NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings, I am The Rep of Komokom,

This here is my prototype thread of a (hopefully) series, which I have title "Morality Bytes" in the hope of getting some attention to it, :)

What this thread is about:

Well, noting with some grrr-ness, that almost every-week some one seems to post a new thread relating to homosexuality, sexuality in general, marriage, civil unions leading from these issues...

ya-da-ya-da-ya-da, :wink:

I figured maybe we need a thread here that while not a sticky, will hopefully allow all to voice their reasonable opinions, thoughts, and arguments relating to varying degrees on sexuality and its place (Or not, :wink: ) in the United Nations Forum and the Nation States United Nations itself.

I am in part with hope to see such posts travelling here and thus making a little room on the forum for actual proposal writers... :)

Any-way, you've read this message so you know what its about, on with the show then...

- The Rep of Komokom.

Simply put, TH's position is as follows:
1.) Issues of sexuality are to be kept in the bedroom between the respective patterns.
2.) The rights of the majority belong to the minority as well. Civil unions are a respectable compromise to the gay marriage debate.

As long as there is informed consent, start bangin'.

Edit: Note that 'informed' and 'consent' are huge stipulations.

Well, nice to see in a short period of time I am getting some serious posting ! :)

I am interested, how do civil unions act as a respectable compromise ?

- The Rep of Komokom.

Well, nice to see in a short period of time I am getting some serious posting ! :)

I am interested, how do civil unions act as a respectable compromise ?

- The Rep of Komokom.

I could only see civil unions as a respectable compromise if the government were to get out of marriage entirely. I say: If the religious folks want marriage so bad, let them have it.

Yeah, and when homosexual couples say they want to get married and the "religious folks" disagree we see all heck break loose, on a regular basis... :roll:

And lets not forget homosexual couples who think themselves are religious? Why can't they get married... And on it goes. :wink:

Hey, this is exactly hat I was with hope for, some nice level debate on the issue, drawing it off from the forum...

Thanks might I add to those posting here so far,

- The Rep of Komokom.

am interested, how do civil unions act as a respectable compromise ?

Marriage is religious defined, therefore, religion is not going to change to accomodate homosexuals. Civil unions are a compromise between outright changing the religious definition of marriage and not allowing homosexuals to get the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples at all.

And lets not forget homosexual couples who think themselves are religious? Why can't they get married... And on it goes. :wink:

Sure they can get married, but only within a select few traditions. Either that or to someone of the opposite sex that they don't love. These sound like great options, don't they? :wink:

Sure they can get married, but only within a select few traditions. Either that or to someone of the opposite sex that they don't love. These sound like great options, don't they? :wink:

Definetly. :wink:

Marriage is religious defined, therefore, religion is not going to change to accomodate homosexuals. Civil unions are a compromise between outright changing the religious definition of marriage and not allowing homosexuals to get the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples at all.

Hmmm. Yes, while civil unions would be a good compromise, once we ignore the now age old its already protected by U.N. law stuff, :wink:

Regarding religious recognition/definition,

I now fail to see why we should have to change the "definition" of marriage, when at its core its two people in love, being recognised as such by society and others of the faith that they practice.

It seems homosexual couples are not asking for marriage to be re-defined rather they are asking to be accepted by this faith which they claim faith too, even if they disagree with one or to rules in it.

I find it odd, in a related note, how many religions claim love is a fundamental thing, but fail in sharing it with people because they choose to love the same sex. It seems in part a sin of hypocrisy on the churches part rather then a mortal sin on the lovers...

- The Rep of Komokom.

I find myself amused by the way "human sexuality" immediately turned into "gays and marriage." Haven't you had enough of that? Seriously? Why not argue about, say, the legality of simulated rape pornography, or ethics standards in the adult film industry with regards to the entrenching of the anti-feminist agenda. Or really, anything but gay marraige?

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Sophista

Ah, well, the point is to try and draw it off into here, so it does not clog the forum so, while giving a (Perhaps pointless to try, but,) legitimate face to the ideas with critical but rational debate and with a sense of decorum.

Well, so far. :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

Why not argue about, say, the legality of simulated rape pornography, or ethics standards in the adult film industry with regards to the entrenching of the anti-feminist agenda.

If you wish to discuss these issues I'm sure we can oblige you.

On the topic of homosexual marriage and religion:

Religion does not equal christianity. Saying that religion is anti-gay by using the Bible as evidence is at least misleading, and at worst openly offensive to those who are religious, but not Christian.

Many religions do allow homosexual relationships.

Also, marriage does not necessarily imply religious marriage. There is a simple obvious example of this in many societies: secular or common-law marriage.

Just thought I'd say this, to get it out of the way now.

It has been held in the highest courts that laws against child pornography exist to prevent the exploitation of children. We seem to be of the belief that sexual activity is fine and dandy if you consent, but you can't consent until you're old enough to know what you're getting into.

Fair enough.

