NationStates Jolt Archive

I am looking for support of my proposal to ban same sex marriage. Please search the proposals for "Same-Sex Marriage" and my proposal should be the first one to show up. I make some intersting points in the proposal, so please do not shrug this off without reading my argument.

Here is the proposal:

Same-Sex Marriage
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency Strength: Strong Proposed by: Viesaire

Description: What if we were to start cloning humans? There would be no need for women or men, everyone could be gay. I believe that Same-Sex Marriages should be outlawed and current Same-Sex marriages should be broken up. It is important to teach our children about science, and the natural way of things. Homosexuality is man-made and continues to grow as gays influence and corrupt the innocent minds of our children to think it is normal to be gay. Do you want your children to be gay?

I also propose that psychological institutions be implemented to help gays overcome their mental problems which make them think that being gay is normal.

Support given.

Hi, I'm John Marat! Now, I'm afraid that would breach declaration 4 of the bill of human rights and also the bill of gay rights, so even if we of Albion supported the idea of banning same sex marriages, we kinda couldn't, you know? But hey, we will read the proposal all the same. ^_^

First, some useful advice; if you repost the text of your proposal to the forum, people are much more likely to read it, and give commentary.

Second, there is already quite a lengthy thread addressing this issue; look for the thread titled Sanctity of Marriage (I think). A lot of arguments on both sides of the issue have been made there.

Thirdly, I oppose the banning of same-sex marriages; no matter which way you slice it, it is a violation of civil liberties.

Fourthly, regardless of my position on the issue, this is not a question that should be put forth in the UN. It is a question that should be decided on the national level, not an international one. I reccomend that you submit it as an issue, instead.

Lukas von Rabenswald

Yeah, now that I have read it and passed it around to Albion members, we have to say...no. And no, we don't mind if our kids turn out to be gay ^_^

First, some useful advice; if you repost the text of your proposal to the forum, people are much more likely to read it, and give commentary.

Second, there is already quite a lengthy thread addressing this issue; look for the thread titled Sanctity of Marriage (I think). A lot of arguments on both sides of the issue have been made there.

Thirdly, I oppose the banning of same-sex marriages; no matter which way you slice it, it is a violation of civil liberties.

Fourthly, regardless of my position on the issue, this is not a question that should be put forth in the UN. It is a question that should be decided on the national level, not an international one. I reccomend that you submit it as an issue, instead.

Lukas von Rabenswald


Thank you, I have applied your advice.

Look! Look! Look!

This proposal is not in order.

Gay Rights

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kundu

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

Votes For: 12705

Votes Against: 7734

Implemented: Sat May 3 2003

Though they passed that it does not give them a right to marry. We could have civil unions, but no way we should have gay marriage.

I think that people should have the right to marry someone of the same sex. I am a liberal man myself the only thing I really disagree with is sex changes.

Hey it is there constitutional right to do what they want if they want 2 marry same sex thats fine with me. If this resolution is about 2 pass i will resign my un post. People lets not get religion into this

All people should experience equal freedom. That is the reasoning behind human freedoms. You cannot give someone a right and prevent another from doing the same.

It doesn't matter what the type of marriage it is, people should have the right to marry those they choose and love, whether it be a man or woman.

I would ask a particular question of those who believe that homosexual marriage should be illegalized: Should the government be in the business of telling its citizens whom they can or cannot marry? Is the government in the business of matchmaking? Should the government choose -- or should the people as individuals decide -- who marries whom?

Freedom must be free for all, else it can hardly be called freedom; if a fundamental human right -- the right to select your own spouse and live as you choose, so long as you do not violate the right of others to do the same -- is limited arbitrarily based on gender or class, how could it be considered a "right?"

If you don't want to marry a gay man, then don't. If you don't want to marry a gay woman, then don't. If you don't want to associate with homosexuals, then don't. It's just that simple.

Some would argue that marriage was originally intended for the purpose of fertility. Why, then, should the infertile be allowed to marry? What of the elderly or the infirm? If that truly is your outlook, then you evidently also believe that sterilized heterosexual marriages should henceforth be banned -- most sane people concede that such a ban would be ludicrous. And then, of course, there's the question of heterosexual couples who don't intend to have children -- what would you do with them, require them to register how many children they intend to have for a marriage license? Dissolve any marriage that does not produce children within five years?

Some would argue that homosexuals are far more promiscuous in their sexual ventures, and that, therefore, they should not be allowed to marry. If nothing else, that argument is a logical fallacy -- if that's your fear, you should be promoting the monogamous institution of marriage.

Religion doesn't cut it for me in this argument, either. Remember that not every person in the world ascribes to your chosen philosophy. As always: If you don't want to marry a gay, then don't. If you don't want to associate with a gay, then don't.

Using science to "disprove" homosexuality is against the principles of science. First, science does not concern itself with moral arguments. Second, if something occurs in the natural universe (and let me assure you, homosexuality occurs), then it is, by most any working definition, natural. If you still want to argue that homosexuality is unnatural, I would point out that, as a trait, it has been present in the human population for all of recorded history. Were it momentary or artificial development, I should think that the inability to pass on the trait would eliminate it from the gene pool -- you might argue that a gene causing homosexuality could survive if it were passed on recessively, but to do that would be to admit that homosexuality is indeed genetically based, and therefore also quite decisively natural.

What is abnormal about being gay and what is so bad about it. it will not "poison" our childrens minds to be gay, and being gay is quite normal. It does not damage peole in any way shape or from, and in a rapidly growing culture, it will not matter, the pop. is increasing by 10,000 a min. How do gay people harm you? I can almost garuntee you that if this gets up in the UN, it will be voted down. :evil:

I still haven't seen a valid reason to ban same-sex marriages.
Note: Religion is not valid.

The Most Serene Republic of Lubria is disheartened by certain members of the assembly and their focus on this issue. Gay Marriage is legal in the UN, as has been stated in the resolution of May 3, 2003. Repeal of past resolutions is not permitted under UN regulations.

Parliamentary procedure aside, Lubria has heard no argument that justifies the relegation of any group of persons to second class status. Lubria respects the rights of religious freedom, but will not allow fallacious statements to be given in the support of hate without our opposition.

Note: Religion is not valid.
I'll be sure to pass your sentiments on to the (at least) 4,000,000,000 people on this planet who tend to disagree with you.

As for gay marriages, or any kind of marriages for that matter, none marry, nor are given in marriage in the Allied States of Lesser Tyrannus. All are equal in the sight of the law, and the chips installed in the skulls of all newborns attest to that fact.

Reproduction is a clinical affair. And your so-called reproductive rights amuse me. Tyrannan citizenship requires that your body belong to the government. No sex, no gays. No gays, no gay marriages.

I am looking for support of my proposal to ban same sex marriage. Please search the proposals for "Same-Sex Marriage" and my proposal should be the first one to show up. I make some intersting points in the proposal, so please do not shrug this off without reading my argument.

Actually, the "Same-Sex Marriage" proposal has since dissolved. It would seem the majority of the board is against the idea of prejudice toward the homosexual population.

Also, as said topic has turned into a topic about Hitler *started when someone said Hitler was right in being against gays... ugh*, the thread will be moved to General Discussion anytime now.

Hi, I'm John Marat! Now, I'm afraid that would breach declaration 4 of the bill of human rights and also the bill of gay rights, so even if we of Albion supported the idea of banning same sex marriages, we kinda couldn't, you know? But hey, we will read the proposal all the same. ^_^

Thank you! THANK YOU!

Sanity may yet prevail.

Also, might I just add, its a sad relfection on society when marriage becomes more about your opinions on morality, and helll, your plain old opinions on everything else, and the "sanctity" of it, which is like just dragging in the religious debate,

Rather then love, which is what I thought marriage was supposed to be about.

The Rep of Komokom.

Sure, lets allow the gay community to do as they please. Hell, if they want to clone humans, let them do that as well; who are we to judge what the can and cannot do. It's their moral human right!?! As some, even most of you say. So in this case, who needs to be hedorosexual. We can all be gay and just clone humans; that would be perfect for all the people who want to be gay. Lets teach cloning and homosexuality to our children so we can outlaw sex and marriage between a man and a women...

I hope you all can understand my sarcasm in this statement.

Sadly, Viesaire has little choice in the matter. The UN already recognises and protects gay marriage and any attempt to repeal this legislation is likely to result in the wrath of the mods.

I hope you all can understand my sarcasm in this statement.

Nope, not a bit. I love your plan though; tell me more about this paradise of homoerotic romance. :P

whooaaaaaaa, i think some people here are so stupid, ignorent etc.
marriage is about love between two pleople nothing more, nothing less!!!!!!!!!!!!

who talks about cloning, what in the *peep* has that got anything to do with gay people???
if you think beeing gay is a decease, you are so narrowminded and you are blind for the love between two people!
why ara gays different from straigt people?? I see no difference!

AND: if you are a member of the UN you MUST let gays get married, it is in the un rules, and it cannot be changed. if you do not wat gay marriage in your state, get out of the UN. as long as you are a member of the UN there will be gay marriages in your state!

VIESAIRE: "Sure, lets allow the gay community to do as they please. Hell, if they want to clone humans, let them do that as well; who are we to judge what the can and cannot do. It's their moral human right!?! As some, even most of you say. So in this case, who needs to be hedorosexual. We can all be gay and just clone humans; that would be perfect for all the people who want to be gay. Lets teach cloning and homosexuality to our children so we can outlaw sex and marriage between a man and a women... "

I'm intrigued by the link you've drawn between gay rights and human cloning. It's a jolly good job you brought this up as I was previously unaware of the massed organised ranks of the gay community plotting to overhaul civilisation with their cloned gay footsoldiers.

VIESAIRE: "I hope you all can understand my sarcasm in this statement."

Nope, only the stupidity.

John Boone
Speaker for Welfare

Sure, lets allow the gay community to do as they please. Hell, if they want to clone humans, let them do that as well; who are we to judge what the can and cannot do. It's their moral human right!?! As some, even most of you say. So in this case, who needs to be hedorosexual. We can all be gay and just clone humans; that would be perfect for all the people who want to be gay. Lets teach cloning and homosexuality to our children so we can outlaw sex and marriage between a man and a women...

I hope you all can understand my sarcasm in this statement.

WHO ARE YOU to judge about other peoples love?????????

*wonders in from the ‘ NOTICE: GAY MARRIAGE ALREADY LEGAL AND PROTECTED BY UN’ (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=125650&start=0) thread.*

I'm intrigued by the link you've drawn between gay rights and human cloning. It's a jolly good job you brought this up as I was previously unaware of the massed organised ranks of the gay community plotting to overhaul civilisation with their cloned gay footsoldiers.

Is this the ‘gay science’ of which Sephtoria speaks and I have never found any definition of?

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Back New World

*wonders in from the ‘ NOTICE: GAY MARRIAGE ALREADY LEGAL AND PROTECTED BY UN’ (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=125650&start=0) thread.*

I'm intrigued by the link you've drawn between gay rights and human cloning. It's a jolly good job you brought this up as I was previously unaware of the massed organised ranks of the gay community plotting to overhaul civilisation with their cloned gay footsoldiers.

Is this the ‘gay science’ of which Sephtoria speaks and I have never found any definition of?

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Back New World

Lol, nice to see my thread become "refer-to" material. Hope it helps educate a few people on this entire thing. That, or, SHUT THEM UP.

Furthermore, I am yet to see any evidence to the opposite, maybe this is the mysterious "gay science" which may yet go down as one of those un-answered forum questions for the future generations to ponder, like, what was the best thing before sliced bread?

:D

The Rep of Komokom.

We welcome gay marriage. As long as folk are happy, why should there be a problem? Besides, in an overpopulated world, the voluntary removal of oneself from the gene pool should be encouraged.....

It's a wonderful argument, though, isn't it? "If we allow cloning, then people could clone themselves and turn out gay. Therefore, we should ban gay marriages."

Got me thinking. If we drop missiles on another country, then the people would die. Therefore, we should ban velcro.

Hi, I'm John Marat! Now, I'm afraid that would breach declaration 4 of the bill of human rights and also the bill of gay rights, so even if we of Albion supported the idea of banning same sex marriages, we kinda couldn't, you know? But hey, we will read the proposal all the same. ^_^

We agree with the honourable delegate of the Albion Soviets.

Furthermore we would urge member states to read previous resolutions to avoid such incidents in the future. Several states have made their feelings known on this issue, all for no discernable purpose.

_________________________
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 a wonderful argument, though, isn't it? "If we allow cloning, then people could clone themselves and turn out gay. Therefore, we should ban gay marriages."

