NationStates Jolt Archive

For all conservative nations, and nations who don't believe in forcing the homosexual agenda down its citizens' throats: I strongly recommend watching for and supporting proposals (or making them yourselves) that seek to undermine the homosexual movement and respect the rights of nations to keep gay "marriage" outlawed. I know there are more liberals than clear thinking conservatives in this game, but I believe efforts should continue to be made to rid ourselves of this wretched movement that seeks to force people to either accept homosexuality as acceptable, or to pay consequences. Rally behind proposals that go against the grain of the homosexual agenda.

The TERRIFYING Homosexual Agenda

1. Compliment Chairman on tastefulness of shirt
2. Apologies for absences
3. Minutes of last meeting read
4. Pouting interval
5. Any Other Business

Frankly, we consider homophobes to be hate-filled, immoral scum. Please take your sordid little dogmas back to Rhea County, or possibly Zimbabwe.

But before you go, please do note that if you're a UN member then gay marriage is already legal and protected by the UN in your country.

And rest assured that homosexuals have far better things to do than force their agendas, or anything else, down the throats of hate-filled fundamentalists.

Oh, well. Denying homosexuals rights is simply going to make them rebel against the government and eventually overthrow them if you oppress them enough. Just look at history. :P

The game says my country is supposed to follow all UN rules, but that idea doesn't go any further than simply imagining it since the game says so. Since most of this game is just based on having fun with your imagination, I'll go ahead and say that we don't follow any homosexual laws that the UN passes. And no, I'm not a hate-filled bigot, I just don't call what's evil and disgusting a good thing.

And no, I'm not a hate-filled bigot, I just don't call what's evil and disgusting a good thing.

How can you say you're not a bigot when you just made a statement that's an oxymoron?

Why can't conservatives stop talking about homosexuals? It's downright creepy. You'd think that they were overrunning the country. They account for, what, 3-5% of the population, tops? They have a much lower life expectancy than the average person? I don't see how they're taking control.

Do you really have to speak in such awful cliches? (ie. "cramming it down our throats?") I would have thought such awfully explicit sexual innuendos would be anathema to true conservatives.

Sorry, I guess my mind isn't perverted enough to have caught what you see as innuendo. There must be something wrong with me since I'm not always thinking about sex. Homosexuals piss me off because for a tiny minority, they exert a lot of political power. So, I figured I'd have fun on this game and go on a little crusade against it. And as for the cliches, get over it.

As for the oxymoron statement, it all depends on your idea of a bigot. You already assume that anyone who thinks practicing homosexuality is wrong is a bigot, so yeah, my statement would seem to be an oxymoron. But then again, I think the term "liberal logic" is an oxymoron :D

Look... if you don't want gay marriage recognized by the state (your nation) ... abolish all governement recognition of marriage period. Return it back to being a religious institution. If a given church decides to marry a pair of men... it's up to them.... but your nation will not be sanctioning it.

Seems like a non-issue to me.

Asheboro is right about one thing.
There are not very many clear thinking conservatives on these boards.

I don't know, I think I might just oppose Asheboro's definition of "Conservative"- it's become such a big tent that the Religious Right has been coopting the term for quite a while-ever since it became fashionable to do so (Dammit, Rush! why'd you have to get so popular?).

Like most things, the Right is composed of a lot of different, sometimes conflicting agendas that tend to share a handfull of common views (often not the same ones from group to group), and an opposition to various elements of the Left's political agenda.

There are:

Gun-Rights Conservatives (Second Amendment supporters who take the broad, rather than narrow, view of the Second Amendment)

Libertarian Conservatives (Limit Government involvement, reduce the size of Government-most of the Reagan Democrats fall into this grouping)

Legal Conservatives (Judges must not legislate from the bench).

Fiscal Conservatives (Cut taxes, we're being bled dry now.)

Regulatory Conservatives (Hey, Only BIG business can afford to comply with some of those regulations, ever wonder why the Multinationals are contributing more to the Dems than the Republicans?? That's why-it narrows the field and chokes out smaller competitors.)