Should it be legal, then, for companies to produce virtual child pornography, where the images depict people obviously not of age in graphic sexual situations? And if it shouldn't, on what grounds would the government have to regulate such images?

Discuss.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Religion does not equal christianity. Saying that religion is anti-gay by using the Bible as evidence is at least misleading, and at worst openly offensive to those who are religious, but not Christian.

Who was using the Bible? Or were you just making a general statement?
Either way, I'm not being hostile or anything, I'm just curious.

Dammit. Well, I can't say I didn't try.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

HotRodia: That was not directed at you. 'Twas directed at the many people who in the past said that all religions hate homosexuality - both religious and non-religious people.

It has been held in the highest courts that laws against child pornography exist to prevent the exploitation of children. We seem to be of the belief that sexual activity is fine and dandy if you consent, but you can't consent until you're old enough to know what you're getting into.

Fair enough.

Should it be legal, then, for companies to produce virtual child pornography, where the images depict people obviously not of age in graphic sexual situations? And if it shouldn't, on what grounds would the government have to regulate such images?

I would say that it should be illegal, simply because that sort of thing tends to subtly influence people to view such activities as being 'normal', appropriate, healthy, <insert your preferred culturally valued adjective here>. The government could ban it on the grounds that it would promote sexual abuses of children. Since we're all about protecting the children, prostitutes, the mentally retarded, animals, <insert your preferred label for a disadvantaged group here> we would go for making it illegal, right?

To Sophista: Well Sophista, what is "virtual" child pornography? :wink:

To Enn: Yes, but really, its not religions who hate sadly, its people who interpret the religions who at the end of the day...

To Sophista:

ARTICLE 2 1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the minor from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s)d or any other person(s)

Errr, does this cover "virtual" child pornography? As it handles all forms of sexual abuse/exploitation? Thats how it reads. I think. That help? :)

- The Rep of Komokom.

Sophista:
I presume you're referring to animated pornography, so that's how I will respond.

I tend to agree that the laws against child pornography are in place to prevent children from being exploited.
However, animated pornography (unless drawn by children chained to a desk) is not exploitation of children. It's not reasonable for the government to regulate animated pornography because of its potential to inspire child exploitation. I will grant that animated child pornography could inspire the real thing to occur, but I have never espoused the idea of legislating based on unknown potential. In fact, legislation based on any potential, without certainty, is shakey in my opinion.

EDIT: By the way, Komokom, I think this was a good idea ;)

By virtual child porn I mean either animated pornography of children in sexual acts, or some kind of really advanced virtual reality sex with kids things. In both cases, its not a real person on the screen.

I'm inclined to agree with Gethamane on this one. Its not legitimate for a government to interdict because something might increase the potential for a crime. To me, thats ignoring too much of the "innocent until proven guilty, people are inherently good" rhetoric that I believe in.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Gethamane, I thank you. :wink:

I am glad people are responding so well to this. I am now considering going ahead and making some other "Morality Bytes" threads for the topics of abortion/birth control, the death penalty, and any-thing else that comes to mind as being regularly called out as a "moral" issue. I am wondering about if I should do a "religion" one too... :wink:

Any-way, thats the way it is, sadly, reality is calling me back, grrr. I shall return in and hour or three and see if things are moving along. Please feel free to telegram me about what kind of issues are "moral" ones we seem to over-kill on, and I'll set them up in my thread series...

:)

- The Rep of Komokom.

We are of the opinion that most of the appeal of child pornography lies in its forbidden status, and that the association of the sexual urge with the forbidden is a symptom of the Judeo-Christian demonization of the libido. This isn't a cultural background our own nation shares (we have a very small proportion of classical theists, principally first-generation Muslims) and consequently we've had little need to restructure our rather vague pornography laws, inherited from a colonial power. We're seeking to restructure these laws to better reflect our own political philosophy, however, and welcome this debate as a testing-ground for our tentative opinions.

Our first instinct is to suggest that the instinct to ban such works comes from the following mindframe, which we share in to an extent: that they represent, cater for and therefore encourage attitudes we find abhorrent. We would not find a film dealing critically with the same subject abhorrent (for the sake of argument, we assume the difference is distinct); we are opposed to the pornographic work because it consciously taps into a character trait that is not symptomatic of a good human being.

Violent videogames, action movies, and so on do much the same thing: they tap into the human urge for wilful, random violence. Having a desire to shoot someone for no reason is as wicked an urge as having a desire to have sex with a child, but depiction of the former is widely sanctioned while depiction of the latter is looked on with horror. Where lies the distinction?

The difference is that we see sex as much more of a personality-defining feature. The person who picks up a first-person shooter is certainly getting a buzz out of the fantasized situation, but we don't infer from that that he'd want to engage in it. I think skateboarding is pretty lame but I still enjoy that Tony Hawk Pro Skater thing when I've got a few minutes to kill. Because we don't self-define very heavily on videogame preference, I'm not inclined to think 'Holy crap! I like Pro Skater! Maybe I'm a skater. Oh god oh god. How terrible. Maybe I'd better go and buy myself a silly-looking chain to attach to my clothing, just to see how it feels... christ, I can't believe this is happening...'

