NationStates Jolt Archive

Ahem,

So, as some in the U.N. community may have noticed,

I, The Rep of Komokom,

Have been some what of an advocate for the idea of equal rights for homosexuals, and, oh yeah, making everybody just shut the hell up about the "sanctity of marriage" issue, as there is already an U.N. resolution passed which protects gay rights, and, oh yeah, recognises gay marriage in all member nations, :wink:

Therefore, I would like to say, :)

If you are in the U.N. then low and behold. :D

Under international law, I would assume your country must allow gay marriage, no matter what you or country says, its too late, its there, its legal, and the unique system of N.S. and its U.N. means say what you will, its legal for homosexuals to engage in MARRIAGE (Amoung other things? :wink: ) in your country.

So, either shut up, or leave the U.N. :twisted:

Oh, and don't even think of trying to pass a bill declaring marriage being between one man and one woman only, as I will make sure it is shot down as it would conflict with the equal rights to homosexuals or what-ever bill, which is a no no I think. :)

And at he end of the day, I will using nothing but my teeth if need be to protect passed legislation from the crazed sheep of the U.N... :D

With respects, :wink:

The Rep of Komokom.

(Now plugging his ears against the predicted torrent of abuse by the screaming conservatibves/bible bashers, eh, their all the same...) :roll:

I totally agree with you here, lets stop the bible bashers! :wink:

I should probably clarify on that! :wink:

When "I" say "bible bashers" I am basically refering to any person or persons of any "faith" or "belief" or "religion" or what-ever who uses their particular pre-mentioned wordies (Or simply put, "religious ideology")As some kind of generalised ALL PURPOSE (tm)

"Why I am very very very right (-eous pain in the buttocks more like...) and you are so very much wrong and as such I will have a word with god (Or generic other worshiped diety) to make sure you burn in hell you heathen b*tard!"

, Argument. Which, ignoring the fact I am athiest, pisses me off becuase its so p*ss-weak and annoyingly vague. You know, like,

"My religion says your all evil, which must be true, so I am going to ignore all other issues or evidence to the contrary"

And to others like me, do not laugh at this, think about it, there always seems to be a hell of alot of these jerks running about the forums...

Now don't get me wrong, I've nothing against your religion, usually, its just certain people... Anyway, please read my initial post to re-aquaint yourself with the debate at hand.

Just thought I say this, you know, before *I* get bible bashed, literally!

The Rep of Komokom.

P.S., thank *you* for the support. It nice to see my first reply being so positive. I guess the opposition has not used their prayer power to inform their sacred brethren of the heathen in the forums yet... :wink:

Fair Enough, I knew what you ment anyways!!!!! ( i think ) :D

i passed the law allowing gay marriages before i even joined the UN :D

i passed the law allowing gay marriages before i even joined the UN :D But here is the question are you gay science this so important to you and your country I am going to disagree i do not want a country full of homosexuals I talk to the UN about this situtation and you will BE HEARING FROM SEPHTORIA :twisted:

Basically I think that if somebody religion says don’t be gay then they shouldn’t be gay but they can’t stop other people from being so. It would be nice to align our laws to the One True Religion but nobody can prove what that is.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Back New World

i passed the law allowing gay marriages before i even joined the UN :D But here is the question are you gay science this so important to you and your country I am going to disagree i do not want a country full of homosexuals I talk to the UN about this situtation and you will BE HEARING FROM SEPHTORIA :twisted:

Before I am off to bed, I would say its more the importance of equality for all people rather then making a country full of gay people as I think you were trying to say, I mean, what, we come up with an valid argument and you automatically acuse us all of being gay? Jeeez, forget my "bible bashers", its ignorant pains in the (censored) like you who cause people stress.

Earth full, go home.

The Rep of Komokom (Yawn)

yay for gay marriage! now onward towards women's rights... :D

Earth full, go home.

lmao, classic, like your style!

Kelly

Hehehe, And like many UN resolutions of today is will be ignored by many . . .

i passed the law allowing gay marriages before i even joined the UN :D But here is the question are you gay science this so important to you and your country I am going to disagree i do not want a country full of homosexuals I talk to the UN about this situtation and you will BE HEARING FROM SEPHTORIA :twisted:

Just because it is legal doesn’t mean everyone will do it. If you came over to my country would that suddenly make you gay? A country full of ‘homosexuals’ will not be created.

And besides you can’t repeal a resolution. It’s just impossible.


Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Back New World

P.S Can someone please tell me what 'Gay Science' is?

i passed the law allowing gay marriages before i even joined the UN :D But here is the question are you gay science this so important to you and your country I am going to disagree i do not want a country full of homosexuals I talk to the UN about this situtation and you will BE HEARING FROM SEPHTORIA :twisted:
Charming logical fallacy. Just because someone allows something, or is tolerant of it doesn't necessarily mean that they'll take advantage of it. I am tolerant (as a person and as a nation) of equal rights for all "races", but that doesn't mean that I'm black or Asian.

I'm all for not accepting it in my country. And any violators will be harshly met.
Most likely expelled out to other less developed countries.

I beleive that homosexual marriage in Pakalolonia would be very bad because it would foul up the birthrates and require us to import our future generations, thereby lessening our patriotic pride, spirit, and cultural identity. Your country can't grow and prosper without babies. And you can't naturally have babies if you're homosexual. No amount of science can change that, and adoption is illegal here.

I beleive that homosexual marriage in Pakalolonia would be very bad because it would foul up the birthrates

We fail to see your reasoning here. Do you believe that, once homosexual marriage is legalised, all those baby-making heterosexuals will divorce their spouses and run off with a member of the same sex?

Those that want to - I mean some are married cos they feel they have a duty or something.

And if there's the CHOICE how many people would choose that path?

Anyway I'm a moralistic democracy. We don't do gay marriages. And I won't agree to it either!

We don't do gay marriages.

Clearly, you do, because you're a member of the UN, and all UN members in the game are automatically and unstoppably obliged to allow gay marriage by a resolution we passed. It's not really possible to flout UN resolutions in NS.

Oops done it again. This is _myopia_'s puppet

We, the Nation of CCN, propose that the UN STAY OUT OF gay/lesbian marriages and/or rights. This should be done because people/nations are so set in their ideas, and stubborn, that they will not change their opinions. Also in action is a repealing poll, so I further suggest that all radicalists stay out of this, as the UN "law" (more like ordinance) may be repealed.

The purpose of the UN (correct me if I'm wrong) is to protect other nations from you, and protect your nation from others, through stringent and voted upon ordinences. This issue does not involve the physical well-being of a nation's inhabitants, does not affect other nations in any negative form (in RL gay/lesbians would move to a different country), and therefore the UN should not be involved as basicly a cry-baby's mother.

UN "law"...may be repealed.

*bangs head repeatedly against wall*

how many times....the mods have declared that it is not possible to repeal or amend resolutions, not because they're mean and want to ruin your fun, but because there is no way of doing it with the game's programming. Live with it, and wait for NationStates v2.

The purpose of the UN (correct me if I'm wrong) is to protect other nations from you, and protect your nation from others, through stringent and voted upon ordinences. This issue does not involve the physical well-being of a nation's inhabitants, does not affect other nations in any negative form (in RL gay/lesbians would move to a different country), and therefore the UN should not be involved as basicly a cry-baby's mother.
Because the UN is run by its members we can pass laws on anything that we (collectively) choose. It was a human rights issue that was intended to give gay/lesbians/bisexuals the same rights as anyone else thereby improving their (perhaps not in all cases, physical) wellbeing. I’m not even getting into the ‘just move to another country’ argument.

Can nobody tell me what ‘gay science’ is?

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Back New World

While gay rights is not a major issue in my nation, the government's stance is the only rational one.

The institution of marriage has the purpose of providing an environment in which pro-creating couples may rear up their children in relative safety. While the government neither encourages nor discourages civil unions for other purposes, "marriage" is reserved for couples who at least appear to be capable of producing offspring.

If the issue ever demands the attention of this government, we shall provide legal unions suited to the avowed purposes of the union seekers.

A myriad of lesser issues need to be addressed as well. One for instance, would be visitation rights in a hospital. It should be a patient's right to be visited by whomever he chooses. Likewise, wills and testaments should be written up and honored, irregardless of marital status, union status, or what have you.

Gay rights will not be helped with the passage of a "marriage" law. More thought and creativity needs to be put into this idea.

Black New World,
Last I checked, 'gay science' was a minor work of Friedrich Nietzsche's, detailing (to quote a random review) 'the death of God, the problem of nihilism, the role of truth, falsity and the will-to-truth in human life, the doctrine of the eternal recurrence, and the question of the proper attitude to adopt toward human suffering and toward human achievement'.

Personally, I'd have imagined that if God was dead the possibility of him hating homosexuals would have decreased marginally, but I have no doubt that the representative for Sephtoria is more well-versed in such matters than I.

Thackeray Sung
Ministry of Personal Growth

UN "law"...may be repealed.

*bangs head repeatedly against wall*

how many times....the mods have declared that it is not possible to repeal or amend resolutions, not because they're mean and want to ruin your fun, but because there is no way of doing it with the game's programming. Live with it, and wait for NationStates v2.
I feel your pain, _Myopia_, I really do. I'm seriously considering upping the penalty for attempts to repeal, since it's getting severely out of hand.

I feel your pain, _Myopia_, I really do. I'm seriously considering upping the penalty for attempts to repeal, since it's getting severely out of hand.

Would it be possible to put an enormous great message on the proposal submission screen reading something like
You cannot repeal previous resolutions?
Would anyone take any notice if you did? :roll:

For those of you who really believe legalising gay marriages will lower the birth rate... do you ever stop and think? I mean, that has to be one of the most nonsensical arguments I've ever heard. Do you believe gays will suddenly turn heterosexual and start having kids if you prevent them from marrying?

And, as this thread says... you can protest all you like, if you're in the UN, then your country allows gay marriages. :P

:shock: Like, dude, wow! :shock:

:D I am kind of proud of all this! :D

I must say, I've read the posts so far and I am pleased to say I have seen some excellent arguments. And some others, mostly belonging to conservative wacko's, but they don't count, do they? :wink:

I think I can sum up the points made SO FAR:

1) Gay marriage, no matter what you say, is already legal and in practice in all U.N. member countries.

2) Which means, if your in the U.N. then your country legally allows gay amrriagge, so shut up if you disagree with this, its a passed resolution, and the unique N.S. U.N. enforcement system means its happening no matter what you say to the contrary.

3) Also, this is a valid argument to prevent any U.N. proposal submitted now or in the future which would recognise marriage as being only between 1 man and 1 woman couples. That means any such proposal should be eliminated from the que, as it would cause conflict with the original gay rights bill, which would make a nasty precedent for the U.N. which would ultimarely mean the U.N. would be unstable/ineffective.

4) If you think gay marriage will lower your birth rates substantially, then you are an idiot. Also, to one of those who brought up that pathetic argument, your stance on patriotism made your country sound like a bunch of fundamental nationalist wack-jobs, which is not the best kind of reputation to have in some quarters...

5) YOU CAN NOT REPEAL ANY RESOLUTION ONCE PASSED, CAN'T FORCE THIS ONE OUT LOUD ENOUGH, ITS IMPOSSIBLE DUE TO ETHICAL ISSUES AS WELL AS GAME MECHANICS.

6) Bless Enodia should they punish offenders who keep laying up this "launch repeal effort" slanderous garbage, its a pipe dream people, a buble which we must do our best to burst, with the equal force of a hammer if need be...

Ther are more, but my Aide is serving my dinner, and I'm off to watch League of Ext. Gentlem'n DVD, so may common sense be with thee all, who support me and mine on our stance...

The Rep of Komokom "Ooooh, honey mustard chicken!"

I feel your pain, _Myopia_, I really do. I'm seriously considering upping the penalty for attempts to repeal, since it's getting severely out of hand.

Would it be possible to put an enormous great message on the proposal submission screen reading something like
You cannot repeal previous resolutions?
Would anyone take any notice if you did? :roll:

What if the UN acceptance email or telegram contained a message saying:

"Once you have two endorsements from other nations, you can submit proposals to the UN. However, please note that due to programming restrictions, it is not possible to submit proposals which would repeal previous resolutions - if you would like to submit a proposal, please check this list (link to previous UN resolutions) to make sure that what you are proposing doesn't break this rule. Penalties are in place for those that do violate the repeal rule."

And also the same again on the proposal submission page, and the FAQ. I know its game mechanics, but surely such a change would be worth the reduction in annoying proposal-deletion for the mods?

But here is the question are you gay science this so important to you and your country I am going to disagree i do not want a country full of homosexuals I talk to the UN about this situtation and you will BE HEARING FROM SEPHTORIA :twisted:

A country full of homosexuals would have a short lifespan, seeing as the lack of reproduction would give it negative population growth.

Well, my solution to the Civil Unions v Marriage debate is the following:

A Single term for all; Civil Union.

In other words, the only acceptable legal term for a union between 2 people would be Civil Union. Church (/Synagogue/Temple/Mosque/etcetera) marriages could be called such outside of court or official paperwork.

A Couple married in Church (/Synagogue/Temple/Mosque/etcetera) would then apply for, and as long as they were the proper age, get, a Certificate of Civil Union.

A same-sex Couple who decided to 'marry' might not be allowed in by the Church (/Synagogue/Temple/Mosque/etcetera) but what's separation of Church and state for? They would just apply for a certificate of Civil Union like the first couple and also get it, as long as they were old enough.

There. Problem solved. (right?)

What if the UN acceptance email or telegram contained a message saying: ...

It'd be nice to see NS2 contain, as a stage of UN signup, a potted history of UN resolutions (and links to the full versions) with tickboxes next to each saying something to the tune of 'I agree to implement this resolution in my nation', requiring all boxes to be ticked before a state could join. Some people might still treat it as a license agreement and ignore the content, but it'd help cut down on this kind of thing.

UN "law"...may be repealed.

*bangs head repeatedly against wall*

how many times....the mods have declared that it is not possible to repeal or amend resolutions, not because they're mean and want to ruin your fun, but because there is no way of doing it with the game's programming. Live with it, and wait for NationStates v2.


It is possible to recode the game if [violet] wanted to, but the admin don't want to repeal resolutions and they rule the NS World...

It is possible to recode the game if [violet] wanted to, but the admin don't want to repeal resolutions and they rule the NS World...

I thought that it actually wasn't possible, because the game doesn't record who was in the UN at the time of resolutions' passage, so it's impossbile to know who the repeal should affect.

But here is the question are you gay science this so important to you and your country I am going to disagree i do not want a country full of homosexuals I talk to the UN about this situtation and you will BE HEARING FROM SEPHTORIA :twisted:

A country full of homosexuals would have a short lifespan, seeing as the lack of reproduction would give it negative population growth.

Pfffrt, what, so your implying that this *PASSED RESOLUTION* would make countries full of homosexuals?

Meeep, I think not,

A) Its already passed, and to my knowledge, pretty much no U.N. member country has suddenly had its population come out of the closet over-night.

B) Also, your an idiot, allowing gay marriage does not mean ! BANG ! evry-one is gay. If you think this then you've either got serious cognitive problems or your alot younger and, well, less "learn-ed" then your elders. So shut up either way.

C) My point here is that allthough homosexuals will marry, does not mean its going to make every-one gay, so really, its only effecting homosexuals, I can't see the conservative wack job member countries becoming the "evil" they preach about over-night...

D) Oh, did I mention, THIS IS A PASSED RESOLUTION FROM A WHILE BACK AND TO THIS DATE I'VE NOT SEEN ANY SIGNIFICANT NUMBER, IF ANY, OF NATIONS TURN "GAY" OVER-NIGHT, OR DIE OUT,

SO-GET-OVER-IT

Ahem, oh, and to the civil union proposing person, true, nice idea, but the point is gay marriage is already accepted by international law of N.S. U.N.

Anyway, I think the problem in "real life" is that civil unions for same sex couples don't give the same legal rights as do marriages for hetero-couples.

The Rep of Komokom.

for all:

look at real life! I life in the Netherlands where gay marriage is LEGAL, it doesn't change a thing! the gay people are happier now because they have the same rights, and why schould they not have them???

I still want to know what ‘gay science’ is....

Desdemona (she who thinks LXG is cool),
UN representative,
The Back New World

UN representative,
The Back New World

:lol:

yeah anyways, it's bible "thumpers" who love the bible way too much and follow it word for word, whereas bible "bashers" think it's a "plot"-holey piece of lies for the weak....such as myself.

Nobody notice before but they all start noticing now.

I blame my husband.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Edited to add: do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

UN "law"...may be repealed.

*bangs head repeatedly against wall*

how many times....the mods have declared that it is not possible to repeal or amend resolutions, not because they're mean and want to ruin your fun, but because there is no way of doing it with the game's programming. Live with it, and wait for NationStates v2.


It is possible to recode the game if [violet] wanted to, but the admin don't want to repeal resolutions and they rule the NS World...
Not quite. It is possible to recode the game, yes. [Violet] has stated, at least to some of the moderators if not to players as well, that the concept of repealing proposals has merit and will be coded at some time. Exactly when that will be is the issue, not whether it will be.

UN "law"...may be repealed.

*bangs head repeatedly against wall*

how many times....the mods have declared that it is not possible to repeal or amend resolutions, not because they're mean and want to ruin your fun, but because there is no way of doing it with the game's programming. Live with it, and wait for NationStates v2.


It is possible to recode the game if [violet] wanted to, but the admin don't want to repeal resolutions and they rule the NS World...
Not quite. It is possible to recode the game, yes. [Violet] has stated, at least to some of the moderators if not to players as well, that the concept of repealing proposals has merit and will be coded at some time. Exactly when that will be is the issue, not whether it will be.

Errr, merit maybe... but the issue still can make one feel rather quesy when you look at some of the people running about the U.N. I mean, after all, the sheep will vote for anything... Ah well, lets hope it stays away till NS2, when there will I hope be a plethora of regulations and restrictions...