National Defense Conservatives (The world is dangerous-being nice to people hasn't worked, the "walk softly and carry a big stick" school of Diplomacy)

and,

The Religious Right. (Falwell, and those other, fat hucksters scamming gramma out of her savings to support 'Ministries' that compose of a teevee studio and the preacher's private jet, limo, and mansion.)

The last one is the main source of "Conservative" angst about the Gay issue (and the Abortion issue). It's actually the smallest component of the Conservative movement, but it's also the one that gets the most attention in the media, and the one that has the most loose cash to throw around, making it the portion that both is difficult to deny, since they, unlike the Unions, haven't become limpet-fastened to a single party even when their issues are ignored and their movement undermined.

(Free Trader Dems have basically pushed labour unions into being useless as a means of protecting worker's rights in this country-and the Unions reward this by continuing to support the bastards-they should've pulled that support a long time ago, if the Unions were "Free Agent" support (that being, "If you don't do something to protect our jobs and our industries, we'll trash you but good."), then both parties would have to listen to them. Instead, they've become just a funding arm for the Democratic Party- Republicans that might have listened to them know that even working their issues won't get their support-the Unions have become politically impotent.)

Frankly, accusing somebody of "cramming something down somebody's throat" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) is going to be interpreted as a sexual innuendo even if the thought of smoking pole would never occur to your pristine, lily white mind. If you don't want to come off looking like a frustrated closet homosexual, you'll refrain from spewing such innuendos or obsessing over gays.

Also, I fail to see the immense political power that gays supposedly wield. They're a second-class group at best. I think they've become something of a hobgoblin to the right, now that the Soviet Union has fallen and it's no longer fashionable for conservatives to rail out against Jews and Catholics as they used to. Just two days ago the Michigan legislature passed a bill absolving doctors from any blame if they refuse to treat someone for "ethical, moral, or religious reasons" - e.g. homosexuals. Never mind that doing so would be a huge violation of the Hippocratic Oath that every doctor takes, it is also disturbing to see the de facto second class status of homosexuals being enshrined de jure.

Of course, if some conservatives had their way, it would be illegal for homosexuals to serve in the army, become politicians, schoolteachers, ministers, or doctors, and it would be legal to kick them out of housing, their jobs, and withhold medical service from them. Perhaps the fact that the conservative agenda vis-a-vis gays hasn't succeeded in its entirety - yet - is indicative of the "vast political influence" this small minority has. I'd like to think that it's because the majority of people don't share the fixation that confused individuals like Asheboro have with gays, and can't be bothered one way or the other.

All the same, that's a fine face that you are putting on modern conservatism, Asheboro. If all conservatives were as reasonable as Nuevo Kowloon, then perhaps the country wouldn't be as divided as it very clearly is.

DP

And no, I'm not a hate-filled bigot, I just don't call what's evil and disgusting a good thing.

On what are you basing this view? Is it leviticus whatever:whatever?

Let me assume it is for a moment. If it isn't, I apologise, but this is still directed to all the rest of you homophobes who do base your ideas on that particularly nasty bit of text.

If you're going to base a moral judgement on a religious scripture, that's tolerable on a personal level, but if you think a government should adopt that moral system based on scripture you really ought to be able to prove that said scripture is infallibly reliable as a source of wisdom on a universal moral standard (whose existence you must also be able to prove).

So really, what I'm saying is that if you want to base your personal bigotry on scripture, ok, but if you're going to impose it on the citizens under a government, you're going to have to prove that God exists, that the Bible is his word, and that it is morally right to follow his word.

I do believe that this sort of bigotry has its purpose, Myopia. Psychologically speaking, insecure individuals need to find someone to look down upon. Because such individuals lack confidence and self-respect, it becomes incumbent for them to find someone else to dump upon, or else they run the risk of despairing and terminating their miserable little lives.

Furthermore, from a religious perspective, of all the sins mentioned in the Bible (and there are quite a few), sex with another man or woman (as the case may be) is the one "biggie" that most of us will never be tempted to commit. It may not have made the "top ten" list, but it's frequently mentioned along with other clear-cut abominations, such as divorce or eating shellfish. Consequently, it is easy for the more insecure Christians, who find themselves tempted by other common sins (e.g. self-abuse), to turn against homosexuals.