Similarly, in Rehochipe our culture is not big on the self-definition by sexual preference. The basic social assumption tends to be bisexuality and polyamory, and without the big dualistic mindframe of gay/straight dominating the issue, we're less inclined to hop up and down in horror about a particular sexual preference. Nonetheless, we don't think this quite falls into that category.

We'll develop this line of thought later.

Elsepeth R. Nibbling
Ministry of Being Nice

I'm inclined to agree with Gethamane on this one. Its not legitimate for a government to interdict because something might increase the potential for a crime. To me, thats ignoring too much of the "innocent until proven guilty, people are inherently good" rhetoric that I believe in.

Ahh...that explains it. You are not a cynic like me. :lol: Seriously though, I do believe that people are inherently good, in that they will generally make the appropriate decision when given all the information. Unfortunately, no educational system in the world is adequate to giving persons that quantity and quality of information, partly because either the research/knowledge isn't available, or because of a lack of funding and care, or because the authorities over the schools and/or teachers have an <insert your most despised political philosophy here> agenda. Or a combination of these factors is to blame.

We are of the opinion that most of the appeal of child pornography lies in its forbidden status, and that the association of the sexual urge with the forbidden is a symptom of the Judeo-Christian demonization of the libido.

I would strongly agree with that assessment.

Our first instinct is to suggest that the instinct to ban such works comes from the following mindframe, which we share in to an extent: that they represent, cater for and therefore encourage attitudes we find abhorrent.

I too, feel that way precisely.

We would not find a film dealing critically with the same subject abhorrent (for the sake of argument, we assume the difference is distinct); we are opposed to the pornographic work because it consciously taps into a character trait that is not symptomatic of a good human being.

Once again, I agree with all of the above statements. With all this agreeing, I'm beginning to wonder how will we have a good debate. :wink:

Violent videogames, action movies, and so on do much the same thing: they tap into the human urge for wilful, random violence. Having a desire to shoot someone for no reason is as wicked an urge as having a desire to have sex with a child, but depiction of the former is widely sanctioned while depiction of the latter is looked on with horror. Where lies the distinction?

If I had my druthers, there would be just as strict limits on the portrayal of violence as there are on the portrayal of sex.

The difference is that we see sex as much more of a personality-defining feature.

Quite right.

The person who picks up a first-person shooter is certainly getting a buzz out of the fantasized situation, but we don't infer from that that he'd want to engage in it.

I might actually infer that, depending on the maturity level, character, and overall behavioral patterns of the individual. Of course, I may be the only one making such inferences.

OOC: I have noticed that some of my younger relatives have become accustomed to violence due to the influence of videogames and movies that I personally would not have allowed them to play/watch. They did not even grow up in an area with a culture of violence as I did but they are much more prone to violence than I was at that age.

I think skateboarding is pretty lame but I still enjoy that Tony Hawk Pro Skater thing when I've got a few minutes to kill. Because we don't self-define very heavily on videogame preference, I'm not inclined to think 'Holy crap! I like Pro Skater! Maybe I'm a skater. Oh god oh god. How terrible. Maybe I'd better go and buy myself a silly-looking chain to attach to my clothing, just to see how it feels... christ, I can't believe this is happening...'

I would be wary of defining yourself based on your videogame preference, but your choice of games is indeed often indicative of the types of activities you condone/approve of. I suspect you and I both enjoy videogames because of seratonin as well, but that is not the issue here.

You didn't feel the need to buy the chain, not even a little? :wink:

Similarly, in Rehochipe our culture is not big on the self-definition by sexual preference. The basic social assumption tends to be bisexuality and polyamory, and without the big dualistic mindframe of gay/straight dominating the issue, we're less inclined to hop up and down in horror about a particular sexual preference. Nonetheless, we don't think this quite falls into that category.

We'll develop this line of thought later.

Please do, it was very interesting. The one thing I will note is that the dualistic, oppositional nature of the basis of Western cultural thought has a tendency to create conflict where there should be none.

I am glad people are responding so well to this. I am now considering going ahead and making some other "Morality Bytes" threads for the topics of abortion/birth control, the death penalty, and any-thing else that comes to mind as being regularly called out as a "moral" issue. I am wondering about if I should do a "religion" one too... :wink:

Oh, were we supposed to argue these issues from a moral standpoint? *sigh* And here I am using my fancy college education to argue from a more scientific standpoint. Darn. :wink:

It was my understanding that the rape of children, like all rape, is not about sexuality, as much as power. Animated and 'virtual' child pornography should be thought about in that context, in my opinion. Since no actualy children are involved, we have to ask ourselves how it relates to the issue of power/control.

Does it encourage domination/exploitation?

This is the argument used against pornography, yet rape is common to soieties that both ban and allow pornography. It is my belief, then, that animated child pornography, whilst not to my personal tastes, is essentially harmless and whilst it offends our morals, cannot be outlawed without breaching individual rights to freedom of choice, speech, and thought.