The Rep of Komokom.

The "restrictions" side of things is what tends to bog the discussions on how to allow repeals down. At a guess, I'd say that a hypothetical repeal resolution - if one were allowed in a future incarnation of the game - would at the very least have to pass by a particular margin or have a certain turnout to vote.
Kind of like amending the Constitution in Australia (not sure about how they do it Stateside).

Stateside 75% of states,make it 75%,as long as 75%of NationStates UN memebers vote.

It seems to me most of the people protesting the gay marriage law are probably speaking out of fear. What they have to be afraid of I'm not sure... But that seems to be the problem.

As for allowing gay marriage decreaseing your birth rate? What Udder Foolishness! I'm sure your nation have enough teens to make up for it. And with todays science, they still may have kids. And they are also more likely to adopt (if you let them), and all nations have the issue of unwanted children.

Personally, I think not allowing Gay marriage will decrease your population. By spreading this fear and hate, you'll be adding to the descrimination homosexuals are already living with, adding to their suicide rates, and gang killings.

Stateside 75% of states,make it 75%,as long as 75%of NationStates UN memebers vote.
75's a good idea. Australia is, from memory 50% + 1 of the total population as well as a majority of the states. I suppose that the Australian one would translate to 50%+1 delegate and so on, which is clearly untenable.

A country full of homosexuals would have a short lifespan, seeing as the lack of reproduction would give it negative population growth.
We submit that while this assertion is undeniable, in the meantime there would be one hell of a party.

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

Not quite. It is possible to recode the game, yes. [Violet] has stated, at least to some of the moderators if not to players as well, that the concept of repealing proposals has merit and will be coded at some time. Exactly when that will be is the issue, not whether it will be.

Hey cool I thought it was meant to be impossible forever.

Yes, there is always the question of how many delegates it would be reasonable to ask for - set it too high, there's no hope; too low and a telegramming drive could push a vote to illegalise gay marriage.

If repeals were coded, would it be possible to repeal a repeal? And repeal a repeal of a repeal?etc

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

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

While I believe personally that gay relationships are just as legit as straight ones, I don't see why gay couples would want to get married into an organization (ie, the church) that persecutes them so much.

in response to your accusation
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.

Okay im going to use the us constitution as an example. if there are conflicting laws such as gay marriage is protected blah blah blah, if a new law comes out that bans it, then the first law is voided out, as in the prohibition laws. If everyone wants to ban gay marriage now theres nothing you can do about it, the un is a democracy.

Also I will start a forum on this myself. I think it should be forbidden for gays to be unified in marriage. If they want to be unified they have to have their own titled like gayified or gayage

Okay im going to use the us constitution as an example.
And from that point everything you say tends to sound horribly moot. The US Constitution isn't the best example here, since the US doesn't even exist. What is the best and only reference point would be the rules of the game and the way it works. Try to repeal a previous resolution and I will personally remove you from the UN by the scruff of your neck.

i really have no intention of trying to repeal anything if its not in the best interest of everyone and if everyone wants to change, and as of right now things look like they are going to stay the same i was only going to put in a proposal if i got enough support which i still will but right now i dont. but i mainly like this debate but the people who are against me dont seem to really see what im saying. they jump in blindly saying oh bash him he doesnt agree with me.

now mr moderator do you agree that marriage by its own definition is for man and woman. not whether gays should marry. but do you agree that the definition is meant for man and woman

now mr moderator do you agree that marriage by its own definition is for man and woman. not whether gays should marry. but do you agree that the definition is meant for man and woman
Not completely, no. Marriage is something that occurs when two people over the age of consent decide that they love each other enough to want to spend the rest of their lives together and putting up with each other's bad habits. Gender doesn't come into it.

gotcha and im seeing your point

Okay im going to use the us constitution as an example.
And from that point everything you say tends to sound horribly moot. The US Constitution isn't the best example here, since the US doesn't even exist. What is the best and only reference point would be the rules of the game and the way it works. Try to repeal a previous resolution and I will personally remove you from the UN by the scruff of your neck.

Well said. There's also the fact that not all NS players are American, therefore basing arguments on American law is no more valid than basing them on, say, Ecuadorian law. RL country laws cannot and must not be thrust upon the NS UN.

Okay im going to use the us constitution as an example.
And from that point everything you say tends to sound horribly moot. The US Constitution isn't the best example here, since the US doesn't even exist. What is the best and only reference point would be the rules of the game and the way it works. Try to repeal a previous resolution and I will personally remove you from the UN by the scruff of your neck.

Thank heck for Enodia and other mods too, some sanity may yet prevail in this hell hole of bigots and hypocrits... Might I add if every single person actually read the game rules, especially regarding those to do with proposals I feel there would be alot less banging of our heads on key-boards, which is getting a little expensive for me... I can rave only so much in forums using capital letters till sheer fury at ignorant people propells my head towards yonder platic mass below me in some quest for rest and peace...

If recoding will happen one-day, why not every-one just drops all this re-peal crap till then, after all if their so hard-core in their beliefs then they won't forget, will they? ...

- The Rep of Komokom.

I've got a massive headache from manning 4 threads at once, but I'll stick it out for a while longer.

I was just using that as an example, not necessarily how things work here. but for sake of argument, if a new law is created that conflicts with a past law why shouldnt the new law void the old one.

I've got a massive headache from manning 4 threads at once, but I'll stick it out for a while longer.

(Cheers! Claps! Applause!)

:D

- The Rep of Komokom, giving cover fire...

Like you would know anything about giving covering fire.

Secondly it didnt seem like he was agreeing with you at all.

Thirdly speaking of hypocrites and biggots.......

make your own conclusion as to what anyone has even said the past several hours.

Like you would know anything about giving covering fire.

Secondly it didnt seem like he was agreeing with you at all.

Thirdly speaking of hypocrites and biggots.......

make your own conclusion as to what anyone has even said the past several hours.

Well, some one here certainly woke up on the wrong side of the forum today... :)

1) Hey, maybe I was wrong, after all, just because I am shooting does not mean its accurate... :wink: Now I think of it, my posts led to other posts, probably led to Enodia going "Argh!" and deleting us all, then realising it was only a wonderful dream... :wink:

2) I was simply cheering on Enodia for sticking with and moderating/ bouncing about the forum threads emitting logic, justice and wisdow, or something praise-worthy like that, agreement does not come into it... after all, Enodia could simply slip away for a coffee, or cup of tea, or maybe a straight shot of vodka in the Strangers Bar :wink: ... And leave us to our bickering and un-protected/defended forums and threads there-in...

3) I did make my own conclusions, thats why I typed what I did. Now I am making some more, no, don't bother guessing. Even you could probably work it out AND restrain yourself from commenting.

Enodia could simply slip away for a straight shot of vodka.
And with that, I might as well say that the chances of me moderating to any great degree before Monday afternoon (Australian time) are slim. Heavy night planned for tonight/tomorrow morning and then the beginning of the wretched academic year. The fun never ends.

Enodia could simply slip away for a straight shot of vodka.
And with that, I might as well say that the chances of me moderating to any great degree before Monday afternoon (Australian time) are slim. Heavy night planned for tonight/tomorrow morning and then the beginning of the wretched academic year. The fun never ends.

My word, academic year, means your either a teacher (Poor soul) or even worse, a Uni student, in which case I feel your pain, if your a Uni student then I'll give you a word of wisdom of which university student friends of mine have made quite clear, find a bar if one is on campus, and imbib, imbib, imbib. Then maybe turn up to a lecture. But continue imbibing if need be, notes are usually online these days... :wink:

The Rep of Komokom.

yay for gay marriage! now onward towards women's rights... :D
Yeh i totally agree with u, i think every one has a right to their beliefs and should carry them out as long as no one (or animal) is hurt, physicaly or mentaly.

I agree, A hurrah for Womens Rights... though I would think they are covered in previous U.N. human rights resolutions, and Gay Rights, which are definately protected, and to heck with any bible spurting fool to stand in my way... I am off to the Bar... In need of a Brandy, Any to join me there later, I'll be over by the fire... ?

- The Rep of Komokom

Well my own honest opinion is that same sex marriages are wrong, I really dont believe that they are right. Non the less, it is law and I will be allowing same sex marriages and couples in our nation to do as they wish with the same freedoms as everyone else. The one good point about them is that they cannot have kids and so it wont increase our population to such an extent that we cannot maintain our population with our current resources :D Thereby helping our population as a whole.

So long as they keep up with all the requirments, such as taxes, not taking part in terrorism, or start coming onto any of my children then everything will be fine 8)

United Nations Representative for the Region of Ulstonia
Dictator of the nation of Limavady

[ You got d#$%% mother#$@* how dare you talk about God's people or anyone else who opposes gay marriage. I don't give a Sh#% about what you say. Let me lay it down for you, you stupid as% mother#$%. Men are born with a penis, women are born with a vagina. Penis goes into the vagina not into another man's rectum. If nature wanted us to be gay. It would have had it so that men and women would be able to have babies. But that isn't the case now is it. You are a fag, sick twisted as% mother%$# bit#$. P.S mother%$#[ this message is explained in scientifical terms, not religious. Because i know people like you are dump and idiotic and are going to hell]

[ You got d#$%% mother#$@* how dare you talk about God's people or anyone else who opposes gay marriage. I don't give a Sh#% about what you say.
If you don’t care what we say why should we care what you say? It’s alright to have formed an opinion but that doesn’t make the other side wrong.

Let me lay it down* for you, you stupid as% mother#$%. Men are born with a penis, women are born with a vagina. Penis goes into the vagina not into another man's rectum.
Prove it. Perhaps gay sex is so pleasurable (for those who are gay) is because it was supposed to be like that. Perhaps, nether of us could really prove it either way. Any comment on lesbians?

If nature wanted us to be gay. It would have had it so that men and women would be able to have babies.
Who says sex, love, or marriage is just to make babies?

But that isn't the case now is it. You are a fag, sick twisted as% mother%$# bit#$. P.S mother%$#
Actually I’m not. You don’t have to be gay to support gay rights you know.

[this message is explained in scientifical terms, not religious. Because i know people like you are dump and idiotic and are going to hell]
You may believe that we are going to hell, I may not. Nobody can prove it right or wrong so I do not think it would be logical to base a law on such ideas. Personally I’d rather be put in hell for supporting equality rather then going to heaven for supporting suffering.

It seams to me that you are missing the point; whether you agree or not ‘GAY MARRIAGE ALREADY LEGAL AND PROTECTED BY UN.’ And there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World

*No pun intended?
Edited once again for spelling errors.

Well my own honest opinion is that same sex marriages are wrong, I really dont believe that they are right. Non the less, it is law and I will be allowing same sex marriages and couples in our nation to do as they wish with the same freedoms as everyone else. The one good point about them is that they cannot have kids and so it wont increase our population to such an extent that we cannot maintain our population with our current resources :D Thereby helping our population as a whole.

So long as they keep up with all the requirments, such as taxes, not taking part in terrorism, or start coming onto any of my children then everything will be fine 8)

United Nations Representative for the Region of Ulstonia
Dictator of the nation of Limavady
I commend you on such a reasonable stance. If you pop in to the bar later I’ll get you a drink.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World

[ You got d#$%% mother#$@* how dare you talk about God's people or anyone else who opposes gay marriage. I don't give a Sh#% about what you say. Let me lay it down for you, you stupid as% mother#$%. Men are born with a penis, women are born with a vagina. Penis goes into the vagina not into another man's rectum. If nature wanted us to be gay. It would have had it so that men and women would be able to have babies. But that isn't the case now is it. You are a fag, sick twisted as% mother%$# bit#$. P.S mother%$#[ this message is explained in scientifical terms, not religious. Because i know people like you are dump and idiotic and are going to hell]

Nature cannot "want" anything. Nature is simply a collective term for the organisms on this planet and the environment in which they live. I think you mean natural selection. Natural selection "wants" (as far as it can be said to want anything) organisms which propagate their own genes and restrict the propagation of "rival" genes. So, it is "natural" for humans to organise into small hunter-gatherer groups who are fiercely territorial. It is "natural" for one male in the group to assert himself as the alpha male, and "natural" when a female arrives and joins the group for the alpha male to rape her. It is "natural" for us to kill the offspring of unrelated humans.

Just because something is as nature "intended" doesn't make it right, and conversely, just because something is "unnatural" doesn't make it wrong.

There's even plenty of evidence that homosexuality is "natural", for instance female hyaenas use it for social purposes. So either way, your argument doesn't work.

Personally I’d rather be put in hell for supporting equality rather then going the heaven for supporting suffering.

Hear hear! If it is a sin to think critically, be accepting and tolerant, and oppose the basing of laws on religious beliefs, then I'm not sure I want to go to this "all-loving" god's idea of paradise.

Sorry about the double post. But people in California will keep getting married for at least a week while government officialers debate and propose legislation.

The Rep. of Indland

:arrow: It doesn't matter if you are gay or not to believe that homosexuals can feel loved by another of the same sex. If you are so against have gay marriage in your country, make it ilegal. The church DOES NOT have to be the basis or your decision.

Gays can marry other gays, and straight people can marry other straight people :!:

Indland

If you are so against have gay marriage in your country, make it ilegal.But if they’re in the UN they can’t.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Then they should leave the UN, by their own means.

And The Black New World I might just take you up on that drink :D

By all means.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World

'Scuse the tripple post.

'scuse the multi-post.

I would like to demonstrate the power of something I call "make belief."

Let's assume that my whimpy nation borders the sea. Nay, let's assume it's an island. It may not actually be because the region I'm in may be landlocked. But mearly the fact that I say it is makes it so. Because this is not real.

Good, we've got the basic idea covered.


Now: RP is make belief in its most pure form. Everyone collectively imagines something, which may be subjectively different from everyone, but is created by the input of each individual.

So you say that the rules say that the UN resolutions are binding and that my nation must comply? Yes?

Witness me so not complying none the less. Witness me making inroads into my rainforest even though a recent resolution imposed laws on every UN country that they shall PROTECT their rain forests.
Behold as I keep region codes on my DVD and so do not pay attention to the UN rules of conduct.

Does this make me a git? More than likely, yes.
Does this make every uber-state with a super-army a terrorist git who violates UN laws by starting wars of aggression against a newbie nation that pisses them off? Sure as hell does if the above applies.


And now, my pretties, think with me for a second:
If I (and thereby you) choose to ignore or even choose to willingly violate UN resolutions (just like the real nations, I respect Max but I wonder if he saw this coming) while actually being a member, what will you do?

Will you eject me? Eject two thirds of the UN while you're at it. I'm sure you can actually check log-files to see whenever one of their issue-decisions violated a resolution (fair trial, ban on torture, etc anyone?) or whenever they blatantly ignored these resolutions in the UN.


Will you send X-million cruise missiles right up my left nostril? Go ahead and try, I don't RP wars.





So, to summarize what I'm saying: If you don't like a UN resolution pull a Germany, pull an US, pull an Israel and ignore them. Don't even argue it. Just say no. Who says you can't ignore the compliance ministry telegrams just like you can ignore the "3y3 nookz j00 w/ my incredbl 5 million populass nation!!!!!!1" telegrams from the "Rogue Nations of FU."



IC: The great Warlock of Cataslan wishes to let the great UN council know that people of every ethnic background and sexual orientation are welcome in Cataslan but that we'll still mine uranium in our own rainforests, thankyouverymuch Mr. Annan.

You can RP all you want but your nation stats will still change and we can ignore you.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Most Laioians are not christians, we're to sensible, but we do have a small minority. They tried to agitate for a ban on same-sex unions, but it quickly stopped. After a few of their churches burned to the ground... they decided that other things were of more interest to them.

You have made quite a valid point, however,

If you are one of the few individuals who tramp about the U.N. forums screaming about how these passed regulations are wrong and your ignoring them, the only thing that *may* happen is that a mod will get so p*ssed off at your blatant dis-regard for the rules you'll be punished in some way.

And,

* That or we'll all ignore you or rip your claims to shreds. As its automatically assume that at the end of the day its the game mechanics which mean no matter what you say, if thats the law, then thats the law.

! ! ! BUT ! ! !

* Don't get me wrong, I don't think from the information so far you are like that, its just that for those who do act in such a fashion maybe its a good time to remind them,

* * * That the idea is to go along with the game, rather then try to steal the ball, run around the play-ground and shout, before a teacher comes out and boxes your ears... * * *

- The Rep of Komokom.

Well, my first propsal submisson was called Gay Marriages and Civil Unions. :D

It would allow a choice between gay marriages or civil unions. :idea:

1) I didn't know there was already passed resulotion about gay marriage. :oops:

2) One of the member sent me a "death-threat*" telegram :shock:

Sadly, It didn't pass :(



*It was more like a telegram that was typed in ALL CAPS!

[ You got d#$%% mother#$@* how dare you talk about God's people or anyone else who opposes gay marriage. I don't give a Sh#% about what you say.
If you don’t care what we say why should we care what you say? It’s alright to have formed an opinion but that doesn’t make the other side wrong.

Let me lay it down* for you, you stupid as% mother#$%. Men are born with a penis, women are born with a vagina. Penis goes into the vagina not into another man's rectum.
Prove it. Perhaps gay sex is so pleasurable (for those who are gay) is because it was supposed to be like that. Perhaps, nether of us could really prove it either way. Any comment on lesbians?

If nature wanted us to be gay. It would have had it so that men and women would be able to have babies.
Who says sex, love, or marriage is just to make babies?

But that isn't the case now is it. You are a fag, sick twisted as% mother%$# bit#$. P.S mother%$#
Actually I’m not. You don’t have to be gay to support gay rights you know.

[this message is explained in scientifical terms, not religious. Because i know people like you are dump and idiotic and are going to hell]
You may believe that we are going to hell, I may not. Nobody can prove it right or wrong so I do not think it would be logical to base a law on such ideas. Personally I’d rather be put in hell for supporting equality rather then going to heaven for supporting suffering.