Got me thinking. If we drop missiles on another country, then the people would die. Therefore, we should ban velcro.

No way, your not looking deeply enough into the problem, its not the velcro, its the tickets to the theatres which are the problem, look at the evidence I produce'd using the same deduction method that resulted in the "If we allow cloning, then people could clone themselves and turn out gay. Therefore, we should ban gay marriages." statement of the creator of this thread,

* Produces from under his jacket,

A bent coat hanger,

A rubix cube,

And an ash tray.

SEE ! Its a conspiracy I tell you !

Is dragged away kicking and screaming to the loony bin, much like anyone who could relate cloning to homosexuality... like, oh, the creator of this thread was it?

:wink:

The Rep of Komokom.

"If we allow cloning, then people could clone themselves and turn out gay."

what kind of arguement is that? if people are being cloned ther are gay???? please first finish school before saying stupid things!

I, King Carlos IV of the Kingdom of Verstaten, have informed both my government and through them the peopleof Verstaten that I will not accept any infringment of the rights of humans so long as it is above the legal age of consent and is consensual. Although I personally do not believe in samesex marriages, I have no wish to deny this act of commitment to others, therefore Verstaten will stand on the side of those who are committed to peace, freedom (within limits) and the rights of consenting adults to behave as they please (within the laws of the land). Besides it's a good time for a party as well!

You have my support in banning gay marriages! and it's terribly good to have my support. This is a serious issue and it will be hard but we will prevail

You have my support in banning gay marriages! and it's terribly good to have my support. This is a serious issue and it will be hard but we will prevail

The only "hard" (Must-not-make-bad-sexually-based-joke :wink: ) thing around here... will be finding your credibility, punk. Perhaps your new here, so I will say it again for your benefit and that of others who've not heard.. or read it... yet.

YOU - CANNOT - BAN - GAY - MARRIAGE ! ! !

ARGH !

HOW MANY TIMES PEOPLE !

IT IS PROTECTED BY U.N. LAW,

WHICH THANK THE MIGHTY MODS,

CANNOT, YES, I SAID,

* C * A * N * N * O * T *

BE REPEALED.

SO "prevail" MY ASS MOBSTAZ,

HA !

You would think my big capital letter set thread would register with people.

Obviously not. Grrr.

I am off to watch Letterman, to calm down

The Rep of Komokom.

I have no problem with Gay marriage.
I have a problem with bigots.

Firstly, we welcome Mobstaz to the extended family of the UN. Secondly we urge the delegate of Mobstaz to try and avoid looking stupid in the future so thus to avoid fellow delegates laughing at you, or declaring nuclear war with the intention of Annihilating your tiny little nation. One or the other.

As for being terribly good to have your support, I can think of 37000+ other members, and 2,449 Regional Delegates off hand which are much more important to have supporting any given arguement, so I don't think you should be boasting how great your nation is.

Secondly we would urge the delegate from Over den Yssel to consider replacing their translator, or retraining to include sarcasm when conveying communications to your delegate in your native tongue. Clearly Enodia was employing sarcasm (which is permitted under the freedom of humour resolution) and should not be taken literally.

It appears to me that Enodia and Over den Yssel are in agreement, but problems in communication are undermining their collective efforts.
_________________________
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)

but my translator is family, i can't send them away ;)
english is not my natieve lanquage, therefore i can't know all means of expressing sarcasm, my appology for that. perhaps if we tried typing in dutch, german or the france language, i would be better in understanding some tekstual expressions:)
btw i'm not in the region "nederland" for nothing!

I was going to Join the U.N, but after hearing the Nazi-istic statemnet of "If your in the UN, you HAVE TO allow gay marriage", i think i will stay out of this corrupt, and awful body of government.

Good Day.

I was going to Join the U.N, but after hearing the Nazi-istic statemnet of "If your in the UN, you HAVE TO allow gay marriage", i think i will stay out of this corrupt, and awful body of government.

If you really think that equal rights are a Nazi idea, the UN will be glad not to have you. It will help keep up the intellectual level.

i am tottally supporting and siding with Viesaire, and as UN delegate my region of Closer than you think sides with me to.

Good Day

P.S Jagermeistria join the UN so we can vote for banning gay marriges and demolishing Gay rights, im not predgedist (or however spelt) but i think its totally disgusting, help us put an end to this.

Nemesis the Great, UN delegate for Closer than you think (feel free to join) espically if you have msn and like wolfenstien :p

P.S Jagermeistria join the UN so we can vote for banning gay marriges and demolishing Gay rights

Unfortunately, you can't. They have been voted into UN law and cannot be repealed. Join the UN if you like, but don't think you can make any change to gay rights.

im not predgedist (or however spelt) but i think its totally disgusting, help us put an end to this.

It's the deeds, not the words, that matter. If you think gay rights are "disgusting", that makes you prejudiced, no matter how much you may protest to the contrary.

We should also add that fear of and/or disgust at gay people is a textbook symptom of repressed homosexuality. Come on out of that closet, it's lovely out here in the sunshine...

but my translator is family, i can't send them away ;)
english is not my natieve lanquage, therefore i can't know all means of expressing sarcasm, my appology for that.

It's Ok, I was just making some fun of you - and for what it's worth I imagine you type better english than I type flemmish! :)

OOC: having a belgian ex-girlfriend I understand the problems associated with language barriers, so I totally understand your problems.

ill take it into my own hands then, i will submit the proposal myself, all vote for the gay ban, i mean one moment u wud be asleep then next you have a c*ck up ur @$$!

and as UN delegate my region of Closer than you think sides with me to.

Wow, all four of you? A force to contend with I'm sure :roll:

P.S Jagermeistria join the UN so we can vote for banning gay marriges and demolishing Gay rights, im not predgedist (or however spelt) but i think its totally disgusting, help us put an end to this.

No. no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No.

It's that simple, you can't ban it. Move on, stop complaining about it and live with it.

_________________________
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)

are you lot gay or something? if yes then support the ban so we can help you be "normal" as some would say ()disclamier() and if no then whats your problem with the ban" all support me.

ill take it into my own hands then, i will submit the proposal myself, all vote for the gay ban, i mean one moment u wud be asleep then next you have a c*ck up ur @$$!

Ah, so all gay people are rapists? Could you provide some evidence of this, please? I had no idea that innocent heterosexuals all across the world were being raped in their beds on a daily basis...

By the way, if you seriously intend to submit this proposal I suggest that you first consult the Schedule of Proposal Offences drawn up by Enodia, the moderator of this forum:
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=125829
Yours comes under:

Flagrant Offences
1. Radical changes to Game Mechanics - including but not limited to the following: setting up parallel UNs, Security Councils etc; allowing individual nations to decide whether or not to abide by resolutions; repeal proposals or proposals supporting the repeal of past resolutions.

and possibly also:

2. Racist or otherwise "bigoted" proposals - including but not limited to the following: advocating the killing of any minority groups or deportation of same to other locales.

depending on just how offensively ignorant your wording is.

ill take it into my own hands then, i will submit the proposal myself, all vote for the gay ban, i mean one moment u wud be asleep then next you have a c*ck up ur @$$!
Please do. It will get you kicked out of the UN for posting proposals running counter to existing legislation, and there would be much rejoicing.

P.D.K. Orthmann
Ministry of Wu-Wei

are you lot gay or something?

Heheheheh. If we all say "yes", will you run away screaming for fear of being raped?

-DP-

hmmmm

you have to post the same message twice

btw im not sayin we kill gays we just help them to be straight again, the straight population will help.

Viesaire: "I am looking for support of my proposal to ban same sex marriage."

I give a shout out for this one: AFFIRMATIVE!

you have to post the same message twice

No, that's an error with the Nation States server. Please take the trouble to find out your facts before criticising.

btw im not sayin we kill gays we just help them to be straight again, the straight population will help.

"Again"? When were gay people ever straight? This "re-education" has been proven to be incredibly damaging psychologically and leads to some quite horrific self-mutilation and even suicide. Being gay is not a choice.

Being gay is not a choice.

It's certainly very useful, in terms of civil liberties, to look at it that way. In Rehochipe we are inclined to agree with Foucault's approach to queer theory; there being no genuine distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality except that that inflicted by society. (Largely, it should be added, by the sort of idiots who have FAILED TO REALISE THAT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE IN THE UN IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE).

P.D.K. Orthmann
Minister of Wu-Wei

Of course, the problem with homosexuality is the biological factor. You can't make new kids if you have sex with another member of your own gender, which is why we tend not to allow homosexuality. Well, we don't outrightly ban homosexuality, but we at least make sure that STDs don't spread by making sure that the gays and leisbans use every method possible to limit the spread.

Secret IC:
There are taxes on homosexuality here in Coreworlds. $100 if you wish to have a civil union. Just pay up the cash and you'll be fine.

You can't make new kids if you have sex with another member of your own gender, which is why we tend not to allow homosexuality.

Since our government is inclined to view bisexuality as the default position, we are somewhat confused as to how homosexual intercourse makes one sterile. We are further bewildered as to why anyone would view reproduction as an essential function of citizens.

"If we allow cloning, then people could clone themselves and turn out gay."

what kind of arguement is that? if people are being cloned ther are gay???? please first finish school before saying stupid things!

So that means that people who finished schools are allowed to say stupid things?

"If we allow cloning, then people could clone themselves and turn out gay."

what kind of arguement is that? if people are being cloned ther are gay???? please first finish school before saying stupid things!

So that means that people who finished schools are allowed to say stupid things?

Yes, it's called a PhD in Philosophy.

"Hey Bigjobs! Why can't Clones be happy?"

"That's their Job, to run aroond in a Circus ring and mak the folk laugh!"

"Awah wi'yer an' leave the Clones alone, or ye'll deal wi us!"

ill take it into my own hands then, i will submit the proposal myself, all vote for the gay ban, i mean one moment u wud be asleep then next you have a c*ck up ur @$$!

The Ub3r L337 yet moderately well educated nation of Berkylvania questions the nation of Nemesis on using ten year olds as their official speakers. We feel this violates numerous child labor laws as well as giving the nation an unfair stake in world affairs as all the really neat policy happens after their bed time.

However, out of respect for the mini-delegate, we have translated our response into the native language:

STFU b4 I PWN j00!!!!11!!!11!!111!!!!!

The honored speaker from Berkylvania has long lived in a nation where gay marriage is accepted as a normal covenant between two people. He has gone to bed many times and, as of the writing of this, has never woken up with, "a c*ck up ur @$$!" This humble delegate feels quite certain that he would remember such an occurance. Is this a problem in your nation, Nemesis? Are soundly sleeping citizens frequently anally interferred with by roving gangs of maurading homosexuals or angry, agressive women with strap-on marital aids? Perhaps this is a result of your rather rabid repression and these people are merely sleepwalking...er, sleep raping, rather. Additionally, does this apply to lesbians? Perhaps you should seek to find out the core issue in your own nation and work to solve it and not air your dirty laundry on such a public forum.

Finally, as many more respected and honored delegates before me have pointed out, this is all moot as a resolution protecting homosexual rights, including the right to wed, has already passed. If you are so upset by this turn of events, might I suggest leaving the UN. While it means your 1st grade teacher will be unable to give you a gold star for playing well with others, I think you will be much happier with your existence in general. Additionally, it will give you more time to sit with your back against a metal wall on a steel floor 10 feet think, clutching your automatic weapon and defending you chocolate starfish from every homosexual in the world who are all apparently in cabal against you, just plotting to plunder your innocent virtue.

Now, I think your mother is calling, so you'd best get back to your homework. Don't worry, those multiplication tables are tough, but just keep trying and maybe you won't have to repeat 1st grade again this year.

Furthermore, I am yet to see any evidence to the opposite, maybe this is the mysterious "gay science" which may yet go down as one of those un-answered forum questions for the future generations to ponder, like, what was the best thing before sliced bread?

I’m not sure that I want to know anymore. I remember asking what the ‘gay agenda’ was and losing faith in the intelligence of people when I found the answer...

By the way it was French bread.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World

The delegate from East Hackney strongly censures the nation of Berkylvania for making him laugh so hard he snorted tea out of his nostrils.

By the way...did somebody say "circus"?

Since our government is inclined to view bisexuality as the default position, we are somewhat confused as to how homosexual intercourse makes one sterile. We are further bewildered as to why anyone would view reproduction as an essential function of citizens.

Of course it's an essential function of citizens! How else do populations grow, cloning?! Homosexuality, well it doesn't make people sterile, but if the behavior isn't rectified by marrying a member of the opposite sex and havign kids, how are you gonna pass on your genes?

Of course it's an essential function of citizens! How else do populations grow, cloning?!

