivated legislation as being proper to the UN's mandate. Though Rehochipe encourages religion and spirituality, it is adamant that it will never institute legislation justified by it on its own soil.

Rehochipe will further not recognise any legislation founded on ideals of disparity based upon gender or sexuality.

Marriage is code for "keeping women in their 'place'". Why are gay people always targetted? Why not foot fetishists or people who do BDSM?


-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Marraige, at least in the origional text, was exclusive to Christians. The deal is, that the United States (where I live... sadly) uses the term "marraige" as a legal term. The people who object to homosexual marraige are the fanatic Christians. These people want to protect marraige, so that a man and a woman's holy matrimony are still sacred. Well the answer is simple, all the legal benifits of marraige with a new name. Civil Union. (or something of the like) See how easy that is?

double post, sorry guys

I got two things to say. The government, ANY government, has no business in the bedroom. Who is hummin' whom, and how, is simply not pertinent to government, or it's operations.

Secondly, if gays are so advanced, why do they want in on something that doesn't work for heteros? Come on, you silly arsed liberals. You want something so conservative as MARRIAGE? What a joke.

:D :D :D :D :D :D

Marraige, at least in the origional text, was exclusive to Christians.
Exactly which original text is this? Muslims have marriage (Muslim men can marry up to 4 times), so do Hindus, Buddhists and pretty much any other religion you'd care to name.

Marraige, at least in the origional text, was exclusive to Christians.

You mean marriage, right? And original, right?

As Enodia asked, what original text is this?

So, the Jews, which Christianity sprouted from, didn't have marriage huh? Strange interpretation of "original text" you've got there.

Please learn the facts before you state your obviously flawed opinion.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

Marraige, at least in the origional text, was exclusive to Christians.

You mean marriage, right? And original, right?

As Enodia asked, what original text is this?

So, the Jews, which Christianity sprouted from, didn't have marriage huh? Strange interpretation of "original text" you've got there.

Please learn the facts before you state your obviously flawed opinion.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio
I can't believe I'd forgotten the problems raised by Judaism in this theory. Thanks, Caligatio.

The one reason why the republic of Bootai-Bootai would have to oppose such a resolution is because it is too binding. We believe that such an issue should be a matter of self-determination for an individual nation.

WHO GIVES A S@#$ that people get married to however. It's not your problem or decision and it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with you unless it's you getting married. DUH

ALL OF YOU SHUT UP.

THIS TOPIC IS NULL AND VOID.

THERE IS ALREADY A RESOLUTION,

WHICH PROTECTS HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE.

* SO * SHUT * UP * AND * GO * HOME *

GET IT?

EARTH FULL, GO HOME !

How many times do I need to say this, you cannot have any such proposal to enforce marriage as been between only 1 man and 1 woman, as there is a resolution for gay rights which recognises gay marriage within all member nations, so there, if your in the U.N. then under international law, your nation already allows it, contrary to what ever you say your nation says.

So there. Get it now freeky's?

(Gets breath back)

The Rep of Komokom.

We have already discussed this issue in other posts, ladies and gentlemen, may we please let it be? See my other post on this issue. We support Frisbeeteria's position (the one in red). On the issue of "null and void"? RETHINK THAT PLEASE Being able to repeal previous UN decisions is very popular.....

We have already discussed this issue in other posts, ladies and gentlemen, may we please let it be? See my other post on this issue. We support Frisbeeteria's position (the one in red). On the issue of "null and void"? RETHINK THAT PLEASE Being able to repeal previous UN decisions is very popular.....

The Sanctity of Marriage proposal is basically saying that marriage is between a man and a women, not a man and a man, or a women and a women. Gay marriage is not marriage. UN delegates, please approve my proposal.

I would have to agree with you on this point. That gay marriage is not marriage and should not be accepted ast legal marriage. Gays and lesbians should not be aloud to marry legally. 8)

On the issue of "null and void"? RETHINK THAT PLEASE Being able to repeal previous UN decisions is very popular.....

