NationStates Jolt Archive

Approve the anti promotion of homosexuality now

Lawsy me, there really is such a proposal.Banning promotion of homosexua
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Checnya

Description: ---lity ... Editor's note - this is actually how it was listed ...

In todays society you cant go anywhere without homosexuality thrust down your throat( bad pun)

Homosexulaity is a un-natural act, with more and more people becoming gay the population of earth will deminish.
Im saying that the use of promotion homosexulaity in the media and education should be stopped. It gives people thewrong idea that homosexulaity is the right way to go, when it isnt.

Im certainly not saying that homosexulaity should be banned outright, but for moral decency wouldnt you say that advertising these acts is a good thing for todays children, well i certainly dont.

Approvals: 18 (Prien, Waderow, The Gaza Strip, Panzerfaust 88, Craigus battersbyus, Sinitsyn, Lycurga, Kiwipeso, Bukanon, Republican Ideology, Carlus, Alitalia, RossGlen, Yevon of Spira, Connersonia, Lubbadub, Billiopia, PENGUNO)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 118 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Sep 5 2004

Approvals: 18 (Prien, Waderow, The Gaza Strip, Panzerfaust 88, Craigus battersbyus, Sinitsyn, Lycurga, Kiwipeso, Bukanon, Republican Ideology, Carlus, Alitalia, RossGlen, Yevon of Spira, Connersonia, Lubbadub, Billiopia, PENGUNO)
Guess I won't be counting on the support of these delegates for any Gay Rights provisions that come along. Not that we need them - those rights are already a matter of law in all UN nations.

Just looking at this resolution in general this is a good example of a bad resolution. In the first place this is more of a "debate" style of resolution, basically trying to justify it's one and only action clause "Im saying that the use of promotion homosexulaity in the media and education should be stopped."

The action clause is vague.
The issue doesn't appear to be of international scope.
The issue doesn't appear to be "Significant."
The issue doesn't appear to have any NS nation impact.

On a scale of 0-10 where 10 is the greatest resoltion ever written and 0 is (Someone call the mods for gross violations) I would give it a 2. Unfortunately a 2 won't get my endorsement.

Well yeah, apart from what is in my mind absolute crap subject matter, its a violation of past law. And, oh, I don't know. Highly offensive to some quaters of the demographic here. Times like this I want to slap some peole about with a big " BAN TEH MORAL DECENCY, AND THINK OF TEH CHIDREN ! " proposal myself.

But that would be petty ...

* Sounds of random scribbling ...

;)

( bad pun)

Something which clearly doesn't belong in a UN resolution.

Homosexulaity is a un-natural act

A. Plenty of animals exhibit natural homosexual behaviour, there's a substantial body of evidence to say that it is in fact natural for humans.
B. Hypocrite. You used a computer to transmit your message over the internet that unnatural things are bad.

with more and more people becoming gay the population of earth will deminish.

Yeah, we certainly wouldn't want anything at all to arrest global population growth, now would we... :rolleyes:

that homosexulaity is the right way to go, when it isnt

What's to say it isn't? What's to say that morality has nothing to do with it?

You clearly haven't thought through your opinion on the matter, since the only arguments you present have no substance and can be knocked down with a moment's thought. This is nothing more than unfounded prejudice.

Even without going into some value-laden tirade on why it's dehumanizing and morally reprehensible to single out a minority group for persecution based on nothing more than "I think it's icky," this resolution falls. Current UN law delivers upon homosexuals a large swath of rights, and more than one of them would be violated by this proposal.

I thought this was a moot point, but apparently the author has posted it again.Promotion homosexuality

A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Checnya

Description: Description:

In todays society you cant go anywhere without homosexuality thrust down your throat( bad pun)

Homosexulaity is a un-natural act, with more and more people becoming gay the population of earth will deminish.
Im saying that the use of promotion homosexulaity in the media and education should be stopped. It gives people thewrong idea that homosexuality is the right way to go, when it isnt.

Im certainly not saying that homosexulaity should be banned outright, but for moral decency wouldnt you say that advertising these acts is a good thing for todays children, well i certainly dont.

Approvals: 3 (The Gaza Strip, Hussites, Californian People)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 133 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Wed Sep 8 2004 It seems his spelling skills and social agenda have not benefited from the helpful advice of the UN Forum readers.