President Horowitz,
Interim Government of Beastieland

Some more random and unstructured thoughts:

Now, I personally have a thing for Enodian chicks. If I consume a lot of Enodian porn, it's probably safe to say that, all things being equal, if I had the opportunity to have sex with a doe-eyed, smooth-skinned Enodian chick, her hair pulled back into an authoritarian bun, her lips slightly pursed in disapproval at another repeal attempt... *ahem* then I would most likely do so. There's nothing morally wrong in preferring Enodian chicks, but it demonstrates a predeliction.

On the other hand, plenty of people engage in fantasies of raping or being raped, who would actually abhor the real thing. It's a situational kink; it's on a par with doctors and nurses.

Now, the difficulty comes when you get a combination of situational and predeliction. (There's a difference between predeliction and preference; I might prefer doctors and nurses to other kinks, but that doesn't mean I'll find nurses more attractive just because they're nurses).

Let's say I enter a monogamous marriage with a non-Enodian. Hey, I'll still appreciate the sight of a hot Enodian going down the street, but that doesn't reflect badly on me. One view: being an ethical human being is like monogamy. One rules out certain types of action one might feel like engaging in for its sake.

There's also a distinction between fetish (when nonsexual entities inspire sexual attraction) and a predeliction towards a clearly sexual entity. The former is somewhat harder to account for. Prepubescent children are fairly clearly an example of the former; compare an attraction to soft furnishings. We are inclined to the view, therefore, that depictions of prepubescents are more troubling. The issues of exploitation extend well beyond this, of course, so there's no question of lifting our ban on actual images.

There's nonetheless a troubling feeling that this account is incomplete. More later.

Elsepeth R. Nibbling
Ministry of Being Nice

Komokom,

Doesn't seem to be working. None of the religious types (except me, although despite being religious, I'm open-minded) have joined the arguement. Where's the fun in that? As for other moral issues, abortion and death penalty sounds good.

Since this Morality Bytes is only about sexuality... I really don't have much to say (until the wackos arrive and start spurting drivel that is)

Doesn't seem to be working. None of the religious types (except me, although despite being religious, I'm open-minded) have joined the arguement.

Hey, we're religious, just secular and non-Christian.

Oh, were we supposed to argue these issues from a moral standpoint? *sigh* And here I am using my fancy college education to argue from a more scientific standpoint. Darn. :wink:

Lol, not exactly, this is the kind of talking I was with hope for, is just by "moral issues" I mean those usually said to be out of the U.N.'s scope of responsibility. You know, euthanasia, abortion, birth control, the death penalty, things we have N.S. multiple seperate issues for and usually say, "Uh-uh-uh, Not here, baby!" to.

- The Rep of Komokom. I will start some other series threads now...

You know, euthanasia, abortion, birth control, the death penalty, things we have N.S. multiple seperate issues for and usually say, "Uh-uh-uh, Not here, baby!" to.

Maybe I was just out of NS for too long, or maybe I rejoined too late, but I never heard anyone say "uh-uh-uh, not here baby!"

Vivelon, please diplomatically shut up? :)

It was a figure of speech denoting the usual opinion of those who've been around for a while who who have despair for the stream of proposals which ignore the precedent of many N.S. issues which deal with them.

(Slaps own fore-head)

I am going to get a stiff drink.

- The Rep of Komokom.

I am going to get a stiff drink.
How a propos.

"What's the difference between a heterosexual and a bisexual?"
"About eight drinks."

*rimshot*

It was my understanding that the rape of children, like all rape, is not about sexuality, as much as power. Animated and 'virtual' child pornography should be thought about in that context, in my opinion. Since no actualy children are involved, we have to ask ourselves how it relates to the issue of power/control.

Quite right. The root of the problem is the human desire for dominance, which causes problems not only in the realm of sexuality, but in more mundane interactions as well. My personal feeling is that eliminating the psychological need for dominance/display of power would improve the quality of humanity as a whole to such an extent that communism might actually be implementable at that point. Unfortunately, a program to eliminate the source of the problem (power/dominance issues) is about as implementable in the current state of affairs as the aforementioned communism.

Does it encourage domination/exploitation?

Yes it does, at least for those who do not understand the dynamics involved.

It is my belief, then, that animated child pornography, whilst not to my personal tastes, is essentially harmless

It perpetuates the dominance mentality by portraying those actions in a 'positive' light. I would hardly describe that as harmless.

Caveat: Some 'pornography' does not do this so I would allow it to be disseminated.

and whilst it offends our morals, cannot be outlawed without breaching individual rights to freedom of choice, speech, and thought.

Quite correct. The question is: Are those freedoms worth the damage they cause?

I would say that in certain cases, the answer is no, and in others, yes.

I am going to get a stiff drink.

How a propos.

"What's the difference between a heterosexual and a bisexual?"
"About eight drinks."