It seams to me that you are missing the point; whether you agree or not ‘GAY MARRIAGE ALREADY LEGAL AND PROTECTED BY UN.’ And there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World

*No pun intended?
Edited once again for spelling errors.

Actually, Desdemona, you may find I was the target of this out-burst, as I soon got it in my telegram inbox.

Needless to say, Moderator Tactical Grace has been notified of this, as well as another issue of hate-mail, and I am awaiting a reply regarding disciplinary measures. Normal thing, I would bug Enodia, but I think they are recovering from a hang-over... :wink:

Further-more, should any of you get hate mail from that "Nimbus Sun" individual I stress you engage in legal counter-measures such as informing the authorities immediately. Alternatively borrow an I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannon/s from my massive national armoury I.G.N.O.R.E. weapon depository and set it off on his door step at 4am in the morning...

- The Rep of Komokom.

To Of portugal, and anyone else who may try to blame their hatmongering on the Catholic Church by quoting the Bible: Next time you post, keep this in mind

Luke 6: 37 "Stop judging, and you will not be judged. Stop condemning, and you you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."

John 8: 7 But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone."

John 8: 15 "You judge by appearences, but I do not judge anyone."

In other words, regardless of the sinfulness of homosexuality, none of us is even worthy to point it out, but then again, knowing Of portugal, I'm now a 'lazy Catholic' for saying that, so my opinion is now nothing to him. But to anyone else who is a Catholic bigot (should be an oxymoron, shouldn't it?), prove yourself devoid of sin before you go and b*** out the gays.

Once again I am unable to comprehend the pure stupidity of those around me. Those on right cannot purely use the Bible to show that they are right, it does take a certain amount of logic. It is not because I am against the use of Gods Word, but instead it is because those who don't believe in it don't care! Frankly, they couldn't care les if god laid down the ten commandments or if Ronald McDonald did, it doesn't matter to them!

Secondly, atheists stop bashing the Bible. Look, we know you don't care, but we are just trying to point out our beliefs and where we got them from. It could be said the same for you as well. While you go ahead and bash us for telling us what to do, you yourself are guilty of the same thing. The only difference is that you are following the beliefs that you came up with, while we are following those of the person that we feel is the Son of God. Telling us "Jesus is a Fag you Noob! Nobodys cares about some 2,00 year old book, it doesn't apply to today" won't make us take you seriously. In fact it will show off your ignorance as many people do ascribe to the beliefs set down in that book, and use it to guide their lives.

Thirdly, to the Christians out there. Stop bashing other Christians! We are all brothers in Christ together! The only thing that truly matters is if you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and follow what he tells you. I don't hate Catholics, I respect them for being the first church, the church that GOD FIRST CREATED! I am a protestant, but I don't have any problems with any that aren't of my sect. If you believe that God said that you must be baptized this way and anther person believes differently, who cares? You BOTH follow Jesus.

In short, stop the bashing, it's not doing any good, and in fact kinda pisses me off. I'm here to debate topics, I can't help it if my beliefs influence me on those topics. This is a game, it is here to have fun with. Thank you for your time.
-And just remember, there is always more... Booyah For All!.


p.s.- (to Vivelo II)- God also set up the governments of today, and told us to enforce his laws, being gay is one of them.

A reply from some level headed athiests...

I disagree !

1) I might be athiest but the idea of Ronald Mc Donald laying down ten commandment freek's me out... :wink:

(Heh heh heh, Number One: Thou must be below *THIS* high to play on the kiddies equipment, 'lest thou get'eth us su-ed!")

2) "Jesus is a Fag you Noob! Nobodys cares about some 2,00 year old book, it doesn't apply to today"

(Grrrr, makes me angry too, even though me an athiest and all, it *so* lacks respect for peoples opinions :cry: )

... (To peeps who don't like Athiests),

Is actually the argument of an idiot rather then an athiest,

My feelings are its all well and good to follow this...

(I think you mean about 2,000... book),

But please stop using it as your evidence as to why I am wrong.

Where-as, I agree with you, people who do it should stop. How-ever until they do, they should be told where they can *stick* their 2,000 or there abouts years old book till they come up with something better to say. :D

3) On another note, if one more person tells ME to burn in hell... (Glares at the over-loud nation of Nimbus Sun with fire in his eyes...) I will certainly shove something rectangular-ish like a book up their ass, all-be-it more likely a fridge/freezer in size. :wink:

4) Your right, no follower of a religion should find itself hating members of another religion, that way is madness, which we have seen enough in the real world I think...

* * * I might be athiest, but I can see as plainly as any other person I would hope, that we cannot let any differance of opinion, should it be religious, politically motivated, raciallybased, or based on life-style choices such as homosexuality (And, maybe, to a point so is religion?), seperate us, and result in hatred, or violence, or xenophobia, as at the end of the day,

* Either created by God/s above or simply Fate itself,

We will be who we will be,

And,

We are our choices. *

That said, I wish peace and illumination to you all.

- The Rep of Komokom

I think what gay people do is wrong and sinful but religon has no legal basis. :cry: :cry: :cry:

I think what gay people do is wrong and sinful but religon has no legal basis. :cry: :cry: :cry:
Beg pardon? What would constitute a legal basis for religion?

Okay, atheist. You must not be a fan of history at all. If you are religous or not I think you should take a look at the bible and encorporate some of its teachings. Like love your neighbor as you would yourself, thats not outdated. If you live by the sword (or M-16) you'll die by the sword. There are several ways you can incorporate the teachings of the bible into today's world.

Okay, atheist. You must not be a fan of history at all. If you are religous or not I think you should take a look at the bible and encorporate some of its teachings. Like love your neighbor as you would yourself, thats not outdated. If you live by the sword (or M-16) you'll die by the sword. There are several ways you can incorporate the teachings of the bible into today's world.

"Okay, atheist" Oooh, some ones taking a hard stance! :wink:

Fan of history? When did history step into religion or vice versa? Last I heard God of the bible skipped over the dinosaurs... :wink:

I never actually agreed the bible is out-dated, I simply said I agreed that people should be able to live by its teachings and I have nothing against them, how-ever,

THE BELOW STATEMENT, NOT MINE,

"Jesus is a Fag you Noob! Nobodys cares about some 2,00 year old book, it doesn't apply to today"

IS THE ARGUMENT OF AN IDIOT RATHER THEN AN ATHIEST.

WHAT I TRIED TO SAY WAS,

Yes, we should be allowed to follow the teachings of the Bible, or Koran, or other such text or another set of religious beliefs, but if people insist on telling me I am wrong to support gay rights/gay marriage or being athiest because a freek'in book says so,

WHILE COMPLETELY IGNORING *MY* RIGHTS TO DO SO,

I - WILL - TELL THEM WHERE TO PUT THEIR BOOK.

OKAY, Geeez.

Looks like this time your the one not reading things...

AND MIGHT I ADD I WAS IN PART AGREE-ING WITH BOOYAH FOR ALL.

I WAS TALKING FOR THE MODERATE LIBERALS WHO FEEL BOTH RELIGION AND EQUAL RIGHTS FOR GAYS SHOULD BE RESPECTED, WHILE TRYING TO SAY TO PEOPLE THAT IGNORE I AM ATHIEST, RATHER LOK TO THE COMMON SENSE APPROACH I WAS TRYING TO APPLY.

GET IT NOW PUNK ?

Ahem,

Yours respectfully,

- The Rep of Komokom.

P.S. Personally, I prefer the HK-MP5 or similar sub-machine gun devices, more versatile I think...

Also, just because its in the bible, does not mean that to do it means we are following its teachings, do you ever think some people might come to their own conclusions on how to live peacefully without refering to a book?

Actually as a personal rifle I prefer the M-14 for mass destruction MK-19 the mp5 is close quarter urban combat only weapon, i would rather have a sig p232 in that case you use less ammo its lighter and actually more accurate which is weird for a pistol. sub machine guns are crap, and you are right i miss read what you wrote.

Actually as a personal rifle I prefer the M-14 for mass destruction MK-19 the mp5 is close quarter urban combat only weapon, i would rather have a sig p232 in that case you use less ammo its lighter and actually more accurate which is weird for a pistol. sub machine guns are crap, and you are right i miss read what you wrote.

Don't worry, I won't hold it against you, or your choices of fire-arms, personally I've always liked sub machine guns over rifles, I find them, well, easier, as pistols go, I just like the run of the mill Glock 9mm.

Actaually there is this *great* weapons technology called "Metal-Storm" do a search on the net, its like hyper-machine gun technology, around a cuouple million rounds a minute tech. Sounds insnae, but its true...

I was a USMC machine gunner and I was a mk-19 gunner. its a machine gun but some call it an automatic grenade launcher. but automatic weapons are wasts of ammo on point targets

This is not about religion nor biblical writings for all of you out there who hold on to the ideas of freedom and law&order. This is about breaking a law if your the same sex it is illegal to get married, it's illegal to steal a car why should the guy who steals the car go to jail, and the homosexuals don't. Just because a fanatic mayor in one of your citiys decides to overrule your state goverments law it's o.k.?????????????

Is anarchy NEXT?????????????????????????????????????????????/

Uhm, in the UN gay marriage is legal

This is not about religion nor biblical writings for all of you out there who hold on to the ideas of freedom and law&order. This is about breaking a law if your the same sex it is illegal to get married, it's illegal to steal a car why should the guy who steals the car go to jail, and the homosexuals don't. Just because a fanatic mayor in one of your citiys decides to overrule your state goverments law it's o.k.?????????????

Is anarchy NEXT?????????????????????????????????????????????/

Did some-biody walk in from the "Real World" and forget to take off reality along with their hat and coat?

If so,

Get over it, their L.A. and their damn cool, least they've got the balls to stick up for equality rather then knuckle down beneath that conservative muffin of Bush.

- The Rep of Komokom.

I was a USMC machine gunner and I was a mk-19 gunner. its a machine gun but some call it an automatic grenade launcher. but automatic weapons are wasts of ammo on point targets

Snazzy, Marines are like *the* best, well, after the Australian SAS... :wink: ... mk-19... explosive rounds? Yeah, there are better ways to take point targets, but as I said, the HK-Mp5 is just a preferance...

Shall communicate at later date, reality is annoying my activities here...

I used to train with some austrailian sas brittish sas royal marines and such. We are the best.

This is not about religion nor biblical writings for all of you out there who hold on to the ideas of freedom and law&order. This is about breaking a law if your the same sex it is illegal to get married, it's illegal to steal a car why should the guy who steals the car go to jail, and the homosexuals don't. Just because a fanatic mayor in one of your citiys decides to overrule your state goverments law it's o.k.?????????????

Is anarchy NEXT?????????????????????????????????????????????/
True, but if enough people constantly break a law, then the intelligent thing to do just might be to change the law. Worked in the 60s.

and during prohibition in the US during the 20's

and during prohibition in the US during the 20's
Quite true. And let's not forget old Mohandas Karamchand or any of the suffragettes.

and during prohibition in the US during the 20's
Quite true. And let's not forget old Mohandas Karamchand or any of the suffragettes.

Very true, I also seem to remember this chap called Ghandi getting things done with people to change things they thought were wrong in their country.

- The Rep of Komokom.

Actually, Desdemona, you may find I was the target of this out-burst, as I soon got it in my telegram inbox.

Needless to say, Moderator Tactical Grace has been notified of this, as well as another issue of hate-mail, and I am awaiting a reply regarding disciplinary measures. Normal thing, I would bug Enodia, but I think they are recovering from a hang-over... :wink:

Further-more, should any of you get hate mail from that "Nimbus Sun" individual I stress you engage in legal counter-measures such as informing the authorities immediately. Alternatively borrow an I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannon/s from my massive national armoury I.G.N.O.R.E. weapon depository and set it off on his door step at 4am in the morning...

- The Rep of Komokom.
Nobody ever sends me threats, I feel unloved.
:P
Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Exactly!
But I don't go and scream "I AM SO TOTALLY DISSING YOU, UN, YO!" in the UN forums. This was the first time I've actually mentioned it.

I mean ... if the resolutions REALLY changed something why do I still get the Uranium Mining issue and why can I technically still choose option #3?


What I'm trying to say: All these nations that disagree with the resolution of gay marriage may want to form a coalition of defiance. This could be quite an interesting situation, a test for the UN.


What I'm not trying to say: It's cool to be a git and ruin the game. Unless your policies seriously go contray to the decisions made in the UN, deal.

Exactly!
But I don't go and scream "I AM SO TOTALLY DISSING YOU, UN, YO!" in the UN forums. This was the first time I've actually mentioned it.

I mean ... if the resolutions REALLY changed something why do I still get the Uranium Mining issue and why can I technically still choose option #3?


What I'm trying to say: All these nations that disagree with the resolution of gay marriage may want to form a coalition of defiance. This could be quite an interesting situation, a test for the UN.


What I'm not trying to say: It's cool to be a git and ruin the game. Unless your policies seriously go contray to the decisions made in the UN, deal.

Coalition of defiance, oh yes, quite a test,

After all, how *could* the U.N. stop them from...

Being able to do bugger all?

:D

- The Rep of Komokom

I think it would be more of a test of the ignore cannons.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World

True, true. This would be for people who are interested in serious RP. Read: Not really me.

And how can you dare to use I.G.N.O.R.E. cannons in a war of aggression that hasn't been OK-ed by an extraordinary UN meeting, with a majority of two thirds? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

[ You constantly attack my religion don't you. Well let me give you a lesson from the bible. The first part (genisis) it did not say what animals the almighty created. And who says God's day is "one day" ON GOd's scale every thing is magnified. God's day might equal 14 million years or just a million or even a billion. So consider your term of evolution in that freakin equation and you'll see that the bible is completely right an little athesist like you are wrong. Plus if i was an atheist i would be constantly tormented by the fact that what if God is real? WOuld i be going to hell. I would long for the fact that maybe there is something after death. There is a such thing as ghosts, ghosts are spirits and spirits are a vital role in the bible. So something has to be true about it. And you would say that those prophecies by those old men was just rabblings. Well let me give you another lesson. In the revelations(the end of the world part of the book) there is a warning that there will be wars and rumors of wars in the middle east. Now let me think how long ago was this, you say millions of years ago. And what's happening now, well lets think whats happening now in the middle east. Also God said that if a man lays with another man then he shall bleed of himself. Well what does this mean. To me it means that he might just get AIDS. Now lets think again, who has the most AIDS, GAY MEN! If that isn't enough then you are in denile, and i can't help ya.

[Amen! finally another christian. Thank you for saying that.

Dude, there are always wars and rumours of war in the Middle East. Hell, on that kind of evidence you could consider Brave New World to be a religious authority. Who's up for a drug-fuelled orgy?

in denile
"If we're forced to retreat, we'll end up in the Nile!"
"We'll be annihilated!"

Thackeray Sung
Ministry of Personal Growth

Dude, Nimbus, just chill a bit. The more you yell and scream, the less people care. While I agree it is a very real possibility that AIDS might be a measure to prevent homosexuality (liberals please don't jump me on this one I'm trying to calm him down) I find it unlikely that it was sent for that sole reason. AIDS has been around in one form or another for all of time, yes God did say that there will be consequences for being gay, but I don't recall him saying that we should spend our lives bashing them. God will deal with them in his own way, instead we should love on them and possibly try to help them overcome their affliction. Also, if AIDS were solely for homo's there would be no way God would let it come into the heterosexual population. But it has, and many families, people who are marred and have kids are dieing from it in not only this country but all the world, or do you think that the entire continent of Africa is one big gay-fest? Just calm down a bit and express your views rationally.
-And just remember, there is always more... Booyah For All!

[Amen! finally another christian. Thank you for saying that.

Nimbus i complement you on your efforts, for there are very few christians out there who truely understand their religion. But i believe your cries are falling on deaf ears for they refuse the truth.

[ You constantly attack my religion don't you. Well let me give you a lesson from the bible. The first part (genisis) it did not say what animals the almighty created. And who says God's day is "one day" ON GOd's scale every thing is magnified. God's day might equal 14 million years or just a million or even a billion. So consider your term of evolution in that freakin equation and you'll see that the bible is completely right an little athesist like you are wrong. Plus if i was an atheist i would be constantly tormented by the fact that what if God is real? WOuld i be going to hell. I would long for the fact that maybe there is something after death. There is a such thing as ghosts, ghosts are spirits and spirits are a vital role in the bible. So something has to be true about it. And you would say that those prophecies by those old men was just rabblings. Well let me give you another lesson. In the revelations(the end of the world part of the book) there is a warning that there will be wars and rumors of wars in the middle east. Now let me think how long ago was this, you say millions of years ago. And what's happening now, well lets think whats happening now in the middle east. Also God said that if a man lays with another man then he shall bleed of himself. Well what does this mean. To me it means that he might just get AIDS. Now lets think again, who has the most AIDS, GAY MEN! If that isn't enough then you are in denile, and i can't help ya.

Okay... right... :roll:

Ironically enough, it was this guy who attacked *me* quit literally, or is it literature-illy? ( :wink: ) via telegram not too long ago, as mentioned recently in posts above, ayyy Desdemona? :wink:

Now, excuse me for holding an opinon but, :)

1) Lets take a breath-er mate, I'd hate to see you slip at the key-board an cut yourself on a bit of printer paper, thus ruining your newest "I love Jesus" sticker, :wink:

2) Oh boy, here we go, combat, :D

3) I am not "attacking" your religion, I have previously gone on record in other posts saying I will valiantly fight for your right to follow said religion, however,

I WILL NOT BE YELLED AT INTO SUBMITTING TO IT, HATE TO DIFFER "MATE" BUT IF GOD CREATED ME, HE GAVE ME THE ABILITY TO

A ) REALISE I CAN MAKE MY OWN DECISIONS ON WHAT TO BELIEVE IN,

B ) GAVE ME THE ABILITY TO COME TO MY OWN CONCLUSIONS ON OTHER THINGS, PERHAPS EVEN CONTRARY TO WHAT HE SUPPOSEDLY SET DOWN A-LA-BIBLE STYLE YOU KNOW, FREE WILL AND ALL THAT, AND,

C ) THE ABILITY TO COMPREHEND MY RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH WHICH I HOLD DEARLY.