Oh, the irony. The topic of repealing previous UN decisions is also null and void. Repeal is impossible, no matter how popular it might be, and any attempt to submit a proposal which does so will rapidly attract the wrath of Enodia.

In the Dominion of Meowser, all human beings have the same rights. There's no discrimination because of "orientation". We have numerous homosexual couples who contribute to society just as much as the hetrosexual couples. We've even allowed gay adoptions and as a result, we don't have a problem with our orphans (there are none!).

Human rights above all else. That's our motto.

A relatively young-looking man dressed in a plain, cream-colored business outfit steps up to the podium with a few sheets of paper in one hand.

"In the Most Serene Republic of Lydania, we, as a government and as a people, do not believe that 'marriage' is, or should have ever been, a legally or socially binding contract. For this, the government has created civil unions, with all the rights and restrictions of marriage, with one exception; the phrase 'one man and one woman' has been replaced with 'two or more consenting persons'. This is the only way to be fair, and it does not promote pedophilia or beastiality, as even many religious groups in Lydania agree."

Pausing a moment, he takes the time to take a sip of water and scan the delegates listening with an open mind for a response.

"I have observed that religious groups in other nations seem to equate pedophilia and homosexuality, despite overwhelming scientific and common-sense knowledge. I would like to point out some common-sense now, if I may. One, first, and foremost, pedophilia defined as sex with a child. Usually, such liasons are psychologically damaging for a child - a minor, as in, someone who is unable to legally give consent for sexual relations. Two homosexual men *are* legally able to give consent, unless your government is, unfortunately, lacking in basic psychology and biology knowledge, and has stripped homosexual persons of their undeniable human rights.

"Two, secondly, but almost as important is the difference in sexuality. Gay men do not prey on children. Straight men do not prey on children. So... this group that preys on children... what is their sexuality? It's not heterosexuality. It's not homosexuality. It's merely a hunger for children. So... obviously, this isn't either of the former sexualities... it is a third sexuality, one that is completely socially acceptable due to the damage it causes to the child. Homosexuality does not cause psychological damage to either participant, and neither does heterosexuality.

"Now that I have finished with those two points, I would like to read something which I have received several hundred copies of in my e-mail inbox over the past day-and-a-half prior to my statement here. I find it very amusing, and ever-so-pertinent to the situation at hand."

12 reasons why gay people should not be allowed to get married:

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire counrty. That's why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

"I personally love satire, don't you all? Of course, there are always those who are not as mentally adept as others and who tend to miss such irony, but for every two people like that, there is at least one who understands it. Also, before I go, here's an interesting little factoid for the rest of the delegates... People who receive post-secondary education or higher are less likely to believe in God, are more likely to tolerate homosexuality, and are less likely to abuse their children. Interesting how such things seem to correlate, sometimes. Thank you for your time today, dear delegates."

And with that, the nameless delegate from Lydania steps down from the podium and returns to his seat.

The Sanctity of Marriage proposal is basically saying that marriage is between a man and a women, not a man and a man, or a women and a women. Gay marriage is not marriage. UN delegates, please approve my proposal.

I would have to agree with you on this point. That gay marriage is not marriage and should not be accepted ast legal marriage. Gays and lesbians should not be aloud to marry legally. 8)

And off course you give no reason for this.

Then again, it will probably be a combination of

A: I think it's icky, so it needs to be banned.
B: I think my invisible friend doesn't like it.
C: Everyone else seems to hate it, and I don't want to stand out.

WHO GIVES A S@#$ that people get married to however. It's not your problem or decision and it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with you unless it's you getting married. DUH



LMFAO Perhaps you hadn't noticed that there are financial consequences regarding marriage? Financial consequences that affect the government, that is tax deductions, etc. Don't presume to tell the governments of the world that it is NONE or our business who is getting married, or why. My government is quite happy to extend exemptions and related benefits to people who are pro-creating. Other civil unions might find the government less generous.

