NationStates Jolt Archive

The final abolition of the rogue outbreak of gay marriage would do far more good than it would harm. Check out the proposal (it's jumping pages, so just use that convenient little search bar) for more information. It still requires a LOT of support, though...so put your backs into it!

Bureaucrat of Nok-Nok

Rogue outbreak? Gay marriage has been legal by UN mandate for ages. Since this contradicts previous legislation, this will get deleted by the mods, and we will all cry 'yay' in incredibly depressed voices and please God, don't let us get into this unending quagmire of a debate again, I'll do anything, I'll divorce my third wife and two of my husbands, I'll give churches a trivial tax break, I'll stop reading Nietzsche.

The graven idols aren't up for discussion, though.

PDK Orthmann
Ministry of Wu-Wei

Christ on a bike, stop reading Nietzsche? I'd be willing to start reading the pompous old bore if I thought it would put a stop to the endless stream of "ban gay marriage" threads...

* The Rep of Komokom is seen polishing yet another large frying pan with a steel glint in his eyes and a cold smile, and is directing an awful lot of negative energy in the direction of one "Nok-Nok"...

"DON'T, make me come over there..."

- The Rep of Komokom. :wink:

The central committee of the WLP puts it Nok Nok that you made the proposal with the specific intent of driving us insane. No one, but no one would be so lazy and stupid not to take a few seconds to note that a) gay marriages are legal in the UN and b) that this cannot be repealed. We therefore conclude, giving you your worth as a rational human being, that you are utterly evil, that you enjoy watching grown men cry, and that secretly, you wish to be shoved in a burlap sack and beaten with the frying pan that the rep Komokom is holding.

Very well. You shall have your wish granted.

* And with-out further a-do, several frying pans stack themselves up near one "Nok-Nok" and are quickly followed by a sign saying,

"Knock-A-Nok-Nok, Only 5 Almight Komokom Dollars!" :D

* The Rep of Komokom will be donating all gathered funds to his nations defence of gay rights fund. That, and, buying more frying pans... :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

(And might I add there cetainly looks to be several sacks sitting next to the frying pans, you know, several, in case a few of them get warn out while we are exerting our-selves... :wink: )

It's always a shame when newer nations take it upon themselves to join and be removed from the UN so rapidly. Assuming, that is, that this particular proposal is a removing offence - I haven't yet done a sweep.

It's always a shame when newer nations take it upon themselves to join and be removed from the UN so rapidly. Assuming, that is, that this particular proposal is a removing offence - I haven't yet done a sweep.

Indeed, I'm suprised some newer nations don't take the time to read the rules and resolutions already passed in the UN...they inevitably end up with metaphorical egg on their political faces :roll:

It's always a shame when newer nations take it upon themselves to join and be removed from the UN so rapidly. Assuming, that is, that this particular proposal is a removing offence - I haven't yet done a sweep.

Indeed, I'm suprised some newer nations don't take the time to read the rules and resolutions already passed in the UN...they inevitably end up with metaphorical egg on their political faces :roll:

Or, indeed, a frying pan. :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

I still dont understand what these white-bred conservative cunts have against gay marriage. Did anyone say YOU had to marry a man? Back off of EVERYONES freedoms and go read your bible and realize that we arent here to pass laws based on your "good" book.

Since I have become the UN Representative for the Holy Empire of Gethamane, I have noted at least a dozen (probably more) instances of someone (usually the oft-reasonable, always welcome Representative of Komokom) indicating, very clearly, that Gay Marriage is already legal and that it cannot be repealed by any action we take in the UN.

So could someone explain why this keeps popping up?

OOC: Seriously. Why can't they get it?
Edit: Stupid typos. Always where you never see 'em when you preview.

Completely OOC: Yep. People just don't get it. This proposal passed muster, just, but 90% of the proposals on the topic demonstrate that no matter how many times I bash people with the rules and Komokom bashes them with a frying pan, people just refuse to learn.

Hence the fry-pans, and the nations suddenly dissolving in the night when they go off violently at other nations for simply stating the facts.

> > > Where did Nimbus-Sun go? < < <

(Okay, now I'm just being a bastard, but my gosh its fun!)

:D

I think the problem is an awful lot of newbie's (Judging by posts) who don't know the rules, and a whole lot more who,

JUST-WON'T-LISTEN-DARN'D-THEM !

But, eh, maybe its just me and all the other poor rational beings suffering in the ignorant seas of ninny's. Eh.

(Shrugs...)

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

It's a funny phenomenon, y'know.

Every site I'm a member of, I make certain I know the rules. Where the rules aren't clear, I ask. Hopefully, I can help other people out by clarifying them later and so the virtuous cycle can continue.
Are people like me really in a minority? Sure seems like it.

I mean, you don't take up a new sport or play a new board game without knowing what the rules are - or at least, a general concept of the rules.

these white-bred conservative c----s

Tsk, tsk... I thought One-Worlders were not suppose to stero-type people. My observations has been... they will throw mud quicker than those they decry.

How do you know that Nok-Nok is "white?"

As a straight and proud woman lover, i think that whatever the gays want to do is totally up to them. Would you like it if gays ruled the UN and banned heterosexual marriages?? i think not. if you don't like the laws, then geettt out.