NOW ! If your going to go all hostile on my bee-hind, maybe I should remind you all why I am here, I LIKE TO PROVOKE DEBATE IN ORDER TO ENJOY THE FRUITS A-LA-INTERLECT PRESENTED VIA THIS DEBATE BY MY PEERS AND MYSELF. K ? :wink:

4) I could not give a toss about how long one of gods days is, IF YOU DON'T YET GET IT, I - AM -ATHIEST, and as such do not believe in the bible. Why is that so hard... :wink:

5) Oh here we go, - "Plus if i was an atheist i would be constantly tormented by the fact that what if God is real? WOuld i be going to hell. I would long for the fact that maybe there is something after death."

Ping! I am athiest, and personally, if there really is any supreme being, to be fair to the other equally perhaps still insubstanial religions you hard-liners like to ignore, then I doubt he would be such complete and utter bastard to give us about 100 years max on average to dally about down here, then go, "pass or fail" on our asses, and if we do fail, make us burn in some fiery under-world for-ever or until something else makes an angel sing. I mean come on, is their any purpose in that, I don't think "divine" can cover that one, personally, I would hope if he allowed us to have common sense, then he by consequence already does? :wink:

And maybe their is something after death, who knows, if your so desperate to use an "after-life" argument, then, please, go ahead and find out, saves me time later arguing again with you. :?

6) Actually, back when the bible was written, it was common sense at the time to try to do away with the natural urges of homosexuality felt by some, as global populations were so small. And last I checked, the bible did not record AIDS back then, which, funny enough, only turned up in the past few decades. Sad about the restricteness, but quite frankly, whats the big problem, if people use contraceptives... oh dear, are you against those too?

7) Actually these days its about equal far as AIDS in sexes goes, *I think, I can't be quoted on this one I feel* , but an awful lot of women have it too sadly, especially in the poor parts of Africa, sadly not everyone has your moral character... or mine for that matter, many women get raped by un-protected, HETERO MALE carriers. Geeez, odd that. Maybe its the complete wack jobs in the world who have it but have un-protected sex who are problematic, rather then any homosexuals? :?

So, cleared things up for you? Or maybe your too busy fuming at some-one having a contrary opinion and voicing it too? :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom. :)

And, quite frankly, as I am annoyed by your vigourous targeting of my posts in such an agressive and hostile manner,

My personal opinon is that the bible is a work of fiction by men of the day to instill order within the following populations. :)

So, ahem, nyah, nyah, nyah-nyah-nyah. :wink:

If you insist on being such a drama (pre-pun alert) "queen" then pray for me in private or shut up and leave me alone? :?

[Amen! finally another christian. Thank you for saying that.

Dude, did you just applaud yourself...

:roll:

Not much humility-ish if you ask me...

But who am I , IF ANY-ONE IS, to judge...

(Innocent Whistle) :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom. Take one debate, mash in a little fun, and add a fresh dash of humor. :wink:

A few out-of-character points I'd like to drop in...

1) The Roman Catholic Church is not the first Christian church, it was a result of the schism with the Orthodox church. As I understand it, this was because the Catholics broke the Commandment concerning the worship of graven images.

2) Nimbus-Sun, the best thing about reading your posts is knowing that it doesn't matter how much you scream, shout and throw your toys around, the world won't change because of your efforts. How galling for you, how amusing for me.

3) Booyah - no hard feelings regarding the homosexuality/schizophrenia thang.

4) Of portugal - even if you share certain views with Nimbus-sun, how can you "complement you on your efforts"? He/she is a goon and not a good ally for you at all.

5) If the Christians zealots (note the use of the word zealots) turn out to be right and God is as they say...damn it, I'm going to be at the front of an enormous crowd of sinners telling Him that he's wrong.

Plus if i was an atheist i would be constantly tormented by the fact that what if God is real? WOuld i be going to hell.

So you believe I'll burn in hell just for not believing? How very tolerant of your God. I'm glad most Christians (and believers in general) are a little more open-minded.

Also, if there were a God, I somehow don't think he would go around killing people (via AIDS) just for acts of love which involve only them and harm no-one.

Because if there is a God and he's that intolerant and psychotic, damn, we're in a mess. . . ;)

Plus if i was an atheist i would be constantly tormented by the fact that what if God is real? WOuld i be going to hell.

What if God's real, but he sends you to hell unless you paint your body with sweet chili sauce on alternate Tuesdays? It's as possible as the classical theistic view. Essentially, all the possibilities even out, so unless you feel particularly personally attached to one of them you may as well just get on with life.

First off, let me say that I am against same sex marriages. The point of having males and females is procreation. If you are having sex with the same gender then it's not a very effective way to procreate. But this is of course just the biological way of looking at the debate.

I am a Christian. I do not understand Homosexuality because I am not a homosexual. I believe that the bible does say that the activity of homsexuals is wrong. I believe that God is love, but that he has the ability and prerogative to wipe out entire nations should he decide to. My God is the word, and more than the word. And God loves everyone, even homosexuals. God loves everyone, not just those who seek his face or his grace.

A christian has the duty and obligation to be as much like our savior Jesus Christ as is humanly possible. And if you read the Christian Bible then you know that Christ loved the sinners as much as his disciples. He went to towns and he stayed in the homes of sinners, he ate dinner with sinners. He didn't do this because he wanted to chastise them or condemn them, he did this to show that God loved them. He was showing this fact to the sinner and his disciples and the people of the time. I do know several homosexuals, I have worked on stage with them, I have eaten at their homes. They are people like anyone else, but the actual bond of matrimony was created for man and woman. Two men or two women can co-habitate with each other for whatever means it serves for them. But I just cannot support the idea of same sex marriage. I still love my homosexual friends and I don't hold any ill will toward them or their partners. But if they ask me I tell them the same thing I say here.

If you are Atheist then that is your right. I will pray for you and hope that you find faith in God. But if I cannot show you that God exists through my walk in life and my relationship with Christ, then what good does it do me to yell and scream at you for your beliefs? I would call upon any Christians here to follow their hearts on such issues. When the ability to change a resolution becomes available I would ask that you all please look at rescinding this one. But as someone said here, you have free choice. Use it wisely.

In closing, I will be resigning my status with the UN. I cannot allow my country to support this issue. I may rejoin should such resolutions be rescinded one fine day. I hope I haven't irked too many people with this tirade. But I just couldnt stand watching this without trying to say something useful.

Plus if i was an atheist i would be constantly tormented by the fact that what if God is real? WOuld i be going to hell.

What if God's real, but he sends you to hell unless you paint your body with sweet chili sauce on alternate Tuesdays? It's as possible as the classical theistic view. Essentially, all the possibilities even out, so unless you feel particularly personally attached to one of them you may as well just get on with life.

A very unrealistic comparison. I dont know what pshycho religion you are talking about, but I know that God ( Catholicism) ONly asks for what is resonable and is just.

I must say, I am a little confused by some of the arguments presented here. The existence of males and females does perhaps have something to do with procreation, but the ability to procreate does not necessarily have anything to do with marriage. As you may not have noticed, most humans have the ability to procreate, barring certain health problems. While I am a gay man, I *could* have intercourse with a woman and we could have a child.

Many people in the forum have mentioned procreation as the primary reason for marriage. This confuses me. While I believe that the best place for children to be raised is in a loving, stable relationship with two parents, I do not believe that the gender of the parents matters. I do think that the children are better off when the parents are married--because of the legal protections associated with marriage. More on the procreation issue: if procreation is the primary reason for marriage...what about "heterosexual" couples that are infertile? (this includes your widowed grandfather/mother who remarries)? What about adoption? Are the children in adopted families living in immoral homes because their "parents" did not engage in intercourse to create them?

Sorry for the long post :(

May peace and light be with us all
:D

Plus if i was an atheist i would be constantly tormented by the fact that what if God is real? WOuld i be going to hell.

What if God's real, but he sends you to hell unless you paint your body with sweet chili sauce on alternate Tuesdays? It's as possible as the classical theistic view. Essentially, all the possibilities even out, so unless you feel particularly personally attached to one of them you may as well just get on with life.

A very unrealistic comparison. I dont know what pshycho religion you are talking about, but I know that God ( Catholicism) ONly asks for what is resonable and is just.

Firstly, I think some-body was trying to impart on you a point via a little sarcasm, and secondly if they were telling the truth, do they require any-one to lick the chilly sauce off?

( :shock: What did I say? Hey, its good chilly sauce ! )

Yes, :wink:

And God (Catholicism) is so reasonable and just, it makes sure you never lower yourself to don a little rubber device, thus in order to, well, in part, reduce the spread of AIDS. Well, if your a "good" catholic that is... and keep clear of the altar boys... :wink:

And lets not forget how they never ever killed any-body with, oh, I don't know, burning them, for speaking against the church... Which is so understanding of them.

Or maybe they did, simply because they were low on fire wood back then, ack, I can never quite remember, oh, yes, yes, thats right, we were talking about how reasonable and just they are.

- The Rep of Komokom. :wink:

I would like to know what you think of my proposal

Ah, yes, well, I take it the most up to date version was that in your thread, and, well, despite the fact I am not personally okey-dokey with U.N. intervention in some respects... It actually seemed quite good. It seemed responsible, letting abortions occur, yes, before 3 thingy (Forgot word, meeep ! ) and giving the doctors ultimate discreation over whether or not to preform it, it seemed comprehensive, and allthough I am at this time not going to give it the

"Flashy-Komokom-Stamp-Of-Good-Ness"

As I am awaiting further comments from others of our peer group here, I think I can safely say this will be one of those rare proposals that makes sense.


Personally I've always been the woman choice kinda guy, but, eh, I'll take what best I can scape up for the people...


- The Rep of Komokom, Oh, yes, :)

OFFICIAL NOTICE : :shock: :shock: :shock:

The Rep of Komokom may be absent for about a week max, as I am running low on band-width, and may drop off for a day or three max interval, so fear not, your valiant champion of... stuff is well ! , his internet account how-ever is awaiting a slow-ass bank payment, grrr. :wink:

Naturally, I may pop in for a few secs to check up, post here, and check my telegrams... :wink:

[ You constantly attack my religion don't you. Well let me give you a lesson from the bible. The first part (genisis) it did not say what animals the almighty created. And who says God's day is "one day" ON GOd's scale every thing is magnified. God's day might equal 14 million years or just a million or even a billion. So consider your term of evolution in that freakin equation and you'll see that the bible is completely right an little athesist like you are wrong. Plus if i was an atheist i would be constantly tormented by the fact that what if God is real? WOuld i be going to hell. I would long for the fact that maybe there is something after death. There is a such thing as ghosts, ghosts are spirits and spirits are a vital role in the bible. So something has to be true about it. And you would say that those prophecies by those old men was just rabblings. Well let me give you another lesson. In the revelations(the end of the world part of the book) there is a warning that there will be wars and rumors of wars in the middle east. Now let me think how long ago was this, you say millions of years ago. And what's happening now, well lets think whats happening now in the middle east. Also God said that if a man lays with another man then he shall bleed of himself. Well what does this mean. To me it means that he might just get AIDS. Now lets think again, who has the most AIDS, GAY MEN! If that isn't enough then you are in denile, and i can't help ya.

Do you think that the bible is literal then? How do you explain the three different stories of the creation that are held in Genesis? Also what kind of clothing do you wear? Because you know that you aren't allowed to wear two types of fabric at once. Do all your women go live in tents outside your cities during their period? If not your are a blasphemer. Oh and a small point to make too: The original text of the bible doesn't actually make any comment on homosexuality. Poor translation from Hebrew through Aramaic, Greek and Latin have led to a version not entirely in keeping with the original. But then you know this already.

Marriage as a civil union is what I presume is held up in this law. Gay people won't want to be married in such an innacurate, inarticulate, bigoted and uneducated forum as the church.

[ You constantly attack my religion don't you. Well let me give you a lesson from the bible. The first part (genisis) it did not say what animals the almighty created. And who says God's day is "one day" ON GOd's scale every thing is magnified. God's day might equal 14 million years or just a million or even a billion. So consider your term of evolution in that freakin equation and you'll see that the bible is completely right an little athesist like you are wrong. Plus if i was an atheist i would be constantly tormented by the fact that what if God is real? WOuld i be going to hell. I would long for the fact that maybe there is something after death. There is a such thing as ghosts, ghosts are spirits and spirits are a vital role in the bible. So something has to be true about it. And you would say that those prophecies by those old men was just rabblings. Well let me give you another lesson. In the revelations(the end of the world part of the book) there is a warning that there will be wars and rumors of wars in the middle east. Now let me think how long ago was this, you say millions of years ago. And what's happening now, well lets think whats happening now in the middle east. Also God said that if a man lays with another man then he shall bleed of himself. Well what does this mean. To me it means that he might just get AIDS. Now lets think again, who has the most AIDS, GAY MEN! If that isn't enough then you are in denile, and i can't help ya.

Do you think that the bible is literal then? How do you explain the three different stories of the creation that are held in Genesis? Also what kind of clothing do you wear? Because you know that you aren't allowed to wear two types of fabric at once. Do all your women go live in tents outside your cities during their period? If not your are a blasphemer. Oh and a small point to make too: The original text of the bible doesn't actually make any comment on homosexuality. Poor translation from Hebrew through Aramaic, Greek and Latin have led to a version not entirely in keeping with the original. But then you know this already.

Marriage as a civil union is what I presume is held up in this law. Gay people won't want to be married in such an innacurate, inarticulate, bigoted and uneducated forum as the church.

i totally agree with yorumestan!!

[ You constantly attack my religion don't you

I have nothing against Christianity, it just doesn’t work for me hence the earlier statement. But I do not think laws should be based on religion because you can not prove which god is The One True God.

You believe very strongly in your God, so strongly that I could not talk you out of that belief. Other people feel the same way about their God/s.

Well let me give you a lesson from the bible. The first part (genisis) it did not say what animals the almighty created. And who says God's day is "one day" ON GOd's scale every thing is magnified. God's day might equal 14 million years or just a million or even a billion. So consider your term of evolution in that freakin equation and you'll see that the bible is completely right an little athesist like you are wrong

I see that you could be right but I don’t see how it proves everyone else wrong. [it is a nice idea, one that I’ve never considered thanks for mentioning it]

Plus if i was an atheist i would be constantly tormented by the fact that what if God is real?

I assume that you never say ‘what if God doesn’t exist)’ or ‘what if it is a different God’. Most Atheists have the same certainty.

To me it means that he might just get AIDS. Now lets think again, who has the most AIDS, GAY MEN!

And who also gets AIDS? Strait people! And who gets the least? Lesbians! Who could go on like this? Me!


Now we get to my actual point, the one I mentioned way back on the first page

I think that if somebody religion says don’t be gay then they shouldn’t be gay but they can’t stop other people from being so. It would be nice to align our laws to the One True Religion but nobody can prove what that is.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World

*Applauds the statements of the representative from The Black New World*

Oh and a small point to make too: The original text of the bible doesn't actually make any comment on homosexuality. Poor translation from Hebrew through Aramaic, Greek and Latin have led to a version not entirely in keeping with the original. But then you know this already.

Do you have an authoritative source for this to which I can direct people when they try to argue this with me?

Well, my solution to the Civil Unions v Marriage debate is the following:

A Single term for all; Civil Union.

In other words, the only acceptable legal term for a union between 2 people would be Civil Union. Church (/Synagogue/Temple/Mosque/etcetera) marriages could be called such outside of court or official paperwork.

A Couple married in Church (/Synagogue/Temple/Mosque/etcetera) would then apply for, and as long as they were the proper age, get, a Certificate of Civil Union.

A same-sex Couple who decided to 'marry' might not be allowed in by the Church (/Synagogue/Temple/Mosque/etcetera) but what's separation of Church and state for? They would just apply for a certificate of Civil Union like the first couple and also get it, as long as they were old enough.

There. Problem solved. (right?)

Yes this is what I agree with, infact its what my country has done. Because if you notice no where does it say you must call Gay marriage a marriage, and as such you can follow these words of wisdom

Well, my solution to the Civil Unions v Marriage debate is the following:

A Single term for all; Civil Union.

In other words, the only acceptable legal term for a union between 2 people would be Civil Union. Church (/Synagogue/Temple/Mosque/etcetera) marriages could be called such outside of court or official paperwork.

A Couple married in Church (/Synagogue/Temple/Mosque/etcetera) would then apply for, and as long as they were the proper age, get, a Certificate of Civil Union.

A same-sex Couple who decided to 'marry' might not be allowed in by the Church (/Synagogue/Temple/Mosque/etcetera) but what's separation of Church and state for? They would just apply for a certificate of Civil Union like the first couple and also get it, as long as they were old enough.

There. Problem solved. (right?)

Yes this is what I agree with, infact its what my country has done. Because if you notice no where does it say you must call Gay marriage a marriage, and as such you can follow these words of wisdom

Incorrect in part, your comment there,

In actuality, the proposal passed on gay rights in fact stipulates the protection and recognition of gay "marriage", the legality of which means the proposal is in fact enforcing the idea of gay marriage, now, by the unique "Its law so shut up you can't disagree now due to the game mechanics assumption of 100% enforcement" standard all members are stuck with, :wink:

Ergo, in fact you probably cannot now pass any law preventing gay marriage, and by stipulating that it is a "civil union" now for all rather then "marriage", even if for hetero couples, via the state, too, would in effect do so.

Perversely this means, you could say that heterosexual couples may engage only in civil union recognised by the state, but homosexual couples are still allowed to "marry" via "marriage".

And, furthermore due to the non-repelations statute lay'd down by the mods in order to minimise possible chaos, this cannot for the forseeable future be changed.