We should draw a distinction here between individuals and the species. It's an essential function of the species to keep passing its genes on - in fact, that's the entire point and purpose of humanity (and every other species). All the neat stuff we've evolved over the years, like opposable thumbs, rum and rock music, derives in one way or another from that basic drive.

But that doesn't mean that it's the function of every individual to pass its genes on, so long as the species collectively is managing to keep itself going. In fact, given that homosexuality is innate and natural - a point on which we must respectfully disagree with our esteemed comrade Rehochipe - it can be hypothesised that there is some evolutionary purpose to homosexuality which we do not appreciate and that it hence assists in the continuation of the species.

There was a very thoughtful post to this effect on one of the other threads. Sadly we cannot find it nor remember who the author was. It suggested that homosexuals play an important part in small communities, since, having no selfish stake in passing their own genes on, they are free to take on an altruistic role, acting as teachers and guardians for the entire community and thus sacrificing their own personal genetic survival for the continuation of the entire tribe or nation. It does not pay to take too limited a view about what the "continuation of the species" actually entails.

Comrade Dawkins
Delegate for Science

Hi, I'm John Marat! Now, I'm afraid that would breach declaration 4 of the bill of human rights and also the bill of gay rights, so even if we of Albion supported the idea of banning same sex marriages, we kinda couldn't, you know? But hey, we will read the proposal all the same. ^_^


:x Gay bill of Rights?! Since when do gays have separate rights from the rest of us?! Where is the Straight bill or rights? Callidus is in full support of banning gay marriage!

Gay bill of Rights?! Since when do gays have separate rights from the rest of us?! Where is the Straight bill or rights?

That would be the Universal Bill of Rights. Go check the UN Resolutions Throughout History page:
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/77844/page=UN_past_resolutions


Callidus is in full support of banning gay marriage!

Tough. Once more: if you're part of the UN, you can't. You don't have the choice. It's right there in the Gay Rights resolution, also on the page linked to above.

Comrade Christian
Delegate for Law

"If we allow cloning, then people could clone themselves and turn out gay."

what kind of arguement is that? if people are being cloned ther are gay???? please first finish school before saying stupid things!
It's not my argument, it's the argument of the person who started this thread. My post was an attempt at explaining - in a vaguely humorous manner - the logical inconsistency of his argument. Of course, taken out of context and misattributed, it looks stupid.

To ban same-sex marriage would be to go against every idea that all men are created equal and such. If homosexuality goes against your personal religious beliefs, thats fine- no one's going to make you be involved in it. However, there is no reason for you to try to take other people's rights away... imagine someone telling you that you cant marry the person you love? How would you like it? Please think about this, and think about what you're saying when you want to ban same-sex marriage!

:D I do completely agree with you. There is no reason that fags and lesbos should walk our streets with wedding rings clouding our childrens' minds with horrible thoughts and confussion. I completely back you as the president of Nimbus-sun

:x You know what i say to that.... Bull@#($*. Men are born with a penis, women are born with a vagina. Penis goes into vagina, not penis goes into rectum of another man. Women have babies men don't. Get it through your thick head. Basically... ITS NOT RIGHT! Consider your country an enemy of mine you fag and or lesbo

I have noticed that the majority of the argument for gay marriages seems to be that the government should not be able to restrict people from doing what they want, and that all should have a freedom of choice to do as they please in the region of love. However, even in real life this does not happen. I noticed that even in Nationstates, there has been no law for a leangle age limit for sex, I am assuming that it is the same as in the US. This law makes it ill eagle for a minor to have sex with a leangle adult EVEN IF THEY ARE BOTH CONSENTING!!! Why is this so important? Because the government has just stepped in to make a "moral decision" for the people of its country. Everyone who argues that if two people of the same sex want to get married, do you also support a 22 year old and a 13 year old getting married? Do you think that we should bring back the ancient Greek practice of having older men sleep with young boys during military training? What if that little boy is consenting? DO you honestly believe, that just because two people say that they love each other that they really do? That the government should not place moral guidelines on people? If no moral guidelines are kept then there would be anarchy. Suppose someone likes your wife and wants to have sex with her? Well, it’s his choice, why not? Maybe he wants to kill her? Why not, after all he has free will. This argument can be applied to almost anything thrown out there, so just think next time you accuse the government of interfering with your life, that's what it was created for, to intervene with your life for the common good. So maybe they are intervening in gay marriages for your common good, and your children’s common good, and societies common good. No one can say what having a majority of a population that accepts being gay as normal will do to a person. We do know what our values have given us... the greatest country on the face of the planet, and no one can argue that it is, whether you agree with what we do is another matter, but we got here by doing what we feel is right. And I feel what is right is not allowing gay marriages.
-And just remember there is always plenty of... Booyah For All!

p.s.- while I do realize that this argument makes no differnece (..yet) in the gameworld, I just wish to point out to you possibly a new opinion and point of view in the ongoing debate to , hopefully, get you to think on the subject from a perspective that is not millitint, but one that is thoughtful and striving to truly understand the problem and all the sides. I personally have nothing against gays as people. I do have something against the act of being gay, and while you might try to sway me from this point of view, for me religion does matter... too much to tell me that homosexuality is wrong. But once again I would like to state that I do not personally dislike gays, only the act in and of itself.

Well, I have to say, there have been a feww good reasons presented in favor of this proposal, but alot of it seems to just be anti gay, which will not help your cause at all. I personally think that gay marriage is a complete abomination, but that doesn't mean I hate gay people.

The main reason I believe should sway many people to support this proposal is the fact that the United Nations has absolutely no business interfereing in religion. Marriage is a religious institution, and the United nations is a secular organization. So if all of you aethiests and socialists out there are true to your beliefs, you will support this proposal because if the United Nations makes you have gay marriages, they are forcing you to admit religion. Civil Unions are within the realm of the government (though I'm against those too, but that's another argument for another day), but marriage is solely religious, and should not be imposed upon by the United Nations, which purports to be a secular body.

Hi, I'm John Marat! Now, I'm afraid that would breach declaration 4 of the bill of human rights and also the bill of gay rights, so even if we of Albion supported the idea of banning same sex marriages, we kinda couldn't, you know? But hey, we will read the proposal all the same. ^_^


:x Gay bill of Rights?! Since when do gays have separate rights from the rest of us?! Where is the Straight bill or rights? Callidus is in full support of banning gay marriage!

While I disagree almost completely with the Callidian representative, he (I'm almost certain it's a he) has reminded me that there are two major flaws in the present proposal, which are that it makes no distinction between marriage and a civil union, and it doesn't have provision for countries that do not have any marriage laws. (i.e. countries must necessarily have laws for gay marriage, regardless of whether it has provided for any form of marriage in the past.)

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

:x You know what i say to that.... Bull@#($*. Men are born with a penis, women are born with a vagina. Penis goes into vagina, not penis goes into rectum of another man. Women have babies men don't. Get it through your thick head. Basically... ITS NOT RIGHT! Consider your country an enemy of mine you fag and or lesbo

I have explained to a number of people why this reasoning is fallacious. However, it takes a fair bit of intellect to understand why it is so worthless, and I doubt that you can understand it. Nothing to worry about, most people with beliefs like yours (i.e. that homosexuality is somehow unnatural) probably wouldn't. I simply ask that you take it from me: you are wrong, and you probably wouldn't be able to understand why.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

I shall never allow same sex marriage in my Empire.My people can marry whoever they want,as long as they're from the opposite sex.

I have noticed that the majority of the argument for gay marriages seems to be that the government should not be able to restrict people from doing what they want, and that all should have a freedom of choice to do as they please in the region of love. However, even in real life this does not happen. I noticed that even in Nationstates, there has been no law for a leangle age limit for sex, I am assuming that it is the same as in the US. This law makes it ill eagle for a minor to have sex with a leangle adult EVEN IF THEY ARE BOTH CONSENTING!!! Why is this so important? Because the government has just stepped in to make a "moral decision" for the people of its country. Everyone who argues that if two people of the same sex want to get married, do you also support a 22 year old and a 13 year old getting married? Do you think that we should bring back the ancient Greek practice of having older men sleep with young boys during military training? What if that little boy is consenting? DO you honestly believe, that just because two people say that they love each other that they really do? That the government should not place moral guidelines on people? If no moral guidelines are kept then there would be anarchy. Suppose someone likes your wife and wants to have sex with her? Well, it’s his choice, why not? Maybe he wants to kill her? Why not, after all he has free will. This argument can be applied to almost anything thrown out there, so just think next time you accuse the government of interfering with your life, that's what it was created for, to intervene with your life for the common good. So maybe they are intervening in gay marriages for your common good, and your children’s common good, and societies common good. No one can say what having a majority of a population that accepts being gay as normal will do to a person. We do know what our values have given us... the greatest country on the face of the planet, and no one can argue that it is, whether you agree with what we do is another matter, but we got here by doing what we feel is right. And I feel what is right is not allowing gay marriages.
-And just remember there is always plenty of... Booyah For All!

p.s.- while I do realize that this argument makes no differnece (..yet) in the gameworld, I just wish to point out to you possibly a new opinion and point of view in the ongoing debate to , hopefully, get you to think on the subject from a perspective that is not millitint, but one that is thoughtful and striving to truly understand the problem and all the sides. I personally have nothing against gays as people. I do have something against the act of being gay, and while you might try to sway me from this point of view, for me religion does matter... too much to tell me that homosexuality is wrong. But once again I would like to state that I do not personally dislike gays, only the act in and of itself.


it is easy to copy things from your priest isn't it?

marriage is about love, you cant stop gays from loving. other then their feelings, they are normal people just like you and me (perhaps not so "nazi-like" as you) so why should they have different rights?
i like to refer to an earlier post which has a link to an artical in which w=is said that in all animal spicies ther are gays! so its kinda natural! (for the religious people: god created nature, so he also created gays! wow a shock? well then you were a litte bid ignorent in you thinking!)

This might be of interest to anyone who says homosexuality is 'unnatural':

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1143549,00.html

:x You know what i say to that.... Bull@#($*. Men are born with a penis, women are born with a vagina. Penis goes into vagina, not penis goes into rectum of another man. Women have babies men don't. Get it through your thick head. Basically... ITS NOT RIGHT! Consider your country an enemy of mine you fag and or lesbo

I love ignorant people like this, their so cute when their pissed off because all the adults are using ideas and terms they don't get ! :wink:

Lets make it nice an simple why your wrong, if its so un-natural... then why do so many people, the majority I would assume, who engage in homosexual acts... enjoy it so much to be homosexual? Hmmm?

* * * I think in your case it was a matter of penis sprouting off of head...

The Rep of Komokom

* I think these quotes may be of interest...

"Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?"

- Ernest Gaines.

"War. Rape. Murder. Poverty. Equal rights for gays. Guess which one the Southern Baptist Convention is protesting?"

- The Value of Families.

"Labels are for filing. Labels are for clothing. Labels are not for people."

- Martina Navratilova.

* And to try to get through to people why I rattle on so much about this...

"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 so I leave you to your thoughts.

The Rep of Komokom.

ELINIA: "I shall never allow same sex marriage in my Empire.My people can marry whoever they want,as long as they're from the opposite sex."

Are you in the UN? If you are, then you are in breach of a binding resolution and must either desist in your illegal actions or withdraw your membership.

MrSNOWMAN: "Marriage is a religious institution"

Actually, that's not strictly true. Marriage has evolved into a secular institution as well. Besides, was the first marriage truly religious? We don't know.

NIMBUS-SUN: "You know what i say to that.... Bull@#($*. Men are born with a penis, women are born with a vagina. Penis goes into vagina, not penis goes into rectum of another man. Women have babies men don't. Get it through your thick head. Basically... ITS NOT RIGHT! Consider your country an enemy of mine you fag and or lesbo"

So...penis can only go in vagina, therefore it cannot go into someone else's mouth? Is oral sex wrong then? Women have babies, men don't - so women and men should have different roles throughout life? Women have to have babies? In your opinion, it's not right. Please at least allow for the possibility that you are wrong.

If we disagree, we are your enemy? You little runt, why do you think we care? And I'm a fag/lesbo? Funny, I hadn't realised. Maybe I haven't met the right person of my own gender.

COREWORLDS: "Homosexuality, well it doesn't make people sterile, but if the behavior isn't rectified by marrying a member of the opposite sex and havign kids, how are you gonna pass on your genes?"

Why do you have to? Homosexuality does not starve the gene pool. Of course, if (like Nimbus-Sun) your community is a bunch of siblings rutting with each other, then you have a problem.

Toodle pip, kiddies.