*rimshot*

Rehochipe (hic), don't make, don't make (hic), don't make me, come (hic), over there, (hic hic hic)

... Several More Drinks Later ...

Buddy ! My Buddy ! I want you to know, ( hic hic hic), If anything, ever (hic hic hic), happens to me, I love ... (hic hic hic)

(Slumps, passes out, hits bar-stool on way down.)

:)

- The Rep of Komokom, Minister for Stuff, who ironically enough, does not really get drunk. Yeah, it suck'eth greatly.

It has been held in the highest courts that laws against child pornography exist to prevent the exploitation of children.
I fail to see the exploitation in images. If the children were filmed partaking in sexual acts I can consider it differently, but I think children have just as much right to their bodies as the rest of us.

Should it be legal, then, for companies to produce virtual child pornography, where the images depict people obviously not of age in graphic sexual situations?
Yes, if they can find a profitable way to market it.
Fantasy is the right of every man, woman and child; I consider people to have the right to express their desires (while not nescesarily obtain them).

As for Gay Marriage?
BoaDH.
I'm not a fan of Institutionalised Marriage.
I see nothing so special about people loving each-other and having fun together that it deserves an institution.
Let them have their fun, and instead of boxing them into 'marriage' or 'non-marriage' forget all that BS altogether.

One thing I have going -for- child pornography:
I'm an exhibitionist and I am 17.
I consider myself more than capable of judging what to and what not to do...
Leave sexual preference to personal choice, and where sexual interactivity does not violate a person's freedom, let it be so.

Sure they can get married, but only within a select few traditions. Either that or to someone of the opposite sex that they don't love. These sound like great options, don't they? :wink:

Definetly. :wink:

Marriage is religious defined, therefore, religion is not going to change to accomodate homosexuals. Civil unions are a compromise between outright changing the religious definition of marriage and not allowing homosexuals to get the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples at all.

Hmmm. Yes, while civil unions would be a good compromise, once we ignore the now age old its already protected by U.N. law stuff, :wink:

Regarding religious recognition/definition,

I now fail to see why we should have to change the "definition" of marriage, when at its core its two people in love, being recognised as such by society and others of the faith that they practice.

It seems homosexual couples are not asking for marriage to be re-defined rather they are asking to be accepted by this faith which they claim faith too, even if they disagree with one or to rules in it.

I find it odd, in a related note, how many religions claim love is a fundamental thing, but fail in sharing it with people because they choose to love the same sex. It seems in part a sin of hypocrisy on the churches part rather then a mortal sin on the lovers...

- The Rep of Komokom.

My point exactly. We (homosexuals) don't tend to be interested redefining marriage and offending fundamentalists, it's more to do with wanting to claim faith. I doubt God has the time to care which sex you choose to love.

It has been held in the highest courts that laws against child pornography exist to prevent the exploitation of children. We seem to be of the belief that sexual activity is fine and dandy if you consent, but you can't consent until you're old enough to know what you're getting into.

Fair enough.

Should it be legal, then, for companies to produce virtual child pornography, where the images depict people obviously not of age in graphic sexual situations? And if it shouldn't, on what grounds would the government have to regulate such images?

I would say that it should be illegal, simply because that sort of thing tends to subtly influence people to view such activities as being 'normal', appropriate, healthy, <insert your preferred culturally valued adjective here>. The government could ban it on the grounds that it would promote sexual abuses of children. Since we're all about protecting the children, prostitutes, the mentally retarded, animals, <insert your preferred label for a disadvantaged group here> we would go for making it illegal, right?

well said.

I doubt God has the time to care which sex you choose to love.

* Splutter,

:!: :!: :!: :!: :!:

THERE ! THERE IS MY ENTIRE MULTIPLE THREAD ARGUMENT IN ONE LINE.

...

On the issue of gay marriage, that is. :wink:

Well, its not perfect but its bloody close, and it being about 11:45 PM here I'll be stuffed if I go on and clarify now. :)

- The Rep of komokom, Minister of Stuff.

I doubt God has the time to care which sex you choose to love.

* Splutter,

:!: :!: :!: :!: :!:

THERE ! THERE IS MY ENTIRE MULTIPLE THREAD ARGUMENT IN ONE LINE.

...

On the issue of gay marriage, that is. :wink:

Well, its not perfect but its bloody close, and it being about 11:45 PM here I'll be stuffed if I go on and clarify now. :)

- The Rep of komokom, Minister of Stuff.

lol. Although the point, from my standpoint, is fairly irrelevant, as I am an atheist. :)

Ritsa, assistant to the Minister of Stuff

I doubt God has the time to care which sex you choose to love.

Well, being that monotheism in general tends to suggest (at least as is my understanding of it) an omnipotent diety, I'm sure He has the time to care which gender we love, but I am of the opinion that He really doesn't care as long as it's a loving relationship, which begs the question why pedophilia, incest, etc are morally wrong if the two love each other, but I won't go there because I don't have any answer.