Now, perhaps a more likely solution would be to say that all married couples of any sort get a certificate from the govt. a civ. union certi. which says the are all up for equal benefits, granted it won't shut up the "gays can't be allowed to marry" bunch, but it might calm them a little by involving the words "civil union" :wink:

Also on another note, a church would probably be forced by u.n. law to carry out a gay marriage, as it is stipulated as being recognised and protected, meaning to refuse would be a breech of international law, and I assure you my nations athiest legal firms would be glad to sue for comp'o on the homosexual couples behalf!

- The Rep of Komokom.

I like the whole Civil Union thing. It is just a nomenclature thing, but it placates some side of me sufficeintly that I would not disagree. By the way, I am afraid that my previous post is OOC since Traikis himself, as a character is only a nice guy when he bloody well wants to be. me? I'm always a great guy.

However, and I am not picking on you Komokan, why does it always seem to me that atheists want to dismantle christianity as an organization? Whenever I look at legislation concerning the riddance of something related to God in a public place it is always Atheist vs. Christian. I do not understand this. I understand some of the grievances made by atheists and secularists, such as no mandatory prayer in schools and such. But when a judge, or a teacher must hide any sign of what they are while performing their duties? I do not grasp that concept. It always seems that other religions, in some cases rightly, cry out for their right to free speech, as do Atheists. But a Christian who asks for the right to speak of their religion is considered odd or told that they are repressing someone by speaking of God and or Christ. I am happy to see a free and open debate here, but there still seems to be an overwhelming majority who, while genteel in how they say it, would very much like the Christian minority to shut up.

The Bible has been mis-interpreted from it's original texts, that is agreed. And even people who study the texts for years screw it up. Biblical scholars interpret things further and the ideas still get muddled. But the gist of the Word is that God is love. I pray for those who have taken pieces of the Word and used it to kill others who were not of like mind. And I pray that the people they persecuted made it to heaven. Christians who hate their brothers for not agreeing with them, for exercising their own free will are sinners. Those who hate Christians for holding to and proselytizing their beliefs are just as wrong, and should be ashamed of themselves as they are hypocrites. In other words, both sides are wrong as long as they see themselves as sides. We are humanity, agree or disagree with ideas and ideals aside, we are the same species, we are the same race. Creationists believe we came from a single man and woman. Evolutionists believe that we all came up from the muck. Either way we all came from the same place so we are all the same race. Evolution made that single race adapt to live in various climates and conditions.

I will close by saying that this very argument is, in microcosm, why we shall never be at peace with ourselves, no matter how many resolutions you pass. The very statement that someone would gleefully litigate against another idealogical base simply because they are opposed to it is just a nail in a worn out coffin that has been fought over for so long, it is now a point of self perpetuating hate. I call to all sides of this argument to simply accept that you are wrong in their eyes, and they are wrong in yours. You won't listen to this argument though, because for one side Caine brought the sins of violence and anger to us. For the other side, we came from animals and some of that territorial, defensive instinct is still there. So argue all you want. It simply proves both sides are present.

Traikis, we respect your views and hope that you will further contribute to UN discussion on this and other issues.

It's worth noting that some of the non-religious who have contributed to this particular discussion (argument...) are not atheists but agnostics. Atheists reject the possibility of higher deities based on what they know now, agnostics simply do not believe they are capable of making a judgement either way. If there is not a God, we can't prove it. If there is, then it doesn't matter what we think/believe; if they don't want to reveal themselves to us (non-believers) then they won't. As we (again, non-believers) are not omniscient, we will not know until 'God' decides to present him/her/itself to us.

Best wishes
Hiroko Ai
Speaker for Spirituality
Community of Ecopoeia

OOC: please excuse me if I'm not very coherent, I had rather a lot to drink at lunch...

seems tae be a an Ecopoeian trait :D :roll:

Pops in and notes that the organised superstitious ones are trying to defend their questionable beliefs as real. Decides to leave, no problem with religion, just with those who follow it blindly, without question (how many religions, how many dead religions, can't all be right, a bit arrogant to assume you are) and inflict it on others. It should be a private thing, that's it, said our piece (sorry, just seen too much of this).

Please pardon me Ecopoeia. You are absolutely correct in your point. Agnostics and atheists should not be lumped together. That was my fault and I would like to apologize to the agnostic and atheist groups.

Bahgum? I think you misunderstood my point. I won't go over it all again, but if you think that I am a blind follower, or superstitious, I know of several Catholic clergy and Protestant preachers whom I have shot down in discussion on theological matter that would disagree. I am not offended, and if you were referring to anyone else please accept my apology, but in the future could you please make reference to the point of order that you find offensive?

In the first place let's face facts ,scientists or political leaders c'ant even decide wheather homosexuality is something your born with or your brain i'snt working right. And allthough i'm a member of the u.n., i d'ont believe were here to judge and or pass laws on moralitry. As the ruler of Allgathor i believe and hope this body has more important issues to discuss.This is an issue that should be decided by each country independently, this has nothing to do with world politics. I for one believe that if only four percent of the population is gay and there mentally ill i don't they should be allowed to marry much less vote. In Allgathor we have alaw against same sex marriages and if a rogue mayor decides to allow this to happen he will be treated like any other law breaker

In the first place let's face facts ,scientists or political leaders c'ant even decide wheather homosexuality is something your born with or your brain i'snt working right. And allthough i'm a member of the u.n., i d'ont believe were here to judge and or pass laws on moralitry. As the ruler of Allgathor i believe and hope this body has more important issues to discuss.This is an issue that should be decided by each country independently, this has nothing to do with world politics. I for one believe that if only four percent of the population is gay and there mentally ill i don't they should be allowed to marry much less vote. In Allgathor we have alaw against same sex marriages and if a rogue mayor decides to allow this to happen he will be treated like any other law breaker

In the first place let's face facts ,scientists or political leaders c'ant even decide wheather homosexuality is something your born with or your brain i'snt working right. And allthough i'm a member of the u.n., i d'ont believe were here to judge and or pass laws on moralitry. As the ruler of Allgathor i believe and hope this body has more important issues to discuss.This is an issue that should be decided by each country independently, this has nothing to do with world politics. I for one believe that if only four percent of the population is gay and there mentally ill i don't they should be allowed to marry much less vote. In Allgathor we have alaw against same sex marriages and if a rogue mayor decides to allow this to happen he will be treated like any other law breaker

I make the decisions for my country! NO one in the world can force me to make gay marriges legal! So you shut up!

I think that if somebody religion says don’t be gay then they shouldn’t be gay but they can’t stop other people from being so. It would be nice to align our laws to the One True Religion but nobody can prove what that is.


I am in full accordance with this statement. I don't believe in allowing Gay Marriage, but I would not dare try to make it civally illegal. If the government wants to do it, then it's their perogative. However, if the Church is forced to allow such marriages...that I cannot accept. Each religion should have independence in this matter. For myself, I would not go against Papal mandate, but I reiterate that is purely myself. Others may do as they wish.

Just ignore this posting. Stupid server lag and now I can't delete it.

I make the decisions for my country! NO one in the world can force me to make gay marriges legal! So you shut up!

The ever sighing yet always chipper nation of Berkylvania respectfully suggests that you read the past resolutions that have been...er, passed. By the nature of the UN, if you are a UN member, then indeed, homosexual marriage must be legal in your country. If this is a sticking point, then we humbly suggest you leave the UN, because otherwise Adam and Steve have just as much legal right to wed as Adam and Eve and, it can be debated, Adam and Eve and Sally and Lisa and Frank and Joan and...

I'm sure you get the picture.

Regardless, to the representatives from Makanina and Allgathor, the fact is that homosexual marriage is now a universally mandated legal function because of UN legislation. If you don't want it, you'll need to leave the UN. Otherwise, we humbly suggest you allow specific religions within your country to recognize it or not, based on their doctrine, but accept that under the rule of law, a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple can both wed and be equal.

To the representative of Phillipsania, I believe the most honorable representative from The Black New World correctly pointed out that, while the UN can mandate that homosexual wedded couples are legally recognized, they do not have to be recognized by specific religions. Therefore, rest assure that religions still have the right to decide their own moral course, however, as I mentioned before, under UN mandate, gay wedded couples must be accorded the same legal rights and protections at straight married couples.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm headed over to the UN Strangers Bar for a very large martini.

hot news:
now more women have aids then men!

(so there goes youre argument!!)

I make the decisions for my country! NO one in the world can force me to make gay marriges legal! So you shut up!

Yes, and I make my decisions and then I post them up, and right now I am deciding your either VERY new around here, or your a screaming idiot.

If your a member of the U.N. that is, because if you are, then gay marriage is allowed and protected by international law in your country. And if you have even an inkling into the workings of this game then you would know the rules stipulate all passed U.N. resolutions are 100% enforced law.

I am beginning to sound like a broken record. :?

- The Rep of Komokom. :wink:

I am beginning to sound like a broken record. :?

- The Rep of Komokom. :wink:
Don't worry about it. Perhaps, if we all just keep saying it, it might eventually sink in.

I am beginning to sound like a broken record. :?

- The Rep of Komokom. :wink:
Don't worry about it. Perhaps, if we all just keep saying it, it might eventually sink in.

One can only hope. And failing that we can always fall back on the frying pans? :)

- The Rep of Komokom

Of course, Komokom, of course. Or the billiard cues.

Of course YES to gay marriages!
Or even better said: sex-neutral marriages.

:D

//Master commander of Lindome

Of course, Komokom, of course. Or the billiard cues.

Or for that matter the billiard balls, we could simply throw them, I am sure from memory they would be heavy enough to "impart some knowledge" upon those who gain their "kinetic affection".

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

i think those who look to the religious writing for the reason they believe homosexuality to be wrong and immoral should turn the pages inthe bible to pages back to where it say that it is an equal abmomiation for people to eat pork or to eat lobster and shell fish

or that it is to assault my mother if she wears cloths of two different weaves or if i can stone someone if the whole village agrees

(i will post reference points for these tomorrow)

it seems to me that the religious arguement against homosexuality can have not basis on which it can be made
as they seem to follow only the writings that best suit there lifestlye and are happy to change the meaning and relevence of things to suit them and there culture of bigatory behaviour

And finaly those who say that homosexuality is not natural should only look to nature to find clear cut evidence of homosexuality across all specis

i thank you for your time in reading this

know if the un has past a piece of legislation making the same sex amrriages legal then all countries are obligated to follow the rules of the un as i understand it fromthe un terms and conditions
woth the un being a supreme council an all on all global matters brough befor the council
if unhappy with a decision then simply resign

Despite the fact your grammar makes me want to frying-pan myself one in the head, you've damn well summed up the majority (Leaving the admittedly valid minority free to be okay... :wink: ) of religious arguments, that is to say, their credibility.

Jolly good show.

- The Rep of Komokom.

I must sincerely apoligise for my poor use of corect english in the previous posting. I am sorry to all those who were cause distress by the strange lack of any true grammar.

I will only say this in my defence. The issue of gay marrage is an important one to me, and I felt that the arguement i made came straight from my heart, so as a result my brain did not have a chance to fill in the grammaritical errors in my post.

So once again I apologise to those now with frying pans swinging at their head for any undo distress caused.

Derrick-ness

Just resurrecting this thread as the 'Ban gay marriage' threads have started up again.

Ressurecting? I barely noticed its abscence.

Hmmm, we are think the same thought.

- The Rep of Komokom,

{ { { (Pointy!) BUMP } } }

Hmmm...isn't the , err..religious ban of gay marriage a fundamental one? So where, exactly, does government have a place in this? Unless one is insinuating that governnment has a place in my beliefs....and I do not wish these to be interchangeable, by the way....seperation of church and state, in my country, is paramount.

That being said, do not the "sanctified unions" warrant tax concessions among the religious governments? If so, then the said governments recognize the 'sanctity' of marriage, and offer tax relief for it. If such marriage is going to be recognized by said governments, and tax credits are going to be offered due to said recognition, then is it not fair to expect, as taxpayers and follwers of said regimes: Recognition by our government, as free and equal peoples, ensures us that taxation (or exemption thereof) = representation (or recognition)?

In other words: If you are going to offer tax breaks, as a government, for the married; AND if your constitution provides that all men are created equal, ect. (and have a similar bill of rights entact), then it is unfathomable that you can deny persons the right of marriage based on a religious belief. If alll persons are created equal, all persons have right to marriage.

(Disclaimer: If you have a dictatorship, religious monarchy, ect., ignore this. I a speaking strictly to those who have unalienable rights, or claim to).

But here is the question are you gay science this so important to you and your country I am going to disagree i do not want a country full of homosexuals I talk to the UN about this situtation and you will BE HEARING FROM SEPHTORIA :twisted:

A country full of homosexuals would have a short lifespan, seeing as the lack of reproduction would give it negative population growth.

Emperor Jake of Cassopia writes:

Just because homosexual marrige is allowd, doesn't mean it's compulsary, people are homo & hetrosexual, and bisexual too. Not all humans must conform to one.

Is marrige is the unity of love, is it not?"

Adnan J. Chandoog,
Spokesman to Emperor Jake of Cassopia.

* Whispers to Emperor Jake,

Yes, but don't try to tell them that :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

No. If you legalise gay marriage then the GAY MEDIA leaps out of your television screen and FORCES you to wear hot-pants and breaks your wrists with a HAMMER and replaces your entire CD collection with cheesy early-90s techno and then runs away shouting 'Tee Hee!'

Or was that the Rep. of Komokom? So easy to mix these things up.

Really, I think half those against gay marriage are just doing so out of the schoolyard 'if I show any tolerance for homosexuals everyone will think I'm homosexual too so let's VICTIMISE' instinct.

if this is a ploy , to stop people joining the un, well it fucking works . because im not gonna fucking condone that shit in MY fucking country ,you fucking shit heads

The prosecution rests.

if this is a ploy , to stop people joining the un, well it f--- works . because im not gonna f--- condone that shit in MY f--- country ,you f--- shit heads
Perhaps we should make more resolutions like this...

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

gay science
I FOUND IT! I've been looking for those words in their original context for much time.

Desdemona: I think the 'gay science' is in fact meant to be 'gay since'. But don't let that spoil your fun.

:lol:

Don’t worry I won’t.
:P
Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

“But here is the question- are you gay, since this so important to you and your country. I am going to disagree I do not want a country full of homosexuals! I am talking to the UN about this situation and you will BE HEARING FROM SEPHTORIA!”

I still don’t get it.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

Sure, they always say they'll call.

No. If you legalise gay marriage then the GAY MEDIA leaps out of your television screen and FORCES you to wear hot-pants and breaks your wrists with a HAMMER and replaces your entire CD collection with cheesy early-90s techno and then runs away shouting 'Tee Hee!'

Or was that the Rep. of Komokom? So easy to mix these things up.

Really, I think half those against gay marriage are just doing so out of the schoolyard 'if I show any tolerance for homosexuals everyone will think I'm homosexual too so let's VICTIMISE' instinct.

Ahem. I'll not take offence at any of that.

There is nothing wrong with 90's techno. Unless you class M Jackson under that, thn its just evil. Personally I liked the 80's best. :wink:

Oh, and I'm not gay, I'm just the really rare straight guy who could not care less if your gay, straight, or white with purple polka-dots. Unless your drunk, an old pervert, and I've never met you in my life, and you've possibly tried to grope me on the foot patth on the way from TAFE to the train station. Then I'll find out where you live and have your legs broken.

I had a bad friday and I'm still getting over it, I am planning to jerry-rig a stun device tonight and carry it on me tomorrow... Where am I?

if this is a ploy , to stop people joining the un, well it f--- works . because im not gonna f--- condone that shit in MY f--- country ,you f--- shit heads

On a note of interest, this place has an effective screening system to remove nasty terminology,

You ignorant, verbally soiled,

Utter fock-tard.

:) Oh, and if it is a ploy to keep people out, if their like you, then it'll save us barricading the doors from the masses of ignorant little wankers (Did wankers get censored? :wink: ) like you trying to get in and spoil everything with your aggressive little bigotted ways.

- The Rep of Komokom, now taking the "chill pil" some one gave him earlier.

No inference about the Rep. of Komokom's sexuality was intended. We merely referred to his laudable desire to mischieviously inflict anguish on idiots and enjoy himself in the process. With bizarre comma usage.

Hey, leave, my coma, usage alone, its not nice to, point you, know.

And who said I enjoy inflicting...

No, no, who am I kidding, I really do!

:D

- The Rep of Komokom.

Rep of Komokom can't be gay. He never met me in the Stranger's bar like I offered :cry: Then again, maybe I'm just not his type.

i passed the law allowing gay marriages before i even joined the UN :D But here is the question are you gay science this so important to you and your country I am going to disagree i do not want a country full of homosexuals I talk to the UN about this situtation and you will BE HEARING FROM SEPHTORIA :twisted:

Hmmm...I think I agree with you on this one Sephtoria. I mean, would you like to have an army filled with flaming homosexuals??? No seriously, If their fellow armed force got their pants blown off from a grenade would they not be distracted by that? Plus, It would be hard for all of them to run, their sore buttocks and STDs might get in the way.

You offered to meet me in the strangers bar? Meeep, my apologies, must have gotten distracted...

Wait a minute why?

On a related note, been hit on regardless of sex or orientation, eh, its all good!

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

Hmmm...I think I agree with you on this one Sephtoria. I mean, would you like to have an army filled with flaming homosexuals??? No seriously, If their fellow armed force got their pants blown off from a grenade would they not be distracted by that? Plus, It would be hard for all of them to run, their sore buttocks and STDs might get in the way.
I'm going to assume you are joking with this, and as such will not educate you on how things work.

Hmmm...I think I agree with you on this one Sephtoria. I mean, would you like to have an army filled with flaming homosexuals??? No seriously, If their fellow armed force got their pants blown off from a grenade would they not be distracted by that? Plus, It would be hard for all of them to run, their sore buttocks and STDs might get in the way.

:roll:

Observation:

Only seven posts, named "Flaming" Bear.