"with more and more people becoming gay the population of earth will deminish."

And that's a bad thing? :confused:

Actually it will only expand at a slower rate and not diminish. Even if the majority of individuals were homosexual the population could still grow larger.

Yes, with a NationStates Population of about 108,000 nation-states, overal people somewhere over 4,730,443,900,000 (that's 4 TRILLION, 730 BILLION, 443 MILLION, 900 THOUSAND) (and that is a VERY conservative ESTIMATE) I seriously doubt the "population growth hinderance" argument will fly.

Secondly, given the population growth statistics, 75% of the population would have to suddenly turn homosexual, (assuming the rest maintain the same growth rate per person), just to "break even" in population growth (IE as many born as die within a generation)... This also doesn't even count the children that Homosexual couples have (through adoption or other artificial methods)... So even if the Homosexual population made up 3/4 of the world population, I doubt it would "break even" even then...

Generally I have other points I disagree with the author on... we have really seen no "homosexuality" being "thrust down the throats" of member nations in the UN... There have been resolutions, which have no impacted my nations "libertarian" viewpoints to personnel interactions... providing "rights" to homosexuals... given to the rest of the population in general... But in no way does the provision of "rights" in any way "force" homosexuality on people...

In any case, the authors views and principles are alien to the Republic's views.... and we would most likely either dismiss voting, or vote against any such "right restrictive" proposals...

In todays society you cant go anywhere without homosexuality thrust down your throat( bad pun)

Ok... Now, where's the proof?

Homosexulaity is a un-natural act, with more and more people becoming gay the population of earth will deminish.

"Homosexulaity"? What is this unnatural act you speak of? I'm sorry, but, I am unfamiliar with it, unless you meant to write "homosexuality", in which case, the only unnatural thing would be you.

Im saying that the use of promotion homosexulaity in the media and education should be stopped. It gives people thewrong idea that homosexuality is the right way to go, when it isnt.

Come back when you've learned a thing or two about grammar and sentence structure because that makes no sense whatsoever! Further, your claim that it would "give" people the "wrong" idea is such tripe. Save the preaching for someone who gives a damn.

Im certainly not saying that homosexulaity should be banned outright, but for moral decency wouldnt you say that advertising these acts is a good thing for todays children, well i certainly dont.

WHOA! Time out... what the hell are you saying? This is a grammatical nightmare, and the spelling...yesch! Ugh... It's utterly terrible!

Further, I think we really need to protect the children from bad spelling and grammar, and if you need an example, check your writing.

We're all preaching to the choir here. Our bigoted friend probably hasn't even checked back since posting the original monosyllabic topic title.

I'm gonna take a random shot-in-the-dark here. but I'm betting he's not real open to reason and argument anyway.

Don't be cruel Fris ...

The writer is most likely actually hiding in a basement with his back against a bit of steel sheeting and an AK-47 analogue in front of him to protect himself from the Fab Five turning up in a pink Hummer, giving him a hair-cut and fresh new look, replacing his Heavy Metal collection with 90's Techno and breaking his wrists with a small hammer.

:rolleyes: + ;)

Wow, it's been a while since I saw a "get rid of homosexuality" resolution in the UN. Here's to good old times. :)

Nostalgia brings a tear to the eye. Do you know what gay science is?

Apologies. Flippant remarks like that could turn the UN into a circus sideshow...

B. Hypocrite. You used a computer to transmit your message over the internet that unnatural things are bad.

OOC: I'm not saying this is the case here, but just a gentle reminder to say that not all UN nations argue the politics of the players. It is entirely justified for a player playing a bigoted nation to propose a bigoted motion. (The shoddy sentence construction and grammar is far more offensive if that motion). Sorry if I misinterpreted, but it seems to me that the line between RP and RL is a bit blurred on some of the posts on this thread.

OOC: I'm not saying this is the case here, but just a gentle reminder to say that not all UN nations argue the politics of the players. It is entirely justified for a player playing a bigoted nation to propose a bigoted motion. (The shoddy sentence construction and grammar is far more offensive if that motion). Sorry if I misinterpreted, but it seems to me that the line between RP and RL is a bit blurred on some of the posts on this thread.

OOC: I'll admit that I didn't consider the possibility that the author didn't share the views set out in the proposal, but I do feel it unlikely in this case. Sorry about the OOC/IC confusion.