----+++----ambasador face---+++----
empire of bracia

The always inevitable yet pessimistically hopeful nation of Berkylvania feels that this is an oportune moment to discuss the distasteful and upsetting national sport that seems to be endemic in some developing nations. Namely, Dead Horse Beating. While we appreciate cultural diversity, for the love of whatever, please, please, PLEASE stop beating the dead horses.

Other than that, welcome to the UN Nok-Nok.

First, I'd like to super-size this issue.

Nest, I think (I know) I speak for the entire people of the tiny yet lovably ineffectual Republic of Bobs BigBoy that YES, gay marriage should be banned.

In my country, only SERIOUS marriages are permitted. It is a very serious institution and should be treated that way. Outrageous displays of gaiety, frivolity, or gratuitous smiling at such a solemn convocation are repugnant. This goes especially for sudden outbreaks of dancing by tubby middle aged guys who refuse to accept that lounge bands doing covers of Jimmy Buffet tunes are NOT cool. But that's a different subject.

Besides, as our Mr.Cartman, of our Ministry for Cultural Affairs, can atest, marriage is totally gay anyway.

Thank you and have nice day.

First, I'd like to super-size this issue.

Nest, I think (I know) I speak for the entire people of the tiny yet lovably ineffectual Republic of Bobs BigBoy that YES, gay marriage should be banned.

In my country, only SERIOUS marriages are permitted. It is a very serious institution and should be treated that way. Outrageous displays of gaiety, frivolity, or gratuitous smiling at such a solemn convocation are repugnant. This goes especially for sudden outbreaks of dancing by tubby middle aged guys who refuse to accept that lounge bands doing covers of Jimmy Buffet tunes are NOT cool. But that's a different subject.

Besides, as our Mr.Cartman, of our Ministry for Cultural Affairs, can atest, marriage is totally gay anyway.

Thank you and have nice day.

The only thing the WLP Central committee wishes to know is, do you like pina coladas? How about walking in the rain? Personally, we are into champagne.

WLP CC (Jimmy Buffet Faction)

Gay marriages are FINE! Get over the fact that people are more compassionate towards homosexuals!

First, I'd like to super-size this issue.

Nest, I think (I know) I speak for the entire people of the tiny yet lovably ineffectual Republic of Bobs BigBoy that YES, gay marriage should be banned.

In my country, only SERIOUS marriages are permitted. It is a very serious institution and should be treated that way. Outrageous displays of gaiety, frivolity, or gratuitous smiling at such a solemn convocation are repugnant. This goes especially for sudden outbreaks of dancing by tubby middle aged guys who refuse to accept that lounge bands doing covers of Jimmy Buffet tunes are NOT cool. But that's a different subject.

Besides, as our Mr.Cartman, of our Ministry for Cultural Affairs, can atest, marriage is totally gay anyway.

Thank you and have nice day.
So a solemn marriage between two guys is alright - as long as no frivolity is engaged in?

The only thing the WLP Central committee wishes to know is, do you like pina coladas? How about walking in the rain? Personally, we are into champagne.

WLP CC (Jimmy Buffet Faction)

Sirs/Madams:

We referred your inquiry to our Minister Cartman.

He confirms that, yes, pina coladas and walks in the rain are fully excellent yet totally gay. But not as excellent as Cheezy Poufs and watching TV.

On a personal note, he also wishes to convey his opinion that champagne is totally gay, too, though it is a nice change from his nightly Coke & Aspirin, especially while listening to Rupert Holmes albums.

Thank you and have a nice day.

To those of you who are against gay marriage, are you against it for religious reasons, Roman Catholocism perhaps? If so, are you basing it on the quote from Leviticus that homosexuality is an abomination? If so, I have to say to you this:

Leviticus is an extension of the laws of Moses, given to Moses during the Exodus. Among the lesser laws listed in Exodus, are laws that make the death penalty, slavery, and probably polygamy and concubines, perfectly acceptable. None of these is acceptable today. Why? Because we have realized that such acts take away the dignity, freedom, and right to life of a human being, an idea that is very important within Catholocism. Now, by trying to refuse gays the right to marry, whether you intend to or not, you are making them feel less than human. You are discouraging their God-given individuality by telling them that having a sexual opinion different from yours is wrong. What is good and Catholic about that? Times change, which is why polygamy, slavery etc. are no longer acceptable. What is so wrong with the union of two people of the same gender who love each other?

(sorry to any of the game's polygamists, but it's what my faith tells me)

Bahgum would like to congratulate the proposers on the novelty of concept for this proposal. Ban Gay marriage...why has no-one thought of that before???
Pardon...oh sorry....apparently they have, about every couple of days since the inception of this game. It was a boring bigoted topic then, and it still is, only it's been done to death as well now.

Hey kids - it's gratuitous link time!

http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/archives/000662.html

* Having actually gone to the link, and having did read the many lines of interest holding text, and a multitude of comment, The Rep of Komokom swoons into what appears to be a faint, but, before he crumples to the floor, he is heard to utter,

"Thank the non-existing-diety's, we few here are not alone in the world..."

- The Rep of Komokom.

guess wut, if u look at resolutions in the UN that have been passed, there is one called Gay Rights that make gay marrage legal dumbies, so try'n to get a proposal to ban them is just a waste of time. booyaa!

I would not mind a resolution to ban gay marriages, simply because they are not natural. Biologically it is wrong, two guys or two girls cannot reproduce, and that is why I think it is wrong.