Conclusion:

Looks like we got our-selves a fock-tard, cue inbreeding signalling banjo music and red-neck ye-haw'in.

- The Rep of Komokom.

would you like to have an army filled with flaming homosexuals???

Well, if you ask Plato, such an army would kick all kinds of butt. Partly because they'd want to fight really hard to impress that dishy corporal they'd got their eye on, and partly because homosexuals were considered more manly anyway, since they loved manly things.

Spurious arguments, but your culture-specific arguments cut it equally poorly.

And lets face it, when there's some one with Plato on their side, and some one whose name is "Flaming" Bear on the other... Whose the one your going to feel like agree-ing with...

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

Is it the Plato one?

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

Errr. I think so,

* Flicks through book on who Plato was.

Errr...

* Flips through further...

Yes, Indeedy!

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

Yay! Do I get a gold star?

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

Hmmm...I think I agree with you on this one Sephtoria. I mean, would you like to have an army filled with flaming homosexuals??? No seriously, If their fellow armed force got their pants blown off from a grenade would they not be distracted by that? Plus, It would be hard for all of them to run, their sore buttocks and STDs might get in the way.

Seriously, as a country girl, "Are you fer real? I mean c'mon, are you backwoods or jest plain retarded?"

I want a country full of people being who/what they want to be, personally. The homophobia in here is a bit frightening, honestly.

(and if it makes you feel superior to call me a lesbian, then go ahead, bubba. Don't let that confederate flag & David Allen Coe CD get in yer way.)

Lady Nessa

Enh. Don't jump to conclusions. From personal experience, homophobia is as rampant among dumb schoolkids as it is among Southerners. Or fundamentalist Christians. Or ethnic minorities. Or the police and military.

It could be said that your stereotypical view is as bad as ‘homophobia’.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

Hmmm...I think I agree with you on this one Sephtoria. I mean, would you like to have an army filled with flaming homosexuals??? No seriously, If their fellow armed force got their pants blown off from a grenade would they not be distracted by that? Plus, It would be hard for all of them to run, their sore buttocks and STDs might get in the way.

You must have a really underfunded military (and probably not intentionally underfunded like min mind you) if all your grenades can do is blow off people's pants. Seriously, a real grenade goes off near one of their lower bodies, and there is nothing there to distract the others with anymore.

Secondly, (get a psych student in here to verify this) every one, regardless of sexual orientation (or sex for that matter) has a tendency to glance at someone else's... genatalia.

Thirdly, I've never heard of an STD that prevents you from running.

The homophobia in here is a bit frightening, honestly.

Would that make you a homophobe-phobic?

You offered to meet me in the strangers bar? Meeep, my apologies, must have gotten distracted...

Wait a minute why?

I was joking about it a couple pages back (or maybe other gay thread) when I pointed out that I was straight, artistic, and smart, and you asked if I was trying to pick up. So I jokingly asked you to meet me in the Stranger's bar.

Now everyone laugh at my funny joke (or don't 'cuz it wasn't really that funny especially not half a week later)

Signed the straight, but avidly fighting homophobia regardless of the apparent lack of interest, prince/ambassador (/majority of voters/king/queen/everything else) of Vivelon

Rehochipe has got the majority of homophobes bang to rights, though he forgot conservative extremists I think. :wink:

Where did Nimbus-Sun go? :wink:

Hmmm, I've an idea.

(Cue manic evil laugh, followed by some suitable vampiric style organ music)

What? I'll be back... have to test something... ;)

- The Rep of Komokom.

Ha, my old nemisis. I have defeated the guards of the forum once again to debate you. Not even web glitches can keep us from battle.

-Multiple Post-

- The Rep of Komokom.

-Multiple Post-

- The Rep of Komokom.

-Multiple Post-

- The Rep of Komokom.

Pardon?

:wink:

Heh heh heh, this is the bit I think when we all start hearing light sabre effects... Bzzzzz, Swish-Crackle, Wzzzzz.

I will not submit to the dark side of the force,

(Smacks fore-head with hand)

No, no, no, I mean, I will not submit to your conervative views.

I realy do have to much time on my hands... :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

I believe that would be considered possibly SPAM?? I am tempted to call on the Mods as you would but I am too grumpy. Also, you missed.

Yes my worthy debate opponent, specially pressed american meats on my own thread. Indeedy... Gee whizz this server can be nasty at times, all those annoying multiple posts, tsk tsk tsk, oh well, where am I?

- The Rep of Komokom.

You know, sound almost as bad as Ted Kennedy did on 'meet the press.' You liberalist fool. What a bad parry, ol' chum!

* I'm sorry, I live in Australia, land of the free, minus the crazy level of gun deaths you yank's get... (Superior smile), what was your argument again? :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

I'm sorry, but the more liberal you are the less free you are. Liberal are for policies which have the federal or national government enact policy on its citizens. ie: government passing a nationwide healthcare program, microchips in everyones arm in order to take the place of credit/check/atm cards, no one can legally purchase a firearm of anytype.

You know stuff of that nature. Conservatives are more like, oh, the national public can find a cost effective way to get healthcare for themselves so we don't have to raise taxes. Or, somepeople dont use the bank system, so we dont need microchip implants, or that will just make crooks take peoples arms off. If we make firearms illegal only crooks will have firearms.

Now decide what you are.

oh, and i forgot what we were arguing about.

As a self-styled liberal, I take offence at your suggestion that we are for microchipping anyone, for any purpose.

no one is forcing you to go marry into a same sex couple. :roll: and a same sex couple having the same rights won't make you gay lesbian or bisexual. don't believe me? then why are their such people in places that give straight people such rights? give it up. moot point. take your arguements and go home. its done with. nothing will change that. if you don't like it leave the game. other wise stop wasting cyberspace.

Recovering from a particularly vicious session on the vodka, Arkady Bogdanov - Ecopoeia's Speaker for Culture - shambles into the room with the odd swooshing noises. He catches a smattering of rabid, homophobic bilge emitted by one of the delegates and groans.

"Again?"

Mumbling bitterly to himself, we wanders out again with a burning desire to find this 'Strangers' Bar' that Zo Boone was enthusing about.

Bump

Because some people seam to have forgotten.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

So, what was the last argument from the liberal pansies? Or did they start mumbling about homophobes just because someone doesn't agree with them? Don't you hate it when they say you should accept everyone's views and then get labeled with an awful stereotypical name simply because you have your own?

Find out the answers to these questions and more on the next When liberals attack!

So, what was the last argument from the liberal pansies? Or did they start mumbling about homophobes just because someone doesn't agree with them? Don't you hate it when they say you should accept everyone's views and then get labeled with an awful stereotypical name simply because you have your own?

Find out the answers to these questions and more on the next When liberals attack!

Strange, but I rarely ever see anyone called a 'homophobe' for their views, as misguided and ego-centric as they are. Seems it is these supposed moralists that don this 'homophobe' term when their 'views' are systematically shattered by simple truth and common sense. Out, then comes this accusation of homophobia, yes you are a victim you poor oppressed and misunderstood thing, to be so easily dismissed and disarmed by it all to redefine and take a clinical psychiatric term and make it your own.

*Applauds New Fuglies*

If you read the thread you would have noticed that common sense won over.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

.y

*Applauds New Fuglies*

If you read the thread you would have noticed that common sense won over.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

...just proactively stamping out the lunatic fringe, besides this thing is 10 pages long. :?

...just proactively stamping out the lunatic fringe, besides this thing is 10 pages long. :?

Yes but this post is UN history.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

...just proactively stamping out the lunatic fringe, besides this thing is 10 pages long. :?

Yes but this post is UN history.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

..but the debate continues. *looks over the UN forum page one* :shock:

... Argument. Which, ignoring the fact I am athiest, pisses me off becuase its so p*ss-weak and annoyingly vague. You know, like,

"My religion says your all evil, which must be true, so I am going to ignore all other issues or evidence to the contrary"



Gee, Kinda like when someone declares that they have the only "truth" and anyone else with a differing opinon is wrong, eh?

Look in a mirror, lately? :lol:

What gave you the right to shove your rhetoric down my throat? What ever happend to DEBATE, and the art of persuasion having a place in deciding the course of things? Any position, forced upon others, is wrong.

If you base legislation on what is more harmful then pleasurable instead of religion you still allow (most) people to practise the religion they choose.

If you base legislation on religion you run the risk of discriminating people of other (or no) religions.

For example; if I allow gay marriage fundamental Christians (to randomly pick a religious sect) are still able not to marry the same sex but if my laws were the words of the bible (KJV if we must be specific) those who don't follow that religion are discriminated against.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Gay "marriage" is not legal here in tekania, in fact, no marriage is legal or illegal per se. We in Tekania follow Common Law, which dictates that "Marriage is an institution that has existed prior to government, and therefore government has no direct control or legistaltive capacity in it." In addition we do not endorse marriage in any form, as it stands in direct violation of Common Law, which superceeds all UN capacity to legislate. Marriage is left in the pervue and control of family and religion where it belongs, and not state law. All marriage is covered under contractual law held between people and/or religious institutions for it's control and perusal.

We, the Nation of CCN, propose that the UN STAY OUT OF gay/lesbian marriages and/or rights. This should be done because people/nations are so set in their ideas, and stubborn, that they will not change their opinions. Also in action is a repealing poll, so I further suggest that all radicalists stay out of this, as the UN "law" (more like ordinance) may be repealed.

The purpose of the UN (correct me if I'm wrong) is to protect other nations from you, and protect your nation from others, through stringent and voted upon ordinences. This issue does not involve the physical well-being of a nation's inhabitants, does not affect other nations in any negative form (in RL gay/lesbians would move to a different country), and therefore the UN should not be involved as basicly a cry-baby's mother.

The purpose of the UN is to pass laws and help to maintain some semblance of order in an utterly divided world, hopefully preventing some or many conflicts.

And, as said at [urlhttp://www.un.org/Pubs/CyberSchoolBus/bookstor/kits/english/unintro/unintro.htm[/url]:

The purpose of the United Nations is to bring all nations of the world together to work for peace and development, based on the principles of justice, human dignity and the well-being of all people. It affords the opportunity for countries to balance global interdependence and national interests when addressing international problems.

The issue does involve the physical well-being of a nation's inhabitants. Gays and lesbians are at a significantly larger risk of STDs like HIV/AIDS, because of the sexual activites they perpetrate the body was not designed for (i.e., oral/anal sex). (To repress a possible argument for gays: Use a condom? The failure rate of condoms is in the double-digit percentage rates.)

...

Can nobody tell me what ‘gay science’ is?

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Back New World

The logical way to discover true happiness. :D

For those of you who really believe legalising gay marriages will lower the birth rate... do you ever stop and think? I mean, that has to be one of the most nonsensical arguments I've ever heard. Do you believe gays will suddenly turn heterosexual and start having kids if you prevent them from marrying?

And, as this thread says... you can protest all you like, if you're in the UN, then your country allows gay marriages. :P

Mehh, even if it technically does...the official position of Kitsune Island, as so decreed right now by its Monarch, King Miles Attacca:

On the 30th of May, Year of Our Lord 2004, the Constitutional Monarchy of Kitsune Island does hereby recognize that in technicalities enforced by the United Nations it must recognize a "right to gay 'marriages.'" However, it holds a firm opposition of the supposed "right" and also firmly discourages homosexual relations in general, thus purposely conflicting with the United Nations laws, as it doubts that there is a way that such ridiculousness can be truly enforced. Thus, Kitsune Island, upon formal briefing on the issue, hereby completely ignores the United Nations ruling and refuses to recognize "gay marriage" and "gay civil unions" ad infinitun. Kitsune Island will, however, continue its official position of granting equal civil rights under the law to homosexuals both past and present, making it illegal to discriminate against homosexuals in employing, socializing, educating, et al. As stated semi-informally by the Monarch himself, King Miles Attacca: "They do have equal civil rights. And if they want to have at it in the bedroom, so be it. But we're not going to recognize so-called 'gay marriages' or 'homosexual civil unions,' because Kitsune Island has always and will continue to promote its position that marriage is sacred between a male and a female. May any gays or lesbians who hear this pack up for an über-liberal country if they wish, and if the United Nations wants to argue about it they can talk to me over official channels."

However much sense that makes, it's translated to informal; thus: "Go at it with each other if you want, but go at tax cuts with each other somewhere else."


UN representative,
The Back New World

:lol:

yeah anyways, it's bible "thumpers" who love the bible way too much and follow it word for word, whereas bible "bashers" think it's a "plot"-holey piece of lies for the weak....such as myself.

And what of those in between? Those who are not stereotypical fundamenatlists, nor complete atheists? Those who use the Bible as a plot-holy resource to make their decisions? There is a reasonable in-between, a lot more common most likely than either extreme. You've got to take them into consideration.

How many great world leaders were religious? Luther certainly can't be considered weak; he pointed out many weaknesses in the Roman Catholic Church that were hence mended in the "Counter-Reformation," although the rift between the two groups has never come close to totally mending. So that's one example. Think of any others? Look what Muhammad did, maybe..he was certainly a powerful religious leader. Name a few modern, influencial leaders (besides Adolf Hitler, Margaret Sanger -- even she was religious early in her life, but partially because of her nonreligious father began to turn against it -- et al.). I'll see if I can come up with a list for them, too.



yay for gay marriage! now onward towards women's rights... :D
Yeh i totally agree with u, i think every one has a right to their beliefs and should carry them out as long as no one (or animal) is hurt, physicaly or mentaly.

Then by your own statement, homosexuality and homosexual acts can not be allowed to be carried out. Because homosexual acts do hurt physically. The body is not designed for homosexual activites such as the penetration of the mouth or anus by the penis; such activities can result in the spread of STDs, tearing of anal tissue, et al. To say nothing of the physical pain that can come from anal sex.

Most Laioians are not christians, we're to sensible, but we do have a small minority. They tried to agitate for a ban on same-sex unions, but it quickly stopped. After a few of their churches burned to the ground... they decided that other things were of more interest to them.

So you and/or a segregationalist/semi-terrorist population acted in favor of outright persecution of those noticably religoius? I find that beyond condemnation in its level of severity. :(

This is not about religion nor biblical writings for all of you out there who hold on to the ideas of freedom and law&order. This is about breaking a law if your the same sex it is illegal to get married, it's illegal to steal a car why should the guy who steals the car go to jail, and the homosexuals don't. Just because a fanatic mayor in one of your citiys decides to overrule your state goverments law it's o.k.?????????????

Is anarchy NEXT?????????????????????????????????????????????/

And yet religions and the Bible do tie into this issue, in the area that many religions find homosexuality to be a serious offense, and of course the debate of "Is there a God?"

[Amen! finally another christian. Thank you for saying that.

Nimbus i complement you on your efforts, for there are very few christians out there who truely understand their religion. But i believe your cries are falling on deaf ears for they refuse the truth.

(Not to offend, but) *solemn nod*

A few out-of-character points I'd like to drop in...

1) The Roman Catholic Church is not the first Christian church, it was a result of the schism with the Orthodox church. As I understand it, this was because the Catholics broke the Commandment concerning the worship of graven images.

2) Nimbus-Sun, the best thing about reading your posts is knowing that it doesn't matter how much you scream, shout and throw your toys around, the world won't change because of your efforts. How galling for you, how amusing for me.

3) Booyah - no hard feelings regarding the homosexuality/schizophrenia thang.

4) Of portugal - even if you share certain views with Nimbus-sun, how can you "complement you on your efforts"? He/she is a goon and not a good ally for you at all.

5) If the Christians zealots (note the use of the word zealots) turn out to be right and God is as they say...damn it, I'm going to be at the front of an enormous crowd of sinners telling Him that he's wrong.

1. It is still tied to the original Church as founded by Peter. The Commandment meant that "you shall not worship foreign images" such as pagan gods, of course. But it did not mean that you could not pray to Mary or another saint and ask them to intercede (pray for you) to God. It sin't worshipping. Rather, it's a letter of request of sorts; you ask the saint to themselves pray that God will give you special guidance or protection.

2. At least some people in this world aren't lazy enough to sit on their duffs all day, but actually to get up and debate world issues, as we now are in this forum.

5. What of the more reasonable people? Instead of the über-ONOS-fundamentalist-people who apparently live next door to you, those who make calm, reasoned debates, and who do listen fervently for the truth, in whatever form it may come in? Rather than the reasoning of "I've already made up my mind; don't confuse me with the facts" (as in "ah, they're all fundamentalists, no matter what they say").

Plus if i was an atheist i would be constantly tormented by the fact that what if God is real? WOuld i be going to hell.

So you believe I'll burn in hell just for not believing? How very tolerant of your God. I'm glad most Christians (and believers in general) are a little more open-minded.

Also, if there were a God, I somehow don't think he would go around killing people (via AIDS) just for acts of love which involve only them and harm no-one.

Because if there is a God and he's that intolerant and psychotic, damn, we're in a mess. . . ;)

The Catholic Church (yes, us happy fundamentalist Bible-thumpers many) has constantly stated that if you do not believe out of ignorance, you will not be judged negatively for it. However, if you KNOW that the certain religion is the right path to choose, yet you PURPOSELY IGNORE IT, you will be certainly negatively judged on the Final Day.

God does not kill people or do evil. But sometimes he does let the corruption caused by Satan and "the Fall" to get through to put a point across. As in -- homosexual relations are not healthy; the body was not designed for such things; et al.

First off, let me say that I am against same sex marriages. The point of having males and females is procreation. If you are having sex with the same gender then it's not a very effective way to procreate. But this is of course just the biological way of looking at the debate.

I am a Christian. I do not understand Homosexuality because I am not a homosexual. I believe that the bible does say that the activity of homsexuals is wrong. I believe that God is love, but that he has the ability and prerogative to wipe out entire nations should he decide to. My God is the word, and more than the word. And God loves everyone, even homosexuals. God loves everyone, not just those who seek his face or his grace.