I won't go there because I don't have any answer.

Hey, does that mean I can finally say,

"Whoa, whoa, whoa, don't go there girl-friend!"

:D

(Yeah, go on, slap me, I deserved it, :wink: )

lol. Although the point, from my standpoint, is fairly irrelevant, as I am an atheist.

:)

Ritsa, assistant to the Minister of Stuff

Me too. Just saying the big guy/girl upstairs needs to make sure his/her priorities are in order. :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom, Minister of Stuff.

(I nearly said, assitant of assistant to the Minister of Stuff, but that would result in a logic circle I'd result in chasing myself through for the next three hours, :wink: )

[/quote](I nearly said, assitant of assistant to the Minister of Stuff, but that would result in a logic circle I'd result in chasing myself through for the next three hours, :wink: )[/quote]

Touch of the obsessive compulsive? :wink:

I doubt God has the time to care which sex you choose to love.

Well, being that monotheism in general tends to suggest (at least as is my understanding of it) an omnipotent diety, I'm sure He has the time to care which gender we love, but I am of the opinion that He really doesn't care as long as it's a loving relationship, which begs the question why pedophilia, incest, etc are morally wrong if the two love each other, but I won't go there because I don't have any answer.

As you can see from my previous post, I can't seem to edit quotes. Anyway, if I could get over my stereotypes of incest, I suppose I could see where that was coming from.

However, from the paedophiles point of view, as is my understanding, isn't the relationship more to do with power and abuse? Besides, if a young child is involved, I doubt they can enter into a loving, romantic relationship.

Vivelon: "I won't go there because I don't have any answer."

I believe that UN debate (hell, all debate) would be greatly improved if more people acknowledged that they do not have the answers. Well said, Vivelon.

Free Judgement raises some very interesting points that aren't the easiest to deal with. If you'll forgive me an excursion into the 'real' world, there's a good stack of evidence that is suggestive of increasingly early sexual maturity in British children. Not only this, but the nature of British society is such that children are becoming sexualised at a younger age. This isn't a new phenomenon. On the contrary, it could be regarded as rolling back the prudish Anglo-Christian ethos and harking back to attitudes of ancient times.

Is this good?

I do have a problem with the following statement by FJ:

"Yes, if they can find a profitable way to market it."

I do not believe profit is necessarily a valid justification for anything.

Rehochipe: "Now, I personally have a thing for Enodian chicks."

I don't know what this says about me, but my thought process ran something like What does he do, stuff them up his... oh, he means females. Anyway...

I'd love to give myself up to unbridled libertarianism, it's a wonderful concept. However, unfettered individual liberty inevitably impinges on the liberty of others. For most situations, I think the best one can do is to act in such a way that your actions are consensual and do not cause harm to others. If you wish to be promiscuous this is fine, provided your partners are aware of the situation.

It comes down to a matter of conscience. Some people, sadly and mystifyingly for me, are less troubled by this than others. 'Sadly', because either they are heartless or I am foolishly guilt-plagued. Ho-hum.

Well, since we are back on the issue of gay marriage, I might as well express my views.

Given that currently there is not a large body of good research indicating either that homosexuality is a choice, a biological reality, or some combination thereof, I would prefer to abstain from a decision on the whole issue of whether to grant marriage rights.

Unfortunately, a decision is required at this point. Simply from a legal standpoint: Since there is no solid indication that homosexuality is anything other than biological, I would be inclined to give persons of homosexual orientation the right to marry. Unfortunately, in my country of residence (U.S.A.), some of the more strongly religious types wish to reserve marriage as a 'religious' union, which would exclude homosexuals. My thought is: If the religious people want marriage, then they can have it. The government should simply issue Civil Unions to those of either heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual orientation.

However, from the paedophiles point of view, as is my understanding, isn't the relationship more to do with power and abuse? Besides, if a young child is involved, I doubt they can enter into a loving, romantic relationship.

I said "if", and I now recognize that that is a mighty big if, but I'm sure that somewhere out there theres a 40-year-old man and his 13-year-old girlfriend who love each other very much, and when we find them... they'll both be of consenting age so no problem-o.

However, from the paedophiles point of view, as is my understanding, isn't the relationship more to do with power and abuse? Besides, if a young child is involved, I doubt they can enter into a loving, romantic relationship.

I said "if", and I now recognize that that is a mighty big if, but I'm sure that somewhere out there theres a 40-year-old man and his 13-year-old girlfriend who love each other very much, and when we find them... they'll both be of consenting age so no problem-o.

Hmmm. I'm still skeptical.

I think it's rather ridiculous that religious types should be able to claim jurisdiction over marriage; does this mean that atheists should be banned from marrying?

Perhaps the whole thing could be solved by homosexuals making their own religion, with some vaguely defined philosophy that basically says 'Anyone can get married to whoever they like... except christians!'. That should even things up a little.