I don't have anything to say to such disturbed, hateful people, as long as they keep their sickness to themselves. Under the circumstances, the only options open to the rest of us are to attempt to prevent their hatred from spreading or affecting anyone else, and wait for them to grow up. I personally, however, will not be holding my breath.

For all conservative nations, and nations who don't believe in forcing the homosexual agenda down its citizens' throats: I strongly recommend watching for and supporting proposals (or making them yourselves) that seek to undermine the homosexual movement and respect the rights of nations to keep gay "marriage" outlawed. I know there are more liberals than clear thinking conservatives in this game, but I believe efforts should continue to be made to rid ourselves of this wretched movement that seeks to force people to either accept homosexuality as acceptable, or to pay consequences. Rally behind proposals that go against the grain of the homosexual agenda.

Hmm...how about this?

For all LIBERAL nations, and nations who don't believe in forcing the RELIGIOUS RIGHT agenda down its citizens' throats: I strongly recommend watching for and supporting proposals (or making them yourselves) that seek to undermine the RELIGIOUS RIGHT'S movement and respect the rights of nations to keep "FAMILY VALUES" outlawed. I know there are more CONSERVATIVES than clear thinking LIBERALS in this game, but I believe efforts should continue to be made to rid ourselves of this wretched movement that seeks to force people to either accept MISGUIDED VALUES as acceptable, or to pay consequences. Rally behind proposals that go against the grain of the RELIGIOUS RIGHT'S agenda.

Sound like a rational and clear thinking to you? Yeah. That's what I thought.

For what it's worth, the Jovian Worlds has adopted a novel new concept. All organizations that collect income and are not directly contributing income to charitable causes (food to poor, housing, clothing, etc.) must pay their fair share of taxes. Why? Because one man's religion is another man's mythology. (Or woman's...or hermaphrodite's for that matter...let's be fair and not be exclusive on the grounds of genetics for fucks sake...)

:roll:

than clear thinking conservatives in this game

Clear thinking conservative? Sounds like an oxymoron to me....

and respect the rights of nations to keep gay "marriage" outlawed.

Too late old boy, It's legal, you can't change it and you can't outlaw it....You can't even "keep gay marriage outlawed" as it's been legalised long before you were on the scene. You are not the first to try and ban it, and will certainly not be the last, but it is rather boring seeing newbie nations trying to repeal something that cannot be done.... :roll:

Since most of this game is just based on having fun with your imagination, I'll go ahead and say that we don't follow any homosexual laws that the UN passes.

Tough luck, you have already legalised it the moment you joined the UN. You can quibble and moan and cry about it all you want, but it won't do diddly squat. You could always leave the UN, which I'm sure would be a terrible, terrible loss....:roll:

Why can't conservatives stop talking about homosexuals? It's downright creepy.

I'd have a guess and say they are afraid to come out of their closet...? :P

If you don't want to come off looking like a frustrated closet homosexual, you'll refrain from spewing such innuendos or obsessing over gays.

Clearly, I'm not the only one to make this guess then :P

There are not very many clear thinking conservatives on these boards.

Indeed, and that is not because of the liberals dominance, but rather the conservative failures to provide a intelligent debate, and have the tenacity to get any sort of numbers involved....

But as for the clear thinking part....I don't think clear thinking conservatives exist period.

Another 2 cents to throw into the debate, a classic from 1996:
New Study Links Homophobia With Homosexual Arousal (http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html)

I take exception to several statements that have been made here.
First of all I am a very conservative national leader, and I believe that the best thing that government can do in areas that have no direct bearing on issues of either economic development, environmental health or national defense is to simply stay out of it.
As I can see nothing that allowing a union of homosexual people would possibly do to affect any of these things our nation has adopted a hands off policy when it comes to marriages or civil unions.

(We recognize a marriage as a purely religious ceremony, any church that wishes to may either allow or forbid these unions according to the dictates of their Conscience. Civil contracts are issued to all citizens who wish one in order to protect property rights and the rights of any children either natural or adopted into the union.)

Secondly, I take issue with both the statements that there are not many "clear thinking" conservatives here, and the restatement of the same implying the conservatives cannot be "clear thinking". On the contrary, I believe that there are a great many clear thinking people on both sides of the political spectrum. Just not the person who started this thread.