Michel Duval
Speaker for Education
Community of Ecopoeia

So...penis can only go in vagina, therefore it cannot go into someone else's mouth?
More pertinently (particularly in the case of Nimbus-sun) we feel we should be questioning the legitimate usage of one's own appendages, specifically the hands.

*smiles innocently* Some our esteemed colleagues seem to be obsessing rather worryingly about penises and the variety of things that can be done with them. Could it be that they aren't, erm, getting enough?

ELINIA: "I shall never allow same sex marriage in my Empire.My people can marry whoever they want,as long as they're from the opposite sex."

Are you in the UN? If you are, then you are in breach of a binding resolution and must either desist in your illegal actions or withdraw your membership.

MrSNOWMAN: "Marriage is a religious institution"

Actually, that's not strictly true. Marriage has evolved into a secular institution as well. Besides, was the first marriage truly religious? We don't know.

NIMBUS-SUN: "You know what i say to that.... Bull@#($*. Men are born with a penis, women are born with a vagina. Penis goes into vagina, not penis goes into rectum of another man. Women have babies men don't. Get it through your thick head. Basically... ITS NOT RIGHT! Consider your country an enemy of mine you fag and or lesbo"

So...penis can only go in vagina, therefore it cannot go into someone else's mouth? Is oral sex wrong then? Women have babies, men don't - so women and men should have different roles throughout life? Women have to have babies? In your opinion, it's not right. Please at least allow for the possibility that you are wrong.

If we disagree, we are your enemy? You little runt, why do you think we care? And I'm a fag/lesbo? Funny, I hadn't realised. Maybe I haven't met the right person of my own gender.

COREWORLDS: "Homosexuality, well it doesn't make people sterile, but if the behavior isn't rectified by marrying a member of the opposite sex and havign kids, how are you gonna pass on your genes?"

Why do you have to? Homosexuality does not starve the gene pool. Of course, if (like Nimbus-Sun) your community is a bunch of siblings rutting with each other, then you have a problem.

Toodle pip, kiddies.

Michel Duval
Speaker for Education
Community of Ecopoeia
Who are you to tell me that?
Besides,I wasn't in the UN when that was decided,and I didn't get my right to vote.

Besides,I wasn't in the UN when that was decided,and I didn't get my right to vote.

If I recall correctly - when you join the UN you agree to abide by all previous resolutions. That's part of the choice you make when you join to give up certain freedoms.

ELINIA: "Who are you to tell me that?"

A member of the UN, and the delegate of a sovereign nation with the right to express his views on behalf of that nation.

That sufficient for you?

Michel Duval
Speaker for Education

I have noticed that the majority of the argument for gay marriages seems to be that the government should not be able to restrict people from doing what they want, and that all should have a freedom of choice to do as they please in the region of love. However, even in real life this does not happen. I noticed that even in Nationstates, there has been no law for a leangle age limit for sex, I am assuming that it is the same as in the US. This law makes it ill eagle for a minor to have sex with a leangle adult EVEN IF THEY ARE BOTH CONSENTING!!! Why is this so important? Because the government has just stepped in to make a "moral decision" for the people of its country. Everyone who argues that if two people of the same sex want to get married, do you also support a 22 year old and a 13 year old getting married? Do you think that we should bring back the ancient Greek practice of having older men sleep with young boys during military training? What if that little boy is consenting? DO you honestly believe, that just because two people say that they love each other that they really do? That the government should not place moral guidelines on people? If no moral guidelines are kept then there would be anarchy. Suppose someone likes your wife and wants to have sex with her? Well, it’s his choice, why not? Maybe he wants to kill her? Why not, after all he has free will. This argument can be applied to almost anything thrown out there, so just think next time you accuse the government of interfering with your life, that's what it was created for, to intervene with your life for the common good. So maybe they are intervening in gay marriages for your common good, and your children’s common good, and societies common good. No one can say what having a majority of a population that accepts being gay as normal will do to a person. We do know what our values have given us... the greatest country on the face of the planet, and no one can argue that it is, whether you agree with what we do is another matter, but we got here by doing what we feel is right. And I feel what is right is not allowing gay marriages.
-And just remember there is always plenty of... Booyah For All!

p.s.- while I do realize that this argument makes no differnece (..yet) in the gameworld, I just wish to point out to you possibly a new opinion and point of view in the ongoing debate to , hopefully, get you to think on the subject from a perspective that is not millitint, but one that is thoughtful and striving to truly understand the problem and all the sides. I personally have nothing against gays as people. I do have something against the act of being gay, and while you might try to sway me from this point of view, for me religion does matter... too much to tell me that homosexuality is wrong. But once again I would like to state that I do not personally dislike gays, only the act in and of itself.

The unashamedly liberal yet self-policing nation of Berkylvania respectfully and with all honor suggests that your argument is as fallacious as Brittany Spear's Amazing Over Night Marriage And Subsequent Converstion To Fundamentalist Christianity.

Frequently the argument for removing certain rights from a specific section of society centers on morals and makes false comparisons. To use your arguement, we should also be able to prevent heterosexual couples with histories of violence and/or unfaithfulness from marriage, as even though they may be consenting adults, their behavior is immoral (I think we can all safely assume the abuse of a spouse is immoral).

The argument as to pedophelia is apples and oranges and therefore can be gleefully ignored as a blatently emotional terrorist attack. We are talking about legally consenting adults who are expected to pay taxes, hold jobs and be primary contributers to the beterment of society. Yet, we now propose that while a certain subclass must obey all the rules and regulations of the society, they are now not entitled to the same benefits that are enjoyed every day in front of Elvis impersonators in neon wedding chappels in Las Vegas.

Consent implies a level of emotional maturity capable of weighing the benefits and consequences of any action and then reaching a decision based on your personal moral code. Whereas 16-18 years of age may be a rather arbitrary number (indeed, by the character of some of the posts by fellow speakers in this forum, it can be argued that these numbers should be rased exponentially), it serves as a legal defining of when we assume a human has gained enough life experience to begin making decisions for themselves and to understand themselves. The arguement that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because it is the same moral issue as an older person taking sexual liberties with a child is fallacious and, frankly, insulting to the intelligence. If you're really worried about this, how about you formulate a UN resolution banning Catholic Priests since I hear some of them are pedophiles and therefore they whole practice MUST be pedophilic.

If you look at the current state of marriage, where nearly half of the end in divorce (and even then after only a short time of actual marriage instead of many, many years), where the dissolutions are either nasty and protracted or light entertainment for TV shows like Divorce Court and Judge Judy, where pop stars can get married one night and have it annulled the next morning, where you can get married for $25 bucks in some seamy chappel in Las Vegas, it is hard to believe there is anything "sanctified" about the institution anymore. Yet, despite the scorn, ridicule and vicious threats heaped upon them, here are a group of people who are willing to risk their jobs, their homes and even their lives to be a part of this whored out sacred institution and declare, legally and spiritually, before God and man, their love for one another. It is shockingly perverse to me that, given the sorry and sad light of current heterosexual marriage, that instead of rejoicing that some see this institution as worthy of such a struggle, instead they are met with scorn and threats and we are now, for the first time in history, actually considering putting legalized discrimination into the one document in the history of man that has been dedicated to the protection of the rights and freedoms for all.

As for the rest of your arguments, you again do not offer rational comparisons, but favor emotional whines that are completely different from the case in point. If your neighbor fancies your wife and they sleep together, well, that's adultery and I guess you and your wife better figure out what your issues are. If she doesn't want to sleep with him and he takes her anyway, that's rape and an obvious crime to be punished accordingly. If he kills her, that's murder and, again, an obvious crime. In all these cases (except perhaps the first one), someone's rights are being abridged and denighed. That is crime. Two men marrying in no way disturbs your right to marry a member of the opposite sex (and may that poor unfortunate have my sympathies). Do you see the difference?

The government was not "created to interfere with my life". It was created to ensure that all men get along in a public, civilized way, with a fair playing field and the ability to prosper from their own efforts. When a government begins to abridge and deny the rights of consenting adult citizens, they are no longer a benevolent institution, but a dictatorship slowly slipping into the morass and "absolute morality" of fascisim. Frankly, these are the exact kinds of arguements that have been used since time immemorable to rationalize and even empower the subjugation of minorities. Perhaps the government should step in and forbid all divorces of heterosexual couples? Perhaps the government should step in and prevent the marriage of all non-virgin couples? Perhaps the government should step in and prevent the marriage of all mixed race couples? Perhaps the government should step in and prevent the marriage of all couples with either by choice or biology will not reproduce or who are past child bearing age? Perhaps the government should step in and prevent the marriage of all couples who's genetic heratage increase the liklihood of their children developing cancer or any other potentially heritable trait that is out of vogue? That is your slippery slope arguement, that once you give up the rights of other, it's that much easier to lose your own. Gay marriage won't ruin society, the government proscribing who and how you may legally bind to will.

I agree, our values have given us the best country on the planet. However, I think you forget those values. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The ideal that all men are created equal under the protection of the law. Our forefathers gave us these values and entrusted us with their protection, not their perversion. Unfortunately, we now stand at a crux. We as a nation must decide if we believe our own press. We must answer the question, "Is it right to legalize discrimination, regardless of my personal feelings on the subject." In the course of the history of the United States, we have only amended our Constitution, our most politically holy of documents, seventeen times. Each time was to ensure greater liberty, greater freedom. Now, we are perched, for the first time, to use an amendment to strike down the freedom of our sons and daughters. This is a dark hour in our history as a bastion of freedom and democracy in the world.

My religion does matter to me as well. I am a Quaker and we believe passionately in the inherant, intrinsic worth of all human beings as we are all children of God and he resides in all of us. To abridge the rights of my fellow man is just as damningly sinful as to not speak out when I see those rights being stripped away. I speak to you from a place of Christian love but even more, Christian duty. You must, for the sake of your immortal soul, revere and love your fellow man. Perhaps the idea of homosexuality is repellant to you. I would question why you spend so much time thinking about it, but even so, Jesus walked not among the "righteous," but among those who needed his example most. Strive for love, in an increasingly hostile world, and work to nurture it where ever it may be found and in whatever form it may take. Surely, one of the most damning sins is the sin of pride and surely it is an act of extreme pride to claim to know the mind of God so well that you can use it as a tool of subjugation and repression for all His creation.

*The delegate from East Hackney stands up and applauds the finest post he's ever read on the NS forums*

If the representative from Berkylvania would care to accompany us to the Strangers' Bar, we will be happy to buy him rum until he can no longer stand.

Comrade Guevara
Delegate for Rum and Other Revolutionary Beverages

Rehochipe heartily commends the representative from Berkylvania.

Ecopoeia wishes to add its voice to the clamour of approval for Berkylvania.

I can see that the wrong ideas have been taken from my post, and I must confess that it could have been that I was not clear enough. In your second argument you say "To use your argument, we should also be able to prevent heterosexual couples with histories of violence and/or unfaithfulness from marriage, as even though they may be consenting adults, their behavior is immoral (I think we can all safely assume the abuse of a spouse is immoral)." Maybe they shouldn't remarry. Is it not possible that once a person will commit violence that the person could commit it again? I believe that the statistics are that over 50% of people coming from jail who have gone in for a violent crime will repeat a violent crime again. Should we allow them to be given an easy opportunity? Should we allow the further spreading of sex outside the single partner, we do and we do. The former helping to spread domestic violence around the country, the latter to spread such STD's as Aid’s. I happen to know that it is not possible to put this into law as too many people will step up to defend wife beaters and promiscuous lovers. I myself don't think it would even be worth trying to do as trying to implement such a law would be far more effort the it is worth.

Now let’s look at consent. If two people decide that they are wanting to commit suicide, for whatever reason, by shooting each other in the head, what’s to stop them? If one person happens to have a family and is the provider for that family where will that leave them? They have consented to killing themselves, they are taking themselves out of the gene pool and not providing an contribution to society. Would you allow your twenty year old son to kill himself? I sure hope not, even if you are a believer in that persons right and consent to kill himself. Now you might say that " hey that doesn’t' have to do with gay's being married, they're not hurting anyone around them". No, they are just showing to the community that they don't care for its values, that it’s ok to go against it and possibly exposing more people to becoming gay, or to allow it to happen. Ok, so what is it isn't a choice, many say that it is a product of a certain gene. So is Schizophrenia.