OOC: I'll admit that I didn't consider the possibility that the author didn't share the views set out in the proposal, but I do feel it unlikely in this case. Sorry about the OOC/IC confusion.OOC: No problem. No offence taken. :) My gut instinct about that particular author is the same as yours- ironically I think it would have probably been better constructed if it had been someone RPing a view they didn't share. I just thought it was worth mentioning on behalf of those who, to take a random example ;), are playing neo-fascist fundamentalist theocracys. I'd be horrified to think anyone actually seriously thought I was in favour of goverments having the right to detain people indefinately without trial and public floggings in RL.

* The Rep of Komokom hands Ecopoeia the mandatory " What is gay science ? " t-shirt, and a metallic green part hat with a little pink ribbon trailing away from the tip, ;)

...

* The Rep of Komokom also tries not to step in the sudden prolific amount of elephant poop. Is that a lion coming toards me ...

...

* Signal broken off due to sudden bar-fight.

:D

Komokom, my friend, I believe this little sojourn down memory lane offers definitive proof that we are true UN veterans.

[insert deity or otherwise of your choice] help us.

Meeeh, its all good. Could be worse. We could be the OMFG ! MY NATIONAL SOV. ! WHERE THE HELL DID IT GO ! I BET IT HAS - NOTHING - TO DO WITH MY U.N. MEMBER-SHIP ! TEH 1 WORLDORZ HAVE TAKEN IT ! YES ! IT - WAS - THE U.N. ! GIVE IT BACK ! NOW !!! 111 !!!

/ end rant.

:)

Meeeh, its all good. Could be worse. We could be the OMFG ! MY NATIONAL SOV. ! WHERE THE HELL DID IT GO ! I BET IT HAS - NOTHING - TO DO WITH MY U.N. MEMBER-SHIP ! TEH 1 WORLDORZ HAVE TAKEN IT ! YES ! IT - WAS - THE U.N. ! GIVE IT BACK ! NOW !!! 111 !!!

/ end rant.

:)

*Whistles innocently*

The One Worlders? Must be old if I remember them...

The One Worlders? Must be old if I remember them...

What makes you think we ever went away?

*cackles manically, plots world domination*

I honestly think that Homosexuality is not even important enough to debate, let alone pass laws against it. Pass all the laws u want. It'll still happen. The more homos there are, the more women for us straight guys! Besides, it does NOT affect my life directly at all. I know who I am and what I like in women, and I am not so insecure as to see homosexuality as any kind of threat. The whole issue is a waste of time and effort.

As far as having to hear/see it, that's too bad. Life is not perfect or we'd have heaven on earth and no need for heaven. Some nations seem to think you have the right to a perfect life....how boring that would be. Life is full of unpleasant things. There is no way you can ban "unpleasantness" and expect it to happen.

Thats my two bits.

Dr. H

Banning promotion of homosexua
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Checnya

Description: ---lity ... Editor's note - this is actually how it was listed ...

In todays society you cant go anywhere without homosexuality thrust down your throat( bad pun)

Homosexulaity is a un-natural act, with more and more people becoming gay the population of earth will deminish.
Im saying that the use of promotion homosexulaity in the media and education should be stopped. It gives people thewrong idea that homosexulaity is the right way to go, when it isnt.

Im certainly not saying that homosexulaity should be banned outright, but for moral decency wouldnt you say that advertising these acts is a good thing for todays children, well i certainly dont.

Approvals: 18 (Prien, Waderow, The Gaza Strip, Panzerfaust 88, Craigus battersbyus, Sinitsyn, Lycurga, Kiwipeso, Bukanon, Republican Ideology, Carlus, Alitalia, RossGlen, Yevon of Spira, Connersonia, Lubbadub, Billiopia, PENGUNO)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 118 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Sep 5 2004

OOC: Just for old times sake... ;)


IC: My God, have you lost your mind? We have this thing called national sovereignty. It's like that "tolerance" crap on a national level.

This is a domestic issue. Do with your country as you will, but don't start trying to tell my citizens what they can and cannot do. That's what they elected me for. Harumph!

Should I post my list again? :)

Should I post my list again? :)

What list?

Oh well, I'll put it up again.



1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid becasue they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire counrty. That's why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "seperate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

Oh well, I'll put it up again.

Ah, that list. I remember it fondly...

*loudly applauds Kelssek*