Alaric the Red
Supreme Leader of Deagol Deaod

On the contrary, I believe that there are a great many clear thinking people on both sides of the political spectrum. Just not the person who started this thread.


Well put.


On a side note.
If a nation is to break with UN policy and attempt to repress any individual or group of indivuals, I had suggested a solution to this.

Draft Proposal Freedom of Emigration Act.

At the same time, if like minded individuals wish to move to a region where gay marriage is not prevalent, this would mandate that they are free to do so.

Currently it's semi scuttled until I find some better means of implementing the 'Oversight Board' and perhaps gain some endorsements so I can submit it once I find reach a final version.

(OOC Though this is probably officially against rules, but it *Does* seem as though national laws CAN be enacted that DO violate UN resolutions. Furthermore, I don't believe resolutions created prior to a nation's creation have an affect on that nation. At least, according to my observations since I've joined, this would appear to be the case. The game mechanics have some pretty serious flaws, it would seem. Still, I can't claim to not be enjoying myself. )


g.e.
Spokesperson for the Future Peoples of the Jovian Worlds

I myself am an out of the closet legally married by my government gay man. (Tis good to be Canadian!).

I am a fiscal conservative by nature (limit taxes to services the government has to provide as ordered by the people, rather than the government) and believe that local governments know more of what the people want than provencial (Americans: read state) or federal governments do.

I am a social moderate. I approve of gay marriage (naturally), but not in allowing cousins to marry or you to marry your cat. It is my belief that society has certain perameters that must be maintained. As society changes (as it has on the gay issue in Canada), then we adjust accordingly.

I am a defense conservative with a liberal bias. We need the military to defend us and to serve us in times of emergency, but outside of a UN contribution--I beleive they should not leave our shores. I feel the same about any nation's military.

I am a traditional conservative witha liberal slant. I like traditions and think they should be maintained-provided everyone (read minorities) gets to play as well.

I am a religious liberal-don't believe that God wrote the Bible (too much of man in it), believe that the authors were writing based on the times. It is a good historical document with a code of life-the way it is practiced and celebrated needs to change with the times--including the "laws" written in it.

I am a political conservative--don't fix things that are not broken, don't invent problems in order to create solutions. Keep things the way they are and if it needs to change, change it just enough to meet the change without going overboard. I like stability.

So-does this make me a liberal or a conservative or a middle of the road? It makes me none of the above--it makes me flexible with the times while allowing me to make my life as I see fit.

Do I fit into a mold created by political parties? No--I have voted Liberal, I have voted Reform, I have voted Progressive Conservative, I have voted New Democrat. If I was an American, I would have switched party registrations so many times it would have made the elections clerk mad as a red herring.

I say this because the whole "I am a liberal" "I am a conservative" carping is just too vague. No one is 100% of one or the other, most of us are a little of both--depending on the issue at hand.

Gayles, I'd classify you as a non-theistic, left-leaning libertarian.

Gayles, I'd classify you as a non-theistic, left-leaning libertarian.

It is odd that you would. I took the libertarian test at http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi/purity.cgi and while the results are skewed (any score counts you as a libertarian in some way or another), I scored a 42 which, I am told (according to this scoring) "Your libertarian credentials are obvious. Doubtlessly you will become more extreme as time goes on. " If anything, my libertarian leanings have gone just the opposite--especially since I moved to the US late last year.

But my question is this: while I may have libertarian leanings, does that make me a strong candidate for the Libertarian party (note the capitalism)? If that is the case, is it not a misnomer for a libertarian to join such a party, since most Libertarians reject a goverment with rules that give certain members creedence over others?

As for non-theistic, I am a member of the Church of Christ and hold to most of it's tenents, so I an certainly not non-theistic according to the defination of the word theism as being "belief in the existence of god or gods; specifically, the belief in the existance of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world."

Although I must say that I appreciate your point of view and the classifications!

Well ... the libertarian party is, unfortunately, a joke in the USA :(

It's way too extreme on taxes et al. I am a pragmatic libertarian ... more right leaning than left leaning, so I vote the candidate closest to my ideals on a case by case basis. I know it's cliche... but issues do matter more to me than party affiliation ;)

As for non-theistic.... please accept my app-o-louge-eez