Some ambassadors have cited the non-biological basis of homosexual relationships as a reason to ban gay marriage. This is nonsense. Our sexual orientation is decided by our genetic makeup and we can no more choose our sexual orientation than we can the colour of our skin.
Preventing couples from joining in marriage on the basis that they cannot reproduce is pathetic. Should we tell infertile men that they cannot marry because they can't produce a child? Or a woman whose ovaries no longer produce eggs, that she cannot marry the person she loves because she cannot bear him a child?
Homosexual couples are just as dedicated to each other as heterosexual couples and it is right that the law should recognise their union in the same way the law recognises heterosexual unions. They should be afforded the same rights in terms of inheritance and tax allowances for families.
It has been proven that homosexual people have served a biological purpose during human evolution as carers of children, artistic persons and being generally more intelligent than heterosexual persons.
Discriminating against homosexuals on the grounds that they cannot reproduce is ridiculous in its implications for those heterosexuals who cannot conceive, and that these people who are biologically pre-ordained to be sexually oriented in the manner they are denied the state recognition of their love and wishes.
Our nation cannot endorse such a proposal and in fact finds it laughable that such a bill would ever be proposed.

I would not mind a resolution to ban gay marriages, simply because they are not natural. Biologically it is wrong, two guys or two girls cannot reproduce, and that is why I think it is wrong.
So marriage is all about reproduction? Is that the only reason why people are allowed to get married, now?

I thin one "Uranium Enterprises" has been sitting too close to their, errr, Uranium Enterprises. And consequently, their brain was fried.

Oh, and, I actually think two girls can reproduce, it simply required some fiddling with eggs removed from both, and, well, just some fiddling by the guys in white lab coats, but once re-planted in one... or even both if you went that far... its possible for two women to reproduce, got something to do with the chromosones and implanting DNA from one egg into another...

I think.

Anyway, I'm off to do another (2nd) draft of my "Sanctity of Public Media" proposal, rudely plugged just then. Please view (1st) draft in forum, page 1 or 2 I think... :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

I would not mind a resolution to ban gay marriages, simply because they are not natural. Biologically it is wrong, two guys or two girls cannot reproduce, and that is why I think it is wrong.
So marriage is all about reproduction? Is that the only reason why people are allowed to get married, now?

Actually the State of Tenesses in the USA, the same county which had the scopes monkeys trial, has ruled that the state may sue same-sexed individuals for unnatural conduct.

And that decision by Tennessee has what to do with NationStates?

And why should the rest of the (real) world follow that state's lead?

Enn,

1) Nothing at all relevant.

2) Awww H'yuk ! (Spits Tobacco)

Yeah, point two pretty much somes it all up in regards to Tenne'... :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom

And also, Uranium Enterprises, what does your 'point' have to do with marriage? Or the points that Enodia and Interested peoples raised?

Oh, well, Enn, I can answer this, I think, they are trying, trying, I say, to draw notice to the fact an "Real World" state has engaged in law which finds private acts between consenting adults of the same sex to be un-lawful.

I cetainly, may I add, hope they were trying to imply such laws here would not only be contradictory, but an example of authoritarian conservatism gone mad, where the governement has the right to crawl between your bed sheets and dictate what you do in your own home and said bed.

No, I would have thought that would be just a slight infringement to our civil rights, our human rights, right to equality for all, freedom from invasion of privacy...

Oh, did I add American (Real Life) laws and law makers are so contradictory they should all be ignored till it get on the national news in another country? :wink:

Oh, and funny enough, heres a good quote on what some think of Americans passing laws in relation to sexuality,

"Jesse Helms and Newt Gingrich were shaking hands congratulating themselves on the introduction of an antigay bill in Congress. If it passes, they won't be able to shake hands, because it will then be illegal for a prick to touch an asshole." - Judy Carter.

:)

- The Rep of Komokom.

I would not mind a resolution to ban gay marriages, simply because they are not natural. Biologically it is wrong, two guys or two girls cannot reproduce, and that is why I think it is wrong.
So marriage is all about reproduction? Is that the only reason why people are allowed to get married, now?

Actually the State of Tenesses in the USA, the same county which had the scopes monkeys trial, has ruled that the state may sue same-sexed individuals for unnatural conduct.
Beyond the fact that the Scopes Monkey Trial did not take place in the NS universe (and, in the RL universe where it did take place it has to be up there with the most bizarre moments of legal history), the statement hardly makes any sense.
You've told us that (in your opinion) homosexual marriage is wrong because the parties in the marriage cannot reproduce and also that (in the opinion of the State of Tennessee), homosexual behaviour is "unnatural conduct" for reasons which are not enunciated in your post. What you have not told us is either of the following:

1. Why the State of Tennessee believes that homosexual behaviour is unnatural.
2. Why you believe that the possibility for reproduction is the sole arbiter of a natural marriage.

Of those two missing pieces, the latter is infinitely more important to your argument than the former, since even with the reasoning used in Tennessee, you will still need to demonstrate why that reasoning is valid anywhere - especially here.

Gays occur all the time in nature, anyone remember the episode of Family Guy where Brian (the dog) goes to Hollywood and lives with his cousin, who is clearly a stereotypical gay? Homosexuality is alive and well in the rest of the animal kingdom.

And, for the information of whoever made that point about gays being the artistic and smart ones, I hope that was just a generalization. If not, you are wrong because I am an exception. I'm straight, smart, and artistic. (Just FYI)

* Wry smile at the last comment by Vivelon, the FYI...

Vivelon, are you trying to pick up?

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

Well, if you're in the neighborhood... lol

Actually, I got a girl (just gotta wait for my hitmen to take out her bf then score out of "sympathy")

'Til then, met me in the Stranger's bar, I'll buy ya a drink.

To those of you who are against gay marriage, are you against it for religious reasons, Roman Catholocism perhaps? If so, are you basing it on the quote from Leviticus that homosexuality is an abomination? If so, I have to say to you this:

Leviticus is an extension of the laws of Moses, given to Moses during the Exodus. Among the lesser laws listed in Exodus, are laws that make the death penalty, slavery, and probably polygamy and concubines, perfectly acceptable. None of these is acceptable today. Why? Because we have realized that such acts take away the dignity, freedom, and right to life of a human being, an idea that is very important within Catholocism. Now, by trying to refuse gays the right to marry, whether you intend to or not, you are making them feel less than human. You are discouraging their God-given individuality by telling them that having a sexual opinion different from yours is wrong. What is good and Catholic about that? Times change, which is why polygamy, slavery etc. are no longer acceptable. What is so wrong with the union of two people of the same gender who love each other?

(sorry to any of the game's polygamists, but it's what my faith tells me)

While it's true that Levitical law is no longer applicable today. That is not the only place it is stated as wrong.

Deuteronomy 22:5, Genesis 19:5-11, Judges 19:22, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 2 Timothy 3:1-5, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:27, 32, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10, Leviticus 18:22, 24, Leviticus 20:13, 23, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 11, Romans 1:24, 26-32, Ephesians 4:17-19, 1 Corinthians 6:11, 9-10

Also if homosexuality were ok, why did God make women to begin with? Genesis says that man needed a help partner.

Now I don't agree with a UN wide Gay Marriage ban. There are some things that are morally wrong and can be deducted by reason. Others only thru revelation. Homosexually is thru revelation. That being the case people who don't accept the Bible have no reason to have such restricitons put on them.

But, I don't think the UN should maditorily make it legal. That goes againist people who do believe the Bible. The UN should have stayed out of this issue. I think if anything is possible to happen, then the current issue legalizing same-sex marriages should be repeled.

I think if anything is possible to happen, then the current issue legalizing same-sex marriages should be repeled.
Not a mod, but the chances of a repeal occurring are effectively zero. Repeals stuff up the game mechanics too much.

Hey hey, (I know I'm gonna get rebuked for this one but) Times have changed since the Bible was written. The point is nothing against Leviticus. I'm saying that if the Bible accepts multiple marriages and slavery, why are we against those? Why is the Bible all of a sudden infallable when it comes to calling homosexuality a sin, but not on the subjects of slavery, polygamy, the death penalty etc.?

By the way, I think you're right that this should have been an issue of sovereignty (and still is, despite being UN mandated), but what's done is done. UN law requires gay marriages to be legal.

Hey hey, (I know I'm gonna get rebuked for this one but) Times have changed since the Bible was written. The point is nothing against Leviticus. I'm saying that if the Bible accepts multiple marriages and slavery, why are we against those? Why is the Bible all of a sudden infallable when it comes to calling homosexuality a sin, but not on the subjects of slavery, polygamy, the death penalty etc.?

I didn't say it is infalliable. But awsner my question. Why make women?

I love how people who argue waving the banner of religion have no grasp of language.

"Others only thru revelation."

I can see at least two problems in this one.
1-Fragment
2-"Thru"? Are you a McDonald's Drive Thru sign? The proper spelling is "through"

"That being the case people who don't accept the Bible have no reason to have such restricitons put on them." Should be a comma after case

"maditorily" Try manditorily

"repeled" I think you mean repealed

"That is not the only place it is stated as wrong." Should not have been a new sentence

All in all, not bad. I've seen worse **cough Of portugal cough cough**

I love how people who argue waving the banner of religion have no grasp of language.

"Others only thru revelation."

I can see at least two problems in this one.
1-Fragment
2-"Thru"? Are you a McDonald's Drive Thru sign? The proper spelling is "through"

"That being the case people who don't accept the Bible have no reason to have such restricitons put on them." Should be a comma after case

"maditorily" Try manditorily

"repeled" I think you mean repealed

"That is not the only place it is stated as wrong." Should not have been a new sentence

All in all, not bad. I've seen worse **cough Of portugal cough cough**

So you can't awsner my question so you attack my grammer? Grow up.

Despite being a non-Christian spiritualist, I'm going to try to answer your question.

God made woman because man needed a woman to have children. Yes, I admit that, several thousand years ago the only way for men to have children was to have a woman around.

However, I really don't see the relevance of Adam and Eve to the debate over homosexual marriage. They were a heterosexual couple, who (as far as I am aware) stayed together despite all the odds. There are many heterosexual couples who are like that.

There are also many homosexual couples who are like that. I don't see why dedicated couples shouldn't be allowed to marry, regardless of their gender. While marriage can lead to children, it does not have to.

Does that answer your question?

Despite being a non-Christian spiritualist, I'm going to try to answer your question.

God made woman because man needed a woman to have children. Yes, I admit that, several thousand years ago the only way for men to have children was to have a woman around.

However, I really don't see the relevance of Adam and Eve to the debate over homosexual marriage. They were a heterosexual couple, who (as far as I am aware) stayed together despite all the odds. There are many heterosexual couples who are like that.

There are also many homosexual couples who are like that. I don't see why dedicated couples shouldn't be allowed to marry, regardless of their gender. While marriage can lead to children, it does not have to.

Does that answer your question?

No. There are many A-Sexual animals that require no mate to reproduce. God made those animals as well. He could have made humans that way.

Note my reference to 'men'. And who are you to question the infinite wisdom of God?:twisted:

As I believe I stated earlier, I am a non-christian spiritualist. I don't believe in God, or in any deities, whilst I do believe in angels and devils. I was just trying to answer your question as best I could.

No, I must have been busy writing about your lack of speaking skill when you asked.

Anyways, I am saying that women are necessary, of course to carry on the species, but they do so much more than that... heh heh... I don't want to... umm steal the spotlight from the women... I'll let them...umm... enlighten you (alright I don't know). You, my friend, are misinterpreting what I am saying. I doubt anyone here is saying what you think I'm saying. You seem to be interpreting my post (and lack of response) as "everyone should be gay". No, I am saying that the gays should have equal rights. Women are made for the men who are not gay. (sorry ladies, that was the best I could word it, it's late okay?) God created woman to love man, and to carry out His blessing of "be fruitful and multiply" Men and women are made to be with each other. It's sort of a rule by which life keeps itself goin, but every rule has a loophole, i.e. gays/lesbians.

Every rule has loopholes because of the fall. AKA those loopholes are sin.

Why make women?

That's a fairly ridiculous argument, at about the level of 'if God had wanted us to fly, he'd have given us stock options in Quantas'. Asking why God created women? Okay, then, why did God create the capacity for anal orgasm? Facile, yes, but no more than your argument.

The instinct against homosexuality in the Old Testament is based on a belief that sex's sole purpose should be for procreation. Then you get the early New-Testament Christians who were wholly against sex of any kind, on the principle that the Kingdom of Heaven could come at any moment and thus procreation was a bit silly. What's significant is that this frees both men and women from the demand on procreativity; Jesus and his followers were pretty much all unmarried, which marks a massive change from the Old Testament obsession with continuing the male bloodline.

Now, it's fairly clear that Christians have found a way to justify marriage again. Well and good. But unless you happen to be Catholic, there's an assumption that sex has a purpose beyond reproduction, because Jesus made it pretty clear that reproduction just isn't a big deal. So to me that looks like the only biblical motivation against homosexuality is out of the window.

Hmmm, I thought it was that time of the week...

Regular "Why banning gay marriage is, errr, gay." :wink:

Oh yes, well, while we go along with "God made this" and "God made that" let us remember that pretty much all the old boy touched went to shit as soon as he walked out of the room, and despite giving his son some work experiance here, he ended up firing the poor guy and dragging him home, and since then has not re-entered the work shop to my knowledge.

Then again, I am athiest, so maybe I'm not a apt to "seeing things" as are many of the more, well, "devout" amoung us.

Especially when it comes to seeing how the bible, god, the entire idea of religion, makes it okay to say in varying degrees to an element of this same "god made" society, "Hey, you don't count cause your not like us."

And lets face it, soon as you say "You can't get married cause your (what-ever)" then thats what your doing. Its funny how we've enough religion to be lacking basic respect for others and not enough to love those who are different and to lobve them for being what they are by being who they are.

Oh, and:

At the end of the day, you can go into biology, theology, flaming, framing, repealling and re-naming, but you'll never shake the truth that its (Debate to ban gay marriage) all a glorified attempt to make others suffer for not being like you. And if you've any humanity left you'll wake up to yourselves and find that deplorable.

Now I'm not saying I'm right,
I'm saying I'm not sure if I am,
But, I darn'd well hope so for all our sakes.
Because regardless of opinion on religion, it goes back to the fact that, even if just one person died to save us all, as you say he did, we've a darn'd lot to do to equal such devotion and love for one another, and if love aint a key-stone of marriage,and for that matter, life, then why even bother?

- The Rep of Komokom,

"It always seemed to me a bit pointless to disapprove of homosexuality. It's like disapproving of rain." - Francis Maude.

The instinct against homosexuality in the Old Testament is based on a belief that sex's sole purpose should be for procreation. Then you get the early New-Testament Christians who were wholly against sex of any kind, on the principle that the Kingdom of Heaven could come at any moment and thus procreation was a bit silly. What's significant is that this frees both men and women from the demand on procreativity; Jesus and his followers were pretty much all unmarried, which marks a massive change from the Old Testament obsession with continuing the male bloodline.

The fact that most of Jesus' followers never married doesn't prove any of the above. I believe that those statements are baseless (prove me wrong if you can). My understanding for at least the reason Paul never married, was that it is better to be wholely devoted to God. No one can deny that relationships are work and often times men or women with extreme missions from God need to do without a distraction of that magnitude. He didn't say marrige was wrong or unessisary.

* Considers taking a dump on this thread then ringing the door bell and then running away, but decides that would be undiplomatic...

"Much better to burn it.'

* Proceeds to splash the contents of a large can labelled "Kero" across the posts and thread title...

"What?"

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

The instinct against homosexuality in the Old Testament is based on a belief that sex's sole purpose should be for procreation. Then you get the early New-Testament Christians who were wholly against sex of any kind, on the principle that the Kingdom of Heaven could come at any moment and thus procreation was a bit silly. What's significant is that this frees both men and women from the demand on procreativity; Jesus and his followers were pretty much all unmarried, which marks a massive change from the Old Testament obsession with continuing the male bloodline.

The fact that most of Jesus' followers never married doesn't prove any of the above. I believe that those statements are baseless (prove me wrong if you can). My understanding for at least the reason Paul never married, was that it is better to be wholely devoted to God. No one can deny that relationships are work and often times men or women with extreme missions from God need to do without a distraction of that magnitude. He didn't say marrige was wrong or unessisary.

He didn't SAY marriage is wrong or unnecessary. But actions speak louder than words. You know: Practice what you preach? By going about being so devoted to God that he can't bother with Woman (or the whole be-fruitful-and-multiply bit), he DEMONSTRATES that marriage is both unnecessary and ungodly. He sets an example for others to follow. If we all followed that example, there'd be no babies, just a lot of very devout old people. Then they'd all die off, and there'd be nothing. Talk about thumbing our noses at God & his creation...

The fact that most of Jesus' followers never married doesn't prove any of the above. I believe that those statements are baseless (prove me wrong if you can). My understanding for at least the reason Paul never married, was that it is better to be wholely devoted to God. No one can deny that relationships are work and often times men or women with extreme missions from God need to do without a distraction of that magnitude. He didn't say marrige was wrong or unessisary.

Nonono. You're missing my point entirely. The point is: for the entirety of the Old Testament you get this view repeated: the male bloodline is important, procreation is mandatory, therefore non-procreative sex of any kind is sinful - masturbation, coitus interruptus, and homosexuality - and so is celibacy. Jesus comes along and says, no, actually procreation isn't mandatory at all, it's your relationship with God that counts. BAM goes the procreation requirement, BAM goes the objection to homosexuality.

Sure, he'd rather you dedicated your life to God and didn't bother with all this sexuality nonsense, but there's an acknowledgement that nobody's perfect and that that may be too much to ask of some people. A Christian homosexual would certainly be better able to dedicate attention to God if they were in a loving, stable homosexual relationship than if they were in a heterosexual marriage that made them unhappy.

Alright, I'm just going to end the religious debate right here:

"Let he who is without sin throw the first stone"

There you have it, who are you to judge them?

You know, Vivelon, being an Athiest, your post provides me with an excellent opportunity...

* The Rep of Komokom runs wildly through the thread laughing insanely and showering people who would ban gay marriage with little round pebbles.

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

Laughing hysterically, his highness, Prince Tony II of Vivelon tries to tell the ever-present, and ever-willing-to-put-on-a-show, Rep of Komokom that that was not what he had in mind, but he cannot stop laughing.

Heh heh heh, "Acts of Diplomacy", By The Rep of Komokom, coming to a theatre near you...

:)

- The Rep of Komokom.

"gay marriage.......well lets see here i am striaght and all but i dont feel i need to tell every other U.N. nation they have to let them they have to not let gays marry. but i say do what you like . i kill those who are gay and get marryed but i give them a chance to have sex one last time. so far its been working."-Emperor Hobbeeb

" sir the press wants a word. they are getting word of this war starting about gay marriage in the nation of Liverty."-Supreme Defence Minister Shawnich DeLnuch

" ok tell them we will engage as supports of no rights of gay marriage."
-Hobbeeb

"yes sir"-Shawnich DeLnuch

Hey, Komokom. You waste all those pebbles yet?

No, and feel free to tell our dear visiting fock-tard why he is wrong on so many levels, I am busy pulling an idiotic proposal to bits... :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

His search for the Bar so far fruitless, Arkady Bogdanov was getting restless. He could feel a rant brewing. The sound of heated debate attracted his attention. He popped his head around the door and caught the words 'gay', 'marriage' and 'Bible'.

"Oh, for the love of..."

The door swung shut and the fading sound of rapid footsteps on the corridor floor could be heard...

As the Ecopoeian disappeared from sight, an exclamation of "Bloody server!" resounded through the corridor.

Why shouldn't gay/homosexual/lesbian/gendernonspecific/ persons have to suffer through marriage like heterosexuals? You want to ban something ban marriage altogether.

If the reolustion hadn't already been passed, my nation would have been at the forefront of the campaign to get it mandated. And if any nation, large or small, seeks to repeal such a ruling, they will have a new enemy on their hands, in the shape of the nation of Wulf_angel. Our armies may not be immense in either size or power, but our spirit knows no bounds.

(The UN Representative starts crying at his desk, waiting for the inevitable fight back by the other delegates, not to mention the jokes he'll get at the water cooler)

Evilee,

You cannot ban "gay" marriage, thats a fact, you can only ban "straight" marriage as its not protected like gay marriage is. So you'll only get away with banning "straight" marriage which would reult in, going by usual conservative exetremist methods, being fire-bombed.

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

As we o' the Feigle ha' aye said, all marriages shuid be happy. We dinnae ken why ye shuid wantae ban 'em, it disnae mak' sense! :?

Why am I not surprised Nok-Nok hasn't responded anymore? :roll:

Errr, the threat of the many freely held frying-pans I've been propogating? :wink: , Heh heh heh...

- The Rep of Komokom.

lol, i had no idea this thread was still going around...sweet

and i have a question. how is it that this generation thinks we're so much better than all other generations before us? it seems like we as a society are getting more and more arrogant by the day. why do i say this? well, the simple fact of the matter is that homosexuality, for the most part, has never been perceived as "right" by society in general. there have (obviously) been some exceptions, but these exceptions were quite outnumbered in their time, and they all but disappeared. so where does our culture get off suddenly proclaiming that homosexuality is "right" and denouncing anyone who says otherwise as a backward fool?

and if you would respond to this with the argument that slavery would still exist if we'd listened to those "backward fools", remember this: before the 1600's, slaves were treated as servants, and often as members of the family. in fact, slavery was a viable option for the jobless poor. this was of course before slaveowners began to abuse their power--and even when they did, it was a crime. by the time america existed, slaves were being cruelly mistreated with no real objection from the government. so that analogy really doesn't work, since the people who actually propagated the mistreatment of slaves were an anomaly in history.

so there's a bit to chew on. would've responded earlier if i'd known the thread was still going. :D

I don't even know why this subject is up for debate. A UN resolution protects gay marriage, so stop bringing it up.

well, the simple fact of the matter is that homosexuality, for the most part, has never been perceived as "right" by society in general. there have (obviously) been some exceptions, but these exceptions were quite outnumbered in their time, and they all but disappeared.

And let me ask you, why did 'they' perceive 'it' as not right? Did they have a proper reason for it other than "It's icky" and "My invisible friend told me"?
And please don't say something silly like "they had morals", actually back it up if you can.

i believe the greeks were the only society that really came close to accepting homosexuality; before that only some pagan circles accepted it. with regard to the greeks, however, they did not tolerate true homosexuality. they refused to accept any man who was not also attracted to women, or those who didn't marry and raise a family after the age of nineteen. they believed that procreation was necessary, and those who didn't take part in procreation were both morally corrupt and detriments to society. lesbianism was nearly unspoken of, but it can be assumed that since lesbians weren't able to procreate, they were quashed by society as well.

i believe the greeks were the only society that really came close to accepting homosexuality; before that only some pagan circles accepted it. with regard to the greeks, however, they did not tolerate true homosexuality. they refused to accept any man who was not also attracted to women, or those who didn't marry and raise a family after the age of nineteen. they believed that procreation was necessary, and those who didn't take part in procreation were both morally corrupt and detriments to society. lesbianism was nearly unspoken of, but it can be assumed that since lesbians weren't able to procreate, they were quashed by society as well.
OOC:
Although you’re right about the ‘not true homosexuality’ point you are well quite wrong in the other parts.

May I suggest a visit to: http://www.androphile.org/index.html

IC: It doesn’t matter how you justify your arguments against it gay marriage is already legal and protected in the UN. It really isn’t going to change. Be quiet please or take it to general.

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

i believe the greeks were the only society that really came close to accepting homosexuality; before that only some pagan circles accepted it. with regard to the greeks, however, they did not tolerate true homosexuality. they refused to accept any man who was not also attracted to women, or those who didn't marry and raise a family after the age of nineteen. they believed that procreation was necessary, and those who didn't take part in procreation were both morally corrupt and detriments to society. lesbianism was nearly unspoken of, but it can be assumed that since lesbians weren't able to procreate, they were quashed by society as well.
OOC:
Although you’re right about the ‘not true homosexuality’ point you are well quite wrong in the other parts.

May I suggest a visit to: http://www.androphile.org/index.html

IC: It doesn’t matter how you justify your arguments against it gay marriage is already legal and protected in the UN. It really isn’t going to change. Be quiet please or take it to general.

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

all i have to say on this cause im sick of it is it is impossible to be Roman Catholic and support gay marriages or gay actions. Any Catholic in support of this is in error and is invovled in being a heretic.

I don't even know why this subject is up for debate. A UN resolution protects gay marriage, so stop bringing it up.

Since this is a moot point, trying to repeal what has been explicitly legalized by prior UN resolution, should this thread not be locked?

screw gays they should all be lined up and shot down! o no did i offend your sensitive ears ya damn liberals well i have 1 thing to say to all yah! kiss my ass un!

all i have to say on this cause im sick of it is it is impossible to be Roman Catholic and support gay marriages or gay actions. Any Catholic in support of this is in error and is invovled in being a heretic.

No Offence but... The RC church would have declared Christ a heretic!

all i have to say on this cause im sick of it is it is impossible to be Roman Catholic and support gay marriages or gay actions. Any Catholic in support of this is in error and is invovled in being a heretic.

Ahem ,now your next line is:

"Burn the, burn the hereticals!"

:)

That, or, "Think of the children, won't any-one think of the children!"

:wink:

Nice to see you back O.P.

- The Rep of Komokom.

*hick* just abolish marriage. use the woman for your own pleasure. If the men complain, kill their favored loved ones in front of them until they shut up about it. *hick*

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Must... not... let pointless arguement... die

Dammit! This is what happens when I'm out for a couple weeks. My favorite thread just goes and falls apart. I was really hoping to continue hearing the crude asinine reasons why gay marriage should be abolished (That's right, ABOLISHED! As in, it's already legal)

And Of portugal, I'm still a Roman Catholic, and until you become the pope and excommunicate me, my views on gay marriage remain the same.

I am about to do something my spouse calls "beating a dead horse into the ground":

1. UN legislation already on the books cannot be repealed.

2. There is already UN legislation on the books protecting gay marriage; it cannot be repealed or replaced.

3. Even if it were possible the idea is discriminatory and unfair. Would you rather have gay people in stable monogamous relationships or hanging around the bars and discos you object to so much? :evil:

Hey! Beating the dead horse of gay marriage is my job.

And, its my job, to cry out loudly its enshrined in U.N. law.

And * FRYING-PAN * those who rave against it.

Speaking of which, have a pan,

* Hands Vivelon a free Komokom'ian brand "Ninny Wallop'r" class pan.

- The Rep of Komokom.

(There is a rebel yell, and The Rep of Komokom is sucked up out the door, a final cry of "Bloody band-width!" is the last which is heard from him... For now... :wink: )

Komokom, I don't know about you, but when I beat a dead horse, I don't do it literally (although we Vivelonians would probably enjoy the import of some more of these fancy frying pans. Top of the line indeed.)

So anyways, all you religious whackos out there, beating the dead horse is easier with you guys around. Please, come and be ridiculed by us and frying pan-ed by Komokom (it's lots of fun... although I don't know about those of you on the recieving end)

Regarding our quality frying-panning equipment, we do our best.

I've never really beaten a dead horse myself, though I hear it can be quite enjoyable, once you get used to the smell.

And if those freeks are worried about it not been fun on the getting whacked end, be informed we are more then willing to bundle you up in a sack so surely if you can't move you can't get hurt right? Or get away...

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

As much as I love the give and take, point/counterpoint of heated debate, I find that this topic brings out the worst in people--on both sides. Considering that this is supposed to be a UN discussion forum, can't we have just a smiggen of decorum?

The resolution is, of course, a non-issue, as indicated by previous arguments detailing rules about repealing and such. Not that I agree with those rules, mind you, but for all their faults they are the rules. As for the philosophical ideas themselves, we should recognize that this topic is a tough one for many, many people. Not everyone in the world has the clarity of mind that people on both sides of this issue seem to have. I would ask folks to try to remember that.

As for me, I am both a "white bread conservative" (how racistly offensive can that be?) as well as a member of a conservative religion that is strongly opposed to same-sex marriages (or same-sex anything for that matter). I, however, am not the sum total of my party or church. I like to think that I have my own brain and can make my own decisions.

Bottom line: how constructive is it to hear people point out, in an incredibly offensive manner, how offensive others are?

Decorum people. To take a line from the old Hill Street Blues Seargeant:

"Let's be careful out there"

sorry but Sangoland cannot approve your proposal on the grounds that it is unjust and oppressive. Marriage is not about race, religion, color, ancestry, age, or even GENDER!!!! It IS however about LOVE. So you can take your proposal and shove it.

and on a side note: for all you retards who say it "says in the bible" homosexuality is wrong, I'd like to see this exerpt where it says "gay" and "wrong" in the same paragraph.

have a nice day :twisted:

sigh

sorry but Sangoland cannot approve your proposal on the grounds that it is unjust and oppressive. Marriage is not about race, religion, color, ancestry, age, or even GENDER!!!! It IS however about LOVE. So you can take your proposal and shove it.

and on a side note: for all you retards who say it "says in the bible" homosexuality is wrong, I'd like to see this exerpt where it says "gay" and "wrong" in the same paragraph.

have a nice day :twisted:

Hakartopia Bible, 25:1

"And ye, the Lord spoketh, when a man is gay, and it is known, let it be known it is wrong to speaketh to him "I hate you, you damn faggot!".
Any who are found transgressing this law shall be forced to wear a miniskirt in public for a month. Amen."

And the conregation rises with a mighty Amen !

(While ignoring there is an atheist in their midst, :wink: )

- The Rep of Komokom.

(not just any atheist, but an atheist with a frying pan)

If you are opposed to gay marriages... why not just stop issuing marriage licenses ?
Leave marriage as a religious institution and keep the government out of it.

You crazy athiests, with your frying pans and dumb remarks. I don't know why there's another ban gay marriage thread, but it was old months ago. You gay bashers are pretty funny. Not only are you hate mongers in real life, you have to hate imaginary people on a forum. You guys are crazier than the athiests.

Someone get a mod to close this so we can limit morality issues to the Morality Bytes series, by our very own Rep of Komokom.

Ban it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :!:

sorry but Sangoland cannot approve your proposal on the grounds that it is unjust and oppressive. Marriage is not about race, religion, color, ancestry, age, or even GENDER!!!! It IS however about LOVE. So you can take your proposal and shove it.

and on a side note: for all you retards who say it "says in the bible" homosexuality is wrong, I'd like to see this exerpt where it says "gay" and "wrong" in the same paragraph.

have a nice day :twisted:

Hakartopia Bible, 25:1

"And ye, the Lord spoketh, when a man is gay, and it is known, let it be known it is wrong to speaketh to him "I hate you, you damn faggot!".
Any who are found transgressing this law shall be forced to wear a miniskirt in public for a month. Amen."
yea..real cute :x

People should be free to marry whichever gender they wish, as long as they love each other i dont see why they should be barred from marriage.