My government is quite happy to extend exemptions and related benefits to people who are pro-creating.

So why attach these benefits to marriage and not to procreation? Why not offer the benefits to any couples, gay or straight, that have children, be it through natural procreation, IVF or adoption?

-DP-

My government is quite happy to extend exemptions and related benefits to people who are pro-creating.

So why attach these benefits to marriage and not to procreation? Why not offer the benefits to any couples, gay or straight, that have children, be it through natural procreation, IVF or adoption?

Well, you're making the gray matter work. Points for that.

The term marriage has been handed down to us from a myriad of different religions. I've heard rumors from some of our more creative thinkers at home, that the term might be banned from having any legal meaning in our country. Instead, any persons cohabiting will require a civil union agreement, which might be defined in any number of ways, to meet the needs and desires of the cohabiters.

I rather like the idea, in that, only religious people with a need for thier church's approval will ever get married. The agnostics, gays, or whatever, will be satisfied with the civil union document, on which the word "marriage" will never appear. At it's roots, marriage is a religious concept, and the government has little business lending credence to a religious concept.

Well, you're making the gray matter work. Points for that.

We thank DubyaShrubland for the compliment and recommend an intensive course of alcohol (preferably our Peoples' Revolutionary Rum), ingested orally, as a most excellent stimulus to clear and logical thought.

The term marriage has been handed down to us from a myriad of different religions. I've heard rumors from some of our more creative thinkers at home, that the term might be banned from having any legal meaning in our country. Instead, any persons cohabiting will require a civil union agreement...At it's roots, marriage is a religious concept, and the government has little business lending credence to a religious concept.

This seems little more than a matter of semantics. As an avowedly atheist nation, we take the view that a ceremony which is to all intents and purposes marriage may as well be designated as such without concerning ourselves over the etymology of the word.

Moreover, we are opposed to any measure that grants a different status to gay and straight marriages. Even if that difference is in name only, this smacks of segregation and risks implying that one form of marriage is superior to another. Our egalitarian principles would not allow us to take this risk.

Comrade Chomsky
Delegate for Foreign Affairs

[OOC question: could one of our Stateside comrades tell us whether there is such a thing as a civil, non-religious marriage in the USA? In Britain it's possible to marry at registry offices, which is non-religious and effectively the same as the civil union being discussed here, except that it is called 'marriage'. Does the equivalent exist in America?]

-DP-

[OOC question: could one of our Stateside comrades tell us whether there is such a thing as a civil, non-religious marriage in the USA? In Britain it's possible to marry at registry offices, which is non-religious and effectively the same as the civil union being discussed here, except that it is called 'marriage'. Does the equivalent exist in America?]

[OOC: Except in Vermont, where civil unions are acceptable, no is the short answer.

You can be married civilly, by a justice of the peace, a judge, but you cannot do so in most states if you are gay. The term "civil union" is not recognized by the Federal Government of the United States.]

Who cares about marriage? It was created to keep women down.


-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

[OOC question: could one of our Stateside comrades tell us whether there is such a thing as a civil, non-religious marriage in the USA? In Britain it's possible to marry at registry offices, which is non-religious and effectively the same as the civil union being discussed here, except that it is called 'marriage'. Does the equivalent exist in America?]

[OOC: Except in Vermont, where civil unions are acceptable, no is the short answer.

You can be married civilly, by a justice of the peace, a judge, but you cannot do so in most states if you are gay. The term "civil union" is not recognized by the Federal Government of the United States.]

[OOC] I actually meant any and all marriages, gay or straight, since something that was posted earlier seemed to suggest that there's no such thing as a non-religious straight marriage in the US.
Can I take it from your answer that this is incorrect and that it is possible for a straight couple to have a non-religous marriage, not a civil union, with no religious element?

-DP-

[ooc] Yes, you can technically have a non-religious marriage, but it isn't considered any different than a marraige preformed in a church, in fact, ministers are considered, for all intents of law, justices of the peace.

[OOC]Thanks for clearing that up.