A christian has the duty and obligation to be as much like our savior Jesus Christ as is humanly possible. And if you read the Christian Bible then you know that Christ loved the sinners as much as his disciples. He went to towns and he stayed in the homes of sinners, he ate dinner with sinners. He didn't do this because he wanted to chastise them or condemn them, he did this to show that God loved them. He was showing this fact to the sinner and his disciples and the people of the time. I do know several homosexuals, I have worked on stage with them, I have eaten at their homes. They are people like anyone else, but the actual bond of matrimony was created for man and woman. Two men or two women can co-habitate with each other for whatever means it serves for them. But I just cannot support the idea of same sex marriage. I still love my homosexual friends and I don't hold any ill will toward them or their partners. But if they ask me I tell them the same thing I say here.

If you are Atheist then that is your right. I will pray for you and hope that you find faith in God. But if I cannot show you that God exists through my walk in life and my relationship with Christ, then what good does it do me to yell and scream at you for your beliefs? I would call upon any Christians here to follow their hearts on such issues. When the ability to change a resolution becomes available I would ask that you all please look at rescinding this one. But as someone said here, you have free choice. Use it wisely.

In closing, I will be resigning my status with the UN. I cannot allow my country to support this issue. I may rejoin should such resolutions be rescinded one fine day. I hope I haven't irked too many people with this tirade. But I just couldnt stand watching this without trying to say something useful.

This is what I have been stating and always will.

I must say, I am a little confused by some of the arguments presented here. The existence of males and females does perhaps have something to do with procreation, but the ability to procreate does not necessarily have anything to do with marriage. As you may not have noticed, most humans have the ability to procreate, barring certain health problems. While I am a gay man, I *could* have intercourse with a woman and we could have a child.

Many people in the forum have mentioned procreation as the primary reason for marriage. This confuses me. While I believe that the best place for children to be raised is in a loving, stable relationship with two parents, I do not believe that the gender of the parents matters. I do think that the children are better off when the parents are married--because of the legal protections associated with marriage. More on the procreation issue: if procreation is the primary reason for marriage...what about "heterosexual" couples that are infertile? (this includes your widowed grandfather/mother who remarries)? What about adoption? Are the children in adopted families living in immoral homes because their "parents" did not engage in intercourse to create them?

Sorry for the long post :(

May peace and light be with us all
:D

The point is that you (usually) choose to DEFY the purpose ot intercourse as a method of procreation and mutual pleasure and an expression of love. You take away the fundamental element of procreation, and simply leave the pleasure (and ((usually, you might say)) love), thus corruptign and misusing the gift.

[ You constantly attack my religion don't you. Well let me give you a lesson from the bible. The first part (genisis) it did not say what animals the almighty created. And who says God's day is "one day" ON GOd's scale every thing is magnified. God's day might equal 14 million years or just a million or even a billion. So consider your term of evolution in that freakin equation and you'll see that the bible is completely right an little athesist like you are wrong. Plus if i was an atheist i would be constantly tormented by the fact that what if God is real? WOuld i be going to hell. I would long for the fact that maybe there is something after death. There is a such thing as ghosts, ghosts are spirits and spirits are a vital role in the bible. So something has to be true about it. And you would say that those prophecies by those old men was just rabblings. Well let me give you another lesson. In the revelations(the end of the world part of the book) there is a warning that there will be wars and rumors of wars in the middle east. Now let me think how long ago was this, you say millions of years ago. And what's happening now, well lets think whats happening now in the middle east. Also God said that if a man lays with another man then he shall bleed of himself. Well what does this mean. To me it means that he might just get AIDS. Now lets think again, who has the most AIDS, GAY MEN! If that isn't enough then you are in denile, and i can't help ya.

Do you think that the bible is literal then? How do you explain the three different stories of the creation that are held in Genesis? Also what kind of clothing do you wear? Because you know that you aren't allowed to wear two types of fabric at once. Do all your women go live in tents outside your cities during their period? If not your are a blasphemer. Oh and a small point to make too: The original text of the bible doesn't actually make any comment on homosexuality. Poor translation from Hebrew through Aramaic, Greek and Latin have led to a version not entirely in keeping with the original. But then you know this already.

Marriage as a civil union is what I presume is held up in this law. Gay people won't want to be married in such an innacurate, inarticulate, bigoted and uneducated forum as the church.

The Bible is not meant to be interpreted as 100% literal. There are certainly literal teachings, then there are metaphorical teachings to get the point across quite often -- Revelation used symbolic language to reach people of the time being persecuted by Romans and the like, to tell them that yes, there was hope amidst all the destruction. One of the many reasons there is such conflict between religions and nonbelievers is because too many people take the Bible's text to be 100% literal.

Well, my solution to the Civil Unions v Marriage debate is the following:

A Single term for all; Civil Union.

In other words, the only acceptable legal term for a union between 2 people would be Civil Union. Church (/Synagogue/Temple/Mosque/etcetera) marriages could be called such outside of court or official paperwork.

A Couple married in Church (/Synagogue/Temple/Mosque/etcetera) would then apply for, and as long as they were the proper age, get, a Certificate of Civil Union.

A same-sex Couple who decided to 'marry' might not be allowed in by the Church (/Synagogue/Temple/Mosque/etcetera) but what's separation of Church and state for? They would just apply for a certificate of Civil Union like the first couple and also get it, as long as they were old enough.

There. Problem solved. (right?)

Yes this is what I agree with, infact its what my country has done. Because if you notice no where does it say you must call Gay marriage a marriage, and as such you can follow these words of wisdom

Incorrect in part, your comment there,

In actuality, the proposal passed on gay rights in fact stipulates the protection and recognition of gay "marriage", the legality of which means the proposal is in fact enforcing the idea of gay marriage, now, by the unique "Its law so shut up you can't disagree now due to the game mechanics assumption of 100% enforcement" standard all members are stuck with, :wink:

Ergo, in fact you probably cannot now pass any law preventing gay marriage, and by stipulating that it is a "civil union" now for all rather then "marriage", even if for hetero couples, via the state, too, would in effect do so.

Perversely this means, you could say that heterosexual couples may engage only in civil union recognised by the state, but homosexual couples are still allowed to "marry" via "marriage".

And, furthermore due to the non-repelations statute lay'd down by the mods in order to minimise possible chaos, this cannot for the forseeable future be changed.

Now, perhaps a more likely solution would be to say that all married couples of any sort get a certificate from the govt. a civ. union certi. which says the are all up for equal benefits, granted it won't shut up the "gays can't be allowed to marry" bunch, but it might calm them a little by involving the words "civil union" :wink:

Also on another note, a church would probably be forced by u.n. law to carry out a gay marriage, as it is stipulated as being recognised and protected, meaning to refuse would be a breech of international law, and I assure you my nations athiest legal firms would be glad to sue for comp'o on the homosexual couples behalf!

- The Rep of Komokom.

Is the separation-of-Church-and-State law not enforced in the United Nations? The right to exercise religion and the responsibility of all nations and international organizations to not promote nor persecute a religion and its members?

In the first place let's face facts ,scientists or political leaders c'ant even decide wheather homosexuality is something your born with or your brain i'snt working right. And allthough i'm a member of the u.n., i d'ont believe were here to judge and or pass laws on moralitry. As the ruler of Allgathor i believe and hope this body has more important issues to discuss.This is an issue that should be decided by each country independently, this has nothing to do with world politics. I for one believe that if only four percent of the population is gay and there mentally ill i don't they should be allowed to marry much less vote. In Allgathor we have alaw against same sex marriages and if a rogue mayor decides to allow this to happen he will be treated like any other law breaker

My exact position; leave the decision of the matter to the individual nations as far as "civil unions," tax cuts, and the like. Leave the matter of deciding whether homosexuality is moral or not to the religious organizations, who are obviously best-equipped to state their own views. And speaking of marriage, is that not (usually) something performed in a church? Maybe the gays could find a liberal-enough church to perform a "marriage" of the two persons? Adam and Steve, the Church of Whatever You Want now pronounces you Significant Other and Significant Other. You may kiss the Other.

I make the decisions for my country! NO one in the world can force me to make gay marriges legal! So you shut up!

Yes, and I make my decisions and then I post them up, and right now I am deciding your either VERY new around here, or your a screaming idiot.

If your a member of the U.N. that is, because if you are, then gay marriage is allowed and protected by international law in your country. And if you have even an inkling into the workings of this game then you would know the rules stipulate all passed U.N. resolutions are 100% enforced law.

I am beginning to sound like a broken record. :?

- The Rep of Komokom. :wink:

I'll purposely break it and risk a war with the United Nations itself to get the point across, then. And a second point, too -- that there are some issues that even rational-minded nations won't put up with being decided by someone else. My, am I sounding like the fanatic tonight. :D

Enh. Don't jump to conclusions. From personal experience, homophobia is as rampant among dumb schoolkids as it is among Southerners. Or fundamentalist Christians. Or ethnic minorities. Or the police and military.

Yes, being called "gay" by my charming peer group is the way my day brightens 110 percent. :| It's very rampant, calling someone "gay" as an inslut. I wish they meant "happy" by it, like the old definition ran. -_-

*Applauds New Fuglies*

If you read the thread you would have noticed that common sense won over.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

...just proactively stamping out the lunatic fringe, besides this thing is 10 pages long. :?

Could I, a supposed member of the "lunatic fringe" by your definition, have made an argument such as above, if I truly was a loony? :(

Chief Minister Rhys once tried to outlaw _heterosexual_ marriage. Needless to say it was the last time the Bureau of Advisors took him out for a drink or two. Or three.

The Wesperosphere wasn't around for the vote on homosexual marriage. I'm sure if we had been it would have been voted for. In Wesperosphere, what the people do in their own time is their business, so long as it doesn't interfere with the government's absolute control over everything.

-Secondary Minister James Allen Pope, DTW

(Disappointed in the intolerance by his fellow Christians, Prince Tony walks away, shaking his head in shame)

(After an awkward five minutes of silence, he sticks his head back in the door and yells) GAY RIGHTS!(He leaves)

+His royal highness:
Prince Tony of Vivelon
Unofficial UN Dead Horse beater (but only on ethics topics)
http://img71.photobucket.com/albums/v215/TonyS37/vivelon_flag.jpg
"An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind." ~Mahatma Gandhi

We, the Nation of CCN, propose that the UN STAY OUT OF gay/lesbian marriages and/or rights. This should be done because people/nations are so set in their ideas, and stubborn, that they will not change their opinions. Also in action is a repealing poll, so I further suggest that all radicalists stay out of this, as the UN "law" (more like ordinance) may be repealed.

The purpose of the UN (correct me if I'm wrong) is to protect other nations from you, and protect your nation from others, through stringent and voted upon ordinences. This issue does not involve the physical well-being of a nation's inhabitants, does not affect other nations in any negative form (in RL gay/lesbians would move to a different country), and therefore the UN should not be involved as basicly a cry-baby's mother.

The purpose of the UN is to pass laws and help to maintain some semblance of order in an utterly divided world, hopefully preventing some or many conflicts.

And, as said at [urlhttp://www.un.org/Pubs/CyberSchoolBus/bookstor/kits/english/unintro/unintro.htm[/url]:

The purpose of the United Nations is to bring all nations of the world together to work for peace and development, based on the principles of justice, human dignity and the well-being of all people. It affords the opportunity for countries to balance global interdependence and national interests when addressing international problems.

The issue does involve the physical well-being of a nation's inhabitants. Gays and lesbians are at a significantly larger risk of STDs like HIV/AIDS, because of the sexual activites they perpetrate the body was not designed for (i.e., oral/anal sex). (To repress a possible argument for gays: Use a condom? The failure rate of condoms is in the double-digit percentage rates.)

...

Can nobody tell me what ‘gay science’ is?

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Back New World

The logical way to discover true happiness. :D

For those of you who really believe legalising gay marriages will lower the birth rate... do you ever stop and think? I mean, that has to be one of the most nonsensical arguments I've ever heard. Do you believe gays will suddenly turn heterosexual and start having kids if you prevent them from marrying?

And, as this thread says... you can protest all you like, if you're in the UN, then your country allows gay marriages. :P

Mehh, even if it technically does...the official position of Kitsune Island, as so decreed right now by its Monarch, King Miles Attacca:

On the 30th of May, Year of Our Lord 2004, the Constitutional Monarchy of Kitsune Island does hereby recognize that in technicalities enforced by the United Nations it must recognize a "right to gay 'marriages.'" However, it holds a firm opposition of the supposed "right" and also firmly discourages homosexual relations in general, thus purposely conflicting with the United Nations laws, as it doubts that there is a way that such ridiculousness can be truly enforced. Thus, Kitsune Island, upon formal briefing on the issue, hereby completely ignores the United Nations ruling and refuses to recognize "gay marriage" and "gay civil unions" ad infinitun. Kitsune Island will, however, continue its official position of granting equal civil rights under the law to homosexuals both past and present, making it illegal to discriminate against homosexuals in employing, socializing, educating, et al. As stated semi-informally by the Monarch himself, King Miles Attacca: "They do have equal civil rights. And if they want to have at it in the bedroom, so be it. But we're not going to recognize so-called 'gay marriages' or 'homosexual civil unions,' because Kitsune Island has always and will continue to promote its position that marriage is sacred between a male and a female. May any gays or lesbians who hear this pack up for an über-liberal country if they wish, and if the United Nations wants to argue about it they can talk to me over official channels."

However much sense that makes, it's translated to informal; thus: "Go at it with each other if you want, but go at tax cuts with each other somewhere else."


UN representative,
The Back New World

:lol:

yeah anyways, it's bible "thumpers" who love the bible way too much and follow it word for word, whereas bible "bashers" think it's a "plot"-holey piece of lies for the weak....such as myself.

And what of those in between? Those who are not stereotypical fundamenatlists, nor complete atheists? Those who use the Bible as a plot-holy resource to make their decisions? There is a reasonable in-between, a lot more common most likely than either extreme. You've got to take them into consideration.

How many great world leaders were religious? Luther certainly can't be considered weak; he pointed out many weaknesses in the Roman Catholic Church that were hence mended in the "Counter-Reformation," although the rift between the two groups has never come close to totally mending. So that's one example. Think of any others? Look what Muhammad did, maybe..he was certainly a powerful religious leader. Name a few modern, influencial leaders (besides Adolf Hitler, Margaret Sanger -- even she was religious early in her life, but partially because of her nonreligious father began to turn against it -- et al.). I'll see if I can come up with a list for them, too.



yay for gay marriage! now onward towards women's rights... :D
Yeh i totally agree with u, i think every one has a right to their beliefs and should carry them out as long as no one (or animal) is hurt, physicaly or mentaly.

Then by your own statement, homosexuality and homosexual acts can not be allowed to be carried out. Because homosexual acts do hurt physically. The body is not designed for homosexual activites such as the penetration of the mouth or anus by the penis; such activities can result in the spread of STDs, tearing of anal tissue, et al. To say nothing of the physical pain that can come from anal sex.

Most Laioians are not christians, we're to sensible, but we do have a small minority. They tried to agitate for a ban on same-sex unions, but it quickly stopped. After a few of their churches burned to the ground... they decided that other things were of more interest to them.

So you and/or a segregationalist/semi-terrorist population acted in favor of outright persecution of those noticably religoius? I find that beyond condemnation in its level of severity. :(

This is not about religion nor biblical writings for all of you out there who hold on to the ideas of freedom and law&order. This is about breaking a law if your the same sex it is illegal to get married, it's illegal to steal a car why should the guy who steals the car go to jail, and the homosexuals don't. Just because a fanatic mayor in one of your citiys decides to overrule your state goverments law it's o.k.?????????????

Is anarchy NEXT?????????????????????????????????????????????/

And yet religions and the Bible do tie into this issue, in the area that many religions find homosexuality to be a serious offense, and of course the debate of "Is there a God?"

[Amen! finally another christian. Thank you for saying that.

Nimbus i complement you on your efforts, for there are very few christians out there who truely understand their religion. But i believe your cries are falling on deaf ears for they refuse the truth.

(Not to offend, but) *solemn nod*

A few out-of-character points I'd like to drop in...

1) The Roman Catholic Church is not the first Christian church, it was a result of the schism with the Orthodox church. As I understand it, this was because the Catholics broke the Commandment concerning the worship of graven images.

2) Nimbus-Sun, the best thing about reading your posts is knowing that it doesn't matter how much you scream, shout and throw your toys around, the world won't change because of your efforts. How galling for you, how amusing for me.

3) Booyah - no hard feelings regarding the homosexuality/schizophrenia thang.

4) Of portugal - even if you share certain views with Nimbus-sun, how can you "complement you on your efforts"? He/she is a goon and not a good ally for you at all.

5) If the Christians zealots (note the use of the word zealots) turn out to be right and God is as they say...damn it, I'm going to be at the front of an enormous crowd of sinners telling Him that he's wrong.

1. It is still tied to the original Church as founded by Peter. The Commandment meant that "you shall not worship foreign images" such as pagan gods, of course. But it did not mean that you could not pray to Mary or another saint and ask them to intercede (pray for you) to God. It sin't worshipping. Rather, it's a letter of request of sorts; you ask the saint to themselves pray that God will give you special guidance or protection.

2. At least some people in this world aren't lazy enough to sit on their duffs all day, but actually to get up and debate world issues, as we now are in this forum.

5. What of the more reasonable people? Instead of the über-ONOS-fundamentalist-people who apparently live next door to you, those who make calm, reasoned debates, and who do listen fervently for the truth, in whatever form it may come in? Rather than the reasoning of "I've already made up my mind; don't confuse me with the facts" (as in "ah, they're all fundamentalists, no matter what they say").

Plus if i was an atheist i would be constantly tormented by the fact that what if God is real? WOuld i be going to hell.

So you believe I'll burn in hell just for not believing? How very tolerant of your God. I'm glad most Christians (and believers in general) are a little more open-minded.

Also, if there were a God, I somehow don't think he would go around killing people (via AIDS) just for acts of love which involve only them and harm no-one.