Yes, but then we'll have non-religious types and religious types engaging in acts usually leading to open agression, where-as now all we have are religious types against different religious types, due to, errr, the differance in, errr, religious type. See what I mean? No, good, cause I just confused myself.

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom, Minister of Stuff.

When it comes to the issues of gay marriage, abortion, homosexuality, etc., I tend to favor merely making a resolution, as a "state of the law," that leaves these to the nations themselves to decide. Nothing would bar members from making proposals later to make divorce illegal or allow anyone to screw the carbon-based (or heck, even silicon-based) lifeform of choice, but it would at least perhaps give a good precedence to leave some issues be. The matters at hand are fundamental, and probably will not receive any majority, or even clear plurality. Best to leave them be.

With Respect,
Minister of Foreign Affairs Voegelin, Royal Commonwealth of Oakeshottland.

Yes, but then we'll have non-religious types and religious types engaging in acts usually leading to open agression, where-as now all we have are religious types against different religious types, due to, errr, the differance in, errr, religious type. See what I mean? No, good, cause I just confused myself.

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom, Minister of Stuff.

Open acts of aggression. I smell a war. Man the pink tutus. Which brings me onto my next point. Will there be a chance to discuss stereotypes on this thread, is that a seperate thing?

I think it's rather ridiculous that religious types should be able to claim jurisdiction over marriage; does this mean that atheists should be banned from marrying?

:D Well, under my plan, they could technically marry under the law, it would just be called a civil union, as would all unions issued by the government. I suppose some atheists could form a religious group and begin presiding over their own marriages though. I would be very interested in viewing an athiestic marriage ceremony, just to see what it would be like.

Perhaps the whole thing could be solved by homosexuals making their own religion, with some vaguely defined philosophy that basically says 'Anyone can get married to whoever they like... except christians!'. That should even things up a little.

I wouldn't mind that. I think it would be incredibly amusing.

No matter what its roots are, the word 'marriage' is no longer exclusively religious. In our societies, language isn't in the hands of the churches and the temples, it 'belongs' to people. If enough people were to decide that a hippopotamus is now called a quark and used this terminaology for a sustained period, the hippopotamus would become a quark. I'm not sure about other languages, but English is evolving at an astonishing rate.

All forms of sexuality in M-I have been outlawed, save that for what goes on in the bedrom and is heterosexual, w/o S&M and other forms of mental illness. We favor the theocratic stance, exercised through militant force with pride of the Eyeball-Satellite Flag. Man was built one way, and one way only. Everything else he decides, therefore he has chosen his own punishment.

DP

"All forms of sexuality in M-I have been outlawed, save that for what goes on in the bedrom and is heterosexual, w/o S&M and other forms of mental illness. We favor the theocratic stance, exercised through militant force with pride of the Eyeball-Satellite Flag. Man was built one way, and one way only. Everything else he decides, therefore he has chosen his own punishment."

I think we'll be advising Ecopoeia citizens to steer clear of your nation, given their proclivity for indulging in all sorts of sexual acts that would horrify your nation's moral guardians. I dread to think what you'd make of tabling...

Yes, but then we'll have non-religious types and religious types engaging in acts usually leading to open agression, where-as now all we have are religious types against different religious types, due to, errr, the differance in, errr, religious type. See what I mean? No, good, cause I just confused myself.

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom, Minister of Stuff.

Open acts of aggression. I smell a war. Man the pink tutus. Which brings me onto my next point. Will there be a chance to discuss stereotypes on this thread, is that a seperate thing?

Provided its sereotyping to do with sexuality, fire away. Hmmm, though before firing step out of the pink tutu, this is a peaceful discussion I would hope, :wink:

BTW: Are those "Amour" Plated Tutus? ( :wink: )

- The Rep of Komokom, Region Minister of Stuff.

BTW V2 : Ecopoeia, whats a "tabling" ?

No matter what its roots are, the word 'marriage' is no longer exclusively religious.

It never was exclusively religious, and should not be confined to the large institutional bastardizations of spirituality. Unfortunately, such groups keep whining about marriage being 'religious' in nature, and they constitute a large enough voting bloc in the U.S. to keep our politicians from acting in a way that would upset them too terribly. Keep in mind that the views that I have expressed apply solely to the current situation in the U.S., and in other countries where the situation permits, I would suggest a very different approach.

In our societies, language isn't in the hands of the churches and the temples, it 'belongs' to people. If enough people were to decide that a hippopotamus is now called a quark and used this terminaology for a sustained period, the hippopotamus would become a quark. I'm not sure about other languages, but English is evolving at an astonishing rate.

Indeed, especially so in certain dialectical forms.

Ecopoeia, whats a "tabling" ?

I also would like an explanation on the nature of 'tabling'.

Ecopoeia, whats a "tabling" ?

I also would like an explanation on the nature of 'tabling'.

Heheheheh... we're not at all sure it would be suitable for a family forum such as this one. But it involves lotsa people. We suggest that interested delegates read Kim Stanley Robinson's SF classic Blue Mars (having first read Red Mars and Green Mars) for more details.

Read/buy more books? Bucko, I just got - given - 200 of them, plus a book case. And I just bit the bullet and ordered a copy of Jen. Gov. so fat chance ! :wink:

Though I guess its something along the lines of an orgy but with some kind of variation on the run of the mill ...

Odd, no-one screamed, "Think of the children!" ... yet. :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

Think of the children!
Happy now, Komokom? ;)

A few points:
In English-speaking countries (as a generalization), the dictionary is defined by the language. Hence the idea that if we began to call a hippopotamus a "quark," eventually it would be. However, and I may be speaking out of my ass, the French language is defined by its dictionary. So if the French began calling the hippopotamus (whatever it is in French) a "quark," they'd just be wrong. However, that has NOTHING to do with the point Ecopoeia actually made, which I happen to agree with: Marriage is not exclusively religious. On the other hand, I would put more blame (credit? fine line there) on secular governments (i.e. the USA) than on the development of language as there are legal concerns (rights being afforded to married couples, etc).

Secondly, regarding virtual child pornography:
I am quick to grant the point that child molestation is more about power than sexuality. And that is a conceivable reason for placing a ban on the animated child pornography as well as the actual thing; encouragment of that mind-set holds little benefit, if it holds any at all. However, it stands to reason that we would then have to limit any expression of a power-based sexual fantasy (such as rape fantasies). I believe it was mentioned on this thread that some women have rape-fantasies, but would be appalled by the actual event (and if it wasn't, I'm mentioning it now ;) ). I believe the same is true for virtual child pornography; it doesn't directly exploit any children (aside from my aforementioned scenario of children being chained to desks and forced to animate pornographic scenes) so it is difficult to say that it directly contributes to child molestation. Since we're talking about legislation, I have one other point: how would virtual child pornography be defined? For example, if we based on the age of the characters involved, the "artist" could say they were all of consenting age, which forces us to ask "whose consenting age?" If it's based on appearance, similar questions arise.

Third: Jennifer Government is an awesome book. I read it a week or so ago. But that's kind of off-topic.

1) Thank you. :wink:

2) Very good point, "virtual child pornoghrapy" and its regulation is heavily dependant on contemporary and past perception, we must remember that no actual children are involved, unless it is there image which was the basis of the "character".

3) I liked the first chapter, so, eh, (shrugs) if its anything like Nation States I will be happy, plus, no bloody server ! :D

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.

Right, there has been a lull in discussion, and my computer has stopped having a mid-life crisis, so now is a good a time as any to bring this up. :)

I want to gauge opinion. Are people naturally sexually conformist or are stereotypes about sexually rooted in some truth. If so, how truthful are they and are they out of date. How much are stereotypes knawing away at our healthy attitudes to sexuality. If your attitude is not healthy, have stereotypes contributed to this. How offensive do you find stereotypes. Well, Komokom has contributed his thoughts which I hope he will post, and I think I've wrote plenty above. Discuss. :D

I suspect that while much opinion concerning sexuality is the product of socialisation, some people are still inherently more or less likely to favour sexual diversity.

As for stereotypes, many have a root of truth and are generalisations (possibly made for useful reasons) that have morphed into something of a parody of the subject.

Apologies for brevity (and probably not making any sense).

PS: all you need to 'table' are a group of open-minded friends you trust and, er, a table.

I want to gauge opinion. Are people naturally sexually conformist or are stereotypes about sexually rooted in some truth.

It's a little of both, really. In some rather interesting cases, the stereotype creates its own justification. When people are constantly told by their culture that their group has a certain attribute, they often believe it, and will conform themselves to fulfill that belief.

If so, how truthful are they and are they out of date.

Well, lets start with the example of women being weak. There is truth to this, in so much as the average man is much stronger than the average woman. Does this make women inferior? Only as much as men not being able to bear children makes them inferior. Which is to say, not at all.

How much are stereotypes knawing away at our healthy attitudes to sexuality.

I don't think stereotypes are really the root of that problem. I think its a lack of education mostly. Although the Puritanical concept of sex has contributed largely to the misunderstanding of sex in my own country.

If your attitude is not healthy, have stereotypes contributed to this.

My own attitude about sex is pretty healthy, especially given my upbringing.

How offensive do you find stereotypes.

It depends on the stereotype.

Now thats what I was talking about. Thanks ;) :lol:

Now thats what I was talking about. Thanks ;) :lol:

You are quite welcome, Ritsa. :)

DP

DP

DP? sorry, I happen to be a newbie to the boards.

"DP" = Double Post

Used to describe with as little time wasted as possible a server or user error resulting in multiple posting.

A community service by, :wink:

- The Rep of komokom, RMoS.

"DP" = Double Post

Used to describe with as little time wasted as possible a server or user error resulting in multiple posting.

A community service by, :wink:

- The Rep of komokom, RMoS.

A-thank you.

:oops:

:oops:

Why are you embarrassed?

:cry: OP never showed up to give us a poorly typed laugh