What if being gay is not a choice but a gene that makes a person gay, how is that any different from a mental defect? Schizophrenia is a naturally occurring thing, but you don't see that many people out there trying to say " It's ok! Let it happen! They didn't choose to do it so it must be ok!" What does society do when they find something out of the norm and that is not useful or possibly even detrimental to the person (In this case the gene pool is suffering from a lack of these persons, they cant expand the population, ect. ect) In nature it dies out. In society, they try to cure it. Maybe it's not a choice, in fact it probably is not a choice. But just like other mental disorders, we should love them back, try to understand them, but ultimately try to help them come back to the healthy norm. The problem that exists now is that there is no real way to change a person from being gay to straight. But that doesn't mean that we should sit by and let it continue on, we need to try to help them come back into the fold.

Finally it's time to pull out the Bible card. Normally I wouldn't use it as it tends to turn people off to what you are saying but since you did bring in some religious things, I'll have to play suite. First off I'd like to say that Jesus died for all of our sins, I am just as equal of having Christ put to death by the most painful way known to man as a gay is. I however am actively trying to do as he commanded me to. 1 Corinthians 6:16
Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh." While this verse talks directly to men against having sex with more than one woman (As you are only supposed to be in one flesh with only one other) this one can also apply to homosexuals. The man and the women are supposed to be united in marriage, not a man and a man nor a woman and a woman. As I stated earlier, this doesn't make them evil in and of itself, and I am just as wrong in fibbing then they are in being gays, but as I also stated, God wants us to try to stop these things, not to encourage it by giving me money for fibbing or giving gays the right to marry and continue sinning.
-And just remember there is always plenty of... Booyah For All!

This is not an issue of international concern.

In fact, it is not an issue of national concern either.

Let it be decided at a provincial/state level.

This is not an issue of international concern.

In fact, it is not an issue of national concern either.

Let it be decided at a provincial/state level.

Agreed.

*Secretly increases taxes for homosexuality.*

ELINIA: "Who are you to tell me that?"

A member of the UN, and the delegate of a sovereign nation with the right to express his views on behalf of that nation.

That sufficient for you?

Michel Duval
Speaker for Education

And somebody that is supported by a very large, old nation such as the one I represent that could crush the representative from Elinia's tiny nation in a minute. We would urge that nation to comply with the authority of the United Nations or else resign from the same.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder of the DU Region
Retired UN Delegate

First, I would like to applaude both your essays, for they are great literary works. Yet Booyah for all's postition uses god and only god as an explanation, or the state making the rules always. So I must side with berkylvania on this.

I am not a man of religon therefore my post cannot be in defence or attack of religon in any way shape or from. The reason why I must side with berkylvania is this, Booyah for all's main point is that this is just not normal, now blacks were not normal in 17-1800's, should they have had their rights taken away? Just because it is not normal does not mean it should be stamed out, and bring up the arguemnet of not reporducing and passing on genes is invalid because the wold pop. is already increaing at an alarming rate thus this would not matter. Also, berkylvania's point of not brand one thing with many subsets with the same brand for all is quite valid. Just because gays are abnormal doesen't mean that gay are hurting anyone or effecting their marriage or whom they choose to marry in any way. All in all, I must side with freedoms and cival rights for all, not just the majority, thus I side with berkylvania.

Why would you want to deny something to one part of humanity and give it freely to another? I mean of couse the right to marry who they want and love who they want.

This is the same as slavaey. Denying freedom to one and giving it to another.

If the United States is truly the land of the free, why do they try and deny freedom?

Also
*stands up crying and applauding*
That was the greatest NS poast I have ever seen (berkylvania's). Thank you so much for your philosophical knoweledge. May berkylvania and The federation of Pyo kittens be allies for decades to come.
*bows while still sobbing*

I am very sorry but i must bring religion in here, but not against gay rights, for them. Through my very limited understanding of religion(i think its a load of B.S.) i understand that jesus treated everyone the same, of course if being gay is a genetic flaw the chances of nobody being gay back then is very slim, and so jesus treated everyone the same, even gays.

One other point why should be base todays decisions on a book thats frigging 2 thousand years old!?!?

No, they are just showing to the community that they don't care for its values, that it’s ok to go against it and possibly exposing more people to becoming gay, or to allow it to happen.

So far, the only argument I've seen you come up with as to why homosexuality is wrong is that it might encourage more people to become homosexuals. Assuming that this is right (and it's a reach, I can tell ya), may I submit that you ban paintballing and standing on one's head?
Showing society they don't care about its values? Well, first off you're assuming all society has the same values as you. Secondly, it's an absolutely fundamental principle of personal liberty that setting a bad example or doing something that offends the sensibilities of some random people who have nothing to do with it doesn't count as inflicting harm. John Stuart Mill, buddy. You cannot impose moral values based on highly subjective personal beliefs on society.

Also, I recognise your right as a Christian to try and impose your unjustifiable values on the rest of the world, provided you recognise my right as a Daoist to laugh my ass off at you for expecting me to care.

I am very sorry but i must bring religion in here, but not against gay rights, for them...and so jesus treated everyone the same, even gays.
*original post edited somewhat for clarity*

For someone who claims not to understand much about religion, you've really hit the nail on the head. Jesus spent most of his time on earth with tax collectors, prostitutes, adulterers, people with demons in them and a whole long list of other "nasties", so (as a practicing Christian) I see absolutely no reason why the Church should jump up and down in pulpits denouncing homosexuality. To quote Mark 'Tansoback' Mohr of Christafari:

He was a radical, different in every way
Controversial, the talk of the town hear them say

On a completely different note, this would have to simultaneously be one of the most well-argued (Berkylvania and others) and hilarious (Komokom and others) threads I've ever had the good fortune to see.

How can I maintain the freedom of my own conscience if I deny others the same freedom?

As for St. Paul, he wasn't much for sexual relations of any kind, including traditional marriage. But in that regard, he did say "It is better to marry than to burn"; in other words, if your dsires are tempting you to sin, you had better take care of them within the bonds of marriage.

Now the more I think about it, the more I feel this same logic has to apply to gay folk. Why not? We're all people. Should a religious person want them to "burn" when they could marry instead?

Livin' in a fraternal brotherhood as we do, with aboot a one in ten thoosand chance o'marryin' a lassie, we must say tha' we don't see the point in marriage unless it's a happy one!

We dinnae see the wrong in twa lads or twa lassies pairing up, but we dinnae partake oorsel's, mebbe the world should be glad we dinnae.

Cos Frae the warnings above it would seem tha' some on ye would expect us tae run aroond buggering everyone we see, whereas we reserve tha' fer the wee bunnies an' the ships, an' the coos o' course.

How can one tell another how tae live yer life?
Wheer's the sense o' choosin' someone else's wife?
If tha' no' be the choosin' o' a body's heart
Then tha' union shall surely break apart.
We all hear the drummer, but each beat's our ain,
We cannae march in step so why shud we complain
When a' tha' we trail wi' walk a diffr'nt way.
It's oor ain boots tha's awkward, oor ain boots tha' stray.
So tak it frae the Feigle, ye know we must be right
It's no' a body's sex'ality, it's how the buggers fight!

Now let’s look at consent...They have consented to killing themselves, they are taking themselves out of the gene pool and not providing an contribution to society. Would you allow your twenty year old son to kill himself? I sure hope not, even if you are a believer in that persons right and consent to kill himself. Now you might say that " hey that doesn’t' have to do with gay's being married, they're not hurting anyone around them". No, they are just showing to the community that they don't care for its values, that it’s ok to go against it and possibly exposing more people to becoming gay, or to allow it to happen.

This argument simply doesn't make sense. It is not a condition of living in society that one must make babies - it is a free choice that all citizens have. Taking oneself out of the gene pool does not in any way equate to killing oneself.

And if being gay goes against a community's values, then those values are wrong. It is always OK to not care about a society's values if they're based in bigotry and ignorance.

What if being gay is not a choice but a gene that makes a person gay, how is that any different from a mental defect? Schizophrenia is a naturally occurring thing, but you don't see that many people out there trying to say " It's ok! Let it happen! They didn't choose to do it so it must be ok!" What does society do when they find something out of the norm and that is not useful or possibly even detrimental to the person

This is a rather more valid point, leaving aside the wilful offensiveness of comparing homosexuality to mental illness. Assuming for the purposes of this argument that homosexuality is genetic:
The line between mental illness and normal behaviour is extremely difficult to draw, as Booyah suggests. But in the end the only real judgement we can make is how distressing a particular condition is to the sufferer and how dangerous it is to the wider world. The likes of schizophrenia and depression are genuinely distressing illnesses and, although sufferers pose little danger to society - meaning that society has little right to force treatment - most people with these conditions will actively desire treatment.

Homosexuality is not distressing, except inasmuch as coping with ignorance and prejudice can cause severe trauma. It does not in any way hinder one's ability to live a normal life from day to day - except, again, inasmuch as certain societies choose to define a "normal" life as one that involves making babies.

And homosexuality is not damaging to society. The birthrate issue is really a non-issue - no society in history has ever had problems with a falling population thanks to being tolerant of homosexuality. The only "damage" homosexuality could conceivably be seen as causing is that it forces bigoted individuals to confront the fact of their own prejudice.

ELINIA: "Who are you to tell me that?"

A member of the UN, and the delegate of a sovereign nation with the right to express his views on behalf of that nation.

That sufficient for you?

Michel Duval
Speaker for Education

And somebody that is supported by a very large, old nation such as the one I represent that could crush the representative from Elinia's tiny nation in a minute. We would urge that nation to comply with the authority of the United Nations or else resign from the same.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder of the DU Region
Retired UN Delegate
Try me,Son.

I thank Collaboration, East Hackney, Rehochipe, Enodia, The Nac Mac Feigle and others for the latest posts that - in very different ways - renounce Booyah & company's views very neatly. I also particularly wish to show my appreciation for the comment by Lord Evif of Goobergunchia.

Brown-nosing finished.

Booyah - I still disagree with almost all that you say. I'm sorry, but I do not regard religion as a valid grounds for argument.

As for the link you draw between homosexuality and mental illness...steps out of character I have a cousin who is schizophrenic. I've seen how he suffers. Medication that knocks him out for hours, leaving with very little time to be himself. When he's dosed up, he looks at you but he doesn't see you. Then the medication ceases to be effective, the voices return and he is in some form of private hell I cannot comprehend. New medication is prescribed and the cycle rolls on and on. He has to be housed in institutions because he cannot realistically look after himself for an extended period. These institutions are subject to appalling budgetary restrictions. They may even be staffed by evil f*cks who are happy to mess with his head, incite him to violence and get him kicked out. I won't go on, it's not fair on you.

In short, schizophrenia is an affliction that causes great pain to the sufferer and it enrages me that people can trivialise such suffering by comparing it with having a natural sexual preference. How is the latter an affliction, beyond the outrages perpetrated towards the subject by ignorant members of society or society itself?

Booyah, I'm not angry with you and I wouldn't wish you to fee guilty as I know you intended no offence here. I simply implore you to consider your views very carefully. If a the fluttering of a butterfly's wings can cause a storm halfway around the world, how much damage can an ill-judged and prejudicial comment inflict on the subject when they're effectively right beside you?

This hasn't been very coherent, sorry to you all.

ELINIA: "Try me,Son."

I'm angry and not in the mood for pathetic little squits like you. So you're spared another rant.

I can see that the wrong ideas have been taken from my post, and I must confess that it could have been that I was not clear enough. In your second argument you say "To use your argument, we should also be able to prevent heterosexual couples with histories of violence and/or unfaithfulness from marriage, as even though they may be consenting adults, their behavior is immoral (I think we can all safely assume the abuse of a spouse is immoral)." Maybe they shouldn't remarry. Is it not possible that once a person will commit violence that the person could commit it again? I believe that the statistics are that over 50% of people coming from jail who have gone in for a violent crime will repeat a violent crime again. Should we allow them to be given an easy opportunity? Should we allow the further spreading of sex outside the single partner, we do and we do. The former helping to spread domestic violence around the country, the latter to spread such STD's as Aid’s. I happen to know that it is not possible to put this into law as too many people will step up to defend wife beaters and promiscuous lovers. I myself don't think it would even be worth trying to do as trying to implement such a law would be far more effort the it is worth.

Now let’s look at consent. If two people decide that they are wanting to commit suicide, for whatever reason, by shooting each other in the head, what’s to stop them? If one person happens to have a family and is the provider for that family where will that leave them? They have consented to killing themselves, they are taking themselves out of the gene pool and not providing an contribution to society. Would you allow your twenty year old son to kill himself? I sure hope not, even if you are a believer in that persons right and consent to kill himself. Now you might say that " hey that doesn’t' have to do with gay's being married, they're not hurting anyone around them". No, they are just showing to the community that they don't care for its values, that it’s ok to go against it and possibly exposing more people to becoming gay, or to allow it to happen. Ok, so what is it isn't a choice, many say that it is a product of a certain gene. So is Schizophrenia.

What if being gay is not a choice but a gene that makes a person gay, how is that any different from a mental defect? Schizophrenia is a naturally occurring thing, but you don't see that many people out there trying to say " It's ok! Let it happen! They didn't choose to do it so it must be ok!" What does society do when they find something out of the norm and that is not useful or possibly even detrimental to the person (In this case the gene pool is suffering from a lack of these persons, they cant expand the population, ect. ect) In nature it dies out. In society, they try to cure it. Maybe it's not a choice, in fact it probably is not a choice. But just like other mental disorders, we should love them back, try to understand them, but ultimately try to help them come back to the healthy norm. The problem that exists now is that there is no real way to change a person from being gay to straight. But that doesn't mean that we should sit by and let it continue on, we need to try to help them come back into the fold.

Finally it's time to pull out the Bible card. Normally I wouldn't use it as it tends to turn people off to what you are saying but since you did bring in some religious things, I'll have to play suite. First off I'd like to say that Jesus died for all of our sins, I am just as equal of having Christ put to death by the most painful way known to man as a gay is. I however am actively trying to do as he commanded me to. 1 Corinthians 6:16
Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh." While this verse talks directly to men against having sex with more than one woman (As you are only supposed to be in one flesh with only one other) this one can also apply to homosexuals. The man and the women are supposed to be united in marriage, not a man and a man nor a woman and a woman. As I stated earlier, this doesn't make them evil in and of itself, and I am just as wrong in fibbing then they are in being gays, but as I also stated, God wants us to try to stop these things, not to encourage it by giving me money for fibbing or giving gays the right to marry and continue sinning.
-And just remember there is always plenty of... Booyah For All!

The always ready for a good debate yet fairly certain of it's futility nation of Berkylvania would just like to say this about that, but frankly doesn't know exactly where to begin.

Let's dismiss the last paragraph first. Sir, in a multinational body which strives to promote unity, harmony and basic human rights between a vast number of cultures with differing moral, society and theological values, it is NEVER time to "pull out the Bible card." I am tempted to not even address this portion of your commentary. However, as a Quaker from a predominantly Quaker nation, I am sick unto death of having the basic tennants of my religion, the values of love, acceptance and tolerance, painfully twisted and perverted out of all semblence of sanity to suit the narrow minded goal of the latest hate mongering scoundrel to catch the public eye. With that said, I must commend you for not using one of the standard quote that seem to crop up almost endlessly when discussing homosexuality and the Bible. Frankly, though, I don't see how it applies to the case. The quote you supply is translated in most editions to define prostitution. In case you missed it, the resolution concerning that particular situation was debated weeks ago. You go on to claim this means the only time sex is 'sanctified' is in marriage. Well, as no where in the Bible does it explicitly state that marriage is between one man and one woman, I have to assume God is more interested in the concept than in the practicalities. Thus, by allowing homosexuals to marry, you sanctify them and therefore remove any sin. At least, that's as best as I can piece together from your meandering and swiss cheesed logic. And why is anyone giving you money for fibbing? Where is this coming from? What, exactly, is your point?

Additionally, who are you to judge God's creation and his intent? If God is indeed all powerful and the master of all creation, does it not stand to reason that he created homosexuals? All in all, sir, you take far too much on yourself. Perhaps you should reread the passages in the edition of your choice concerning motes and planks in eyes and such.

Now, how dare you compare homosexuality to schizophrenia? This statement alone shows your profound lack of understanding both on a human level and on a biological level. Homosexuality is a realization by a concious, critically thinking, rational adult (just as heterosexuality is) whereas schizophrenia is a condition resulting from chemical imbalances in the brain and it's victims must face a nightmarish existance of not being able to trust their own perceptions of reality. To make such an outlandish request is to not only cause your own sense of rationality to be called into question, but is to actively insult both homosexuals and people living with schizophrenia. Furthermore, you exhibit a stunning lack of knowledge of biological processes. Gene pools do not operate on individuals, but on populations. To say something is "not normal" because it does not propogate the species is to miss this fundamental point of biology. Red hair is "not normal," but it doesn't mean that it is a biological dead end. In actuallity, homosexuals are fully capable of having offspring. There is nothing categorically wrong with their sperm or ovum that might prohibit them, as a subpopulation, from fertilizing an egg or carrying a child to term. In fact, gay men and women frequently have children. We are talking, however, about who people choose to make their life with, who they are sexually attracted to and do they have the same right, as human beings, to act on their biological and environmental impulses as every other human being.

Furthermore, even if you define "natural" as "occuring in nature", then homosexuality is a completely natural occurance as we are not the only species to display it. We are, however, the only speicies to turn on our own because of it. Consider that during your religious meditations.

Additionally, homosexuality has not been defined as a 'mental illness' for a long time. Therefore your idea of society 'curing' homosexuality is outdated and preposterous.

None of these arguments, however, address the basic fundamental question that, regardless of one's personal feelings about the 'sinfulness' or the 'rightness' of homosexuality, is it morally acceptable to deny a rational minority of human beings the same basic rights that are shared by the majority? This question has been repeatedly posed throughout history. Many different answers have been given. One such answer caused a lot of innocent Christians to be thrown to the lions. So, perhaps, before we smugly sit back and claim to know God's will and 'bring homosexuals back into the fold' while dehumanizing them and denying them access to an institution that we heterosexuals don't even seem to take all that seriously anymore, we should be damn sure of our answer because we will have to live with it and, one day, it may come back to haunt us.

I am looking for support of my proposal to ban same sex marriage. Please search the proposals for "Same-Sex Marriage" and my proposal should be the first one to show up. I make some intersting points in the proposal, so please do not shrug this off without reading my argument.

Here is the proposal:

Same-Sex Marriage
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency Strength: Strong Proposed by: Viesaire

Description: What if we were to start cloning humans? There would be no need for women or men, everyone could be gay. I believe that Same-Sex Marriages should be outlawed and current Same-Sex marriages should be broken up. It is important to teach our children about science, and the natural way of things. Homosexuality is man-made and continues to grow as gays influence and corrupt the innocent minds of our children to think it is normal to be gay. Do you want your children to be gay?

I also propose that psychological institutions be implemented to help gays overcome their mental problems which make them think that being gay is normal.

K first of all, this is proposal clearly infringes on national sovereignty, u cant just put in a proposal just cause ur country doesnt like it.

if u as a nation dont want gay marriage, fine, do whatever the hell u want

we at Estebanotopia give freedom to all to do whatever they want, as long as it doesnt hurt anyone.

obviously, gay folks getting married doesnt hurt anyone, so it is legal.

Also, being gay is NOT a choice, it is biological as well as a pyscological function that cannot be changed because it is predisposed.

Elinia, trying to box above your weight is a sure-fire example of "how to lose friends and infuriate people". I suggest you reconsider before trying again.

Even though I may not think that same-sex marriage is right, it doesn't mean that ALL people shouldn't have the right to live the way they choose. I support EQUALITY, not segregation and discrimination.

So in this case, who needs to be hedorosexual.
That would be heterosexual.

all i have to say about this is to correct those who consider themselfes Catholic and gay or support or have the live and let live idea.

The church teaches us in the two following documents:
1)ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
and
2)NON-DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
that these people who are born with the problem you cannot discriminate against nor can you support their actiions at all. In fact you must speak out against these actions. you are not allowed to hate homosexuals but you can hate the sin.

IN the Document
DECLARATION ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS CONCERNING SEXUAL ETHICS

it states to us in part 8 (2nd paragraph)

VIII

At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people
A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between (1)homosexuals whose tendancy comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is intansitoryor at least not incurable; (2)and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of inate instinct or a pathological constitution that is judged to be incurable.
In regard to the second catagory of subjects, some people conclude that their tendancy is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations witha sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in sofar as such homosexuals incapapl of induring solitary life.
In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.[18] This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of."


In scipture in the following passages it either condemns homosexuality or shows its evils
genesis- 19:1-11
leviticus- 18:22
leviticus- 20:13
1 corinthians- 6:9
romans- 1:18-32

this is only for catholics, so please everyone else no offense i am showing what the truths of my religion are please do not discriminate.

Genesis 19:1-11

1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
9 "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is abomination.

leviticus 20:13
if a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

1 corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals

romans 1:18-32
The wrath 13 of God 14 is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness.
19
For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them.
20
Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;
21
for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.
22
While claiming to be wise, they became fools
23
and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.
24
Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts 15 for the mutual degradation of their bodies.
25
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26
Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27
and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.
28
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.
29
They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips
30
and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents.
31
They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32
Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

First off, marriage is a religous union between man and a woman. Gays have no right to get married. First off, they obviously dont believe in following the bible to begin with in regards to their sexuallity, so why should they even try to get married. It perplexes me. Dont even tell me they are born that way or they couldnt help it. Thats like saying I couldnt help cheating on my wife, or I couldnt help stabbing that person. To not be able to control your thoughts or actions, is to not be a member a sentient race. Sentient peoples control their thoughts and actions, its true you can be influenced, but that does not dictate your actions.

First off, marriage is a religous union between man and a woman. Gays have no right to get married. First off, they obviously dont believe in following the bible to begin with in regards to their sexuallity, so why should they even try to get married. It perplexes me. Dont even tell me they are born that way or they couldnt help it. Thats like saying I couldnt help cheating on my wife, or I couldnt help stabbing that person. To not be able to control your thoughts or actions, is to not be a member a sentient race. Sentient peoples control their thoughts and actions, its true you can be influenced, but that does not dictate your actions.

i agree with you to a point. Some people are born with this perversness but they are are called to live a chaste life while other homos are formed by other factors and may be cured. But what it comes down to is doing what is aright and controlling ur emotions

Thank you. In my personal opion homos should be killed to keep from spreading the disease. Same as AIDS invected individuals. Or at least make them live on reservations. Like American indians, even though i dont think we should have did that to them

Thank you. In my personal opion homos should be killed to keep from spreading the disease. Same as AIDS invected individuals. Or at least make them live on reservations. Like American indians, even though i dont think we should have did that to themone thing that annoys me about aids is people refuse to acknowledge it is spread by homosexuality. other people say it come froma monkey but was then transfeered by homo's. rather than attacking the disease we should attack the problem by trying to convince homosexuals that their beliefes are perversness and not rigth. but we cannot hate then we can hate their actions

The disease actually came from some african primate, thats why the biggest aids problem is in africa

First off, I'd like to apologize to anyone I've offended on the Schizophrenia issue. Specifically to Ecopoeia even through he said that I am forgiven. I was not meaning to cause harm to people through my post, merely to emphasize a point.

As to my 'pulling of the Bible Card" I did so because you decided to bring in religion into the argument yourself when you started talking about Jesus’ love, so please don't blame me for something that you did as well.
Also as to you criticizing my using religion be stating "in a multinational body which strives to promote unity, harmony and basic human rights between a vast number of cultures with differing moral, society and theological values, it is NEVER time to "pull out the Bible card." I am tempted to not even address this portion of your commentary. However, as a Quaker from a predominantly Quaker nation, I am sick unto death of having the basic foundations of my religion, the values of love, acceptance and tolerance, painfully twisted and perverted out of all semblance of sanity to suit the narrow minded goal of the latest hate mongering scoundrel to catch the public eye." To say that we shouldn't bring religion into an argument, and then say things about your Quaker values seems a tad bit hypocritical, and that's nothing to say about your possible lack of faith? If you are willing to live by your values and then say well they don't apply to other people, why bother following through in your values in the first place? If you start to concede that others should do differently, then you are admitting the possibility that they are wrong. A definition of value is "A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable".
Why judge others on a different standard then you judge yourself on?

To my comparison of being gay to a mental disease. How are I? How dare I allow most peoples argument that it is caused by a gene that cannot be prevented come into my argument? I am the one who should be mad with you getting pissed off at my religion yet still holding up yours. What kind of bigotry is that? Why is it so difficult to think of a gene that causes something out of the ordinary, that brings little or no value to the person or the community (or at least nothing that cannot be duplicated by others) as a mental disease? It is not that hard to do so, and therefore I will use t in my argument.

For further argument based on religion, I would like to refer you to the posts by Of portugal, as I believe he makes a clear case for it if you are willing to accept religion ( I am refering to his first two posts on this page as I don't believe we should put them on reservations and such)For those not willing, there is little one can actually do to sway you. You are set in your ways and either will accept the truth or not.
-And just remember that there is always more... Booyah For All!

Thank you. In my personal opion homos should be killed to keep from spreading the disease. Same as AIDS invected individuals. Or at least make them live on reservations. Like American indians, even though i dont think we should have did that to them

Don't worry, mommy will make them go away soon.

Thank you. In my personal opion homos should be killed to keep from spreading the disease. Same as AIDS invected individuals. Or at least make them live on reservations. Like American indians, even though i dont think we should have did that to them

Don't worry, mommy will make them go away soon.

what?

one thing that annoys me about aids is people refuse to acknowledge it is spread by homosexuality.

Please explain to me how aids is spread by homosexuality (that is, homosexuality itself, and not homosexual acts) any more than it is spread by heterosexuality.

Thank you. In my personal opion homos should be killed to keep from spreading the disease. Same as AIDS invected individuals. Or at least make them live on reservations. Like American indians, even though i dont think we should have did that to them

Don't worry, mommy will make them go away soon.

what?

*pats of portugal on the head*

one thing that annoys me about aids is people refuse to acknowledge it is spread by homosexuality.

Please explain to me how aids is spread by homosexuality (that is, homosexuality itself, and not homosexual acts) any more than it is spread by heterosexuality.

I am sorry i misworded that homosexual acts

AIDS is spread by sexual acts - homosexual and heterosxual.

aids originally came from beastiality. some african dude porked a monkey or gorilla or something similar.


By the way add input to my forum on the poll im going to write a proposal based on the poll outcome.

First off, marriage is a religous union between man and a woman. Gays have no right to get married. First off, they obviously dont believe in following the bible to begin with in regards to their sexuallity, so why should they even try to get married.
Because, for better or worse, modern society attaches a whole series of legal benefits to those in married relationships - and, to a lesser extent, heterosexual de facto relationships.
If my father were to die intestate (as opposed to "interstate", as a lot of young law students try to argue), then my mother would automatically be next-of-kin. Likewise if my aunt died intestate, her de facto would inherit. If, however, a friend of mine were to die, his partner would not inherit because the law prevents it. If, however, the law were to allow them to marry, then they would be treated in the same way as the first two examples (in theory, social prejudice would be another issue).

Regarding your other point, there are many things which people cannot "choose to do". Did you "choose to be heterosexual"? Well, by your argument (as far as I can follow it), you are demonstrating the mindset of a non-sentient race. Of course, it's tempting to argue that you're doing so anyway, but that's another story.

By the way add input to my forum on the poll im going to write a proposal based on the poll outcome.

it has to do with redefining gay unions add input.

also i hate the thought of two gays marrying

aids originally came from beastiality. some african dude porked a monkey or gorilla or something similar.
Not last I heard, although you might have more up-to-date information than I do. Everything I've been told on the matter indicates that it was an animal-based disease which crossed the species barrier - much like SARS and bird flu are expected to do/have done.
When I say "crossed the species barrier", I mean it in a much more innocuous way that bestiality.

okay youre partially right. but aids is an STD remember how does it get transfered through sex maybe. if monkeys had it and it transferred to humans how do you think humans got it, not through blood transfusion i hope.(blood on the outside of your skin will not spread aids, by the time it touches air its dead, unless god forbid it mutates)

I am sorry, in this case I cannot side with Booyah for all or bearklyville, YOU CAN'T USE RELIGON!!!!!!!!! You can't say it was god sword and what not. Me being a extrem athiest, I don't see any argument of religon valid. Many religons differ, thus you cannot use religon. Even if we were all uning one same exact bible, everyone interperts it differently. So please cut the bible/religon talk!
Though, each of your witing is spectacular and wish you to continue this debate, thanks.

marriage in itself is a religous ceremony therefore athiest should not even believe in its sanctity if they are in fact athiest


Man I am so good sometimes

marriage in itself is a religous ceremony therefore athiest should not even believe in its sanctity if they are in fact athiest


Man I am so good sometimes
OK, so where exactly would you draw the line? If I said, "Ukroatia, we have here a devout Christian couple, a Jewish couple, a Muslim couple, a Buddhist couple, an atheist couple and a homosexual couple of any religious persuasion", which would you allow to be married and why?

Regarding AIDS, just because it's transmitted sexually in humans doesn't necessarily mean that it had to cross the species barrier in that way.

marriage in itself is a religous ceremony therefore athiest should not even believe in its sanctity if they are in fact athiest


Man I am so good sometimes
OK, so where exactly would you draw the line? If I said, "Ukroatia, we have here a devout Christian couple, a Jewish couple, a Muslim couple, a Buddhist couple, an atheist couple and a homosexual couple of any religious persuasion", which would you allow to be married and why?

Regarding AIDS, just because it's transmitted sexually in humans doesn't necessarily mean that it had to cross the species barrier in that way.

A marriage is never truely valid unless the true God is brought into it. Also marriage was instituted by God and therefore is ablove the laws of man and for man to change it is outside his jurisdiction

And which God instituted marriage? YHWH? Allah? Vishnu? Osiris? Zeus? Quetzalcoatl?

And which God instituted marriage? YHWH? Allah? Vishnu? Osiris? Zeus? Quetzalcoatl?

Which God? God of the Jews and Christians the one true God.

okay, different religons believe in different unions christianty marriage islam marriage buddism none muslim marriage athiest shouldnt believe in any holy matriomony to them holy union shouldnt matter but most are hypocrites, well, i shouldnt say that most of everyone from every religon are hypocrites. but theres also people like me. i was raised believing in jesus christ god and sanctity of marriage. i am by no way a jesus or god freak by any means. just if you form in union call what it should be called and frankly gays cannot by the very definition of it get married. oh and i always put judaism under christianity cuz they believe in christ but they just dont think hes arrived yet. unless they are messianic but in that case they just want to say all the cool crazy jew words and still get to wear a WWJD bracelet

By the way add input to my forum on the poll im going to write a proposal based on the poll outcome.

it has to do with redefining gay unions add input.

also i hate the thought of two gays marrying

Ha, I hate the thought of you marrying and producing like minded off-spring, but last I checked I think I can restrain my desire to jump up and down and scream at people to prevent 'lest we all burn in heck or some similar t-wollop. Maybe there's something in my water, who knows what leads to these out-bursts of sanity which prevail upon me...

- The Rep of Komokom

And which God instituted marriage? YHWH? Allah? Vishnu? Osiris? Zeus? Quetzalcoatl?

Which God? God of the Jews and Christians the one true God.

* Picks up U.N. lobby phone,

"Oh great... Security we have some man in the U.N. lobby babbling at us in tongues... Yes, well, you'd better be down here and him gotten gone before he starts with the "end is nigh" cr*p..."

- The Rep of Komokom

you really have no sense do you

And which God instituted marriage? YHWH? Allah? Vishnu? Osiris? Zeus? Quetzalcoatl?

Which God? God of the Jews and Christians the one true God.
I'll remember to tell my devout Buddhist friends that on Monday morning when I see them. "Sorry you two, but you're not actually going to be married as such..."

i didnt know buddhists were allowed to marry, oh well i guess i dont know enough about asian religon. thats cool though. i would like to see a buddhist wedding

i didnt know buddhists were allowed to marry, oh well i guess i dont know enough about asian religon. thats cool though. i would like to see a buddhist wedding
All religions have marriage. Some have it many times for the one couple or the one person.

okay Zen buddhists do not have marriage in their religion. i have to disagree with you there. i dont know alot about asian religons but i know that. buddhists main goal in life in obtain spiritual enlightenment like buddha. and they believe sex and relationships and such get in the way so they vow not neccessarily celebacy but to cut that out of their lives because it is an obstacle to enlightenment. which it is. you cant obtain enlightenment if you have someone yelling at you to change the baby or to take out the trash. it doesnt work. if you have a friend buddhist who is getting married i say he isnt a buddhist.

just like my other argument earlier. If you are the US army you do not call yourself a devildog, leatherneck, etc. Only a US Marine can do that

I don't know enough about Buddhism or the army to argue with either point. So how's about we leave it there? Not to sound anti-social or anything, but I'm heading out into town to get rather drunk tonight and I don't want people asking me questions while I'm out.

Hmmm, trying mixing drinks Enodia, it worked for me last night...

... Also, trying drinking at least three glasses of water before passing out, if you can... stops, or at least lowers, the hang-over kill factor...

- The Rep of Komokom

And which God instituted marriage? YHWH? Allah? Vishnu? Osiris? Zeus? Quetzalcoatl?

Which God? God of the Jews and Christians the one true God.

That's what you say.

And which God instituted marriage? YHWH? Allah? Vishnu? Osiris? Zeus? Quetzalcoatl?

Which God? God of the Jews and Christians the one true God.

That's what you say.

Yes, that is what he says, now if we actually listen...

No, we don't, do we, carry on !

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom

two people can have a committment without being married. marriage is really only relevant for tax purposes.

personally, i like gays. they taste like chicken.

hi don i love you

Ha, I laugh at your idiotic thought to have mental institutions to "help gays overcome" the "problem" that they're normal. Whoever can do whatever they want where it comes to marriage.

you have my complete support.

Enh. If it doesn't work for Buddhists, substitute the same argument with Hindus - a religion immensely more ancient than Christianity that has marriage as a pretty rigid institution.

My thoughts on the subject are fairly simple for the US.

If you believe:

* We are a country of laws.
* There should be a separation of church and state.
* We do not want the government involved in social engineering.

You can not believe that the government should recognize "Mamage".

Marriage is a religious ceremony, in most religions between a man and a women, though we know that there are a number of religions that allow multiple wives. Since marriage is a religious ceremony, the government should not be involved.

Since we are a country of laws, the relationship between two people should only be defined in a contract between two people. Note: the law does not contracts between people under 18, and with non humans, except corporations. Instead of having the government recognizing "Marriage", the government should recognize contracts between people.

This accomplishes many things.

* I would think that it may actually form better family units. Most
people would think twice before they would commit to what the
legalities of a contract are before they enter into one. As it is now
you are entering into a blind contract, that could change simply by
living in another state.

* Marriage as it is used is a lifetime contract. If you signed a time
limited contract people might be able to meet the responsiblities
of the contract. Hey if you only have a 20 year contract, and
decide after 15 years you want out...it is already determined
that the contract will expire and how the assests will be handled.
It's more likely the contract will be fullfilled and be a lot less
messy than our current divorce methods.

* The sanctity of marriage is preserved within the religion, as
defined by that religion. If a religion believes that marriage
should only between one man and one women, then that is what
it is. The government should not be involved.

* If the citizens want to limit contracts, the laws to do so can be
legislated in an approprite forum.


Please comment. I like a good debate.

Larry's World

Not a bad write up for a first post, but still, it needs some corrections.
First off, the government does use "social engineering." It comes in the form of welfare, taxes, business regulations, the very laws that govern our country could be construed as social engineering. They set up and limit what we as a society can do, as well as putting together a list of values that the majority of the population can agree upon.

Secondly, the government has already stepped into the area of getting involved in marriage. By redoing the taxes for the couple, and possibly eventual family, they are already "regulating" marriage through very slightly (it's, I believe better for tax purposes to be married than it is to not be).

While I am sure that most of you people are sick of hearing it, I will bring out the use of religion anyways, as popular opinion is needed to get through any law. Since most of America is considered Christian, and since a large voting bloc would probably disapprove setting up marriage as a business for contracts of less than a lifetime (and don't even try to talk to Catholics about it) it would not get through the legislative bodies to be passed.

Thirdly, the government is involved in religion to an extent. To use your argument, anyone could create a religion for himself, just to allow their form of marriage to be allowed. This sets up a domino effect as well. If people are exempt from government regulation for marriages (while the government does not regulate marriage yet, they are working on it with that new amendment), then it would allow them more loopholes to be able to pass through the law (for instance a corporation might declare itself a religion, thus evading taxes, bad example but you get the idea).

On a final not, I have absolutely no idea what "Mamage" is. I'm going to assume that it means marriage, and it would help if you would use spell check before you submit a proposal.
-And just remember, there is always more... Booyah For All!

you have my complete support.

You have my complete distaste for your opinions, and yourself, I don't see how some jumped up little individual like you thinks they can support anything while sending me death threat telegrams for voicing my liberal opinions. And that, as they say, is that.

- The Rep of Komokom.

And which God instituted marriage? YHWH? Allah? Vishnu? Osiris? Zeus? Quetzalcoatl?

Which God? God of the Jews and Christians the one true God.

Hey, He is also the God of Islam

And which God instituted marriage? YHWH? Allah? Vishnu? Osiris? Zeus? Quetzalcoatl?

Which God? God of the Jews and Christians the one true God.

Hey, He is also the God of Islam

Yes, same story, different writters... :wink:

Plus very well written, I've never seen other fictional texts with such huge followings...

(Ducks and covers) :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom

And which God instituted marriage? YHWH? Allah? Vishnu? Osiris? Zeus? Quetzalcoatl?

Which God? God of the Jews and Christians the one true God.

Hey, He is also the God of Islam
True, but for the purposes of a debate such as this, it is sometimes necessary to ignore violently obvious facts in order to prevent an unfair advantage being gained by one side over the other.

This has been a highly sarcastic post

In my own personal opinion, I think every 'Main God' ever worshipped is the one true god. Yahweh, Allah, Odin, Zeus, even Quetzalcoatl.

In my own personal opinion, I think every 'Main God' ever worshipped is the one true god. Yahweh, Allah, Odin, Zeus, even Quetzalcoatl.

Quetzalcoatl ? , the Feathered Serpent, right? Always sounds like some kind of cock-tail or other alchoholic beverage to me... :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom

Ever read the mormons version of the bible i can think of the name of it off hand, but jesus was in the region around the time of the aztecs. ohh, duh its the book of mormon.

Ever read the mormons version of the bible i can think of the name of it off hand, but jesus was in the region around the time of the aztecs. ohh, duh its the book of mormon.

Mormons? Heh heh heh, where?

Me : (Open door)

Mormons (both) : "We're here to talk about jesus!"

Me : "Why, do come in ! , get comfy, care for a cookie?"

Mormon 1 : "No one ever says that ! "

Mormon 2 : "Argh, its a trap, it must be, run ! "

Mormons (both) : (Running Away)

Me : "Heh heh heh" (Stamps two more figures onto a wall plaque)

- The Rep of Komokom. :wink:

that was pretty good :lol:

I am good for a goodie one on occasion, though really I must blame my flu meds in this case... :wink:

I am off to lay down...

- The Rep of Komokom

My favourite Mormon story runs like this:

SCENE: A street in the Zoo district of Berlin. My family, very tired from an overnight train trip from Paris, is trying to find our hotel.

Dad: Those two gentlemen up there might be able to help us.
Me: I wouldn't be so sure, dad, they're speaking with American accents and look like Mormon missionaries.
Dad: Nonetheless. (in halting German) Do you know where this hotel is?
First Mormon: Sorry, we've just arrived here from Utah ourselves.
Second Mormon: Hopefully you'll find it soon enough, though, you guys look terrible.
Dad: Yeah, just got off the train from Paris.
Me: But a nice cup of coffee should sort us out.
(Mormons exchange horrified glances and run off)

:lol:

:lol:

Aparently, a good friend of my mums told her that one afternoon, in the middle of summer, her husband, while washing their new Jeep, saw two of them coming their drive-way, the lenght of which meant he could dash inside quickly...

Now, being summer, he was only wearing a ratty old pair of board-shorts...

So, when the two mormons rang the door bell, seemingly not noticing the still running garden hose laying alone on the lawn, were met by the sight of ths bloke, with his boardies on...

Albeit on his head.

He just managed to smile brightly and say "hello, can I help y-"

According to this bloke, mormons never moved as quick as that before...

- The Rep of Komokom.

That should work to get rid of any kind of door-to-door people, regardless of their agenda.

For some reason it's giving me flashbacks to Space Quest 2 and the army of cloned door-to-door salesmen that Roger Wilco has to prevent from being launched.

I've gone around as a Satanist missionary to Mormon houses :twisted:

*Ding Dong*

my outfit: black short-sleeved shirt with a red tie. Carrying a copy of the The Satanic Bible.

*door opens, a guy, I'd guess early 20's answers cheerily*

ME: Hi, I'm from the Church of Satan. Have you accepted the Dark Lord as your procurer of all bodily desires?

*his face moves from optimism on the word Church, to utter shock at Satan, and I see the door close on my face as I say desires.*

ME: Wait, don't you wan't to hear about the orgies?

fin

my outfit: black short-sleeved shirt with a red tie. Carrying a copy of the The Satanic Bible.
Love the outfit.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Now I think of it, a friend of mine turned up to another friends fancy dress party out on their property dressed as a Mormon,

Now, as soon as the second friend opened the door, all they took in was the pants, shirt, tie an book. Door slams. Friend-as-mormon only got in cause he spent the next 2 minutes knocking loudly then shouting loudly.

- The Rep of Komokom

It might be a joke that only Aussies can get, but that Full Frontal sketch where Eric Bana's "Mormon family" is disturbed by door-to-door people who want to talk about AFL is an utter classic.

It might be a joke that only Aussies can get...about AFL ....

Ayupper.

Wha's AFL?

Not American Federation of Labor,

nor the league which Joe Namath led over the NFL,

so: Australian-rules Football League? What's so scary, officals in raincoats?

AFL (in Australian terms, at least) = Australian Football League

The sketch was playing on the fact that, in the southern states, it's practically a religion. One with a lot larger following than the established churches.

The ! CHURCHES ! ARE ESTABLISHED ! HERE ! ... ? NOW ?

Meeep. I must flee to a new godless heathen land where I may spread my liberal views with no resistance...

Damn John Howard educating the (private) school masses with the over budgetting of funds to them (The damn private schools naturally), so they may teach ethics better to kiddies...

(And damn my public school educationg for teaching me ethics too, damn niggling doubts about my evil plans....)

:wink:

Hmmm, this travel brochure seems nice, do you all think I should try for Haiti... ? ? ?

Its meant to be so calm and scenic this time of year... :)

- The Rep of Komokom, micky-ing the take out of posts at characters fifty...

(Falls asleep/coma over key-board... maybe glass'o'wine with dinner and flu meds not good mix? :wink: )

:)

Komokom, mate, get some rest.

Would, should,

But, perversely I am now wide awake, and this is the part of today I dedicate almost daily to having my two Komok Kredits on forum. That and I did not pass, out, really... my head hit the key-board, yes, but I was awake to felel it... Go figure... :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

"The Wee Free Men o' the Nac Mac Feigle would like to make their position clear on the subject o' Same Sex Marriage. We, aftae due consideration, feel that we cannot, in all honesty support sich a notion. We feel that a lack of variety in the sexual act can be nought but a handicap to onny marriage."

"We further feel that it not the place of Government tae interfere in what happens in the bedroom o' onny couple, and to do so would be a gross invasion of privacy o' the individual"

Taller than Hamish but no' as Broad as Hamish Hamish
Deputy Envoy tae the UN

First off, I'd like to apologize to anyone I've offended on the Schizophrenia issue. Specifically to Ecopoeia even through he said that I am forgiven. I was not meaning to cause harm to people through my post, merely to emphasize a point.

As to my 'pulling of the Bible Card" I did so because you decided to bring in religion into the argument yourself when you started talking about Jesus’ love, so please don't blame me for something that you did as well.
Also as to you criticizing my using religion be stating "in a multinational body which strives to promote unity, harmony and basic human rights between a vast number of cultures with differing moral, society and theological values, it is NEVER time to "pull out the Bible card." I am tempted to not even address this portion of your commentary. However, as a Quaker from a predominantly Quaker nation, I am sick unto death of having the basic foundations of my religion, the values of love, acceptance and tolerance, painfully twisted and perverted out of all semblance of sanity to suit the narrow minded goal of the latest hate mongering scoundrel to catch the public eye." To say that we shouldn't bring religion into an argument, and then say things about your Quaker values seems a tad bit hypocritical, and that's nothing to say about your possible lack of faith? If you are willing to live by your values and then say well they don't apply to other people, why bother following through in your values in the first place? If you start to concede that others should do differently, then you are admitting the possibility that they are wrong. A definition of value is "A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable".
Why judge others on a different standard then you judge yourself on?

To my comparison of being gay to a mental disease. How are I? How dare I allow most peoples argument that it is caused by a gene that cannot be prevented come into my argument? I am the one who should be mad with you getting pissed off at my religion yet still holding up yours. What kind of bigotry is that? Why is it so difficult to think of a gene that causes something out of the ordinary, that brings little or no value to the person or the community (or at least nothing that cannot be duplicated by others) as a mental disease? It is not that hard to do so, and therefore I will use t in my argument.

For further argument based on religion, I would like to refer you to the posts by Of portugal, as I believe he makes a clear case for it if you are willing to accept religion ( I am refering to his first two posts on this page as I don't believe we should put them on reservations and such)For those not willing, there is little one can actually do to sway you. You are set in your ways and either will accept the truth or not.
-And just remember that there is always more... Booyah For All!

The always hopeful yet grimly realistic nation of Berkylvania is beginning to think you're a bit touched.

I only brought up religion in response to your initial post and your use of your faith as a justification for discrimination. However, so as to not get into a "He started it" childish discussion, I'll allow your point and apologize to any nations I may have offended by trying to show a judeo-christian religion in a positive, loving, affirming light.

I feel I must address your questioning of my religious practice, though, if only to clairify a point. To answer your question, yes, I may be wrong. I have faith that I am right, but until I stand before the throne of God and the Grand Old Man himself says, "Good job, Son, you were right," I must at least admit the possibility that I am wrong. However, that possibility is less of a flaw and more of a window to see, experience and rejoice in the multitude of other belief systems present in our diverse and growing world. I'll offer you another answer. One of the tenants of my religion is that one's experience of God is a deeply personal journey, both through inward reflection and outward action. Out of respect for that journey, I can not in good faith force my religious convictions on others. Sometimes standing up for your convictions means walking with those that believe differently and celebrating that difference. It is the weak faith, the never tested faith, that fears other beliefs and attempts to subjugate and exterminate them. The strong faith can marvel at the myriad expressions of God in the world around them and joyfully embrace the beliefs and experience of others as a reflection of a greater whole without feeling threatened. Why bother following through with my values? Quite simply, because they are mine. I have labored long and hard and searched both deep into my soul as well as in the world around me to find out what I believe to be right. I have questioned, doubted, tested and finally come to a point where I have heard the quite voice of God inside me. Those values that I hold dear and mine by right of the suffering and questing I had to do to find them in the first place. Regardless of what others may or may not do, I will live my life by the values I determine to be important. That, sir, the simple act of living for what you believe in a world where others may revile or scoff at you, is true strength. If you must force your beliefs on others to bring them in line so there is no questioning, no growth, no change, then you have a fragile, brittle faith that is doomed to splinter and break. Never mistake tolerance for weakness or peacefulness for lack of courage.

I've seen Of Portugal's quotes many times before and still remain unconvinced. The Bible also supports slavery and murdering errant children while condemning wearing blended fiber the the eating of shellfish as sins. The danger of the Bible, and the whole reason for the New Testiment, is getting caught up in the law and missing the spirit.

You had a paragraph I assume asking me how I could be offended that you would compare homosexuality to a clinical mental disorder. Frankly, I didn't understand what your specific point was because of bad grammer, so I shall not address this paragraph.

Ultimately, you have answered none of my questions, provided no rational, reasoned argument to stand in the way of legalized homosexual marriage and not posed any new questions. Therefore, I assume we have reached an impass and are unable to resolve our differences. These debates are, of course, moot points as homosexual marriage has already been approved by previous passage of several UN resolutions.

The Wee Free Men o' the Nac Mac Feigle cannot but have deep respect for the Apparently Shallow, but Deeply Ethical Nation of Berkylvania.

"Honour is the giftie a Man gi'es himsel'"

Ye are obviously a generous giver!

We doff oor bonnets tae ye an' drink yer health.

An Egg! Yes! There...I said it.

An Egg! Yes! There...I said it.

just to stay on topic for a bit ( :wink: ), the people of La Smoog would hereby like to declare our support of gay marriage. We feel that it should be a basic human right to have the freedom to love whomever you may choose to love, and not receive discrimation upon this, either over ethnicity, religion or gender.

Or like Lenny Kravitz would say; we've gotta let love rule 8)

just to stay on topic for a bit ( :wink: ), the people of La Smoog would hereby like to declare our support of gay marriage. We feel that it should be a basic human right to have the freedom to love whomever you may choose to love, and not receive discrimation upon this, either over ethnicity, religion or gender.

Or like Lenny Kravitz would say; we've gotta let love rule 8)

Hurrah ! ! !

And, for goooood measure, !

"Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?"

- Ernest Gaines.

- The Rep of Komokom.

the porn industry would die!!! whats wrong with it? people should be free to do what they like. cloning humans should be banned. sex is not only fun, its important to keep genetic diversity alive and well. unlike the royal family who have inbred so much there all village idiots.

"What is tolerance? It is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's folly - that is the first law of nature."

- Voltaire.

- The Rep of Komokom.

I am going to ignore Walnut Tree, quite frankly I see no import to this debate when one brings up the British Royal Family...

Oh, now I think of it, the queen of england IS the "defender of the faith" ... Heh heh heh. :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.