Because if there is a God and he's that intolerant and psychotic, damn, we're in a mess. . . ;)

The Catholic Church (yes, us happy fundamentalist Bible-thumpers many) has constantly stated that if you do not believe out of ignorance, you will not be judged negatively for it. However, if you KNOW that the certain religion is the right path to choose, yet you PURPOSELY IGNORE IT, you will be certainly negatively judged on the Final Day.

God does not kill people or do evil. But sometimes he does let the corruption caused by Satan and "the Fall" to get through to put a point across. As in -- homosexual relations are not healthy; the body was not designed for such things; et al.

First off, let me say that I am against same sex marriages. The point of having males and females is procreation. If you are having sex with the same gender then it's not a very effective way to procreate. But this is of course just the biological way of looking at the debate.

I am a Christian. I do not understand Homosexuality because I am not a homosexual. I believe that the bible does say that the activity of homsexuals is wrong. I believe that God is love, but that he has the ability and prerogative to wipe out entire nations should he decide to. My God is the word, and more than the word. And God loves everyone, even homosexuals. God loves everyone, not just those who seek his face or his grace.

A christian has the duty and obligation to be as much like our savior Jesus Christ as is humanly possible. And if you read the Christian Bible then you know that Christ loved the sinners as much as his disciples. He went to towns and he stayed in the homes of sinners, he ate dinner with sinners. He didn't do this because he wanted to chastise them or condemn them, he did this to show that God loved them. He was showing this fact to the sinner and his disciples and the people of the time. I do know several homosexuals, I have worked on stage with them, I have eaten at their homes. They are people like anyone else, but the actual bond of matrimony was created for man and woman. Two men or two women can co-habitate with each other for whatever means it serves for them. But I just cannot support the idea of same sex marriage. I still love my homosexual friends and I don't hold any ill will toward them or their partners. But if they ask me I tell them the same thing I say here.

If you are Atheist then that is your right. I will pray for you and hope that you find faith in God. But if I cannot show you that God exists through my walk in life and my relationship with Christ, then what good does it do me to yell and scream at you for your beliefs? I would call upon any Christians here to follow their hearts on such issues. When the ability to change a resolution becomes available I would ask that you all please look at rescinding this one. But as someone said here, you have free choice. Use it wisely.

In closing, I will be resigning my status with the UN. I cannot allow my country to support this issue. I may rejoin should such resolutions be rescinded one fine day. I hope I haven't irked too many people with this tirade. But I just couldnt stand watching this without trying to say something useful.

This is what I have been stating and always will.

I must say, I am a little confused by some of the arguments presented here. The existence of males and females does perhaps have something to do with procreation, but the ability to procreate does not necessarily have anything to do with marriage. As you may not have noticed, most humans have the ability to procreate, barring certain health problems. While I am a gay man, I *could* have intercourse with a woman and we could have a child.

Many people in the forum have mentioned procreation as the primary reason for marriage. This confuses me. While I believe that the best place for children to be raised is in a loving, stable relationship with two parents, I do not believe that the gender of the parents matters. I do think that the children are better off when the parents are married--because of the legal protections associated with marriage. More on the procreation issue: if procreation is the primary reason for marriage...what about "heterosexual" couples that are infertile? (this includes your widowed grandfather/mother who remarries)? What about adoption? Are the children in adopted families living in immoral homes because their "parents" did not engage in intercourse to create them?

Sorry for the long post :(

May peace and light be with us all
:D

The point is that you (usually) choose to DEFY the purpose ot intercourse as a method of procreation and mutual pleasure and an expression of love. You take away the fundamental element of procreation, and simply leave the pleasure (and ((usually, you might say)) love), thus corruptign and misusing the gift.

[ You constantly attack my religion don't you. Well let me give you a lesson from the bible. The first part (genisis) it did not say what animals the almighty created. And who says God's day is "one day" ON GOd's scale every thing is magnified. God's day might equal 14 million years or just a million or even a billion. So consider your term of evolution in that freakin equation and you'll see that the bible is completely right an little athesist like you are wrong. Plus if i was an atheist i would be constantly tormented by the fact that what if God is real? WOuld i be going to hell. I would long for the fact that maybe there is something after death. There is a such thing as ghosts, ghosts are spirits and spirits are a vital role in the bible. So something has to be true about it. And you would say that those prophecies by those old men was just rabblings. Well let me give you another lesson. In the revelations(the end of the world part of the book) there is a warning that there will be wars and rumors of wars in the middle east. Now let me think how long ago was this, you say millions of years ago. And what's happening now, well lets think whats happening now in the middle east. Also God said that if a man lays with another man then he shall bleed of himself. Well what does this mean. To me it means that he might just get AIDS. Now lets think again, who has the most AIDS, GAY MEN! If that isn't enough then you are in denile, and i can't help ya.

Do you think that the bible is literal then? How do you explain the three different stories of the creation that are held in Genesis? Also what kind of clothing do you wear? Because you know that you aren't allowed to wear two types of fabric at once. Do all your women go live in tents outside your cities during their period? If not your are a blasphemer. Oh and a small point to make too: The original text of the bible doesn't actually make any comment on homosexuality. Poor translation from Hebrew through Aramaic, Greek and Latin have led to a version not entirely in keeping with the original. But then you know this already.

Marriage as a civil union is what I presume is held up in this law. Gay people won't want to be married in such an innacurate, inarticulate, bigoted and uneducated forum as the church.

The Bible is not meant to be interpreted as 100% literal. There are certainly literal teachings, then there are metaphorical teachings to get the point across quite often -- Revelation used symbolic language to reach people of the time being persecuted by Romans and the like, to tell them that yes, there was hope amidst all the destruction. One of the many reasons there is such conflict between religions and nonbelievers is because too many people take the Bible's text to be 100% literal.

Well, my solution to the Civil Unions v Marriage debate is the following:

A Single term for all; Civil Union.

In other words, the only acceptable legal term for a union between 2 people would be Civil Union. Church (/Synagogue/Temple/Mosque/etcetera) marriages could be called such outside of court or official paperwork.

A Couple married in Church (/Synagogue/Temple/Mosque/etcetera) would then apply for, and as long as they were the proper age, get, a Certificate of Civil Union.

A same-sex Couple who decided to 'marry' might not be allowed in by the Church (/Synagogue/Temple/Mosque/etcetera) but what's separation of Church and state for? They would just apply for a certificate of Civil Union like the first couple and also get it, as long as they were old enough.

There. Problem solved. (right?)

Yes this is what I agree with, infact its what my country has done. Because if you notice no where does it say you must call Gay marriage a marriage, and as such you can follow these words of wisdom

Incorrect in part, your comment there,

In actuality, the proposal passed on gay rights in fact stipulates the protection and recognition of gay "marriage", the legality of which means the proposal is in fact enforcing the idea of gay marriage, now, by the unique "Its law so shut up you can't disagree now due to the game mechanics assumption of 100% enforcement" standard all members are stuck with, :wink:

Ergo, in fact you probably cannot now pass any law preventing gay marriage, and by stipulating that it is a "civil union" now for all rather then "marriage", even if for hetero couples, via the state, too, would in effect do so.

Perversely this means, you could say that heterosexual couples may engage only in civil union recognised by the state, but homosexual couples are still allowed to "marry" via "marriage".

And, furthermore due to the non-repelations statute lay'd down by the mods in order to minimise possible chaos, this cannot for the forseeable future be changed.

Now, perhaps a more likely solution would be to say that all married couples of any sort get a certificate from the govt. a civ. union certi. which says the are all up for equal benefits, granted it won't shut up the "gays can't be allowed to marry" bunch, but it might calm them a little by involving the words "civil union" :wink:

Also on another note, a church would probably be forced by u.n. law to carry out a gay marriage, as it is stipulated as being recognised and protected, meaning to refuse would be a breech of international law, and I assure you my nations athiest legal firms would be glad to sue for comp'o on the homosexual couples behalf!

- The Rep of Komokom.

Is the separation-of-Church-and-State law not enforced in the United Nations? The right to exercise religion and the responsibility of all nations and international organizations to not promote nor persecute a religion and its members?

In the first place let's face facts ,scientists or political leaders c'ant even decide wheather homosexuality is something your born with or your brain i'snt working right. And allthough i'm a member of the u.n., i d'ont believe were here to judge and or pass laws on moralitry. As the ruler of Allgathor i believe and hope this body has more important issues to discuss.This is an issue that should be decided by each country independently, this has nothing to do with world politics. I for one believe that if only four percent of the population is gay and there mentally ill i don't they should be allowed to marry much less vote. In Allgathor we have alaw against same sex marriages and if a rogue mayor decides to allow this to happen he will be treated like any other law breaker

My exact position; leave the decision of the matter to the individual nations as far as "civil unions," tax cuts, and the like. Leave the matter of deciding whether homosexuality is moral or not to the religious organizations, who are obviously best-equipped to state their own views. And speaking of marriage, is that not (usually) something performed in a church? Maybe the gays could find a liberal-enough church to perform a "marriage" of the two persons? Adam and Steve, the Church of Whatever You Want now pronounces you Significant Other and Significant Other. You may kiss the Other.

I make the decisions for my country! NO one in the world can force me to make gay marriges legal! So you shut up!

Yes, and I make my decisions and then I post them up, and right now I am deciding your either VERY new around here, or your a screaming idiot.

If your a member of the U.N. that is, because if you are, then gay marriage is allowed and protected by international law in your country. And if you have even an inkling into the workings of this game then you would know the rules stipulate all passed U.N. resolutions are 100% enforced law.

I am beginning to sound like a broken record. :?

- The Rep of Komokom. :wink:

I'll purposely break it and risk a war with the United Nations itself to get the point across, then. And a second point, too -- that there are some issues that even rational-minded nations won't put up with being decided by someone else. My, am I sounding like the fanatic tonight. :D

Enh. Don't jump to conclusions. From personal experience, homophobia is as rampant among dumb schoolkids as it is among Southerners. Or fundamentalist Christians. Or ethnic minorities. Or the police and military.

Yes, being called "gay" by my charming peer group is the way my day brightens 110 percent. :| It's very rampant, calling someone "gay" as an inslut. I wish they meant "happy" by it, like the old definition ran. -_-

*Applauds New Fuglies*

If you read the thread you would have noticed that common sense won over.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

...just proactively stamping out the lunatic fringe, besides this thing is 10 pages long. :?

Could I, a supposed member of the "lunatic fringe" by your definition, have made an argument such as above, if I truly was a loony? :(

The fact you wrote a book that contains little but your own personal bias and Judeo-Christian religious pedagogy would seem to confirm the truth to articles such as this. (http://home.sprintmail.com/~dtrout/psych/disorder.html)

The purpose of the UN (correct me if I'm wrong) is to protect other nations from you, and protect your nation from others, through stringent and voted upon ordinences. This issue does not involve the physical well-being of a nation's inhabitants, does not affect other nations in any negative form (in RL gay/lesbians would move to a different country), and therefore the UN should not be involved as basicly a cry-baby's mother.

The purpose of the UN is to pass laws and help to maintain some semblance of order in an utterly divided world, hopefully preventing some or many conflicts.

And, as said at [urlhttp://www.un.org/Pubs/CyberSchoolBus/bookstor/kits/english/unintro/unintro.htm[/url]:

The purpose of the United Nations is to bring all nations of the world together to work for peace and development, based on the principles of justice, human dignity and the well-being of all people. It affords the opportunity for countries to balance global interdependence and national interests when addressing international problems.

Actually it's to
The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Vew Fuglies, why did you quote all of that?

+His royal highness:
Prince Tony of Vivelon
Unofficial UN Dead Horse beater (but only on ethics topics)
http://img71.photobucket.com/albums/v215/TonyS37/vivelon_flag.jpg
"An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind." ~Mahatma Gandhi

Hmmm...I think I agree with you on this one Sephtoria. I mean, would you like to have an army filled with flaming homosexuals??? No seriously, If their fellow armed force got their pants blown off from a grenade would they not be distracted by that? Plus, It would be hard for all of them to run, their sore buttocks and STDs might get in the way.

Seriously, as a country girl, "Are you fer real? I mean c'mon, are you backwoods or jest plain retarded?"

I want a country full of people being who/what they want to be, personally. The homophobia in here is a bit frightening, honestly.

(and if it makes you feel superior to call me a lesbian, then go ahead, bubba. Don't let that confederate flag & David Allen Coe CD get in yer way.)

Lady Nessa

I know this is denied because i dont have the book anymore but the confederate army was known to dissalow homosexuals in the army.

Homosexual action are very wrong and i do not hate the actual person at all. But as for their actions in no way at all will I condone it. I cannot be called a bigot for hateing the actions not the person. Just as much as some cannot be for hateing gamblingl but doesnt hate those who gamble.

--dp--

*Kitsune Island spares the 'board its whole original post*

The fact you wrote a book that contains little but your own personal bias and Judeo-Christian religious pedagogy would seem to confirm the truth to articles such as this. (http://home.sprintmail.com/~dtrout/psych/disorder.html)

Ah, just like my mom's psychology class. "Religion = death." The way you answered seems to also contain bias against "Judeo-Christian" religion, too, eh? :|


Fundamentalist religion is often quite authoritarian in its structure, endowing its leaders with the image of having a special relationship with the deity. Control and suppresion of dissent are seen as the natural prerogatives of those holding high church positions. These factors have been used to explain the anxiety, "guilt, low self-esteem, sexual inhibitions, and vivid fears of divine punishment" noted among individuals who leave these churches.


And yet have you heard of a Catholic blowing up a 100-story skyscraper? Catholics do believe that the pope, cardinals, bishops, and priests all have special relationships with God, but that the people do also and are equally important. The aforementioned ministers are looked to as those helping to interpret what God has taught and to give counsel when we're not so sure of ourselves.


Obsession with sin and guilt seems to be a correlate of religious frameworks that stress moral perfection.


And yet my religion does not teach that you should watch your every move like a fanatic, as if telling one white lie would give you a heart attack. Although we're taught that we must look to improve ourselves, we must try as much as is humanly possible, without resorting to insane fanatacism. We acknowledge that humans are by nature imperfect, but also that we must do the best we can.


Religious insitutions and leaders that demand absolute subservience and unquestioning obedience from followers frequntly use punitive threats and devices to eliminate individuality.


We also are not controlled by a band of totalitarian/oligarchians and kill ourselves at their command. The Church is seen as a guiding point, basically a sort of moral compass, to help people in their individual quest to get to Heaven, which certainly should not be ignored but still does not rule like a dictator over our heads with a rod and staff.

Oh, and for the sake of the people on this 'board, don't quote my whole post. :D

Ah, just like my mom's psychology class. "Religion = death." The way you answered seems to also contain bias against "Judeo-Christian" religion, too, eh? :|

Is a bias against a bias, really a bias? If we are to follow literally Judeo-Christian scriptures as they apply to homosexuals and apply this moral code over the spectrum of law, as it was once before and in many cases remains in laws regarding marriage (a natural act of human pair bonding), what do you think may happen? Want a little history of what this so called morality has done?

On that note, don't bother replying with a 'morality' arguement because 1) morality is cutomary religious law 2) Not everyone is religous or has the same religion as yours 3)this debate is not about religion at all but about civil rights to a class of persons even so called holier than thou religions saw fit to crap all over.

Ah, just like my mom's psychology class. "Religion = death." The way you answered seems to also contain bias against "Judeo-Christian" religion, too, eh? :|

Is a bias against a bias, really a bias? If we are to follow literally Judeo-Christian scriptures as they apply to homosexuals and apply this moral code over the spectrum of law, as it was once before and in many cases remains in laws regarding marriage (a natural act of human pair bonding), what do you think may happen? Want a little history of what this so called morality has done?

On that note, don't bother replying with a 'morality' arguement because 1) morality is cutomary religious law 2) Not everyone is religous or has the same religion as yours 3)this debate is not about religion at all but about civil rights to a class of persons even so called holier than thou religions saw fit to crap all over.

Bias against a bias is a bias. So is bias against a bias against a bias.

Ah, "natural act." I like that clause, because it allows me to keep defending myself. You've just supplied evidence for MY cause in a way.

The human body was set up for male/female intercourse. The penis is designed to penetrate the vagina, which is designed to accept. It is not designed to be stuck in the anus or the mouth, which can cause tearing of anal tissue or transmitting of sexual diseases. Therefore, homosexuality is not a 'natural" act of human-pair bonding, because the body's "natural" bonding is male/female, and the other possible pairings have a much higher danger rate that the body was not designed to accept.

Ah, just like my mom's psychology class. "Religion = death." The way you answered seems to also contain bias against "Judeo-Christian" religion, too, eh? :|

Is a bias against a bias, really a bias? If we are to follow literally Judeo-Christian scriptures as they apply to homosexuals and apply this moral code over the spectrum of law, as it was once before and in many cases remains in laws regarding marriage (a natural act of human pair bonding), what do you think may happen? Want a little history of what this so called morality has done?

On that note, don't bother replying with a 'morality' arguement because 1) morality is cutomary religious law 2) Not everyone is religous or has the same religion as yours 3)this debate is not about religion at all but about civil rights to a class of persons even so called holier than thou religions saw fit to crap all over.

Bias against a bias is a bias. So is bias against a bias against a bias.

Ah, "natural act." I like that clause, because it allows me to keep defending myself. You've just supplied evidence for MY cause in a way.

The human body was set up for male/female intercourse. The penis is designed to penetrate the vagina, which is designed to accept. It is not designed to be stuck in the anus or the mouth, which can cause tearing of anal tissue or transmitting of sexual diseases. Therefore, homosexuality is not a 'natural" act of human-pair bonding, because the body's "natural" bonding is male/female, and the other possible pairings have a much higher danger rate that the body was not designed to accept.

Why oh why then, my little theo-naturalist/sexologist, does it happen? :idea:

PS..I'm quite sure a significant amount of vaginal tearing can occur during vaginal intercourse and childbirth.

I personally dont see thte big deal about this :?