As I said in my own thread recently, :D

And to be fair, in a few others, :wink:

Due to recent talks with a Moderator, Praise Be To Thy Names, In relation to a previous passed resolution protecting and enforcing gay rights, as well as the right to homosexual marriage, if you are a U.N. member, plus my own research into moderation and current proposal regulations, as well as newer ones... :)

Then, this topic is, :D

NULL AND NULL AND NULL AND VOID,

NULL AND VOID,

NULL AND VOID,

AND AH NULL, AND AH NULL, AND AH NULL, AND AH VOID,

SO NYAH, NYAH, NYAH-NYAH, NYAAAH, TO ALL WHO DISAGREE,

WITH...

ME ! ... :wink:

The Rep of Komokom, patting down the last spade-full of earth on this issue, that, or scattering its ashes... :wink:

The Free Land of Zanadiq, being a civil-rights loving country with a large atheist demographic, would never vote for such an offensive proposal/resolution. Marriage to us is personal, not holy, and everyone here has equal rights.

well it looks like this proposal already contradicts an earlier resolution. Good!

To answer someone else's question about real life marriage in the US, yes straight couples can have nonreligious weddings or marriages and it's still called marriage. My husband and I were married by a Humanist Celebrant outdoors in a regional park. (see http://www.atheism.org/~godlessheathen/Wedding.html for more info)

The UN has a huge bias towards the socialist liberal point of view. This is clearly seen by the recent resolution legalising prostitution and the Gay Rights Resolution.

Sticking "socialist liberal" together like that seems like a fairly unambiguous statement that Raging Lunatics considers them to be essentially the same. Unless it was just badly phrased.

In any case, legalising prostitution isn't necessarily a liberal issue either - many liberals are entirely opposed to it. And rampant capitalists, one would have thought, would be in favour.

I do not consider them the same. Indeed the original Communists were quite conservative in social matters e.g. Stalin disliked Jews and vegetarianism was banned. However in modern times socialists adopt all the liberal causes such as gay rights, pro choice and the like. Thus they can be equated with each other in modern times.

However in modern times socialists adopt all the liberal causes such as gay rights, pro choice and the like. Thus they can be equated with each other in modern times.

Let's have a game of "spot the gaping hole in RL2's logic". It's...right here!
Go talk to some socialists, you'll discover that they can be strongly divided on many of the major "liberal" issues.
Second, even if all socialists are liberals, that doesn't mean that all liberals are socialists...

Hilarious, RL2. The suggestion that socialists are all in broad agreement in modern times is woefully misguided (especially on 'liberal' issues). 'People's Judean Front' syndrome is rife in the left; don't get me started on right/left deviationists and the like. What's amazed me is the success of numerous left-wing nations (including my own) succeeding in having a piss-up in the Strangers' Bar...

What's amazed me is the success of numerous left-wing nations (including my own) succeeding in having a piss-up in the Strangers' Bar...

Ah, but remember that it took that brutal right-wing dictator Enodia to actually organise said piss-up... and remember that it broke out into squabbling and violence between various left-wing nations the minute Enodia left...

Fair point, I'll concede that. So it's official: the left wing even organise an event dedicated to the consumption of alcoholic beverages even when granted the ideal facilities to assist in such an enterprise. Or something more succinct.

Did somebody mention a circus?

Fair point, I'll concede that. So it's official: the left wing even organise an event dedicated to the consumption of alcoholic beverages even when granted the ideal facilities to assist in such an enterprise. Or something more succinct.

Did somebody mention a circus?

Circus?, no they most certainly did not, the last one was destructive enough, and though I do not remember who called the Mother in Law detachment down on our heads, it may be a need be to keep them on constant stand by I would think though... Although, now I think of it, the lefties did stage a jolly good smash up, even if a righies organised the p*ss up... Theres gotta be some irony in that I think. :wink:

The sheer idea of alchohol bringing people together despite political beliefs, as some kind of equaliser, although silly, is vaguely appealling...

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom