NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "Gay Rights"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal

Resolution: #12

Proposed by: James Byron Dean

Description: UN Resolution #12: Gay Rights (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: As the leader of the Holy Empire of James Byron Dean, I propose we repeal UN resolution #12, regarding Gay Rights. I believe that it is in the best interest of all member nations to uphold morality within our international community. Gay people should have the civil rights and liberties enjoyed by everyone else. That I agree with. They should not be subjected to harassment or persecution, and they should be allowed to peacefully live the way they want to live. What we can not allow is the legalization of gay marriage. It threatens the morality of all of our citizens. We should then repeal this resolution, and issue a new one. One that does not include gay marriage under it's protected provisions.

Approvals: 4 (Corona Luminai, Suburban Freedom, Pineapple Joe-bot, NewTexas)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 130 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Tue Oct 5 2004

Read the proposal, and if you're a UN delegate and approve it, then support it. Thanks
The Leader
The Holy Empire of James Byron Dean

What we can not allow is the legalization of gay marriage. It threatens the morality of all of our citizens.

Even if you do view it as immoral (and in fact you give no reason for viewing it as immoral), how does gay marriage affect the morality of anyone except the people doing it?

Since the resolution largely proclaims gay rights and not necessarily the inclusion of gay "marriage," as defined by each individual sovereign nation UN member, your argument and logic behind repealing this resolution is fallicitical in nature and as such should not be supported.

Siyour argument and logic behind repealing this resolution is fallcitical in nature.
2 point to the first person who comes up with an interesting definition of fallcitical.


I'm guessing TH was going for fallacious but it's too good an opening not to grab. :p

Even if you do view it as immoral (and in fact you give no reason for viewing it as immoral), how does gay marriage affect the morality of anyone except the people doing it?

Father + Mother + Children = Family. This is the proper definition of the traditional family structure which as been a God ordained building block of society since it's creation. To simply redefine or destroy this institution in the name of political correctness and a liberal inability to drastically disagree with homosexuals (an important voting bloc) is to tear at the very moral fabric of society.

2 point to the first person who comes up with an interesting definition of fallcitical.


I'm guessing TH was going for fallacious but it's too good an opening not to grab. :p

Hahaha, Fris... it's a rarely used form in journalism of the world fallacious, but, I spelled it wrong, too. Haha! :p

"Since the resolution largely proclaims gay rights and not necessarily the inclusion of gay "marriage," as defined by each individual sovereign nation UN member, your argument and logic behind repealing this resolution is fallicitical in nature and as such should not be supported."



As for the argument that the Gay Rights Resolution doesn't cover gay marriage, i'll quote directly from that Resolution. "We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations." It clearly says that gay marriage, under the resolution, is not only protected, but endorsed, by law. I find it morally wrong for two people of the same sex to desecrate the sacred union of a man and a woman, defined as marriage.

They should not be subjected to harassment or persecution, and they should be allowed to peacefully live the way they want to live.


Unless they want to get married. Then they don't get to chose the way they live, so much as have it dictated to them. (your words, not mine).

By the by - my nations has had same-gender marriages for a fair while now, and I am pretty sure that we have not sunk in to a quagmire of imorality. So where the connection between the two comes I am not sure. Maybe you should look more at the way you are educating your people if the sight of two people in love and getting married makes them lose all their morals and start of on a life of badness.

P.S. Thanks for the support Luciferius. I'd appreciate it if you could help me lobby some more UN delegates for the cause. Bye

"Since the resolution largely proclaims gay rights and not necessarily the inclusion of gay "marriage," as defined by each individual sovereign nation UN member, your argument and logic behind repealing this resolution is fallicitical in nature and as such should not be supported."



As for the argument that the Gay Rights Resolution doesn't cover gay marriage, i'll quote directly from that Resolution. "We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations." It clearly says that gay marriage, under the resolution, is not only protected, but endorsed, by law. I find it morally wrong for two people of the same sex to desecrate the sacred union of a man and a woman, defined as marriage.

That would be the problem most people have with this YOU find it morally wrong.

And - by the by - marriage in my country is defined as two people who want to declare their love for one another infront of their family and friends. No where, even in the doctrine of our former Church Of The Lords, does it specificy what gender those people have to be. So why should my nation be forced to live up to the standards of another, just because you are more closed minded than we are?

</snip> the sacred union of a man and a woman, defined as marriage.
So will you also be campaigning to make civil and common-law marriages illegal? Because they have nothing to do with a 'sacred union'.

Father + Mother + Children = Family. This is the proper definition of the traditional family structure which as been a God ordained building block of society since it's creation. To simply redefine or destroy this institution in the name of political correctness and a liberal inability to drastically disagree with homosexuals (an important voting bloc) is to tear at the very moral fabric of society.

Wow, you have no idea how sarcastic I am feeling right now. But since this is a dignified debating forum I will keep it in check.

Firstly there is divorce. Then re-marriage (possibly on both sides). So the family then becomes mother, father, step-mother, step-father and children, half children and step-children. Add to that the amount of people who live to gether without marrying, but have kids and you get a whole new bunch of things. I could look up the figures but I would say maybe 20 or 30% of the "familys" in my nation confirm to your limited and bigotted view point.

Secondly The Powers That Be and The Lords Of Order didn't actually specificy what a family has to be. There is a business in the town where I live - they all think of each other as family, even though not one of them is related to another one. Family is defined by those who define it - I have considered my fiance as family almost since we met, but we are not married yet. Family is who you love, and who you support. No where does it is defined that family is a mother, a father and children, and your attempt to force such a definition on my people will not be welcome.

Thirdly who is God?

Fourthly - you think I won't disagree with homosexuals if I think they are in the wrong? I will quite happily tell them they are wrong. But not because they are gay. Cause wow that is just prejudice of the worst kind.

Finally - as I have indicated else where if the marriage of two people of the same gender is going to destroy your society, then I think you should look at the foundations it is built upon.

Unless they want to get married. Then they don't get to chose the way they live, so much as have it dictated to them. (your words, not mine).

Untrue, of course they could choose the way the live. Gays will still be allowed to commit their lives to one another just as they always have, it just won't be a legal marriage. There are lots of loving commitments that are not marriage.

2 point to the first person who comes up with an interesting definition of fallcitical.


I'm guessing TH was going for fallacious but it's too good an opening not to grab. :p

Maybe they were going for phallic and got really lost on the way.

Quite why they would be going for phallic is a whole other matter :}

Untrue, of course they could choose the way the live. Gays will still be allowed to commit their lives to one another just as they always have, it just won't be a legal marriage. There are lots of loving commitments that are not marriage.

Are you actually listening to what you are saying? You are saying that if they marry they will be breaking the law. And if they don't want to break the law they can't marry. And you are saying you are NOT dictating to them how they can live?

That would be the problem most people have with this YOU find it morally wrong.

why should my nation be forced to live up to the standards of another...?

This is exaclty why the Gay Marriage Proposal should be repealed, because it says: "We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations."

Why should our nations be forced to endorse in law what we and our societies views as being immoral?

And - by the by - marriage in my country is defined as two people who want to declare their love for one another infront of their family and friends.

That's fine...same as in my country, but the difference is that we have great respect for a long tradition of the family structure which is shaped by marriage between a man and a woman whereas your country doesn't really care. So why should we be forced to endorse a perversion of the sanctity of marriage?

Are you actually listening to what you are saying? You are saying that if they marry they will be breaking the law. And if they don't want to break the law they can't marry. And you are saying you are NOT dictating to them how they can live?

They wouldn't be allowed to marry in the first place because marriage would apply to a man and a woman and any perversion of such combination would not define a marriage because expanding it's definitin would be stripping it of all meaning.

What you seem to want is social anarchy. An 'anything goes' attitude as a norm for family life.

This is exaclty why the Gay Marriage Proposal should be repealed, because it says: "We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations."

Why should our nations be forced to endorse in law what we and our societies views as being immoral?



That's fine...same as in my country, but the difference is that we have great respect for a long tradition of the family structure which is shaped by marriage between a man and a woman whereas your country doesn't really care. So why should we be forced to endorse a perversion of the sanctity of marriage?

Ok. You possibly have a point (I am not willing to conceed it just yet). But let me ask you this - just suppose this resolution was repealed. You could then go ahead and start repressing the people of your country again. But would you leave it at just that, or would you attempt to propose a complete ban on it? (Since it is so morally repugnant that two people should be allowed to fall in love and show that love for one another). Would you be happy knowing that all over my country there are men marrying men and women marrying women with (if you will pardon the pun) gay abandon? Or would you feel compelled to carry it further.

Also - it's not that I don't care. It's just that I am willing to accept a wider definition of family and chose not to limit myself to a narrow minded interpretation.

Oh yeah - this is why I am not willing to conceed you have a point. The UN not only exists as an internation forum of debate, it exists (in my view at least) as a way to set an example. There are a lot of nations out there who are not members of the UN and are not bound by the resolutions passed (and by the way - you are free to resign from the UN if you feel it is contrary to the benifit of your nation. Just as I am if I feel it is that way too). But we - the members - can stand up and say "This is what we believe" or (more honestly "This is what the people who voted on this believe"). And I think the UN has a duty to protect the minorities of the world from small-minded petty bigots.

If there was a chance in hell of this repeal garning enough approvals, I'd spend some time arguing with Luciferius and James Byron Dean.

Since there isn't, might I suggest that the two of you go visit one of the dozens of anti-gay marriage topics in General, or visit one of the dozens of anti-gay marriage proposals that have failed in the UN.

There are no new arguments to be made here, and it's reaching the point of trolling. All you folks who understand and support the concept of equal rights for everyone, stop feeding these trolls.

They wouldn't be allowed to marry in the first place because marriage would apply to a man and a woman and any perversion of such combination would not define a marriage because expanding it's definitin would be stripping it of all meaning.

What you seem to want is social anarchy. An 'anything goes' attitude as a norm for family life.

Again you are making random characterisations of the way my people live. People marry, or they make a comittment to each other. I do NOT believe it is the place of government to decide how that comittement should be shaped or implemented. Further to that if two people find out they are, after all, not suited for each other, it is not the place of government to force them to live together against their wills.

We believe we are a very moral people. We live our lives in service of The Lords, but we don't let that service dominate our lives. (And here we could really get in to a philosophical/religious debate about mortals and "gods" but I think that might be best suited for somewhere else!) All people are free to chose how they live their lives, as long as they live with respect for everyone else.

And again "They wouldn't be allowed" indicates that gay people in your country to NOT get to live the way they want to live.

If there was a chance in hell of this repeal garning enough approvals, I'd spend some time arguing with Luciferius and James Byron Dean.

Since there isn't, might I suggest that the two of you go visit one of the dozens of anti-gay marriage topics in General, or visit one of the dozens of anti-gay marriage proposals that have failed in the UN.

There are no new arguments to be made here, and it's reaching the point of trolling. All you folks who understand and support the concept of equal rights for everyone, stop feeding these trolls.

Yes sir! (Or possibly Yes m'am!)

TilEnca, heres mabey what hes saying and this IS what im saying. Majority of those who believe marriage between a man and a woman is correct and marriage between and man man is incorrect, are Christians. This is because it goes against our teachings by the Lord Jesus to do these things. He clearly stated and so did he predecessors, that marriage is for Man and Woman to be one and to have offspring to do the same. It is clear that marriage between Man and Man or woman and Woman is lust (hopefully i wont have to explain that). Now if you ask, "And why isnt it lust between a man and woman when they get married?" Well because its been passed up from generation to generation in this simple way:

God created man, man needed a helper. He tried finding one through the animals but none of them were that useful. So God put adam to sleep, took his rib and made a woman. That was to symbolize that man and woman are to be one when married. So to cut it short, Marriage is for man and woman, so that they be one together like adam and eve and create offspring to do the same.
Now can Man and Man (or woman and woman) do that?? Well i guess in that case its not marriage.

So basically, there should be another word for giving same sexes unity but not calling it Marriage. Now i know this is my belief, but tell me why it is so important for YOU to have gays united and be considered a marriage, im sure i know why but i just want to know why so then i can continue my debate.

The nation of Newarkbeth believes this resolution should repealed. It should be up to every nation to decide if gays should be allowed to marry it is something we should leave up to every nation.

Ok. You possibly have a point (I am not willing to conceed it just yet). But let me ask you this - just suppose this resolution was repealed. You could then go ahead and start repressing the people of your country again. But would you leave it at just that, or would you attempt to propose a complete ban on it? (Since it is so morally repugnant that two people should be allowed to fall in love and show that love for one another).

Homosexuals in my nation are not "repressed," they are not allowed to be legally married because they do not constitute the legal definition of a marriage. Gays in our country are not entitled to a "right" to marry because allowing gays to marry wouldn't simply just be allowing them access to marriage, but it would rather be changing the definition of marriage all together.

Any Gay Rights Proposal should be about making sure homosexuals are not being repressed or denied civil rights. Everyone in my country has the right to marry so long as they abide by the rules and meet the requirements. How can changing the definition of an institution into something it has never been be considered a "right"? The issue of Gay Marriage shouldn't be included in this proposal.

Also - it's not that I don't care. It's just that I am willing to accept a wider definition of family and chose not to limit myself to a narrow minded interpretation.

Anthropologists tell us that every human society is established by males and females joining in unions to build a life together and bear and raise their children. This is the model on which marriage was founded upon. The very nature of marriage is narrow by definition. Marriage is more than an emotional, committed relationship. It is the union of the two complementary parts of humanity who complete each other in their differences. Any attempt to alter this institution would be the first step to eliminating it's meaning.

And I think the UN has a duty to protect the minorities of the world from small-minded petty bigots.

I agree, however I don't agree that proposals forcing gay marriage in UN member nations is "protecting" anybody

you are free to resign from the UN if you feel it is contrary to the benifit of your nation.

Actually, I'm not a member of the UN anymore. This topic just really sparked my interests. I'm also here just for the sake of debate, especially since I think that the majority of NS members disagree with me and a few others on this issue.

Thank you NewarkBeth and everyone who supports the repeal of resolution #12. I have only been here a few weeks, but i think that there are many other people who don't agree with what Resolution #12 stands for. Weather or not the repeal passes, or even goes to a vote in the general population, i hope this atleast has people talking about this issue.

The Rogue Nation of Flibblites supports this repeal attempt because we don't believe that the UN should be dictating marriage laws. In fact the rest of the Gay Rights resolution we agree with completly.

It was only a matter of time I suppose ... :rolleyes:

* Makes note to kick [violet] for all this, ;)

If this repeal passes, then it will only cement my decision to leave the UN upon the announcement of repeals.

Santosia: You appear to be arguing that the point of marriage is to produce offspring. What then of infertile people? What about post-menopausal women? Are they all to be barred from marriage? To say nothing of the fact that at the moment, we hardly need more people on the planet.

You also say that Jesus said that marriage is between man and woman. Did He actually say this? (If so, and you can identify the chapter and paragraph of the Bible, then I do apologise for doubting this). As far as I am aware, He never mentioned anything to do with homosexuality.

Also, surely your God - having, as I understand it, worked on the principle that His creations were to be given free will but informed of his ideas of what was right, and then given the chance to choose for themselves whether to do "right" or "wrong" - would not necessarily want governments to ban gay marriage. Rather, it might be more fitting to follow his example. Allow gay marriage, and let gay couples make their own decision. If you're right, God will decide how best to deal with them (after all, you are told "Judge not etc"). If you're wrong, and there is no God, or God does not disapprove of gay marriage, then you won't have uselessly been unfair to gays.

Anyway, why should gays in your nation or any other be forced to conform to a view of morality which is based on an age-old book which some believe to be divinely inspired.

Also, surely your God - having, as I understand it, worked on the principle that His creations were to be given free will but informed of his ideas of what was right, and then given the chance to choose for themselves whether to do "right" or "wrong" - would not necessarily want governments to ban gay marriage. Rather, it might be more fitting to follow his example. Allow gay marriage, and let gay couples make their own decision. If you're right, God will decide how best to deal with them (after all, you are told "Judge not etc"). If you're wrong, and there is no God, or God does not disapprove of gay marriage, then you won't have uselessly been unfair to gays.

Anyway, why should gays in your nation or any other be forced to conform to a view of morality which is based on an age-old book which some believe to be divinely inspired.

Hear, hear.

To clear up the Biblical standpoint of homosexuality, i quote from 1 Corinthians chapter 6, verse 9, which states: "What! Do YOU not know that the unrighteous persons will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor mein who lie with men, (verse 10) nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor druknards, nor revilers, nor executioners, will inherit God's kingdom". Paul stated that men who lie with men, homosexuals, will not inherit God's kingdom. Plain and simple, the Bible condemns homosexuality as immoral. The UN should not condone something that goes again'st God's will. If a country wants to do it on it's own, that's fine, but it should not be imposed upon member countries to support, protect, and encourage gay marriage.

To clear up the Biblical standpoint of homosexuality, i quote from 1 Corinthians chapter 6, verse 9, which states: "What! Do YOU not know that the unrighteous persons will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor mein who lie with men, (verse 10) nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor druknards, nor revilers, nor executioners, will inherit God's kingdom". Paul stated that men who lie with men, homosexuals, will not inherit God's kingdom. Plain and simple, the Bible condemns homosexuality as immoral. The UN should not condone something that goes again'st God's will. If a country wants to do it on it's own, that's fine, but it should not be imposed upon member countries to support, protect, and encourage gay marriage.

What's the bible?

To clear up the Biblical standpoint of homosexuality, i quote from 1 Corinthians chapter 6, verse 9, which states: "What! Do YOU not know that the unrighteous persons will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor mein who lie with men, (verse 10) nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor druknards, nor revilers, nor executioners, will inherit God's kingdom". Paul stated that men who lie with men, homosexuals, will not inherit God's kingdom. Plain and simple, the Bible condemns homosexuality as immoral. The UN should not condone something that goes again'st God's will. If a country wants to do it on it's own, that's fine, but it should not be imposed upon member countries to support, protect, and encourage gay marriage.
Yes, Paul said that. What I quite specifically asked was, where did Jesus say it?

I support any persons right to marriage, INCLUDING gay couples, they are just as human as you and I.

This repeal does not recieve my nations support.

The UN should not condone something that goes again'st God's will.Since this in actual fact seems to be the base of your argument, I'm just going to slap you about a bit with a bladder on a stick now.

The nation of Newarkbeth believes this resolution should repealed. It should be up to every nation to decide if gays should be allowed to marry it is something we should leave up to every nation.

That's like saying "It should be up to every nation to decide if blacks and whites should be allowed to use the same restrooms." or "It should be up to every nation to decide if women should have equal legal status as men."

In my view, the issue and importance of gay marriage is one of equal status and equal recognition. People cannot choose their sexuality, so it is unfair to deny homosexual couples the same rights and status that heterosexual couples can have.

Hahaha, Fris... it's a rarely used form in journalism of the world fallacious, but, I spelled it wrong, too. Haha! :p

You mean Farcical?

Untrue, of course they could choose the way the live. Gays will still be allowed to commit their lives to one another just as they always have, it just won't be a legal marriage. There are lots of loving commitments that are not marriage.

Of course then, you approve of polygamy, since all government endorsed marriage is by definition polygamous (as you add a third party to the marriage, namely the government).

Want an easy way to avoid the entire marriage issue, don't make the government party to marriage, just let it go to civil suit after-the-fact, and all problems are eliminated.

Yes, Paul said that. What I quite specifically asked was, where did Jesus say it?

“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable” (Leviticus 18:22).

Sure this is wayyy before Jesus' time, however....God = Jesus.....all of the bible is inspired by God.

Jesus never said anything directly. You are correct. However, if you were simply saying that ONLY Paul said it....and that it never came from God, you are wrong.

For those of you who dont believe in the bible or God, good for you, but dont comment on this post. As for Enn, please do reply.

I support this repeal of Resolution #12.

A new resolution should be drafted up however, one which allows Gay marriage, but also allows for the marriage of:

Three or more people of any sex.

A person and any inanimate object.

A person and his/her pet.

Any person, having been diagnosed with Multiple Personalities, to him/herself.

Any person who proclaims love for any item not already mentioned to said item.

After all, if we're going to cater to 1 radical minority, might as well cater to them all.

After all, if we're going to cater to 1 radical minority, might as well cater to them all.Geeez, then you'll hate to hear about these extreme-ist christians trying to revoke human rights from the N.S.U.N. Terrible business it is.

Of course, once you revoke gay rights, I or one of several other quality writers can simply compose a better verion with even further rights towards homosexuals and any other sexuality not respected by " the church " and pass it with a little effort. And trust me, we'll write so well you'll never gather enough support to justify to the N.S.U.N. why the should revoke it.

I wonder if these repeal people ever wonder just what they are getting into ...

For those of you who dont believe in the bible or God, good for you, but dont comment on this post. As for Enn, please do reply.

If you are going to use the bible as justification for repealling, then the bible has to be evaluated for it's value as a source.

I'm not going to go into detail just yet, but the bible is an unreliable source in mine (and others) opinion. You are entitled to believe it, but how can the UN vote for a repeal on the ideals contained within one document that not all nations can agree to?

You'll need to find a source with broader appeal and greater reliability than that particular fairy tale to establish a consensus.

Three or more people of any sex.

A person and any inanimate object.

A person and his/her pet.

Any person, having been diagnosed with Multiple Personalities, to him/herself.

Any person who proclaims love for any item not already mentioned to said item.

After all, if we're going to cater to 1 radical minority, might as well cater to them all.

Polygamy is actually legal in some places.

Gays are not a radical minority in the sense of people who want to marry their pets, in fact they're quite a big minority as far as minorities go and I really don't see where you'd get "radical" from. The minority of people who want to marry pets or objects is a very tiny... oh wait, you can't marry an animal, or an inanimate object, because neither has legal standing and neither can legally consent to marriage, and therefore neither can legally be considered married, nor can they sign a marriage contract. Pwned.

“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable” (Leviticus 18:22).

Sure this is wayyy before Jesus' time, however....God = Jesus.....all of the bible is inspired by God.

Jesus never said anything directly. You are correct. However, if you were simply saying that ONLY Paul said it....and that it never came from God, you are wrong.

For those of you who dont believe in the bible or God, good for you, but dont comment on this post. As for Enn, please do reply.

If we don't believe in your bible, why should we be forced to accept it as a tool for defining laws? Because I could just as easily quote the words The Lords (our "divine beings", if you were curious) that say you can pretty much marry who you want, as long as you treat them with respect. So why the word of your god more important than the word of mine?

The UN (in mine, and several other's opinions it appears) can not and should not cater to one religion when making it's laws.

“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable” (Leviticus 18:22).

Sure this is wayyy before Jesus' time, however....God = Jesus.....all of the bible is inspired by God.

Jesus never said anything directly. You are correct. However, if you were simply saying that ONLY Paul said it....and that it never came from God, you are wrong.

For those of you who dont believe in the bible or God, good for you, but dont comment on this post. As for Enn, please do reply.
Ah, yes, Leviticus. Part of the Old Testament, right?

Unless I've been lied to by a great many people, including my Sunday school teachers from when I was younger, Jesus declared all of the laws of the Old Testament null and void. With the exception of the Ten Commandments, which, you must admit, this verse is not part of.

This provides an interesting conundrum. If God changed his mind when Jesus came, and Jesus never said anything about homosexuals, then how are we supposed to know what God has in mind for homosexuals?
Paul wrote his letters to the Corinthians well after the Crucifixion and Resurrection, and unless he laid claim to the title of prophet himself he could not claim to have a monopoly on God's wisdom.

To clear up the Biblical standpoint of homosexuality, i quote from 1 Corinthians chapter 6, verse 9, which states: "What! Do YOU not know that the unrighteous persons will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor mein who lie with men, (verse 10) nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor druknards, nor revilers, nor executioners, will inherit God's kingdom". Paul stated that men who lie with men, homosexuals, will not inherit God's kingdom. Plain and simple, the Bible condemns homosexuality as immoral. The UN should not condone something that goes again'st God's will. If a country wants to do it on it's own, that's fine, but it should not be imposed upon member countries to support, protect, and encourage gay marriage.

OOC: And to totally mess up your efforts to "clear up" the biblical standpoint on homosexuality, I note that The King James Version of the Bible translates verse 9 and 10 as:

Corithians 6:9-10: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (Emphasis my own)

Notice how certain parts of the quote are different? That's because it has been translated differently from the greek word malakoi. I've found several different translations for that particular phrase/word.....effeminate, homosexual, male prostitutes, catamites, pederasts or pervert. Take your pick. The version you quote was biased - probably from a time when homosexuality was strongly frowned upon and the powers that be sought justification for their stance.

This is one of the reasons that the bible is unreliable, and one of the reasons why I personally remain sceptical over it's value.

(note: this mistranslation issue has been thrown at me several times when I was going about debunking the bible on another forum, and then advised by the "believers" that my source had translated a single word or passage different to other sources. I find it highly amusing to use the same issue to throw a spanner into the proverbial works now)

For those of you who dont believe in the bible or God, good for you, but dont comment on this post.

I'm interested in why you think not accepting the Christian religion would disqualify you from commenting on gay marriage, or on the Christian religion itself.

Agerpineti would also like to see the repealment of this law.

Hirota has hit the nail on the head, so to speak. All of the posts referencing specific Bible verses are taken from English translations (most of which were influenced by the political leadership of the time) of the Hebrew and/or Greek original versions of the Bible.

Now, specifically regarding Leviticus 18:22, there are several alternate translations that are just as (if not more) contextual with the surrounding passages that don't forbid homosexuality (and keep in mind that ALL of these seem to only forbid male homosexuality...if the Bible really preaches against homosexuality, why doesn't it forbid lesbianism as well?). For instance, Leviticus 18 is talking about the worship of Molech, which encouraged ritual male prostitution (the men would dress up as womyn) in the temples...in that context, the verse could be saying that ritual male homosexual prostitution is unclean. Additionally, other interpretations from the Greek and Hebrew have yielded verses like:

"Two men must not engage in sexual activity on a woman's bed; it is ritually unclean."

Not quite the universal damning of homosexual marriage, is it? The simple fact of the matter is that your religious position on this, while your prerogative, is based on a mindless devotion to a select few English translations of the Greek/Hebrew text of the Bible. Are you so sure of King James' interpretation that you'd be willing to pass judgement on homosexuals?

Food for thought.

More proof that Christianity needs to be outlawed. The only Diety is the Spoon and the Spoon will guide you.

"Two men must not engage in sexual activity on a woman's bed; it is ritually unclean."


Since when did women in the OT own anything?

The bible is an essentially useless guide for morality.

I'm interested in why you think not accepting the Christian religion would disqualify you from commenting on gay marriage, or on the Christian religion itself.Kelssek, I have my own response to that kind of thing,

" For those of you who do believe in the bible or God, good for you, but please do not " bible wank " about it ... " ;)

Ah, yes, Leviticus. Part of the Old Testament, right?

Unless I've been lied to by a great many people, including my Sunday school teachers from when I was younger, Jesus declared all of the laws of the Old Testament null and void. With the exception of the Ten Commandments, which, you must admit, this verse is not part of.

This provides an interesting conundrum. If God changed his mind when Jesus came, and Jesus never said anything about homosexuals, then how are we supposed to know what God has in mind for homosexuals?
Paul wrote his letters to the Corinthians well after the Crucifixion and Resurrection, and unless he laid claim to the title of prophet himself he could not claim to have a monopoly on God's wisdom.

When Jesus came to earth, he did not claim to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. And not even the most devout christians still follow all the 10 commandments. Remember the one about "keeping the sabbath day holy"? Now, even ignoring the leviticus citation, how do you refute the 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 citation? God speaks out against homosexuality in the OT,trhough Moses, in Leviticus. God speaks out against homosexuality in the NT, through Paul, in 1 Corinthians. So he spoke out about it in Both the OT and the NT. Doesn't sound like he changed his mind to me. And how serious a sin is it in his view? Anyone remember what happened to Soddom and Gomorrah?

Now, even ignoring the leviticus citation, how do you refute the 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 citation? God speaks out against homosexuality in the OT,trhough Moses, in Leviticus. God speaks out against homosexuality in the NT, through Paul, in 1 Corinthians. So he spoke out about it in Both the OT and the NT. Doesn't sound like he changed his mind to me. And how serious a sin is it in his view?

I you don't mind me making an observation on this....Christians interpret the Bible in very different ways. This leads to distinct and contradictory sets of beliefs within Christianity on just about every conceivable topic. Homosexuality is no exception. I've already outlined the contradictions in Corinthians 6:9-10 (which you seem to have not noticed and I would appreciate in future you look at all the posts).

Anyway, the only entry in the NT is Romans 1:26-27, which I'll quote below (again from the King James Version): For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

First of all, this was written by Paul, who also happened to leak some of his predujices on his support for the oppression of women (1 Corinthians 14:34 - 35), and his acceptance of slavery as a normal social practice in (Philemon 1:15 to 16). Both of these are outdated, stagnant beliefs, so it's very easy to consider this belief similarly outdated. Paul is here declaring that, in his opinion, all homosexual behavior is sinful and unnatural. However, most modern, intelligent Christians have gone beyond Paul's teachings; they have deviated from those biblical teachings that denigrate women and considered them as property. They have rejected slavery. Modern-day Christians have evolved towards a new understanding of gender, human rights, and higher regard for woman. So too many Christians are now evolving towards a different regard and understanding of persons with homosexual orientation. Christians today are aided by recent findings of human sexuality research to which Paul did not have access. Thus, Romans 1 may accurately reflect Paul's beliefs; but they are beliefs that now have to be largely abandoned, as we have already abandoned slavery, dictatorships, theocracies, and the oppression of women.

Anyway...
Anyone remember what happened to Soddom and Gomorrah?
It can be argued that texts in Genesis and the rest of the Bible make it clear that Sodom et al were punished for their violent, abusive, inhospitable, greedy, and unsympathetic behavior of its citizens towards visitors, and other disadvantaged persons. Genesis 19 may condemn homosexual rape simply because it is rape. It would then be consistent with other passages which condemn heterosexual rape. The passage does not impact on consensual homosexual activities between consenting adults, and is totally unrelated to loving, committed, same-sex relationships.

It's interesting and ironic that God seems to condemn the citizens for insensitive treatment and harassment of others, but that this passage is one of the main justifications that many Christian faith groups use to attack, mistreat and harass gays and lesbians.

<Yet again, further conflicting arguements on the meaning of the bible - which is exactly why I am aethist>

Hirota, you say that when Paul wrote about homosexuality was his opinion. I qoute you as saying "Paul is here declaring that, in his opinion, all homosexual behavior is sinful and unnatural". Now, there is a verse in the bible that clearly states that what paul was writing was not his own personal opinion, but that he was writing what God wanted him to write.

2 Timothy 3:16 and 17 says "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

As christians, we take the Bible as the word of God, not the opinions of a collection of men.What this says is that what is written in the scripture, all of it, is inspired by God, and that it's not just written to take up space, but to be taken seriously. If homosexuality was a non-issue for God, and he didn't care one way or the other, why would he Inspire Moses, and later Paul, to write verses in the bible speaking against it?

Now, there is a verse in the bible that clearly states that what paul was writing was not his own personal opinion, but that he was writing what God wanted him to write.

2 Timothy 3:16 and 17 says "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

As christians, we take the Bible as the word of God, not the opinions of a collection of men.What this says is that what is written in the scripture, all of it, is inspired by God, and that it's not just written to take up space, but to be taken seriously.

So according to Timothy 3:16-17 we should take all of it (the bible) seriously? Paul condemned women preaching (1 Corinthians 14:34)? A passage in 1 Timothy 2:11 condemned the wearing gold or pearls? Paul accepted and did not criticize the institution of slavery (Philemon 1:15 to 16)?

We now generally consider these notions foolish - we have women preachers, gold and pearls are worn, slavery is abolished in UN nations. So we have already rejected some of the scripture which you would appear to be content to follow blindly?

If homosexuality was a non-issue for God, and he didn't care one way or the other, why would he Inspire Moses, and later Paul, to write verses in the bible speaking against it?

Could you answer why did God "inspire" verses in the bible which appear to describe emotionally close relationships between two people of the same gender which appear to have progressed well beyond a casual friendship. The relationship between David and Jonathan is the most documented:

Samuel 1:26
"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."

In the society of ancient Israel, it was not considered proper for a man and woman to have a platonic relationship. Men and women hardly spoke to each other in public. Since David's only relationships with women would have been sexual in nature, then he may have been referring to sexual love here.

Samuel 20:41"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." (NIV)

Other translations have a different ending to the verse:
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded." (King James Version)
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself." (Amplified Bible)
"and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more." (Living Bible)
"They kissed each other and wept together until David got control of himself." (Modern Language)
"They kissed each other and wept aloud together." (New American Bible)
"Then David and Jonathan kissed each other. They cried together, but David cried the most." (New Century Version)
"Then the kissed one another and shed tears together, until David's grief was even greater than Jonathan's." (Revised English Bible)
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David recovered himself." (Revised Standard Version)

The translators of the Living Bible apparently could not handle the thought of two adult men kissing, so they mistranslated the passage by saying that the two men shook hands! This is somewhat less than honest.

Note: The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became great. The word which means "great" in this passage is "gadal" in the original Hebrew. The same word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to King Solomon being greater than all other kings. Some theologians interpret "gadal" in this verse as indicating that David had an erection. However, the thoughts of David becoming sexually aroused after kissing Jonathan is too threatening for Bible translators, so they either deleted the ending entirely or created one of their own.

Again, I observe that you cannot blindly rely upon the bible as the word of god, as it has been mistranslated throughout the generations. 9 different versions of the same single verse? One must carefully examine the original texts from the point of view of ancient Israeli and early Christian societies in order to begin to determine their precise meaning. So how exactly can you blindly follow the bible when it has been translated by different people with different motives over time? Moreover, how can you blindly follow the bible when large sections of it have already been considered unacceptable by society?

Now, even ignoring the leviticus citation, how do you refute the 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 citation?:sigh: I already gave you my argument relating to the Letter to the Corinthians. It would help if you were to read all of my response before commenting on it.
Also interesting how you haven't commented upon Hirota's arguments relating to the many different translations of the Bible. You also appear to have assumed me to be a Christian, at least according to this:
For those of you who dont believe in the bible or God, good for you, but dont comment on this post. As for Enn, please do reply.
I decided not to comment on the paradoxical situation you put me in earlier, (apparantly) denying me the right to answer you, while being asked to. Just thought I'd bring it up now.

I find it illogical that gays should be allowed to marry. Not only is it wrong spiritually, but also biologically. There are males and females for a reason! Humans did not evolve in two genders for the heck of it. Wake up, Massachusetts!

And yet, through history a fluck-tonic load of people seem to have been gay and enjoyed it too. Funny that.

All of this hue and cry concerning the Bible is only a tangent to the repeal of the resolution. It IS a violation of sovereignty to impose gay marriage on Christian nations, Muslim nations, and any other nation which finds the practice abhorrent. Much as it would be for these same nations to outlaw gay marriage in others.

The repeal has only one chance of passing, and sovereignty is the crux of the argument. Though I hold the Bible to be true, at least symbolically, it's not the basis for a cogent argument in the UN.

I find it illogical that gays should be allowed to marry. Not only is it wrong spiritually, but also biologically. There are males and females for a reason! Humans did not evolve in two genders for the heck of it. Wake up, Massachusetts!

Yeah. There are males and females for a reason - to ensure procreation, and the continuation of the species.

But if that is your sole reason for banning gay marriage then logically you must ban the marriage of someone who is infertile, or someone who has declared that they do not want kids at any point in their life.

Marriage is not just about having kids - it's about love. And love knows, nor abides, no borders.

All of this hue and cry concerning the Bible is only a tangent to the repeal of the resolution. It IS a violation of sovereignty to impose gay marriage on Christian nations, Muslim nations, and any other nation which finds the practice abhorrent. Much as it would be for these same nations to outlaw gay marriage in others.

The repeal has only one chance of passing, and sovereignty is the crux of the argument. Though I hold the Bible to be true, at least symbolically, it's not the basis for a cogent argument in the UN.

Yeah - but by the same token it can be argued that every UN resolution is a violation of some nations soverignty. And it's not like any nation is FORCED to join they UN - we all did it by our own choice. And by making that choice we accepted that we have to live by the laws and resolutions the UN has passed and will pass.

Res #6 (End Slavery) - this stops people keeping slaves in their nation, when the keeping of slaves might be a holy thing for that nation.
Res #7 (Sexual Freedom) - this says people have a right to privacy regarding their sex lives. Including the right to have sex with other men. So this resolution (Gay Rights) argueably can not be repealed while Res #7 is still in force.
Res #11 (Ban Single Hulled Tankers) - If that is all your nation can afford to build it pretty much forbids it from using tankers at all
Res #14 (Child Labour) - This stops a nation sending it's kids down the mine. Which is a huge violation of soveriegnty, and even religion if the holy book says "And thou shalt make thy children work for thee"

And so on, and so on, and so on.

The UN is about establishing the same level of freedom for all people of all it's member nations, regardless of the governments own laws. Those laws must be changed to meet the demands of the UN resolutions when they are passed. So you can't say that just because this proposal violates soverignty that it must be repealed - that applies to every single one in one way or another.

If the country can not abide by UN law then it should leave the UN - then it can repress and abuse it's citizens all it wants.

(Sorry - that became more "ranty" than I intended)

My main poinit is this - the UN is an international body. As such it can not be bound to the laws of any single nation, whether those laws are secular or religious. If this proposal can muster enough endorsements to come to the floor then it will be voted on. If it wins then it wins. I am not suggesting we supress it just because I find it offensive and repressive.

But any arguements for it or against it should be - as you suggested - only made in terms of international law. And not the religious feelings of one nation, because they have no place in international law. (IMXHO)

My other problem with this resolution is that it can't possibly be only partially repealed.

If a nation finds homosexuality to abhorrent that their holy books forbid it on pain of mayhem and chaos, how is it possible that that nation will still respect the rights of homosexuals except for the right to marriage. Surely if this is such an evil, terrible and bad thing the country would have to outlaw it completely, not only part of it.

So, shoud this resolution be repealed, can the honourable nation that proposed this agree to put another proposal to the UN that all the righs covered in this resolution (excepting marriage) will be protected by law in all nations?

So when the ceator of this thread said "Morral Obligation", what they really ment was "Religious Obligation. An important distinction.
I also find it interesting that the bible, while undoubtedly full of wisdom and higher ideals, has been used as a justification for racism, and sexism. The Klu Klux Klan was a "faith-based orgonization". Interesting that the followers of Jesus, who preached love for your enemies, for prostitutes and lepers, use Christianity as a guise for their bigotry.
However, if this is merely about following the comandments of the bible (as opposed to bigotry) then I assume you want your laws to be in accordance with these comnadments on men and women as well, and I look forward to many resolutions which will put these orders into place in your country, and hompefully in the UN.
" 'If a priest's daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire." Leviticus 21:9
Leviticus 21:14
He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people, Leviticus 21:14
If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. Exodus 21:4
If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding. Leviticus 12:5
'If a man sleeps with a woman who is a slave girl promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment. Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed. Leviticus 19:20
'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. Leviticus 20:11
The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.' " Numbers 5:31.

There are certainly more, but I think that's enough for now, don't you? I urge you to write a letter to your congressman advocating the institution of these laws as constitutional amendments. I have no doubt that you love the bible and your only motivation is to see it moralality in your country.

(Perhaps this post is overkill or a little out of step with the thread. But hopefully it'll serve to keep it from getting out of hand.)

Interesting that the followers of Jesus, who preached love for your enemies, for prostitutes and lepers, use Christianity as a guise for their bigotry.

Maybe you're in the wrong forum. If you're interested in a place where assertions and presumptions pass as fact and insult is a synonym for post, you're looking fro the "general" forum. It's down the stairs, out the red doors, first dumpster on the left.


However, if this is merely about following the comandments of the bible (as opposed to bigotry) then I assume you want your laws to be in accordance with these comnadments on men and women as well, and I look forward to many resolutions which will put these orders into place in your country, and hompefully in the UN.

The following list of items you produce are, to be blunt, uncalled for. If your argument is that the proposer is attempting religious usurpation, then why are you attempting to dictate how the proposer’s religious preferences are decided? A certain level of tact and poise is required in the UN forum (not that I'm always the best example), this stuff is for other places.

Please keep all comments investigative and constructive.

I'm interested in why you think not accepting the Christian religion would disqualify you from commenting on gay marriage, or on the Christian religion itself.


Im interested in why you think i disqualified you from commenting on gay marriage or the christian religion. I told you not to reply to me....go ahead and christian bash, gay bash, support either of em. Be my guest...i just dont care to hear about it. My post was a reply to one person....and frankly hes the only one i wanted to hear back from. Call me names, tell me im afraid of debate...do what you will....but i just dont care to hear from you. Is that a bit more clear for you?

well, i for one am totally against gaydom all together
but, if we are not going to persecute and take the rights away from gay couples, then what do you call not allowing them to get married legally?
it seems to me that this proposal is a flip flop
you want to allow them to live their lives as they want without segregation, but you do not want to legalize the marriage of people like this. not that i am for gay rights, but that doesnt seem right. either you want the gay couples to be somehow outlawed, or made legal altogether, i dont think this is a compromise that will work!
im sorry if that did noit make sense, but this proposal seems to have some flaws in it, big flaws if you ask me!

moraly, gay couples should not be allowed, but to legalize the "couples" or give them rights, and not allow them to get married, does not seem to fit!

ok, that didnt make much sense, but i hope you understand what i am trying to say, but if you dont, please forgive me! :)

well, i for one am totally against gaydom all together
but, if we are not going to persecute and take the rights away from gay couples, then what do you call not allowing them to get married legally?
it seems to me that this proposal is a flip flop
you want to allow them to live their lives as they want without segregation, but you do not want to legalize the marriage of people like this. not that i am for gay rights, but that doesnt seem right. either you want the gay couples to be somehow outlawed, or made legal altogether, i dont think this is a compromise that will work!
im sorry if that did noit make sense, but this proposal seems to have some flaws in it, big flaws if you ask me!

moraly, gay couples should not be allowed, but to legalize the "couples" or give them rights, and not allow them to get married, does not seem to fit!

ok, that didnt make much sense, but i hope you understand what i am trying to say, but if you dont, please forgive me! :)

I am impressed - we are on totally opposite side of the arguement (I am an ardent advocate of equal rights for everyone, regardless of gender, sexuality, creed or colour) - but we both have the same problem with the proposal.

Who knew?

Just fisihing here, but let's see how this goes. What if we propose a resolution legally defining Marriage as a union between a man and a woman? Would we have to repeal the Gay Rights proposal first?

Geeez, then you'll hate to hear about these extreme-ist christians trying to revoke human rights from the N.S.U.N. Terrible business it is.

Marriage isn't a human right, it's a ceremony devised for 2 reasons. Reason 1 was religion, our religion as well as others calls for it. Reason 2 is ownership. A man married a woman and owned her. in return, her father usually gained money, land, cattle, and better political standings. NOWHERE in history or any country does it say "If you love someone you must marry them" The principle of marriage has evolved from these 2 instances, and in today’s world it has gotten strangely mutated. If 2 men(or women) love each other, that’s great, go for it, but don't expect me to allow you to get married.

Gays are not a radical minority in the sense of people who want to marry their pets, in fact they're quite a big minority as far as minorities go and I really don't see where you'd get "radical" from. The minority of people who want to marry pets or objects is a very tiny... oh wait, you can't marry an animal, or an inanimate object, because neither has legal standing and neither can legally consent to marriage, and therefore neither can legally be considered married, nor can they sign a marriage contract. Pwned.

Children have no legal standing either, thus why their parents, guardians, or court appointed officials make the decisions for them. As the owner of my pet or inanimate object, I am thus empowered with the legal authority to make legal decisions for them. This enables me to decide if I can marry my toaster or not. If you think that is BS, try taking your pet to the vet, or your TV to the repair shop. You need not even PROVE legal ownership, simply pay the required fee, and all repairs/checkups/operations will be performed. Yet take a child to the hospital and you have to prove your his parent/legal guardian before they'll do ANYTHING not immediately required to sustain his or her life. Heck, this means I could marry your toaster if I wanted to :P

This whole repeal/discussion is m00t anyways. You simply cannot give rights to 1 minority and not to others.

Of course, once you revoke gay rights, I or one of several other quality writers can simply compose a better verion with even further rights towards homosexuals and any other sexuality not respected by " the church " and pass it with a little effort. And trust me, we'll write so well you'll never gather enough support to justify to the N.S.U.N. why the should revoke it.

And at that time I would simply write a piece giving rights to the abovementioned minorities, and watch IT get passed, because after all, the N.S.U.N. cannot stand by while 1 minority gets rights and other minorities are forced to live without any. You see, here in the U.S. this has been a major stumbling block for those wishing to give homosexuals marriage rights. Where will it stop? See, first we gave blacks rights, which then morphed into giving women rights, which then morphed into children’s rights, which finally morphed into animal rights. All of these have been steps in the right direction. However, giving fringe minority groups special benefits begins us on the path to chaos and loss of governmental power. And yes, this is a special benefit. Gays could simply marry a woman but live with their partner, and still gain all legal benefits they are desiring. You can't say "well why should they be put through so much, just to get the benefits everyone else has" because I can point you to the schools and government buildings where Christians are forced to silence on their religion, inhibiting our 1st amendment right to freedom of speech. So we either shut up, or go to a different job/school to gain the benefits of free speech everyone else has. Of course, nobody cares if the Christians have problems, after all their just a buncha right-wing nutcases, right?

Repeal "Gay Rights"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal

Resolution: #12

Proposed by: James Byron Dean

Description: UN Resolution #12: Gay Rights (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: As the leader of the Holy Empire of James Byron Dean, I propose we repeal UN resolution #12, regarding Gay Rights. I believe that it is in the best interest of all member nations to uphold morality within our international community. Gay people should have the civil rights and liberties enjoyed by everyone else. That I agree with. They should not be subjected to harassment or persecution, and they should be allowed to peacefully live the way they want to live. What we can not allow is the legalization of gay marriage. It threatens the morality of all of our citizens. We should then repeal this resolution, and issue a new one. One that does not include gay marriage under it's protected provisions.

Approvals: 4 (Corona Luminai, Suburban Freedom, Pineapple Joe-bot, NewTexas)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 130 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Tue Oct 5 2004


I suppport this How do I do it offically

I suppport this How do I do it offically

Unless you are an endorsed delegate to the UN, you can't until it comes up for a vote. Otherwise go to the UN page (on nationstates.net) and look through the list of proposals. If you can endorse it you will see a button.

If you can't then you have to wait for it to come to the floor of the UN for a vote. (But personally I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you - there is a lot of opposition to this repeal).

May I be permitted to ask why? As so far the only justification seems to have been that it is possibly violating national soverignty by forcing a nation to grant equal rights to everyone, even those they disaprove of.

Just fisihing here, but let's see how this goes. What if we propose a resolution legally defining Marriage as a union between a man and a woman? Would we have to repeal the Gay Rights proposal first?

If you say I can not define marriage as a union between two men, what in the name of The Lords would give you the right to define it as a union between a man and a woman?

And does this cover only human men and women? My nation has three seperate races (Elf, Dwarf and Human) and Elves do not take kindly to being called men when they are clearly not men, but Elves. Ditto with Dwarves (although they tend to be called Dwarves, not Elves, otherwise it gets confusing and chaotic and trust me - you don't want a chaotic Dwarf on your hands. It never ends well!)

Just fisihing here, but let's see how this goes. What if we propose a resolution legally defining Marriage as a union between a man and a woman? Would we have to repeal the Gay Rights proposal first?
Yes.

According to my understanding, repeals nullify the effect of a resolution. Before that resolution is repealed, the effects are fully applicable to all nations in the UN. Proposals cannot be made to contradict standing resolutions in the UN. The resolution will have to be removed from "standing" status before a new resolution can be put in place. So, thus, a repeal is needed before a resolution can be put in place which would contradict the previous resolution.

The idea of an “amendment” is a possibility in the future (if the mods allow it at some point), but as of right now, it can't be done.

This sort of first-come-first-served legislation is not totally reflective of RL government. In RL government this process can often occur simultaneously. But it doesn’t have to be totally reflective of RL, so it’s okay.

OK, thanks Powerhungry Chipmunks for the clarification. I thought i had read that same reasoning somewhere in the rules/guidelines for writing a proposal. I see now that, although a lot of us are arguing this from a religious/moral standpoint, it looks like the only chance it's got is to try and argue it from a soveringty standpoint. The voting deadline for trying to pass this repeal proposal has come and gone, but I think that if it was brought to the attention of enough delegates, we could gather the support necessary for repealing Resolution # 12 in the future.

Once again, I think the issue of gay marriage is an important enough civil rights issue that it should trump sovereignity, in the same way the anti-slavery resolution should trump sovereignity, and in the same way Habeas Corpus should trump sovereignity, etc., because it is important enough and it is fundamental enough. It's a matter of equality.

As for the morality argument, if you consider gay marriage immoral, then the simple solution is, don't marry someone of the same gender. If you consider pornography immoral, don't watch it. If I watch pornography, that has no effect on your morality and it has no effect on society's morality. The actions of one do not reflect the whole. Society will accept what society accepts. If gay marriage is unacceptable to you, fine, but as a heretosexual, it does not affect you. So there is no reason to deprive homosexuals of the rights they deserve just because you have a moral objection to it.

Just fisihing here, but let's see how this goes. What if we propose a resolution legally defining Marriage as a union between a man and a woman? Would we have to repeal the Gay Rights proposal first?Yep. Thats what has always stopped such an action before.

Interesting that the followers of Jesus, who preached love for your enemies, for prostitutes and lepers, use Christianity as a guise for their bigotry.

Maybe you're in the wrong forum. If you're interested in a place where assertions and presumptions pass as fact and insult is a synonym for post, you're looking fro the "general" forum. It's down the stairs, out the red doors, first dumpster on the left.I kind of appreciate Hatikva's sentiments on the matter, although would try and avoid being so direct on the matter. I've hinted on the double standards and inconsistencies between the different bibles, and different organised christian groups...
I see now that, although a lot of us are arguing this from a religious/moral standpoint, it looks like the only chance it's got is to try and argue it from a soveringty standpoint.http://www.skincell.org/yabbse/Smileys/classic/nod.gifCertainly more likely to have less objections to it on those grounds....Although I'd argue that the rights of the populace should be above the rights of the state...

Hirota, it sounds like you'd argue against this on all grounds, hehe. Do you really support gay marriage, or are you just tryin' to throw a wrench in the works?

Hirota, it sounds like you'd argue against this on all grounds, hehe. Do you really support gay marriage, or are you just tryin' to throw a wrench in the works?
I don't know about Hirota, but it amazes me to see people like you who honestly don't recognize that straight, moral people could actually be for gay marriage.

It's a civil rights issue for me. There is NO religious connotation to having laws in place to support gay marriage. Nobody is pushing the Church to grant marriage licenses, only the State. If the State wishes to grant special privileges (such as inheritance, Power of Attorney, and special tax status) to adult citizens who wish to be married, then it must grant those rights to all adult citizens.

We've determined already that non-consenting non-adults are not eligible, so that takes out the pedophile argument. We've never granted citizenship to pets, so that takes out the beastiality argument. Frankly, I don't have a problem with the polygamy argument in the first place, but that's a Church issue, not a State problem.

In short, what possible argument that ISN'T religious can you make against this?

No repeals!

Btw, words which lose meaning without a prefix are amusing. We have "repeal" and "appeal" but does anyone ever "peal" gay rights?

Frisbeeteria, apparently you havent read the posts regarding the other argument,the non-moral, non-religious argument. It's called national soveringty, The beleif that a country or state should have the right not to grant a marriage licence to gay people, and should not be forced to do so by the UN. And yes, I do realize that there are straight people who are for gay marriage. I was simply asking if Hirota was actually for gay marriage, or simply here playing the devil's advocate.

It's called national soveringty, The beleif that a country or state should have the right not to grant a marriage licence to gay people, and should not be forced to do so by the UN.
You don't have to define sovereignty to me, James. I literally wrote the UN book (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030090&postcount=50) on sovereignty, and I can assure you that the UN does indeed have the legislative authority to do anything it damn well pleases.

If the UN wants to pass a law granting citizenship to pets in all nations, it can. Articles 2 and 3 of Rights and Duties of UN States define national sovereignty as complete, but "subject to the immunities recognized by international law". The barn door's open, and the horse has run away, James. That argument has never held water in *this* UN, and probably never will. *


* ... because it's hard coded into the game, sir. That's why.

Many also rebut the national sovereignty argument by saying that basic human rights supercede national borders. That's certainly the argument I used when campaigning for Habeas Corpus, and I believe it also relates to this matter.

I, the leader of Taheca, personally believe that Gay citizens deserve the right to marry. Of course, I can understand where others who are opposed to the marriage issue are coming from, however, I believe that if Gays are allowed to marry, it will create more stability, because Gays work hard to keep their relationships strong.

Those who label themselves as "Christian" who purport to formulate their "religion" into law, and force it on others as a form of code, are not in fact Christians. In accordance with their own beliefs they'll be burning in hell with the rest of the so-called "christian right" and Pharisees of Christs time.

Tekania, being against gay rights makes us no less christian then anyone else. Thats like saying that being against rapists is anti-christian. If a man or woman is homosexual, then ok, they're homosexual. No amount of science or studies has ever determined WHY people turn out that way, so we'll just assume there is no way to stop it. Just becuase a man is attracted to another man, does not mean he must have a homosexual relationship, nor must he sleep with men. That is where the sin comes in. I will not allow my country to glorify something which I find to be morally and biblically wrong. They can live life without soccuming to the temptation. If you'll recall, monks of old lived there lives without sex, becuase they felt that they could better serve God. So yes, it can be done.

As a christian, I have no problems with homosexuals. I treat them as I treat any other person, after all, God made them. If they decide to sin tho, then I have problems with that. It's equivelant to the problems I have with pre-merital sex, so you can see I don't descriminate against homosexuals only :) And if someone is going to say it's non-christian to be against pre-merital sex, well then they do need to go read The Word again.

Edit: And your saying that trying to force the law on others is also wrong. Then I guess we should repeal all murder, rape, and robbery laws too, cuase after all, those are based upon christian laws as well.

I will not allow my country to glorify something which I find to be morally and biblically wrong.

Legalising something and glorifying something are different. Pornography is legal in the States, but their government hardly glorifies it. Smoking is legal, but millions are spent on campaigns to discourage it. Making something legal is not the same as endorsing it.

As a christian, I have no problems with homosexuals. I treat them as I treat any other person, after all, God made them. If they decide to sin tho...

You consider it sin, but that doesn't make it sin. I consider capital punishment murder, but as Tekania likes to pendantically point out, that doesn't make it murder.

Then I guess we should repeal all murder, rape, and robbery laws too, cuase after all, those are based upon christian laws as well.

Originally they probably were since most of what is commonly considered "wrong" and criminal was written up at a time when religion was a much bigger influence than it is now. But even in an atheist society, these laws would still exist, because they aren't really based on religious laws. They are based on common deceny and common morality which you need no religion to understand.

Hirota, it sounds like you'd argue against this on all grounds, hehe. Do you really support gay marriage, or are you just tryin' to throw a wrench in the works?
I'm for gay marriage, but more fundamentally (like Enn) I am in favour of promoting civil rights worldwide. I think the rights of the populace override any national sovereignty issues - I would rather step on the toes of a few conservative nations than reduce or restrict civil rights.
OOC: I was trying to throw a wrench in the works with the whole religon argument you used earlier....it annoys me when people use religion as an excuse or justification for actions, especially when religion is often vague and unsubstantial, IMO
I will not allow my country to glorify something which I find to be morally and biblically wrong.
I've highlighted evidence earlier in this topic suggesting homosexual relationships are within the bible and are acceptable. It's totally up to you how you understand the bible and you reconcile that with your own morals, but it is NOT a clear cut case of being unacceptable in the bible.

Tekania, being against gay rights makes us no less christian then anyone else.Yeah, its not like their people too ... Oh, wait, ...Thats like saying that being against rapists is anti-christian.Oh, that is nice. Putting homosexuality along side rape. Thank you very bloody much.If a man or woman is homosexual, then ok, they're homosexual. No amount of science or studies has ever determined WHY people turn out that way, so we'll just assume there is no way to stop it.This is sounding far too sane for my liking.Just becuase a man is attracted to another man, does not mean he must have a homosexual relationship, nor must he sleep with men.Well, gee, if he is a homosexual, I doubt he is going to have the same urge in relation to females.That is where the sin comes in.Ah, so its okay to be gay, just don't do anything about it.I will not allow my country to glorify something which I find to be morally and biblically wrong.Oh please. Laws do not glorify, they legalise.They can live life without soccuming to the temptation.So its evil to carry out out a homosexual act, but its still better to carry out a heterosexual act. But don't worry, it is okay to be gay. If you'll recall, monks of old lived there lives without sex, becuase they felt that they could better serve God. So yes, it can be done.It can be done. But your saying just because some one is gay they should live life with-out love, emotional or physical with a partner. As a christian, I have no problems with homosexuals. I treat them as I treat any other person, after all, God made them.They just don't quite deserve all the same rights to living life, thats all.If they decide to sin tho, then I have problems with that.Thank-fully, you can't stop them. Apart from diving between them and screaming " NO ! GOD TELLS ME THOU SHALL NOT BONK ! " It's equivelant to the problems I have with pre-merital sex, so you can see I don't descriminate against homosexuals only :)Thats nice. Pity pre-marital sex is not on the boards here.And if someone is going to say it's non-christian to be against pre-merital sex, well then they do need to go read The Word again.Yeah, even I know that, and I'm one of those bastard atheist types. In fact " the word " is very heavy into no pre-marital getting down. But then again, this is the same string of words telling you to through rocks at people.Edit: And your saying that trying to force the law on others is also wrong. Then I guess we should repeal all murder, rape, and robbery laws too, cuase after all, those are based upon christian laws as well.Just because they are laws under the christian teachings does not mean they are the sole copy right of christianity, :rolleyes:

In fact " the word " is very heavy into no pre-marital getting down. But then again, this is the same string of words telling you to through rocks at people.

Hm...This is the timeline I'm developing in my head.

1: Join the UN

2: Stick with it and become a senior member of the UN

3: Quit the UN because of a "threat" which, after a short time, is recognized as managable.

4: Keep coming back to bug us with snippity retorts.

Sounds like a plan to me!

That is where the sin comes in. I will not allow my country to glorify something which I find to be morally and biblically wrong.

If they decide to sin tho, then I have problems with that. It's equivelant to the problems I have with pre-merital sex, so you can see I don't descriminate against homosexuals only :)

So you personally are putting yourself in the position of the gods? Judging them for their behaviour? You don't think that is a tad full of pride?

I think someone missed my point. The point is, the codifying of "christianity" is not christian behaviour. The point is the Christian Right (as they call themselves) do not operate as Christians, they operate as Pharisees. Dictating law based on religious. Historically when the Church has gotten involved with the secular government, or in fact become the secular government, it has always turned into a corrupt dictatorial and evil power. Now power was EVER given to the Church, by God, to enforce law onto the masses of non-believers and sinners, to preach, yes, but no enforcement power. So therefore, anyone who takes on enforcement power, in that situation, in effect has given up their "being a christian" claims, and "following the bible" claims. The Bible set out the example of preaching, and if they did not listen, to kick the dust from your feet (aka leave them be, and let them follow their course).... however, the 'christian right' says, if they will not listen, to conquer them by force of war or law..... These are simple facts, does the church have the right and authority to enforce religious discipline on its members? Yes. Does the church have the right and authority to enforce religious discipline on non members? No.

For thousands of years of history, the secular government had no control nor power over marriage, as stated in the Common Law, Marriage PREDATES government, and therefore being earlier, it is seperate and not controlable by the general government. I oppose Marriage laws in my nationstate PERIOD. We have none. It is a personal and private institution entered by two parties, and the general population has no say in the matter unless the contract is brought before the general civil government in suit. This is how marriage has historically been, in general the Republic considers the very idea of sanctioned and licensed marriage by the general government to be abhorant and blatant oppression of this historic institution. For the "christian right" out there, your 'licensed' marriage is no different than polygamy.

Originally they probably were since most of what is commonly considered "wrong" and criminal was written up at a time when religion was a much bigger influence than it is now. But even in an atheist society, these laws would still exist, because they aren't really based on religious laws. They are based on common deceny and common morality which you need no religion to understand.

Kelssek, what you don't seem to understand is that some of us who oppose gay marriage see it as an issue of common decency and common morality. We see it as morally wrong and incecent. Animal bonking is indecent. There are laws banning it. Ask some people in Arkansas, USA, if they think it's ok to bonk your animals, and they'll tell you it is. It's illegal, of course, because the majority of people beleive it to be immoral and indecent. If the majority of our country's population beleives gay marriage is immoral and indecent, then we shouldn't be force-fed a law protecting it. I beleive that the UN should stay out of it. If we don't want to see it in our country, then we shouldn't be forced to have laws protecting it, much less encouraging it.

Repeal "Gay Rights"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal

Resolution: #12

Proposed by: James Byron Dean

Description: UN Resolution #12: Gay Rights (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: As the leader of the Holy Empire of James Byron Dean, I propose we repeal UN resolution #12, regarding Gay Rights. I believe that it is in the best interest of all member nations to uphold morality within our international community. Gay people should have the civil rights and liberties enjoyed by everyone else. That I agree with. They should not be subjected to harassment or persecution, and they should be allowed to peacefully live the way they want to live. What we can not allow is the legalization of gay marriage. It threatens the morality of all of our citizens. We should then repeal this resolution, and issue a new one. One that does not include gay marriage under it's protected provisions.

Approvals: 4 (Corona Luminai, Suburban Freedom, Pineapple Joe-bot, NewTexas)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 130 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Tue Oct 5 2004

Hey has anyone ever told you you're a fucking nazi. Don't expect my name on that wretched hate-inspired list.

Hey has anyone ever told you you're a fucking nazi. Don't expect my name on that wretched hate-inspired list.The Holy Word would like to request that all participants in this debate, which ever view they take, observe standard diplomatic niceties.

For thousands of years of history, the secular government had no control nor power over marriage, as stated in the Common Law, Marriage PREDATES government, and therefore being earlier, it is seperate and not controlable by the general government.I'm afraid we don't find that argument convincing. While historical precedent is always interesting, and a worthy topic for academic study in it's own right, we are talking about marriage in the context of how it exists in the modern world.

The fact is that in most nations marriage is tied up with the state and as such we believe that it is acceptable for a state to set down parameters for it as a means of promoting social stability, whether that's setting down parameters for which genders may get married or introducing a property qualification, as we have in the Theocracy of the Holy Word. We don't see how something like marriage, which is inarguably a function of the state, should be taken out of state control.

Kelssek, what you don't seem to understand is that some of us who oppose gay marriage see it as an issue of common decency and common morality. We see it as morally wrong and incecent. Animal bonking is indecent. There are laws banning it. Ask some people in Arkansas, USA, if they think it's ok to bonk your animals, and they'll tell you it is. It's illegal, of course, because the majority of people beleive it to be immoral and indecent. If the majority of our country's population beleives gay marriage is immoral and indecent, then we shouldn't be force-fed a law protecting it. I beleive that the UN should stay out of it. If we don't want to see it in our country, then we shouldn't be forced to have laws protecting it, much less encouraging it.

But what you don't seem to understand (and correct me if I am wrong) is that I don't see it as having anything to do with morals or common decencency. They are human beings for the love of the lords. The same as you and me. They should not be made to beg, bow and scrape for what you take for granted. And you should not be so high and mighty as to think you have a right to sit in judgement over them just because you have the arrogance to believe you can interpret the word of a divine being.

They are human beings - they should not be treated like animals. And the fact that you would compare the desire for gay men to marry to the desire for some people to have sex with animals just reveals your total contempt for homosexuality, and shows to me (at least) that you should be the last person who gets to decide how they live.

I believe everyone born in this world has the same right to happyness as everyone else, if they are not hurting anyone else to get it.

I have no idea if this will have any impact, but this resolution

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030222&postcount=70

refers to the resolution you are trying to repeal. So would the above resolution have to be repealed before any action could be taken on this one?

My contempt for homosexuality? Yes, i find it immoral and indecent. That much has been cleared up. Now, about my being high and mighty on interpreting the word of a divine being... Why do you think the Bible was written? It was for us to read it, and interpret it, and apply it. What do you think churches do? Interpret the word of God, be it the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, take your pick.

Marriage is NOT a function of the state.... state sanctioned 'marriage' is polygamy, so if you support the absurd concept of state sanctioned marriage, you are in fact a polygamist (your spouces are your wife and the state).

Marriage laws are illegal. The state has never, and never shall have power to legislate over the private institution of marriage. Marriage PREDATES government. For the christian minded, marriage exists between the two parties and God, and no one, and nothing else stands between it, no law, no rule, none. To think otherwise, and to think the general government rightly has this power, is nothing less than satanic belief, evil, and heinous.

Keep your polygamist satanic unions of spouse and state... Tekania has REAL marriage.... Marriage the government does not involve itself in.

My contempt for homosexuality? Yes, i find it immoral and indecent. That much has been cleared up. Now, about my being high and mighty on interpreting the word of a divine being... Why do you think the Bible was written? It was for us to read it, and interpret it, and apply it. What do you think churches do? Interpret the word of god, be it the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, take your pick.

Firstly - and I think I may have mentioned this before - we don't have a bible. We don't have any holy books. People are judged by how their actions affect other people (murder, rape, theft etc) - but if their actions don't affect anyone else in a negative way then we tend to leave a judgement of their morals up to those who are more qualified than us.

We certainly do not use our interpretation (which at best can be described as vague) of what we belive the ten Lords want to mistreat each other, and to claim that one group of people is better than another. Cause that is for The Lords to decide once we have passed beyond this realm and in to the next.

As anyone considered these people are a bunch of fucking nazis?

As anyone considered these people are a bunch of fucking nazis?

As much as I may disgree with holding homosexuals in contempt, I would not consider these people nazis. If they were they would not be asking to repeal the act - they would either ignore the resolution or leave the UN and then ignore it.

This is a forum for reasoned debate, not childish name calling.

Father + Mother + Children = Family. This is the proper definition of the traditional family structure which as been a God ordained building block of society since it's creation. To simply redefine or destroy this institution in the name of political correctness and a liberal inability to drastically disagree with homosexuals (an important voting bloc) is to tear at the very moral fabric of society.


Until it gets voted on and agreed to, I disagree, since there were people before there was a bible. I believe family can best be professed in a close bond between individuals who live together in an area, And a BIOLOGICAL family is where these individuals are related.
Nowhere in any law have I witnessed it proclaimed thus, in anything that is legally a law. Gods laws do not count. Apparently he never got enough votes to get to a position where he can make REAL laws, and for that dont blame society, blame yourself for not voting for him on a ballot.
UH! thats right.

Also, anyone arguing from a christian moral standpoint, please refer to Hirota's posts putting the biblical arguement into question.

This is the timeline I'm developing in my head.

1: Join the UN

2: Stick with it and become a senior member of the UN

3: Quit the UN because of a "threat" which, after a short time, is recognized as managable.

4: Keep coming back to bug us with snippity retorts.

Sounds like a plan to me!While I disagree with point 3, I still think you are OMG TAKING MY THOUGHTS FROM MY BRAIN ! :eek:

As for point 4, its not some much coming back to make comments, its more that I feed on the mass stupidity of other players ... As anyone considered these people are a bunch of fucking nazis?In an un-related matter, is it lunch time already ? ;)

To clear up a point, I don't hate anyone. My taking the initiative to repeal Resolution # 12 has nothing to do with hate. It has to do with morals, decency, and the well being of my nation.

To clear up a point, I don't hate anyone. My taking the initiative to repeal Resolution # 12 has nothing to do with hate. It has to do with morals, decency, and the well being of my nation.

bull..... and alot of it..... "morals" ? "decency" ? "well being" ? load of bull kaka.....

In Tekania we shot all the people like James in the revolution.

Simple fact is, the only reason this resolution came up, was because people like James, illegally usurped marriage, turning it into a polygamist statist union, in the first place.....

The only way Tekania would approve the removal of this resolution, would be if resolution were passed barring un member states from legislating marriage. The restoration of what marriage REALLY is.... not this lie that James and his kin have formed it into.

I would like to clerify something: I didn't mean to imply that anyone here was using christianity as a guise for bigotry--I was merely commenting on the fact that it has and is infact used as such a device. I also maintain that if your opposition to gay marriage were merely biblical, you would also feel the need to inforce other biblical comandments.
That said, you clearly are not giving gays the respect of your hatred. If you hated them it would be an emotional, irrational thing which could easily be dismissed, but instead you lable them as "indecent" and "immoral". Something I could understand if they were engaging in an action which hurt others. However, I still do not understand what your objection to gays is. It is clearly not biblical, as you were so offended by my suggestion that it was. So, tell us. What is it that frightens you about homosexual marriage? If it's not about the bible, then what is it about?
You cannot use the argument that a homosexual couple is not a balanced environment for a child, for then you are forced to condemn single mothers, broken families, etc.

The truth is that gay marriage IS an issue of morality. This is the issue.
Do you deny a minority what you grant the majority?

"The UN should only follow the laws laid down by God"

I'll be willing to consider them the moment He posts them here.

People are judged by how their actions affect other people (murder, rape, theft etc) - but if their actions don't affect anyone else in a negative way then we tend to leave a judgement of their morals up to those who are more qualified than us.

I love when people say stuff like this. This is where the UN, our countries, and indeed our species is flawed. Who determines adverse effects of an action? A parent? A teacher? Police man? Judge? President? Supreme ruler? There is a common failure amungst them all. They're all human. We humans take it upon ourselves to determine what is right and what is wrong, and that is where we fail ourselves. I could spend hours and days arguing about the negative effects of Homosexuality, pre-merital sex, and abortion (all 3 hot topics between the Christians and the world) but in the end, a majority will simply ignore everything I say, simply becuase they think they know more then God. Our entire population has severe issues with thinking "outside the box" Well thats fine. Someday we'll learn.

As for this issue, as well as the abortion one I now see up... I can see it will require me to leave the UN if I don't want these enforced on my country anymore.

I love when people say stuff like this. This is where the UN, our countries, and indeed our species is flawed. Who determines adverse effects of an action? A parent? A teacher? Police man? Judge? President? Supreme ruler? There is a common failure amungst them all. They're all human. We humans take it upon ourselves to determine what is right and what is wrong, and that is where we fail ourselves. I could spend hours and days arguing about the negative effects of Homosexuality, pre-merital sex, and abortion (all 3 hot topics between the Christians and the world) but in the end, a majority will simply ignore everything I say, simply becuase they think they know more then God. Our entire population has severe issues with thinking "outside the box" Well thats fine. Someday we'll learn.

As for this issue, as well as the abortion one I now see up... I can see it will require me to leave the UN if I don't want these enforced on my country anymore.

I never voted for god. Who the hell is he supposed to be anyways.

And, it doesnt infringe on your rights if it does not affect your own freedoms. I have yet to see the bible stated as a valid lawbook by anyone with legal authority, so...Yeah.

Plus, dispute the points against biblical opposition to homosexuality.

Kelssek, what you don't seem to understand is that some of us who oppose gay marriage see it as an issue of common decency and common morality. We see it as morally wrong and incecent

That's where you are wrong. When I say "common morality" I mean something that there is no or very little argument about. There is very little argument that shoplifting is wrong. There's very little argument that murder is wrong. But with gay marriage, there is a LOT of argument. You can't say that's common morality when it clearly isn't.

simply becuase they think they know more then God

Are you really so sure God is against gays? What do you have to back you up, besides a highly questionable holy book, which as pointed out earlier, has a tendency to be mangled by translators and the Chruch leadership?

"The UN should only follow the laws laid down by God"

God ? Which one ?

Father + Mother + Children = Family. This is the proper definition of the traditional family structure which as been a God ordained building block of society since it's creation. To simply redefine or destroy this institution in the name of political correctness and a liberal inability to drastically disagree with homosexuals (an important voting bloc) is to tear at the very moral fabric of society.

Uhm, George, we're not all Christians here. Nor can you back up any of your statements logically.

You are a bigot. Which is specifically the sort the resolution was designed to short-circuit.

Vastiva does not support repeal.

God ? Which one ?

<a great shaft of light pierces the gloom, a chrous of voices sings in the background>

Abortion/Gay rights are good.

"The UN should only follow the laws laid down by God"

I'll be willing to consider them the moment He posts them here.Goal !!! :D

hmmm....it does seem to show where the all-mighty preferences lie.... :D

Family, n.
1. group of parents and children, or near relatives
2. person's children
3. all descendants of common ancestor
4. household

Nothing about needng a man and woman there.

I love when people say stuff like this. This is where the UN, our countries, and indeed our species is flawed. Who determines adverse effects of an action? A parent? A teacher? Police man? Judge? President? Supreme ruler? There is a common failure amungst them all. They're all human. We humans take it upon ourselves to determine what is right and what is wrong, and that is where we fail ourselves. I could spend hours and days arguing about the negative effects of Homosexuality, pre-merital sex, and abortion (all 3 hot topics between the Christians and the world) but in the end, a majority will simply ignore everything I say, simply becuase they think they know more then God. Our entire population has severe issues with thinking "outside the box" Well thats fine. Someday we'll learn.

As for this issue, as well as the abortion one I now see up... I can see it will require me to leave the UN if I don't want these enforced on my country anymore.

Two men love each other. They want to marry. Neither of them are going to hurt each other. My government would not consider that a negative thing. And we would not presume to speak for The Lords.

One man holds another man down and rapes him over and over again until the second one blacks out from the pain. My government would consider this a negative thing, and punish the first man for the crime.

We have laws in our nation based on the actions of a person - not the thoughts. The judgement of someone's morals and immortal soul we leave to The Lords.

... a majority will simply ignore everything I say, simply becuase they think they know more then God.A majority will indeed ignore you, because they don't think you were annointed to speak for God. Everything you expressed in your comments was your interpretation of a particular book you consider Holy Writ. Unless I'm horribly mistaken, God didn't appear before you and proclaim the Bible his Holy Word - somebody told you that. Might have been parents, might have been a priest, doesn't matter.

It's your opinion. Not God's.

I, WWW as the delagate of PROTECTORATES OF KNOTEIPHERE, would just like to add my support to this repaling of gay rights. We believe it is also morally, and just plain physically wrong...

Okay, i know how this whole threads gonna turn out, you all are gonna start fighting over religious things(i have no real religon really!) and this wont change a thing for this proposal, sorry, but if this is what happens, i will laugh at this recreation of the religous wars our planet has had(need me not remind you), also religion can make many old frinds in this game,(ive seen Theacracys in this game,they dont work!!!!!)

just plain physically wrong...

I'd like to know what on earth you mean by this.


National sovereignty, IMO, should be overruled in this case by the basic principle that religious ideas should never be forced upon individuals. There seems to be very little non-religious reasoning to support a repeal of this law.

Repeal "Gay Rights"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal

Resolution: #12

Proposed by: James Byron Dean

Description: UN Resolution #12: Gay Rights (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: As the leader of the Holy Empire of James Byron Dean, I propose we repeal UN resolution #12, regarding Gay Rights. I believe that it is in the best interest of all member nations to uphold morality within our international community. Gay people should have the civil rights and liberties enjoyed by everyone else. That I agree with. They should not be subjected to harassment or persecution, and they should be allowed to peacefully live the way they want to live. What we can not allow is the legalization of gay marriage. It threatens the morality of all of our citizens. We should then repeal this resolution, and issue a new one. One that does not include gay marriage under it's protected provisions.

Approvals: 4 (Corona Luminai, Suburban Freedom, Pineapple Joe-bot, NewTexas)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 130 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Tue Oct 5 2004

power to you! :D

I would propse that the UN no longer acknowledges the term "marraige" and instead disregards the idea of marraige, and civil union all together. It is not within the UN's rights to dictate how one person is to choose how to express their feelings for another person. If we are to repeal this resolution, it is not to ban gay mairrage, but to dissolve all previous ideas of marraige itself.

A counter Proposal: The UN will not acknowledge any union between two people as marraige.

Society does in fact have an agreed upon method of judging immorality. If an action creates a victim (rape, abuse, murder, theft) society agrees that it is immoral. This is why aboriton is such a controversial topic: The banning of abortion rights creates a victim of the woman, while abortion itself creates a victim of the fetus. Therefor society must decide who's victimhood it prices higher, and people dissagree violently on the matter. However, Gay Marriage dones not create a victim. Therefor, while it may be counter-biblical, it is not immoral.
And now, to stick up for the christians:
I am one. I am not a bigot. Because I remember that what Jesus taught Peace, Unconditional Love, and Forgiveness--some pretty awesome concepts. Jesus touched the un-touchable, healed the un-healable, saved the un-savable. Jesus loved prostitutes and rabbis equally. Jesus loves hitler when no one else can. Jesus loves me without caring weather or not I'm succesful. Jesus loves who we are, not what we are. In my opinion, if he were alive right now Jesus would love people of every religion/race/orientation/classification and would support Civil Rights and Gay Marriage and Pacifism. And despite all of that, he was human. He cried out "father, why have you forsaken me". He was desperate and in pain. You don't see a lot of that kind of goodness in day to day life, and when its clouded by bigotry and violence and uglyness it can be hard to find something to beleive in. But this is something that sustains me through the horror.
God, Jesus was cool.
So please, don't blame the followers on the leader.

As far as the Most Serene Republic of Merridonia's Loving Guide--that is to say, me--can tell, the main arguments against gay marriage are as follows.

1) Against someone's religion,
2) Not natural,
3) A union unable to produce children,
4) Going to lead to immorality and/or people marrying their favorite cabbage,

I would have to point out the following:

1) We of the Most Serene Republic of Merridonia have no set religion, and in fact, consider such things rather a hindrance to the pleasant functioning of everyday life; although if a citizen wants to tell me that the floating fireball in their living room commands them to wear pink ribbons on their left pinky toe because it is holy, this is fine. My people know they have much freedom so long as they commit no crimes. They, on the whole, do not choose to risk it by acts of fanaticism.
Your insistence that I and my government follow a book that--should you look at it from a purely literary viewpoint--qualifies as being as much a work of fantasy as any of the others in my personal library amuses me. There is a severe lack of tolerance and/or right to personal religious belief there; a lack which I am fairly sure your most-applauded and well-loved, if not perhaps occasionally-misinterpreted, Mister J. C. would not approve of.
All and none at once. This is the way to go.

2) The very fact that it occurs in nature would seem to make it natural, would it not? The world does not implode when a man quite happily shags his male partner. Therefore, no mystically-set universal laws are being defied.

3) Marriages between infertile, aged, or childfree citizens could not be allowed. Being that I myself plan not to produce offspring, I find it highly offensive that the government I am in control of would turn around and tell me I am wrong. I would not write a civil-rights-based law that would also smack me in the butt. Call it selfish. I won't disagree. A little selfishness is lovely when applied in the proper ways. In any case, there are plenty of people to carry on the art of reproduction. My people will not die out simply because a handful of people in every crowd choose not to spawn.

4) If someone wants to marry their cabbage, let them. It makes both the person and his/her vegetable happy, and takes them off the market so that the rest of us don't have to have them as a potential prospect. Besides that, gay marriage leads to no immorality that was not already present under the sun and seeing use by others.
My only fear would be that the spouse would go through several serial marriages to different cabbages as they wilt and rot. This would put a minor strain on the Justices of the Peace, I suppose. Perhaps I shall make an assistant position or two for the J.o.t.P.s and assign them to handling the marriages with smaller shelf lives...

I do not approve of any repeal of this resolution, unless one with more leniency towards both sides can be thought up--and I reserve the right to retain my personal opinions as to how much more lenient any future proposals may or may not be, whether or not I agree with the rules set, and vote accordingly, should they come along. As it stands, I have not seen any alternate ideas to the current resolution, let alone ones I like, so I will continue to be for the way said current resolution works.

As ever, rambling with good intention and the simple hopes of making her position in things known, though perhaps getting quite a bit wordy, which is less of a crime than not speaking at all,
---Miss Chaly Merridew.

A reply to all those who have called me a bigot, a nazi, and all sorts of other vulgar things that i would rather not repeat...
I have been very opinionated with regards tot he subject of this thread. That much is true. But, and I give anyone the chance to argue this, I have been respectful in my efforts to repeal Resolution # 12. I have not called anyone any names or used any slurrs, and have done my best to be reasonable and explain myself as well as possible. If anyone feels that i have been disrespectful, then I am truly sorry. It has not been my intent to do so. I simply would like to see Resolution # 12 repealed, and the subject of gay marriage left up to individual countries. My nation is a devout theocracy (or as close as the game will let me get), and i beleive in tolerance and rights for everyone. The only issue I have is with gay marriage, not any other gay rights. But in order to adress this issue, i had to adress the Gay Rights Resolution. I don't want anyone to think that I want to persecute homosexuals (as someone with a concentration camp remark implied). I don't. I don't want to harm anyone. I don't want anyone to be persecuted. I just think that gay marriage is wrong, and should not be controlled/encouraged by the UN. I'm not going to foce-feed anyone my opinions as to why i beleive it is wrong. If you don't beleive it's wrong, then that's fine. Personally, i just think it is. It is a subject of very heated debate, and I acknowledge this. I would very willingly pass legislation in my country that ensures the protection of the rights of gays. If my country makes sure that no gay rights are violated by anone, and in fact makes sure that gays are protected under law, and institutes heavy punishment for hate crimes, then my country should also be able to ban gay marriage. I would pass laws protecting gay couples, and make sure that their union would be seen as a proper legal one, with the same benefits as a marriage between a man and a woman, legal, monentary, and otherwise. I would just not call it marriage. Call it a union, a partnership, or any other respectful terminology that could be used. Just not marriage. Thank you for hearing me out.

Mr. Dean--

Your position is understood (by this nation, at least), and you are found honorable, even if we do not agree entirely. If I had a hat I would tip it.

As it stands, I have no hat. I do, however, have a cow. Though if you don't mind, I'd rather not tip it, as that leads to health complications and/or possible death for the poor bovine. But do have my respect anyway.

Cheers,
--CM

A reply to all those who have called me a bigot, a nazi, and all sorts of other vulgar things that i would rather not repeat...
I have been very opinionated with regards tot he subject of this thread. That much is true. But, and I give anyone the chance to argue this, I have been respectful in my efforts to repeal Resolution # 12. I have not called anyone any names or used any slurrs, and have done my best to be reasonable and explain myself as well as possible. If anyone feels that i have been disrespectful, then I am truly sorry. It has not been my intent to do so. I simply would like to see Resolution # 12 repealed, and the subject of gay marriage left up to individual countries. My nation is a devout theocracy (or as close as the game will let me get), and i beleive in tolerance and rights for everyone. The only issue I have is with gay marriage, not any other gay rights. But in order to adress this issue, i had to adress the Gay Rights Resolution. I don't want anyone to think that I want to persecute homosexuals (as someone with a concentration camp remark implied). I don't. I don't want to harm anyone. I don't want anyone to be persecuted. I just think that gay marriage is wrong, and should not be controlled/encouraged by the UN. I'm not going to foce-feed anyone my opinions as to why i beleive it is wrong. If you don't beleive it's wrong, then that's fine. Personally, i just think it is. It is a subject of very heated debate, and I acknowledge this. I would very willingly pass legislation in my country that ensures the protection of the rights of gays. If my country makes sure that no gay rights are violated by anone, and in fact makes sure that gays are protected under law, and institutes heavy punishment for hate crimes, then my country should also be able to ban gay marriage. I would pass laws protecting gay couples, and make sure that their union would be seen as a proper legal one, with the same benefits as a marriage between a man and a woman, legal, monentary, and otherwise. I would just not call it marriage. Call it a union, a partnership, or any other respectful terminology that could be used. Just not marriage. Thank you for hearing me out.

So basically you want to repeal one of the most important resolutions in the UN, one that brings a lot of hope to oppressed people all across the world, because of semantics?

The simple fact is, marriage has no business being legislated by the government. This has been the Republic's position since the very beginning (in fact the very reason we have always considered 'gay marriage' as a non-issue, even during the original proposal of the resolution to legalize it).... The first codification of Marriage centuries ago declared it an institution preceeding, predating, and therefore beyond direct government pervue. The general purpose of government is to protect the rights, life, and freedom of her citizenry, and government control cannot be construed to present a morality of any sort, even of the majority upon a minority, unless the imposition of that is in direct relation to primary clause (sic murder, rape, theft, etc. might be morals, but they also impact the primary clause, thereby making them legislatable by the government).... on the issue of gay marriage, no enforcement of barring or what not is arguable under the provisionary clauses of government... and therefore regardless of what the majority think, is not enforceable... This is where both mob-rule democracy, and totalitarian despostism both fail.... they both, in the end, based on either the whim of the mob, or the whim of the despot, seek to damage any of the primary clauses.... (This is why the Republic is always the superior government).

look, if u were gay, and you wanted to get married to the one you love, and you couldnt, what would you do? i think gays should have the same rights we have. some people dont get it :headbang: .

OOC:

Does anyone know if it's possible to both repeal an old motion and propose a new one in the same proposal?

OOC:

Does anyone know if it's possible to both repeal an old motion and propose a new one in the same proposal?

I asked a mod about this, and they were fairly sure that the policy was you have to repeal, then submit a new proposal separately, so no, you can't.

A reply to all those who have called me a bigot, a nazi, and all sorts of other vulgar things that i would rather not repeat...
You've been rather unfairly called most of them, IMO.

I don't want anyone to think that I want to persecute homosexuals (as someone with a concentration camp remark implied). I don't. I don't want to harm anyone. I don't want anyone to be persecuted. I just think that gay marriage is wrong, and should not be controlled/encouraged by the UN.

It's a shame that you were not about when the resolution was passed - you'd have been able to argue from a much stronger position. You want to repeal an element of a resolution, You end up repealling the whole. It's a distinction that cannot be covered, and other players will be more concerned about the other things lost in the repeal.

I asked a mod about this, and they were fairly sure that the policy was you have to repeal, then submit a new proposal separately, so no, you can't.Yes, this is 100 % correct, you must repeal, pull off the repeal, then put up the proposal. Takes time, and means twice the work.

* On the bright side, I suppose I could finally drag " Definition of Free Trial " out on its ass one sunny day ... ;)

God ? Which one ?

Well if it were up to me, Anubis, the Chibi God of the Dead. But alas.

It is true that you never have used disrespectful terminology.
However, the sentiments you have expressed have had deeply disrespectful implications.
Prejudice, no matter how polite you are about it, is still dispicable.

What is the United Nations' stance on religion - are arguments based on religion even valid in the UN Forum? Our govenment in Antimericia is avowedly secular, and no national law would ever be passed which had religious arguments solely as its basis. If the UN is secular, then the religious arguments are against the UN charter. While the UN should respect all religions to the limit of the law, it should also observe that it is impossible to support any religious argument without supporting EVERY religions' argument.

This may have been discussed before, but as a new Leader of my Nation, I haven't a very free schedule to read the past transcripts of the UN Forum.

Im just testing my sig. lol




...Maybe I should have thought about them not working...duh


Ah well

Many of us dictators of the Protectorates of Knoteiphere would love to see this flagrant denial of our national soverniety removed from the lists. Please contact my regional delegate, The People's Republic of Wade's Wise Words Inc , should repeal advocates want support from our region.

Protector Euies

Ok. I just wanted to say goodbye to Hirota and everyone else who has made this debate a good one. I hope to be able to debate other issues with you in the future.

The Leader of
The Holy Empire of James Byron Dean

It seems to me that many people dont understand the Christian perspective on homosexuality. The act and the thought of homosexual activity are both sins (the act being Homosexual sex and the thought being the desire). God has no problem with gay people, his problem is gay actions. And the reason why everyone is so angry about letting people have homosexual marriage is that to Christians, its like saying to a murderer "We will let you continue killing people as that is your chosen way of life". Its a sin, and that is why people are so anti homosexual priests its like a priest openly saying "I am a thief, and I steal on a regular basis, and that is my way of life and everyone should accept it". As Christians, we have no problem with the people, we just hate what they do. We want them to stop sinning in the same way we want anyone to.

Children have no legal standing either, thus why their parents, guardians, or court appointed officials make the decisions for them. As the owner of my pet or inanimate object, I am thus empowered with the legal authority to make legal decisions for them. This enables me to decide if I can marry my toaster or not. If you think that is BS, try taking your pet to the vet, or your TV to the repair shop. You need not even PROVE legal ownership, simply pay the required fee, and all repairs/checkups/operations will be performed. Yet take a child to the hospital and you have to prove your his parent/legal guardian before they'll do ANYTHING not immediately required to sustain his or her life. Heck, this means I could marry your toaster if I wanted to :P

Objects have no legal standing at all, and animals, I'm not sure about that since you can be prosecuted for torturing or killing one, but I'm sure they have none either. For a marriage to be legal there has to be an agreement between people with legal standing - i.e. people considered as adults.

So, no, you can't marry your toaster, because it doesn't have any legal status at all, therefore there is no one to empower to make legal decisions for it, because it HAS no legal decisions to make. It's a toaster. Neither can you marry your dog, for the same reason.

Children do have legal status and standing, but because they are not considered ready to make legal decisions for themselves, their parents are given this legal authority. Not because they don't have legal standing - they do, but their guardian is given the authority to wield it on their behalf.

God has no problem with gay people, his problem is gay actions.

I understand your position on it perfectly well, but I disagree because that position is untenable. You cannot accept homosexuality and then say, "oh, you can be homo, but gay sex is BAD! BAD!" because it's a defining part of it. It's like saying "I like Eminem, but I don't like his rapping."

And I would also point out that unless you can (a) prove that God exists, and (b) that He doesn't like gay marriage and gay sex, you have no right to say that.

And the reason why everyone is so angry about letting people have homosexual marriage is that to Christians, its like saying to a murderer "We will let you continue killing people as that is your chosen way of life". Its a sin, and that is why people are so anti homosexual priests its like a priest openly saying "I am a thief, and I steal on a regular basis, and that is my way of life and everyone should accept it". As Christians, we have no problem with the people, we just hate what they do. We want them to stop sinning in the same way we want anyone to.

I think it's disturbing that you consider buttsex tantamount to murder, or think that being gay is as bad as being a criminal. And that takes us to another issue - you shouldn't impose your religious beliefs or your morality on others, because it's something everyone should decide for themselves. If you find abortion reprehensible, don't get an abortion. If you find porno disgusting, don't watch it. Other people have different opinions, and everyone should be able to decide for themselves.

However, giving fringe minority groups special benefits begins us on the path to chaos and loss of governmental power. And yes, this is a special benefit. Gays could simply marry a woman but live with their partner, and still gain all legal benefits they are desiring.

Okay, let's see you find a woman willing to marry you just so you can have legal benefits.

Maybe you don't get it, but homosexuality.... is... not... a... choice... and gays... are... not... a... "fringe"... group...

The "legal benefits" they're seeking... I don't think you understand those either. They want the special status that a spouse would have. One example - If you got into an accident, and your wife wanted to see you in hospital, they'd let her even if there's a rule against visitors, because she's married to you. They want the same status with their partners. Why should it be different? They simply want to participate in the same institution and they want the same considerations that heretosexual couples get without question.


You can't say "well why should they be put through so much, just to get the benefits everyone else has" because I can point you to the schools and government buildings where Christians are forced to silence on their religion, inhibiting our 1st amendment right to freedom of speech. So we either shut up, or go to a different job/school to gain the benefits of free speech everyone else has.

Actually, if I read you guys' Constitution right, what you call a denial of first amendment rights was put into place to avoid violating the first amendment. It's also something called equality of religion?... Remember, no prayer in public school doesn't just apply to Christians, it applies to every religion. Just as a Christian teacher couldn't lead his class in a Christian prayer, a Muslim teacher couldn't lead his students in an Islamic prayer.

I'd hardly say not being allowed to preach or pray in school is a violation of free speech. Schools are places for learning. Not for religion. If you want religion, go to your place of worship. Schools are public spaces and religion doesn't belong there.

Maybe you don't get it, but homosexuality.... is... not... a... choice... and gays... are... not... a... "fringe"... group...

I'm not sure that first part is as set in stone as you believe.
And I would also point out that unless you can (a) prove that God exists, and (b) that He doesn't like gay marriage and gay sex, you have no right to say that.

He (or she) has every right to say whatswoever he pleases. If you choose not to believe it except upon those criteria then that is entirely your affair. You cannot attempt to limit his right to express his own feelings just because you don't agree with them. You can however, choose to disagree with them at whatever limitations you desire (say, you won't believe him unless he produces a burning bush or some such).

Don't overstep, you'll pull a muscle.

What is the United Nations' stance on religion - are arguments based on religion even valid in the UN Forum? Our govenment in Antimericia is avowedly secular, and no national law would ever be passed which had religious arguments solely as its basis. If the UN is secular, then the religious arguments are against the UN charter. While the UN should respect all religions to the limit of the law, it should also observe that it is impossible to support any religious argument without supporting EVERY religions' argument.

This may have been discussed before, but as a new Leader of my Nation, I haven't a very free schedule to read the past transcripts of the UN Forum.

I think that the ruling for NS is that religious based arguments are fine, so long as they don't cross the genocide / threat line (which very few do). You can kinda get a feel for the rules of all the NS forums by reading the Moderation Forum (I call the non-mods, self included, that hang out there "modlings" ... i.e. people that take too great an interest in the game). ;)

I also think you are right to suggest that the UN should attempt to respect religions, unfortunately the voting trend displayed by member states is such that strong and intrusive resolutions (the ones least likely to respect domestic laws, culturals, and religious beliefs) might be considered among some of the resolutions with the highest in favour ratios.

Welcome to the UN, and though my government will abstain on any issue related to this subject, we do look forward to continued discussions.

2 point to the first person who comes up with an interesting definition of fallcitical.


I'm guessing TH was going for fallacious but it's too good an opening not to grab. :p

The fallcitical energy: minimum energy required for an earthquake to topple an entire city.

To whoever it was who said that you cant prove that God exists: Can you rearly believe that life could be some kind of random acident and that life has no meaning. Anyway, that's another arguement.

And to whoever said that you cant prove that God is anti Gay: Well read the bible, read about Soddom and Goumorgaha (proberbly misspelt). And as for my statement about gays and gay action, its part of basic Christian doctrine "Love the sinner, hate the sin". And as for my comparison of homosexuality to murder, in God's eyes sin is sin. None of us are any worse or better than Hitler in God's eyes, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The differing charicteristic is whtether you have accepted God and try to live as he would want you (IE, be a Christian as best you can). The point is Homosexuality is a sin in God's eyes and it is no worse or better than murder or stealing or anything like that. And whilst I believe people should decide for themselves, since Jesus died for EVERYONE then dismissing what he and God say is like spitting on the cross.

prove that God is anti Gay: Well read the bible

And what of those religions which don't follow the Bible? Can you demonstrate that your homphobic holy book is more true than the holy book(s) of any other religion? Can you demonstrate evidence that your bible is the exact word of a deity (whose existence you have yet to prove)?

If I dig up some 2000-year old writing which says the only sin-free path to enlightenment is through smearing chili sauce on a camel's tail evey Thursday and not eating beans, what's to say your old piece of paper is any more accurate than mine?

And to whoever said that you cant prove that God is anti Gay: Well read the bible, read about Soddom and Goumorgaha (proberbly misspelt).<oh, too good to be true....>

Luckily enough I HAVE read the bible, and I can tell you that the bible in it's many forms are widely conflicting. The majority of modern translations make no effort to suggest Soddom et al were punished for being homosexual. Earlier versions were deliberately corrupted/mistranslated by the powers that be to imply (mostly to the naive masses) that homosexuality is a bad thing.

Indeed, in most versions of the bible (especially in the modern versions) there are parts of the bible which imply homosexual relations.....which were conviently edited in earlier times....Could you answer why did God "inspire" verses in the bible which appear to describe emotionally close relationships between two people of the same gender which appear to have progressed well beyond a casual friendship. The relationship between David and Jonathan is the most documented:

Samuel 1:26
"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."

In the society of ancient Israel, it was not considered proper for a man and woman to have a platonic relationship. Men and women hardly spoke to each other in public. Since David's only relationships with women would have been sexual in nature, then he may have been referring to sexual love here.

Samuel 20:41"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." (NIV)

Other translations have a different ending to the verse:
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded." (King James Version)
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself." (Amplified Bible)
"and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more." (Living Bible)
"They kissed each other and wept together until David got control of himself." (Modern Language)
"They kissed each other and wept aloud together." (New American Bible)
"Then David and Jonathan kissed each other. They cried together, but David cried the most." (New Century Version)
"Then the kissed one another and shed tears together, until David's grief was even greater than Jonathan's." (Revised English Bible)
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David recovered himself." (Revised Standard Version)

The translators of the Living Bible apparently could not handle the thought of two adult men kissing, so they mistranslated the passage by saying that the two men shook hands! This is somewhat less than honest.

Note: The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became great. The word which means "great" in this passage is "gadal" in the original Hebrew. The same word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to King Solomon being greater than all other kings. Some theologians interpret "gadal" in this verse as indicating that David had an erection. However, the thoughts of David becoming sexually aroused after kissing Jonathan is too threatening for Bible translators, so they either deleted the ending entirely or created one of their own.

Again, I observe that you cannot blindly rely upon the bible as the word of god, as it has been mistranslated throughout the generations. 9 different versions of the same single verse? One must carefully examine the original texts from the point of view of ancient Israeli and early Christian societies in order to begin to determine their precise meaning. So how exactly can you blindly follow the bible when it has been translated by different people with different motives over time? Moreover, how can you blindly follow the bible when large sections of it have already been considered unacceptable by society?

In general, theologians generally agree the bible says nothing of substance on homosexuality. So no, the religous arguement in the modern day simply does not cut it.

And as for my statement about gays and gay action, its part of basic Christian doctrine "Love the sinner, hate the sin".

Hmmm....it was certainly doctrine.....IN THE 17TH CENTURY!

And as for my comparison of homosexuality to murder, in God's eyes sin is sin. None of us are any worse or better than Hitler in God's eyes, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
So how do you know what God's opinions are on the matter when you are basing your arguement on a flawed version of the bible? Or are you a member of the clergy perhaps?

The point is Homosexuality is a sin in God's eyes and it is no worse or better than murder or stealing or anything like that.There were also other sins which we now consider morally acceptable. Paul condemned women preaching (1 Corinthians 14:34)? A passage in 1 Timothy 2:11 condemned the wearing gold or pearls? Paul accepted and did not criticize the institution of slavery (Philemon 1:15 to 16)?

We now generally consider these notions foolish - we have women preachers, gold and pearls are worn, slavery is abolished in UN nations. So we have already rejected some of the scripture which you would appear to be content to follow blindly?

And whilst I believe people should decide for themselves, since Jesus died for EVERYONE then dismissing what he and God say is like spitting on the cross.
Except, oh yes, whatever God and Jesus said has been mistranslated and twisted, and edited and corrupted...need I say more?

Except, oh yes, whatever God and Jesus said has been mistranslated and twisted, and edited and corrupted...need I say more?

Moderately OOC:
I'm curious, and this is pretty off thread topic, but what exactly does this mean to you?

What I should say is, What is your solution? Obviously, there is a large amount of leeway in the interpretation of scripture (testified to by the diversity amongst Christian groups), which scripture has, as pointed out by yourself, been..."changed"...but, what is your solution to the translation situation? Do you choose to believe the Bible only in the parts as personally interpretted through direct Hebrew text? Do you choose to forego organized religion altogether? Do you choose an agnostic approach? Do you become Atheist in response?

Well, in response isn't quite what I mean to say. Nobody wants to feel that they're beliefs are just some defense mechanism/knee jerk to the environment in which they've been placed. But, since I can't find any better wording at the moment, do you still see what I'm wondering?

Honestly I mean nothing by these questions. I have no agenda in asking. I'm just curious.

Moderately OOC:
I'm curious, and this is pretty off thread topic, but what exactly does this mean to you?

What I should say is, What is your solution? Obviously, there is a large amount of leeway in the interpretation of scripture (testified to by the diversity amongst Christian groups), which scripture has, as pointed out by yourself, been..."changed"...but, what is your solution to the translation situation? Do you choose to believe the Bible only in the parts as personally interpretted through direct Hebrew text? Do you choose to forego organized religion altogether? Do you choose an agnostic approach? Do you become Atheist in response?

Well, in response isn't quite what I mean to say. Nobody wants to feel that they're beliefs are just some defense mechanism/knee jerk to the environment in which they've been placed. But, since I can't find any better wording at the moment, do you still see what I'm wondering?

Honestly I mean nothing by these questions. I have no agenda in asking. I'm just curious.


(equally ooc and off topic, and not really directed at me, but when did that ever stop me?)
I really have no issues with people believing in the bible, which ever version of the text they might have. It's their life, so it's their belief.
The only problem I do have is when people use their belief, based on whatever version they have, to abuse other people. And even worse, when they use it to create laws to legally abuse other people. Because one book, however good and convincing it might be, is not a sound basis for any type of government. And given the diversity of religious beliefs in this country (the uk) alone having a single law that would encompass all the beliefs would be impossible, and - even if the impossible were achieved - a new version of one of the religions would spring up and everything would be in ruins again.

(equally ooc and off topic, and not really directed at me, but when did that ever stop me?)
I really have no issues with people believing in the bible, which ever version of the text they might have. It's their life, so it's their belief.

The only problem I do have is when people use their belief, based on whatever version they have, to abuse other people.

Suddendly this all became very interesting ... though perhaps the subject for a thread split.

The use of a belief to abuse other people, often is something that is done in ignorance and / or prejudiced.

To move this debate away from the questions related to government and social policies related to sexuality / sexual preference, let's look at something that sadly we also still see today here in NationStates.

How many debates will we see people accusing others as being either "Socialists", "Communists", or "Nazis"? People might resort to doing this for a number of reasons (and IMHO all of them bad), but I think the ultimate reason people (or in the case of NationStates "governments") will put McCarthyism into practice is because they are afraid.

I think that the statement that God frowns upon homosexuality doesn't really matter if "he" or "his" profits really believed this and had it passed down for thousands of years. I think what it telling is that people are interested on acting upon their fears and promoting abuse.

Now to turn this back into something relevant to the NS UN and resolution at hand ... the "Gay Rights" resolution was debated before my nation joined the UN. Since the records of those debates are long sense gone, I would imagine that the point in favour of the resolution was that homosexuals are often treated as second class citizens.

The reason I said my nation would abstain on this issue entirely isn't because my government wants to promote prejudiced behaviors. In fact, my nation has come out in strong opposition to what I consider "witch-hunt" debates that we've seen here before. But sadly, my government sees no easy way to stop this sort of behavior. The idea behind the original resolution was honroable ... but the language behind it may have done more harm than good. If it is repealed, I would expect that a similar proposal and debate would begin anew, and I'm not sure if it would be any different.

It is my opinion that like the "Death Penalty" debates, that it will be hard to really reach out and find a super majority on these issues.

To whoever it was who said that you cant prove that God exists: Can you rearly believe that life could be some kind of random acident and that life has no meaning.


As a matter of fact, I do believe that.


And to whoever said that you cant prove that God is anti Gay: Well read the bible, read about Soddom and Goumorgaha

Hirota has dealt with that, but here's why I don't accept the Bible as proof - for me to do that, you also have to prove that God endorses it without delving into religious dogma.

What I should say is, What is your solution? Obviously, there is a large amount of leeway in the interpretation of scripture (testified to by the diversity amongst Christian groups), which scripture has, as pointed out by yourself, been..."changed"...but, what is your solution to the translation situation? Do you choose to believe the Bible only in the parts as personally interpretted through direct Hebrew text? Do you choose to forego organized religion altogether? Do you choose an agnostic approach? Do you become Atheist in response?

Well, first of all, I am an aethist. I don't think God exists, and I don't think that the bible is the voice of God. I personally believe that the bible is a series of stories, all with a meaning written by a collection of eloquent people with a broadly common attitude on life.

How you understand the meaning, is down to the induvidual...Unfortunately, organised religon seems to have corrupted some of those meanings for it's own agenda, and it's difficult to make efforts to understand the intent behind the original writers.

Being an aethist does not mean there are things you can't learn from the bible. Some of the issues it deals with are still valid today. However, you have to remember that the bible was written in ancient Isreal, with the values and opinions of that time. We are (supposedly) a more enlightened people, and now we know better on many issues that the bible addresses.

I don't have any problem with people deciding to accept that God exists, and "influenced" the authors of the bible, or indeed that God was directly responsible for the whole of the bible, but I think people have to be aware that the bible they have tucked away at home is not a valid representation.

Ideally, I'd say the only part of the bible we can trust is the original translation(s), but scholars can't agree on translations of words even today...

I think that Christians as a whole have to accept that the original word of God is unobtainable, and that the bible should not be taken as gospel(Pun not intended :D ) and should not literally apply the bible on modern day life as a justification for their own personal choices.

To Hirota
I think its kind of sad these days that people cant except that the strong relationship here between two men was not homosexual. Though it says "Better than the love of any women" this does not mean that he had sex with him and the sex was better than that with women, but that he valued that relationship above that of any women. David and Jonathan were in a situation where one was defending the others life, it was impossible that this would not produce a great bond between the too. And yes there are examples of old style religious doctrine that has gone now (the old testement doctirne is full of irrelevent ideas) but theres nothing in the New testement that says that homosexuality is ok, and there are frequent refrances to it not being so. And love the sin hate the sinner idea is still relevent as it was. How would you like it if you stole something and everyone hated you for it forever. God doesnt hate people forever, he only hates sin forever. The sinners he died for.

Now to turn this back into something relevant to the NS UN and resolution at hand ... the "Gay Rights" resolution was debated before my nation joined the UN. Since the records of those debates are long sense gone, I would imagine that the point in favour of the resolution was that homosexuals are often treated as second class citizens.

While I haven't been with PC that long, I used to play a different nation back when the debate was going on, and the resolution passed.

Leading up to the resolution there had been about a hundred proposals entitled "torch the flamers!" or "gays need to die". It was almost as if BillyBob's Redneck general store had had a sale on computers the previous week. The proposer of "gay rights" was simply trying to protect gays from receiving this sort of hatred, and I think the text reflects that. Once the debate for the bill hit the forums, though, the reasoning behind the proposal was much less...clear.

Much like today's debates in the forum, everyone had a different reason they were for or against the proposal. The main ones were often religious, civil rights-related, or concerning national sovereignty (as is also much the case today). The "debate" thread, I believe went on for so many pages, it was just unruly. And the posts were often just flames. I, in my infinite n00b wisdom, decided that it would be good to join in. I got crushed. It hurt. *sniffle*

But, that isn't the point. Knowing what things were like back then, I think the UN forum has moved in the right direction. We're a lot more open to ideas, and the ideas presented are also of better quality overall.

You want to know who was a key part of that debate, and many others? Stephistan. That's one of the reasons she's (or she was) a mod, because she was so active in those forum flame parties. Well, she wasn't ever really doing any of the barbecuing, but she was there and active and involved. I bet if you ask her about that debate she can give you some better details.

I think its kind of sad these days that people cant except that the strong relationship here between two men was not homosexual. Though it says "Better than the love of any women" this does not mean that he had sex with him and the sex was better than that with women, but that he valued that relationship above that of any women.I totally agree with you…although if that was the case, then why was the passage deliberately interpreted to imply that instead of kissing they shook hands? Obviously the religious authorities of the time made the same observation I made, and deliberately re-written the relevant section.

I wasn’t saying David and co were gay. I was saying that there is a clear suggestion of a greater relationship, especially when considered in the context of the era and it’s cultural values.but theres nothing in the New testement that says that homosexuality is ok, and there are frequent refrances to it not being so.Then it would not be too difficult for you to provide accurate examples then.

I was hoping you would ask for that
Romans 1:18-27
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
1 Timothy 1:9-10
Are your new testement examples

Its not like I want to go out and kill all the homosexuals, killing is a sin as much as homosexuality. But I dont want them to be allowed to continue to practice, and I dont want them to be held up high and say "Look an achievement of postmodernism". I personally would like to see the government return to its previous stance of homosexuality being illegal (thats the British government).

In Tekania marriage isn't governed by law, so its not an issue with us.

And once again, Tekania does not recognize the right of any government to legislate upon marriage.

While I haven't been with PC that long, I used to play a different nation back when the debate was going on, and the resolution passed.

Leading up to the resolution there had been about a hundred proposals entitled "torch the flamers!" or "gays need to die". It was almost as if BillyBob's Redneck general store had had a sale on computers the previous week. The proposer of "gay rights" was simply trying to protect gays from receiving this sort of hatred, and I think the text reflects that. Once the debate for the bill hit the forums, though, the reasoning behind the proposal was much less...clear.

Much like today's debates in the forum, everyone had a different reason they were for or against the proposal. The main ones were often religious, civil rights-related, or concerning national sovereignty (as is also much the case today). The "debate" thread, I believe went on for so many pages, it was just unruly. And the posts were often just flames. I, in my infinite n00b wisdom, decided that it would be good to join in. I got crushed. It hurt. *sniffle*

But, that isn't the point. Knowing what things were like back then, I think the UN forum has moved in the right direction. We're a lot more open to ideas, and the ideas presented are also of better quality overall.

You want to know who was a key part of that debate, and many others? Stephistan. That's one of the reasons she's (or she was) a mod, because she was so active in those forum flame parties. Well, she wasn't ever really doing any of the barbecuing, but she was there and active and involved. I bet if you ask her about that debate she can give you some better details.

OOC: Interesting! :)

Yeah Stephistan is still very active in General, and tends to represent what I'd call a slightly left of center moderate (not moderator) voice on many hot international and domestic issues.

Your description though makes complete since and actually would have won my vote. The resolution sounds at though it was partly motivated to just put a lid on some pointless flaming, and frankly, I agree with that. But then again, I've also made it very public that I do have very little respect for "witch-hunts", which still drive many actions in the game.

But instead of hunting homosexuals, the fad since August has been to label anything you don't like as "OMFG COMMUNISTS ARE HERE!". :(

I know the phrases - typical examples....really nothing extraordinary

I'll note how in the New Testament it is only Paul who has anything significant to say about homosexuality. This is a striking feature for surely if homosexuality is so abhorrent to God as is made out my then one would expect to find Jesus, God's Son (actually "God on earth"), making a comment on this issue. Instead we find Jesus says nothing. Jesus hardly refers to human sexuality at all and then only in the context of marriage.

Romans 1:18-27From reading these verses, it seems clear to me that Paul is saying that the Romans were pursuing blasphemy, vanity, pride, idolatry, and lack of love, and that because of this, God *caused* those things in them which are labeled "unseemly" and "vile". It was God who is said to have *caused* men to turn away from women and to each other, and women to turn away from men and to each other.

Read Romans 1:18-27 once again, and you will once again see that you have your causes and effects backwards. The sins were idolatry, blasphemy, vanity, etc. The judgment that was pronounced were "lusts" that were "vile" and "unseemly" between members of the same sex.

1 Corinthians 6:9-101Corithians 6:9-10: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (Emphasis my own)

This verse has been translated in many ways among the several English versions of the Bible. The two activities of interest here have been variously translated as:
effeminate
homosexuals
homosexual perverts
male prostitutes
catamites, also described as "boy prostitute."
pederasts: aka pedophile
pervert

he original Greek text describes the two behaviors as "malakoi" or "malakee," and "arsenokoitai." Although these is often translated by modern Bibles as "homosexual," it's fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the Greek word "paiderasste." That was the standard term at the time for male homosexuals. Could he have meant something different from persons who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior?

1 Timothy 1:9-10These verses also refer to malakoi arsenokoitai which has been variously translated as "effeminate," "homosexuals," "sexual perverts," "pederasts," etc. As in 1 Corinthians 6:9

The book of Timothy was also one of the "Pastoral Letters." The is a strong school of thought that believes that this was written by an unknown author approx half a century after Paul's death, and falsely attributed to Paul.

When we come to Paul's overall condemnations of homosexuality we find he deals not only with the act but the attitude as well ('shameful lusts'). Thus according to Paul one cannot be a non-practicing homosexual. Any form or expression of homosexual behaviour is condemned by Paul as contrary to the will of God. But before we end the discussion there we need to realise that Paul said a number of things that many people today would not agree with.

For instance Paul had a very debatable opinion concerning the role of women in the church ('A woman should learn in quietness and full submission I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent' (1 Timothy 2:11-12) and in the home ('Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife...' Ephesians 5:22). Most people would not agree with these statements today and consider Paul a man of his time (in a male dominated society). Thus we need to ask whether his comments about homosexuality are also to be limited to his time (having no relevance today)?

Thus, Romans 1 may accurately reflect Paul's beliefs; but they are beliefs that now have to be largely abandoned, as we have already abandoned slavery, dictatorships, theocracies, and the oppression of women.

What also needs to be recognised is that:

- homosexuality as practiced by modern Christian homosexuals is not the same thing that Paul dealt with

- Paul's opinions are not binding on the church

- Paul's opinions in this particular case are not binding on the church

- while homosexuality may be an "objective disorder", as a pastoral matter in most cases Christians who are homosexual are better off living in committed relationships than trying to abstain from sex.

Jesus also makes a startling lack of comment on nuclear war, drug abuse, GBH, rape etc. Just because he doesnt say anything doesnt mean it something he condones or likes. He does say stop sinning. Old testement law (leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) says something along the lines of a man shall not lay with a man. While people may say "Jesus removes all old testement law", they may want to check again. The refrences to leviticus here is moral law, Jesus re-emphised that.

Distinguishing between lust and sex is pointless. In Gods eyes the thought and the action are the same. And the phrase that God "Gave them over to" the vile actions, well think about it. If you reject the Godly way there is only one way to go isnt there?- homosexuality as practiced by modern

1 - Christian homosexuals is not the same thing that Paul dealt with

2 - Paul's opinions are not binding on the church

3 - Paul's opinions in this particular case are not binding on the church

4 - while homosexuality may be an "objective disorder", as a pastoral matter in most cases Christians who are homosexual are better off living in committed relationships than trying to abstain from sex

Ill just deal with these one by one

1 - How so? Please clarify?

2 - Ok no they are not, but he is passing down Jesus's opinion. If my opinion and Jesus's opinion are the same thing then my opinion is just as vaild. And I've already explained that Jesus's lack of mentioning about homosexual sex does not mean he didnt hate it.

3 - See above

4 - Christians do not believe in abstaining from sex. Many people have got this wrong. We abstain from sex outside marriage. It is not better for you to be in a Gay relationship

Christains dont hate homosexuals, they love them. What they do hate is Homosexuality. They despise homosexual thoughts and actions, but the people and the actions/thoughts can be seperated. The bottom line is though, that if God had wanted homosexuality he would have created six people at the garden of eden, not two.

Jesus also makes a startling lack of comment on nuclear war, drug abuse, GBH, rape etc. Just because he doesnt say anything doesnt mean it something he condones or likes. He does say stop sinning. Old testement law (leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) says something along the lines of a man shall not lay with a man. While people may say "Jesus removes all old testement law", they may want to check again. The refrences to leviticus here is moral law, Jesus re-emphised that.


I think it is unwise to selectively choose what parts of the Old Testment to follow and which parts to ingore:


You shall not shave around the sides of your head, nor shall you disfigure the edges of your beard (Leviticus 19:27);


Or are you suggesting that the UN should also pass a resolution forbidding hair cuts based on moral grounds?

[COLOR=RoyalBlue]undefined]In my Republic there are no civil rites so who cares if there gay and have no rite here in mine republic it dont matter[/COLOR From the ruler of all evil!

[COLOR=RoyalBlue]undefined]In my Republic there are no civil rites so who cares if there gay and have no rite here in mine republic it dont matter[/COLOR From the ruler of all evil!

I'm not sure where to start... he has a "republic" with no "civil rites" overlorded by an "evil ruler".... Dude, you may call yourself a "republic" but you are not one... Plato must be spinning in his grave about now.

Christains dont hate homosexuals, they love them. What they do hate is Homosexuality.

Yes, I got that, but that doesn't mean non-Christians or even Christians who disagree with the Church's position must be forced to abide by a law based on that. I'm sure none of us want a Christian version of the Taliban. If you outlaw homosexuality you're basically telling a large portion of the population that it's illegal for them to be alive.

Let me say it again, just because it's against your religion doesn't mean you should pass a law against it. This resolution is good because it prevents this kind of extremism.

They despise homosexual thoughts and actions, but the people and the actions/thoughts can be seperated. The bottom line is though, that if God had wanted homosexuality he would have created six people at the garden of eden, not two.

Oh no, we gotta bring creationism/evolution into this too?

So you are saying we should seperate our morals from all goverment activity? Then what is it we base laws on? Reason? Well if we follow the root of reason we will be against homosexuality because there is no objective end to it. You cannot seperate your morals from yourself, to do so will lead to completely unreasonable laws.

So you are saying we should seperate our morals from all goverment activity? Then what is it we base laws on? Reason? Well if we follow the root of reason we will be against homosexuality because there is no objective end to it. You cannot seperate your morals from yourself, to do so will lead to completely unreasonable laws.

Laws should be based on ethics, rooted in reason. And most certainly not 'morality'. And why would reason dictate that law be against homosexuality? The purpose of law is to protect... if law is rooted against something, then there should be validateable functional and logical reasons for it to be so.... Would you not agree? So, what is the full and logical purpose of law in society? Why is it murder is illegal? Is it not so because murder directly impacts the fundamental right of a person? Why is theft illegal? Is it not so because of the same? Would not reason also dictate that if someone was forced to take anothers life in self-defense, then they did so legally? Is not this based in reason? So obviously, in a free society, law exist souly upon the reasoning and logic of protecting one individual from another or others within society.... is it not? Taking such reason and logic further, you can see the baseless futility of legal "morality" as certain sects call it.... the creation of moral law that serves to control individuals thoughts and actions beyond mere protection, to dictatorial overlording, way past the rights and function of free government. So, what is the governing principle of logical reason against homosexuality? you mention becayse there's no "objective end to it".... Isn't there? Or do you determine the end based upon principle of procreation? So why not outlaw sports, or bars, since their necessary objective end is not procreation either?... Why have friendships, they serve no object end to wit of procreation either... So obviously there is no true logical reason for the stance, merely a subjective, and irrational moral reasons as such.

Logic dictates that any law, that exists beyond protecting one person from another, possess no true reason of existance. The Republic recognized this concept long ago. It is about time other nations of the "conservative" and "liberal" agendas do as well.

So you are saying we should seperate our morals from all goverment activity? Then what is it we base laws on? Reason? Well if we follow the root of reason we will be against homosexuality because there is no objective end to it. You cannot seperate your morals from yourself, to do so will lead to completely unreasonable laws.

No, I'm not suggesting that.

But I am suggesting that some morals and ideas are out dated, if not completely silly. Take the bible example about cutting your hair. The reason the Bible included that most likely was to differentiate Jews from the Egyptians (whom shaved their heads). At the time there was a reason (I'm not saying it was good or bad) for the "law" to be included in Leviticus, but how many Jews and Christians do we see who do not shave their heads? A few ten thousand or so maybe (well, this is NationStates, I'm sure the hedgehog people don't shave their heads either).

My point was that if most of our socities consider the law requiring us to not shave our heads outdated, then perhaps some of the other morals and social ideas need to be reconsidered too.

This isn't to say our governments should be lawless. I think Slackerness and Roma Islamic would agree with me. The UN Category "Moral Decency" is useful and important. As leaders of our socities, it is our job to protect our citizens, and sometimes that means drafting laws because they give direction on "the right" thing to do.

But my government has no problem with homosexuality. In fact, the very subject is one that my government feels is a domestic issue, which is why I've stated that my government will abstain. There will be homosexuals in the Confederated City States, and there isn't any amount of Bible Thumping or law making that will change that. But at the same time, my government doesn't feel that on this particular issue that our social decision really applies to cultures that ... say believe it is a sin to shave their heads. They have a good reason to believe that homosexuality is bad, and they also have a reason to believe that cutting your hair every few years is a sin too.

Ideally there would be a compromise that could be reached here, but it is not going to happen as long as we, as leaders, aren't willing to ask the really hard question, "At what point, should our society change?" I'm not suggesting where that change should be, but we can't expect the world to revolve completely around us ... and picking and choosing passages of the Bible as it is "convienent" is a step in the wrong direction towards seeking a solution to this conflicting interest.

There is an obvious disagreement concerning the definition of "marriage," be it the union of a man and woman under Christ, oops, God, oops, the State, or the State-endorsed union of a loving couple. However, regardless of this, some in their efforts to stop gay marriage on the basis of protecting the traditional view of mommy and daddy and kiddies, have confused marriage with family. It would seem that such people would only accept the "nuclear family" model. So, I put this to you, if having two gay people in a marriage is such a threat to the family model, what do you say to de facto parents who aren't married, or divorced parents? They aren't the Mother + Father + Children family, are they? So there seems to be only two ways out of this:


Allow gay people to marry, or
Ban people who aren't married from having children.


BOO! HISS! What a heretic! Yes, I suppose we could ban marriage altogether, but... wait that's a damned good idea.

Yes, I got that, but that doesn't mean non-Christians or even Christians who disagree with the Church's position must be forced to abide by a law based on that. I'm sure none of us want a Christian version of the Taliban. If you outlaw homosexuality you're basically telling a large portion of the population that it's illegal for them to be alive

We're not saying that. Obviously there is no way to control how people think (no way to stop homosexual thought) but we can illegalise the marriage and stop the practise. The reason we think that people who dont aggre with the church should aggre with this, is that said people aggree with the rest of the moral arguements of the church. Picking and chosing seems kind of hypocrytical.

Or are you suggesting that the UN should also pass a resolution forbidding hair cuts based on moral grounds?

Of course not, read the old testement again, and the new. Jesus says he will remove the ritualistic law but the moral law remains.

You cannot connect the law of getting a hair cut to that of no homosexuality, this law of hair cut is NOT moral law. This meaning what is right and wrong. Hair cuts was a discipline just as each modern diociese in the modern church has diffrent fasting laws etc. etc. The bible clearly states in serval section leviticus, romans.. (will come up with exact quotes if necessary). Now homosexuality is told as being evil and against the moral law which is what is right and wrong. Now if God is aboce society and he dictates pour laws would not his laws be above our society? Therefor we cannot dictate god and evil from our society.

You cannot connect the law of getting a hair cut to that of no homosexuality, this law of hair cut is NOT moral law. This meaning what is right and wrong. Hair cuts was a discipline just as each modern diociese in the modern church has diffrent fasting laws etc. etc. The bible clearly states in serval section leviticus, romans.. (will come up with exact quotes if necessary). Now homosexuality is told as being evil and against the moral law which is what is right and wrong. Now if God is aboce society and he dictates pour laws would not his laws be above our society? Therefor we cannot dictate god and evil from our society.

Wait, so you are saying that although Leviticus 19:27 said:

"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip the edges of your beard."

That Jesus or somebody else changed their mind, and "amendend" this holy law? That the law was a mistake or a joke?

I'm sorry, but if Leviticus 19:27 is wrong or does not mean it is going to be a sin to cut your hair, then it stands to reason that the rest of Leviticus may also be called into question.

Frankly there are a lot of things in Leviticus that I see modern day Christians violating all the time:


Hair cuts (19:27)
Eating Sushi (19:26)
Wearing Polyester and blended fabrics (19:19)
Planting fields with two kinds of seed (19:19)
Getting Tatoos (19:28)
Not issuing divers licenses / ID cards to illegal immigrants! (19:34)
Eating an apple or organe from a new tree (19:23)


I could easily go on ... but my point is that Leviticus was nothing more than a set of rules and regulations designed for early Hebrews. At the time these rules made since to the Hebrew people. That is fine. There are still some Jewish and Christian (and perhaps Muslim) people who still follow the above rules. That is fine too.

But since obviously many laws in Leviticus are not practiced by modern socities, my government does not recognize that just because something comes from an obviously "broken" or "mistaken" book that it must be morally correct. If there is a good international justification why this human right should be denied on moral grounds, that justification will have to come from grounds that are not already compromised.

There was a group during Jesus' time, in the scope of the New Testament, who operated under many of the same principles and views as these modern day (I hate to use the word) "christians"..... They were called Pharisees, and we see how much Jesus liked their entire operation.

Of course, it could easily be brought into question if many of these "christians" even believe in this "god" of theirs, as he presents himself in their bible.

1. Did "The Fall" happen in accordance with God's will?
2. Does secular human government operate by God's will?
3. Are secular rulers agents of God's will?

If you believe, absolutely, in your bible, your answer to all of the following would be yes.

Within the scope of the Bible, even Satan operates within the scope and confines of the will of God. Therefore it is certain, within the context, that nothing happens without God willing it to be so.... which even extends to the passing and operation of a NSUN Resolution saying homosexual marriage is to be recognized in all member nations.

That's the problem with most of you so-called "christians"... you don't actually believe in God.... you've drafted some "god" idol from certain aspects you like, and rejected other aspects, and then worship that idol of your own ideas and thoughts, as opposed to the truth of the one presented in the Bible. If you actually believed in the God of the Bible, I might have some respect, but every time you open your mouthes, you proove to be no more then idolators, ranting over aspects of some self-formulated idol you worship.

Of course not, read the old testement again, and the new. Jesus says he will remove the ritualistic law but the moral law remains.

Unless Jesus said which laws are good and which ones are bad, who decides what is in and what is out?

Essentially you are saying that God and Jesus changed his mind. That he admitted that the stuff written in the Old Testement was wrong and not necessary.

Guess what?

A lot of time has passed since the New Testement was written too. Perhaps Jesus and God really aren't going to turn people into pillars of salt for ignoring other laws that don't make sense either ... afterall, they've changed their minds before.

The codes of Leviticus that I quoted did make pratical sense. They aren't ritualist codes, they (like the sexuality laws) were social and health standards.

Let's look at a few:

Leviticus 19:26
"Do not eat any meat with blood still in it."

This is not a ritual. It is a health code.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/jun99/929555302.Mi.r.html

Pork was one of the first foods with a scientifically identified foodborne pathogen. Over 150 years ago, trichina (Trichinella spiralis), a nematode, was identified as the cause of death of a woman in Germany (Trichinae is the plural of trichina, similar to "a cactus" or "two cacti").

But even thousands of years ago people observed that eating raw meat, lead to health problems. People, needing the guiding hand of government needed a set of rules. Before government enjoyed the cooperative status we share with our citizens today, laws and rules were passed down in religious based arguments ...

So in order to save lives, "God" told the Hebrews to just stop eating raw meat.

And it worked.

Let's look at some more of Leviticus and the "pig":

Leviticus 11:7
"And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you."

This made since too.

I don't believe your nation participated in the debates on the ban on whaling (which passed back in August here), but part of the justification for banning whaling isn't to protect whales, but rather to protect human beings. Whales are bioaccumulators. Their blubber (which actually has health benefits for humans under normal conditions) sorts many toxic chemicals.

If we found that government laws today were ignored, perhaps a lecture from "God" saying, "And the whale, though it swims in the sea, does not chew or select its dinner; it is unclean for you." might save some human lives.

Pigs will eat anything! Whatever you feed the pig, you eat too. And while the cause for concern here (BTW sausage is a major delicacy in the Confederated City States ... it goes great with beer), the law is more a warning to preparing and raising a pig.

Pigs are hard to care for if you plan to supply a mobile society. They require well designed slaughter houses and generate considerable waste products.

This doesn't mean that with good farming practices (which today are much better than what we had at our disposal thousands of years ago) that pigs shouldn't be farmed and ground into sausage. But it is accepted in the agricultural and medical communities that the laws of Leviticus about pigs were not rituals, but health and economic laws. Had the Hebrews not been moving from Egypt to Israel, there may not have been a need to take the pig off the lunch menu. But if your society is nomadic, a pig is messy, takes a long time to prepare safely, and honestly doesn't herd nearly as well as say a cow.

I think it is important to understand the social, economic, and political reasons why Leviticus came about.

We honestly dont know how much of the world is and isnt God's will. It was god's will to give us free will and so therefore you can't say exactly what is and isnt God's will. Obviously you can say "God wouldnt want this" in terms of bad things, murders, rapes etc. But as for what God wants and God's will, these are diffrent things. God wants everyone to be saved BUT we're not all Christians.

And If you reed Leviticus carefully, you will see that there are distinctions between moral law and ritualistic law. When Jesus said he was the last sacrifice, then that was refering to all the ritualistic law.His death meant we no longer need to appease God through ritual, merely through faith and following his commands. Homosexuality is part of the moral law. It hasnt gone. It is a sin and remains so. If NSUN accepts all the other moral codes of the Bible then it should accept this one.

We honestly dont know how much of the world is and isnt God's will.

Funny, your bible says otherwise..... (note Ephesians 1:11, or Daniel 4:35). Even your buddy Job seemed to understand this concept in his interpretation of the events occuring around and to himself, good and bad.

Even among some of the most powerful speakers within the Christian world seem to understand this basic principle....

Dr. Art Katz, a well known Messanic Jew, "Our traditional concept of God and the trust and faith that we had in Him was dealt such a deathblow in the Holocaust that it is questionable whether or not we have recovered from it. It is either that there was no God, or God was so profoundly present that to understand the contradiction and to burrow in to learn it, is to end up with a revelation of God beyond the way in which we have previously understood Him." His views regarding the meaning and purpose of the Holocaust would probably have him labled as anti-semetic, if he were not himself Jewish.

Or how about Arthur W. Pink? "How different is the God of the Bible from the God of modern Christendom! The conception of Deity which prevails most widely today, even among those who profess to give heed to the Scriptures, is a miserable caricature, a blasphemous travesty of the Truth. The God of the twentieth century is a helpless, effeminate being who commands the respect of no really thoughtful man. The God of the popular mind is the creation of maudlin sentimentality. The God of many a present-day pulpit is an object of pity rather than of awe-inspiring reverence." He seemed to really understand the problems of modern so-called christendom as it had formulated itself over the years.

My dear sir, is it possible to know the will of God in an event? Most certainly, if something happened, in happened in accordance with the will of God, the will of the one who claims sovereignty over the entire universe. That is the God presented in the Bible, and to believe less, is to believe not in that expressed God.

Yes it is true that everything is doen through the will of God but I do hope you are not useing this as a way to defend homosexuality! Just because something such as a homosexual rewlation ship can exist doesw not mean it is good in the eyes of God. Point of example is that murders exist and yet it is not the will of God that they kill people! Or gangs God does not condon anything lie this yet it exists! But God does give reasons for the existanec of homosexuality please read romans one which will explain how and why it happens.

It is quite clear that the U.N needs a clear resolution defining the separation of church and state. Not only to keep religion out of government, but to stop the interference of government in church doctrines or ceremonies.
Just look what the government is doing with gay marriage, we all know that most religions think homosexuality is wrong, not all of us agree, but it’s just one of those things that you have to agree to disagree about. So if I were gay, which I am, I would participate in a religious group that was accepting of me instead of trying to force another group through my government to change their doctrines.
Marriage has been and always will be a religious ceremony there is no way of arguing around it, this has been going on for thousands of years. There is no need for a government to be involved in any marriage; it’s a religious ceremony. If I wanted to get married I would do it through a religious group that accepted me and not my government.
The point I am getting at is that this amendment will work for both religion and government. Religious laws will not be changed and government will not be changed by religion, plain and simple.
Now don’t get me wrong, I would like the same protection and benefits as straight couples, so our governments should just issue civil unions with the same protection and benefits for everyone, government has no place in the marriage business.
Separation of church and state is about tolerance, that all religions are created equal in the eyes of the government. This law will protect those who do worship a higher power by keeping government out of church law and it will protect us all from religious discrimination in our government.

Pass this resolution!

Yes it is true that everything is doen through the will of God but I do hope you are not useing this as a way to defend homosexuality! Just because something such as a homosexual rewlation ship can exist doesw not mean it is good in the eyes of God. Point of example is that murders exist and yet it is not the will of God that they kill people! Or gangs God does not condon anything lie this yet it exists! But God does give reasons for the existanec of homosexuality please read romans one which will explain how and why it happens.

I'm not defending anything, but the pure pervue of human government in this matter.

Your interpretation of God's law does not matter in this case. Romans is meaningless in this case... Because through it all, it gives ZERO justification to your positional stance, and the direction of your ideals.

No where in the context of the New Covenant, was the church given the right, or authority to force morality on unbelievers.... In fact such only happens when christendom in general has abandoned its soul responsibility, a responsibility which people like yourself have even abandoned, because, while claiming to abide by God's laws, and will, you in fact MOCK them.... Pharisees, the whole lot of you.. doomed by your own petty self-deception, worshiping idols of your own formation....

Why remove the "gay rights" ? hmmm? because it allows homosexual marriage? Is that the reason?

Let me ask you.... why are their marriage laws in the first place? Do you have marriage laws in accordance with scripture? You'ld have to answer no to that, wouldn't you.... there are no biblical marriage laws, not formulation of state or church run ceremonializing of the system of marriage, all of it is a man-made invension, created for the purpose of overlording upon the institution, in an unauthorized manner by secular government and churches of antichrist. Your nation has no marriage, your nation has some pathetic instution your pathetic nation has redefined as marriage within the scope of the foolish and ignorant mentality your people have developed through your own failed and miserable rulership... as you slowly drag your entire society down with you.

Not one single self-labled and self-decieved christian, purporting their ignorant and foolish views has even rightly given the absolute truthful definition of marriage.... you wish to legislate upon the term, but in reality have no clue what-so-ever in WHAT MARRIAGE IS. In the absolute truth, no earthly government, nor religious institution, can have any control what-so-ever over marriage.... all your laws are nothing but hot-air... The sad thing is, most of the gay-rights people know far more about WHAT MARRIAGE IS then any of the so-called self-proclaimed christians do.... their definitions have been far closer to the principle of the concept then anything that has come out of the mouthes of the so-called christians in this room...

As it still stands, The Constitutional Republic of Tekania has no marriage laws, the entire idea of marriage laws is an adverse and perverted distortion of free government.... And we would not support the repeal of any sort, unless first resolution is passed forbidding NSUN member nations from legislating upon the issue of marriage... PERIOD.... Marriage only exists in context of those party to its institution as such, and are not within the authority or pervue of ANYBODY outside of them, whether they be secular government, religious government or general society...

I was not the one who brought up the bible and it is not my interpretation it is the intrepretation! Anyway we cn see through logical reasoning that homosexuality is not good considering it does not have an objective end.

In all honesty can anyone give me a REAL reason why to make this whole thing illegal? Everyone says itll mess up society, and degrade morals and stuff, but, can anyone give me a REAL example, a real way this can actually happen? And, for all those people that say that they should stop homosexuals from essentially any actions, why. If you love everyone so much, why not let them condemn themself to hell or whatever bs you believe in. They arent hurting you or anyone else, that is unless you can actually give me a REAL way this is happening. And, those who argue against it on the basis that it doesnt have a productive end, there are so many things that dont have productive ends, should we ban those too?

I was not the one who brought up the bible and it is not my interpretation it is the intrepretation! Anyway we cn see through logical reasoning that homosexuality is not good considering it does not have an objective end.

"objective end" that's nice, of course, how does it not have an "objective end" ? That's what seems to be lacking.

And of course it is YOUR interpretation...

As the president of The Domion of Landshut, I agree that we should repeal the gays and lesbians. However, it is also good to let them marry each other, which in other words, allow gay marriages because that's one of the way to make them live their lives happier. Gay Marriages are connected to gay rights, therefore they should not be banned and I assure you that it won't cost any damage to the society.
-The President of The Domion of Landshut

I was not the one who brought up the bible and it is not my interpretation it is the intrepretation! Anyway we cn see through logical reasoning that homosexuality is not good considering it does not have an objective end.

So everything which in your eyes has no objective end should be banned?

An objective end would be reproduction and haveing children. I was jusr showing thrpugh reason why it isnt right.

cool... that's a great argument! let me follow you down on that line... only a productive marriage is a good marriage! act now! stop these damn elderly from marrying - they won't produce offspring anymore anyway! introduce mandatory fertitlity tests on every person applying for a marriage license so that we'll not have any barren people marrying! make signing a paper that includes vows to have at least one child within the first five years of marriage a mandatory part of the marriage contract!

[ man that's about the most stupid argument i've ever seen]

who ever repeals this proposal is most likely an ignorant fool. morality should be seperated from govern. If religious groups do not approve or accept gay marriage they can create their god damn cult somewhere else.

haha thats a great argument i wish i had thought of it..... Well all these relationships are sorry to tell you naturally occuring whereas homosexuality no matter what does not have an objective end no matter how you look at it. which is their fault becuase a guy and a guy sorry aint gonna happned. Whereas 2 oild people cannot have it because of natural circumstances homosexuality is unatural and against the natural law. (which is differentiating good from evil useing reason)

who ever repeals this proposal is most likely an ignorant fool. morality should be seperated from govern. If religious groups do not approve or accept gay marriage they can create their god damn cult somewhere else.
so u r saying to protect a select few you are willing to persecute other because they believe somethig is morally wrong?? they dont even hate homosexuals they just disagree with their behavior. AH THE TOLERANCE IS SO GREAT!

An objective end would be reproduction and haveing children. I was jusr showing thrpugh reason why it isnt right.

So reproduction is the only valid objective end of marriage? Better watch out how you answer this..... Logic is just around the corner getting ready to devistate your entire argument....

Thats not what i said but one of the thigns of being married is haveing children. and this because of the type of relationship homosexuals cannot do. And if thy adopt did you know 23% of their kids become suicidal

cool... that's a great argument! let me follow you down on that line... only a productive marriage is a good marriage! act now! stop these damn elderly from marrying - they won't produce offspring anymore anyway! introduce mandatory fertitlity tests on every person applying for a marriage license so that we'll not have any barren people marrying! make signing a paper that includes vows to have at least one child within the first five years of marriage a mandatory part of the marriage contract!

[ man that's about the most stupid argument i've ever seen]

Ahhh he beat me too it.....

But more or less right, anyone past their reproductive age have no objective end for marriage. Also, people who have certain handicaps, such as turner's syndrome (45, X0), klinefelter's syndrome (47, XXY), Sandberg's syndrome (47, XYY), and of course Tripple-X (47,XXX)... .all which failing or completely non-function reproductive system... so I guess they have no "objective end" for marriage.

If "reproduction" is the only possible valid "objective end" for marriage, you've got a sad and pathetic life... and in fact, if that was your only goal for marriage, your marriage isn't a marriage.

Marriage's preliminary and purposeful design is for companionship, not reproduction.... and don't believe me, God told you that, you just choose to ignore him, since you think you know better than He does, of-portugal. So in my book any marriage (from old-english nautical terminology, used to describe the permanate binding in union of two ropes... developed from an old-french word of similar type), aka the permanate union of two individuals, that is for purpose of life-long companionship..... is marriage... any goal other than that.... as the primary motivational force.... is no marriage....

please see my previous on this subject instead of spaming

You still have as yet yo establish "reproduction" as a reason....

Unless you can provide proof that reproduction is "the objective end" of marriage.... you should simply shut up...

I hope you know, of-portugal, that we can see right through you...

Thats not what i said but one of the thigns of being married is haveing children. and this because of the type of relationship homosexuals cannot do. And if thy adopt did you know 23% of their kids become suicidal

Numbers pulled from your ass don't make good argument.

woah where did u get xray vision i wish i could see through stuff that would be awesome! Anywho when you think about human beings as a species the only point of marriage is reproduction cause 150 yrs from now who is gonna care if you loved your spose but they will remember your achievements and that of your children. But being a FAG kinda ends your story with you. And that fact was stated on fux new and abc news.

And if thy adopt did you know 23% of their kids become suicidal

I suggest you back this up.

Thats not what i said but one of the thigns of being married is haveing children. and this because of the type of relationship homosexuals cannot do. And if thy adopt did you know 23% of their kids become suicidal

Assuming the number is this high (and whilst there are numbers floating around, but 23% appears to be pulled from nothingness), and has ever been documented it is probably because of the taunting and descrimination of homophobes rather than any reflection on the step-parents.

You want a resason beyond religion. Ok, as if my religous arguements for the morals of marriage arent enough read this link

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

And DONT reply till you have

You want a resason beyond religion. Ok, as if my religous arguements for the morals of marriage arent enough read this link

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

And DONT reply till you have

It's STILL not a reason.

The issue still is, what RIGHT do you have to interfere with what two consenting adults do together? You have none, and that is what the issue is here... You were never given the right to interfere with contratual bonds two consenting persons enter into together.... never.... you STOLE that from the people.... It was a theft..... I could care less who decides to contract with who, if people decide to bungee jump, sky-dive, surf during huricanes.... it's none of my concern, they are adults, and its the choice they made, consequences are theirs.... so its a societal non-issue.

That site could just as easily be slapped onto us heterosexuals as well, promiscuty has been on the rise.... Even before any homosexual issues were raised...

You want a resason beyond religion. Ok, as if my religous arguements for the morals of marriage arent enough read this link

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

And DONT reply till you have

Cute, a document that warns against promiscuity. But what does it have to do with the question of whether 2 men or 2 women should be allowed to marry?

If you are going to start on the potential health issues for homosexuality, you'll also have to ban smoking outright - both are personal choices which cause increased health risks. Perhaps we should forbid smoking? Alcohol has potential health risks too....so does salmon?

We can only go so far in avoiding health risks for individuals; otherwise it is the responsibility of the individual. We can make sure that the information on the risks is available, but we still have to allow individuals the freedom of expression...

Most of the evidence used by your source is comparatively ancient (1978). The culture of sleeping around has widely reduced....(besides that, married homosexuals are not going to be as promiscuous anyway...so if anything being married and gay is a better thing than being single and gay anyway)...as for the anal sex risks....I don't think it matters if it's a man or a woman on the receiving end, TBH.

As for the drug tasking risks and mental issues... I'll continue to state that homosexuals are exposed to prejudice, resulting in stigma, hostility, and hatred, which understandably can push them to a higher level of isolation, runaway behaviour, homelessness, domestic violence, depression, suicide, violent victimization, substance abuse, and school or job failure than heterosexual youth. The problem on this particular front is not the individuals; it is the homophobia that pervades society.

An objective end would be reproduction and haveing children. I was jusr showing thrpugh reason why it isnt right.

Guess what? That was true hundreds of years ago, but two things have changed since then:

1. The human population shows no signs of decreasing, and yet the population growth rate is considered by many to have reached dangerous levels.

2. Even if the human population growth rate were to change, homosexual couples are still capable of having children, just the same way single parents have children.

The point of early societies discouraging homosexuality was as you suggested, a government plan to increase population growth. Having a small population means you a lesser ability to protect your society from a larger population. But let me ask you, do you really think that the UN is going to allow some nation to walk in and kill all of your people today? In fact, by using "IGNORE" cannons alone, you can protect your country without having to be concerned about having baby factories.

It's STILL not a reason.

That site could just as easily be slapped onto us heterosexuals as well, promiscuty has been on the rise.... Even before any homosexual issues were raised...

If you think that the site could have been 'slapped onto' hetrosexual relations, you should read it again. It doesnt just warn about promiscuty. I did say READ IT before you responded, you clearly havent. Homosexual sex is significently more dangerous to health than hetrosexual sex. And beleive it or not GOD has every right to dictate what we can and cannot do, since he created us.

If you think that the site could have been 'slapped onto' hetrosexual relations, you should read it again. It doesnt just warn about promiscuty. I did say READ IT before you responded, you clearly havent. Homosexual sex is significently more dangerous to health than hetrosexual sex. And beleive it or not GOD has every right to dictate what we can and cannot do, since he created us.

Perhaps you should quote from the site what passages you feel are relevant.

As for your final statement, it may be that your government acknolwedges the existence of a supreme being (other than the "Mods"), but many of our governments are secular, meaning there is a separation of church and state. This of course means, telling us that some old beared man floating on a cloud says so, is not necessarily the most convincing argument you can put forward to the rest of us. (Of course if you were to start swearing that:

"And elieve it or not MOD has every right to dictate whate we can and cannot do, since they manage us."

I think you'll find that more nations will be willing to accept your arguments. (Not mine of course. For my people consider the Mods to be "brutal, cruel, and dark". "MOD" should be treated with great care and every effort to keep "MOD" busy with pointless debates on the most trivial matters is a wise course to follow when you really want to do something else, someplace other than in plain sight! ;)

Guess what? That was true hundreds of years ago, but two things have changed since then:

1. The human population shows no signs of decreasing, and yet the population growth rate is considered by many to have reached dangerous levels.

2. Even if the human population growth rate were to change, homosexual couples are still capable of having children, just the same way single parents have children.

The point of early societies discouraging homosexuality was as you suggested, a government plan to increase population growth. Having a small population means you a lesser ability to protect your society from a larger population. But let me ask you, do you really think that the UN is going to allow some nation to walk in and kill all of your people today? In fact, by using "IGNORE" cannons alone, you can protect your country without having to be concerned about having baby factories.

Actually the Romans suporte homosexuality, and look what heppened to them. Anyway you number one answer is well first of all not true, and alsop is not backed by facts and shows your ignorance. Go to any web site that shows the birth rate of any european country almost every one has 1.3 or less and guess what thats a negative birth rate. And the point of earlier societies disallowing homosexuality was because its wrong. sorry to tell you morals dont change along with the opinion of society.

sorry to tell you morals dont change along with the opinion of society.

Well, actually they do and they're subjective. In some Arab societies, a woman who has been raped must be killed by a male family member to safeguard the family's honour. To us it's morally wrong, to them it's a moral obligation.

Actually the Romans suporte homosexuality, and look what heppened to them. Anyway you number one answer is well first of all not true, and alsop is not backed by facts and shows your ignorance. Go to any web site that shows the birth rate of any european country almost every one has 1.3 or less and guess what thats a negative birth rate.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Roman empire fell because they accepted gays?

Of course many European countries have low birthrates, because they have highly developed economies. Do you know what the 4-stage population model is? Basically it says that developing countries have higher birthrates than developed countries due to the differences in their economies. Developed economies have low birthrates because women there have generally higher social status, they have jobs and careers, and so have less children because they devote time to their jobs. In undeveloped economies, most women have lower status and spend most of their time taking care of children, thus they have more children as they are less likely to use contraceptives, and less likely to plan their families, and don't have the power to tell their husband, "No, I don't want to have kids."

In Europe, birthrates may be low, but globally the population is growing exponentially and this is especially a problem because most of these births, for reasons above, occur in undeveloped countries which are more likely to have food and water supply problems, poor healthcare, etc. Look at any graph of world population. In 1804 there were 1 billion people. In 1927, 2 billion. It took 33 years to get to 3 billion, 14 more to get to 4 billion, 13 to get to 5 billion in 1987. We hit 6 billion in 1999 - 12 years. See a pattern here?

Actually the Romans suporte homosexuality, and look what heppened to them.

That is like saying that the Romans also wore skirts "so look what happened to them".

If you are going to through out ideas like that, many of us would appreciate it if you tried to explain your points.

Anyway you number one answer is well first of all not true, and alsop is not backed by facts and shows your ignorance. Go to any web site that shows the birth rate of any european country almost every one has 1.3 or less and guess what thats a negative birth rate. And the point of earlier societies disallowing homosexuality was because its wrong. sorry to tell you morals dont change along with the opinion of society.

What is alsop? I'm having a very hard time understanding you.

I'd be happy to provide evidence of population growth rates in "industrialized" nations, but let's just say that in the "real world" I'm pretty involved in some state-wide water planning decisions for the state of California, which is estimating that its current population fo 35 million people will grow past the 50 million mark in most of our lifetimes. Easily.

California is most certainly a "first world" state.

Morals do change with the opinion of society. The reason they are called morals is because they are social values / opinions. Opinions, unlike facts can in fact change.

But let's deal with your first misleading statement ... the notion that the global population is not growing.

http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/Human_Population/Population_Growth/Population_Growth.htm

That nifty graph clearly shows no global decrease in population in the past 250 years. It also clearly estimates the global population (which is currently around 6 billion) as growing another 2 billion in the next 45 years!

That is an amazing growth rate.

Couple this is the fact that most of the world's resources are being consumed by an ever decreasing percentage (not population, but relative population), if I were in a first world nation, I'd be very worried what these new masses will think about that.

In fact, if my nation was a third world nation, I'd be more than happy to take a book like the Koran and encourage my citizens to "be fruitful and multiple". But if I were in a small European nation and in currently importing resources to meet current consumption, I'd be doing two things: advocating population growth measures (perhaps through family planning) and spending money to promote different programs targeted towards the less affluent nations that I don't want consuming my resources.

Most first world economists fear what should happen if India or China were to achieve a standard of living approaching that of which the average American enjoys. The fear is based on the opinion that if China were to consume that same amount of gasoline or energy as the United States, that the global market prices would be driven so high that many poorer Americans would be less able to afford things like cheap prices at the pumps.

Any European will tell you that their petrol is already much more expensive than what Americans pay, and it doesn't take a holy book to figure out that if the US were to consume less of the limited supply of oil that the global costs would decrease.

You'll no doubt talk about declining birth rates in Europe. Guess what, some US states have declining population rates, but many other US states (California, Florida, Texas, and IIRC Colorado) have population growth rates (which take into account net immigration) that are quickly outpacing these other states.

Why does it matter to state this? Because like any environmental problem, population pressures in one region impact resource consumption and the quality of the environment in another region.

The Chinese figured this out, and instituted a one-child per family policy.

Anyway, if you would do studies on Thomas Malthus, you'll find that the idea of population growth rates and their determental impacts on economies and quality of life are quiet old in fact. This is also why you see organizations like the real world UN taking such an interest in this topic.

The Bible is dated. Somebody here already admitted that Jesus and God were wrong. That the Old Testment was mistaken in places. That means they changed their minds. Now if you don't want to change your mind, perhaps you should consider the fact that they did and that you are supposed to be a world leader, that perhaps if you want your people to live quality lives, that maybe some of the other concepts you grew up with are also outdated.

I'll leave you all with this. My Real-Life grandparents were / are racists and sexists. Now my parents dealt with this by keeping some distance from my grandparents, and somewhat isolating myself and brother and sister from them. Oh, they were active in our lives and were wonderful people ... but some of the things they learned were just plain wrong.

For example, one of my grandmothers (who recently has open heart surgery) claimed that she didn't want a blackman's heart, because it wouldn't work in her body. Now that is just plain stupid. But here is the thing, both my grandmothers know I went to graduate school and have a pretty good understanding of many things ... and when I assured her that the color of somebody's skin is not going to impact the quality of their organs, she responded, "Well, it is just hard to unlearn that which you were taught."

She is right about that. I have never expected my grandmothers to be comfortable with the 1980s let alone the 2000s. But as racist and sexist as they are at times (and honestly though wrong, I do know enough about the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s to understand where their fears come from), they both realize that often their morals aren't based on science or on fact, but are really hazardous.

The irony in my grandmother's case is she is and will spend the rest of her life in and out of hospitals (her health is very poor). And many of her nurses are not "Polish" (which makes them questionable in her world). Her ability to adapt and survive will ultimately lie in her ability to keep an open mind. And thankfully the rest of my family will be around to politely remind her of this.

I've met many Christians ... and while some of them are very closed minded, I've also met many open minded Christians. There is a reason why many US churches are debating the merits of allowing gay priests ... and the people on either side of the argument have as much faith as the others. But this was not something openly discussed in the past, and I can promise you that barring the end of civilization, that with each generation the closed-minded homophobic camp is going to progressively get smaller (even in extremely religions). And here is why? One of the reasons that the United States was able to really combat racism and sexism in the 20th century is that minorities and women were called upon during the second world war and actually proved themselves. I've watched my father, a US Marine Corps Colonel, come down really hard on racists, and the way he explains it to them is, "In combat, you all bleed the same. You work as a team, or you die."

It is not a coincidence that the first US state to allow women the right to vote was Wyoming. In ranch communities (oh I should add that I actually did live in Wyoming for a while) women and men work equally hard. In some families women did the same exact jobs. In any event, women long ago proved that they are in every respect equals, and that "moral" traditions related to old patricaries were dated and actually HURT communities.

Actually the Romans suporte homosexuality, and look what heppened to them.

I'll take Roman Empires for 500 Alan.
What formerly outlawed religious cult became publically accepted shortly before the fall of the Roman Empire?

Anyway you number one answer is well first of all not true, and alsop is not backed by facts and shows your ignorance. Go to any web site that shows the birth rate of any european country almost every one has 1.3 or less and guess what thats a negative birth rate.

Are you suggesting that homosexuals, and homosexuals alone, are responsible for the declining birthrate in Western countries?
And that allowing them to marry will somehow speed up this decline even further?

And the point of earlier societies disallowing homosexuality was because its wrong. sorry to tell you morals dont change along with the opinion of society.

Apparently, like the construction of the pyramids and Stonehenge, this reasoning was lost in the endless mists of antiquity.

Actually the Romans suporte homosexuality, and look what heppened to them.

Thats just as accurate and informed and detailed as response as me saying "The Nazi's didn't support homosexuality and look what happened to them"

Besides, I thought that was more the Greeks anyway...

Thats just as accurate and informed and detailed as response as me saying "The Nazi's didn't support homosexuality and look what happened to them"

Not to mention the Romans lasted quite a bit longer.

Homosexual marriage simpley devalues marriage. It is a union of LOVE between a MAN AND A WOMEN. (note the highlighted parts here, these are what homosexual relationships lack). And morals do not change. If they did then whats the point of having them in the first place. "Ok this is wrong now but in two hundrued years it will be ok..." so whats the point of saying its wrong now. Morals for purely moral reasons (and not practical ones) do not change.

And morals do not change. If they did then whats the point of having them in the first place. "Ok this is wrong now but in two hundrued years it will be ok..." so whats the point of saying its wrong now. Morals for purely moral reasons (and not practical ones) do not change.

So what you are saying then, is since slavery was condoned in biblical times, that it is OK today. So my question to you is, are you a slave or slave owner? Obviously you have no problem with the concept of ownership of another human being because according to you MORAL VALUES never change.

And what are your feelings on the NS UN resolution banning slavery? Does this offend you?

Now that I've offended you by pointing out how monsterous the idea that morality doesn't evolve is, to answer your question: the point of morals is exactly what the NS UN category would suggest. Moral laws, are social agreements. They are designed to take away some rights, in order to give or protect other rights.

Take the four moral decency resolutions the NS UN has debated in the past two years:

Outlaw Pedophilia
No Marriage Under Age of 15
Good Samaritan Laws
Epidemic Prevention Protocol

The second resolution actually failed, though not by a significant margin. I think my government's amendment to that resolution would actually pass the UN.

In any event, each of these resolutions proposed a restrict on civil rights. Why? In the case of pedophilia, the justification was to protect the rights of people whom simply don't have the life experience necessary to say, "No". The marriage laws actually was the same basic idea again. The next two resolutions seeked to restrict the ability to engage in frivalous (sp?) law suits and on restrictions to the right to travel across international borders. The basic ideas in both cases were, "Your ability to do something will impede other people's ability to live save lives ... so if we put a slight restriction on that behavior or ability, we are more likely to live safe lives."

But let's now talk about "time" and how social views change. The idea of outlawing marriage for people under 15 is something that would have meant very few marriages in biblical times. People died young and married young 2,000 years ago.

The concept that a 15-year old is a child is something of a modern custom, and had we taken the no marriage under age of 15 or pedophilia resolutions back in time, we'd have been laughed at for having too high a standard.

In fact, it was the 15-year old limit in the second Moral Decency resolution that really resulted it its failure. If you'll go back and read the UN debates again (I'm assuming you read them the first time), you'll see that the opposition to the law was that it was too specific. This suggests that morals aren't always the same. Socities have different standards. Why is this? The answer is simple, they've all evolved differently and changed over time.

Now let's look at the Good Samaritan Laws resolution. The name "Samaritan" means one from Samaria. Most Christian scholars will be able to tell you that the popular use of "Good Samaritan" actually comes from the New Testement Book of Luke, where Luke describes the dislike between Jews and Samaritans. The reason for the dislike, is both socities claimed to be from Israel. Anyway, the story as told by Jesus, a Jew, was that a man was beaten and left for dead. Three men approached the dying man, one a teacher, one a priest, and one a stranger (neighbor) from Samaria. The teacher and priest avoided helping the wounded man. The Samarian stopped and helped the man.

The point of the story was that the Samarian, the man least likely to help the wounded man because of the hatred between Jews and Samarians, put aside his own moral beliefs (i.e. the rightousness of the hatred between their peoples) and helped his neighbor because he could.

A law advocating that adoption of similar ideals is a moral law, without a doubt. It is based on the concept that the needs of the wounded certainly take a greater importance than the time that the priest and teacher would have lost had they stopped to help the wounded man.

But what is most interesting about this story, isn't really the fact that there is a "Good Samaritan", but rather that the teacher and priest are not labeled as being "Evil" or "Immoral". In fact, it is very telling that by the time that Luke was retelling this story, that Christianity's own moral values had moved to a point to where focusing on a positive role model was in this case more important than extending the story to also talk about the negative actions of the other two men.

I think this suggests that the concepts of right and wrong actually do depend greatly upon the situation and setting.

That said, my government considered the taking away of a group of people's civil liberties a very serious matter. When it comes to making a moral decision to take away one group's civil liberties, while granting those same liberties to other groups, this is by definition a predijuced behavior and my government considers such actions unwarranted when specific groups are targeted ... I'd go as far to say that this is in fact an immoral action on the behalf of a sheppard or government, and would warn nations against promoting discriminatory practices when there is no common benefit.

I support this, but only for one reason: It has encouraged discussion. Beyond that, I find the possibilities of abuse this would bring to be repugnant and something that even my corrupt and abusive government cannot support. And if you look at my nation, you'll be surprised at me saying that.

Also, about changing the definition of marriage:

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

Gotta love Merriam-Webster Online.

And beleive it or not GOD has every right to dictate what we can and cannot do, since he created us.

Okay, since you don't seem to get the point despite my constant hammering... NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES IN GOD, AND NOT EVERYONE WHO DOES BELIEVE IN GOD BELIEVE IN CREATION. Therefore, you have no right to make a law on the basis that "God said so." Thank you. Anyway, I asked God last night and He seemed okay with gay marriage.

If you think that the site could have been 'slapped onto' hetrosexual relations, you should read it again. It doesnt just warn about promiscuty. I did say READ IT before you responded, you clearly havent. Homosexual sex is significently more dangerous to health than hetrosexual sex. And beleive it or not GOD has every right to dictate what we can and cannot do, since he created us.

Prove that your god exists, either in this world or in a supernatural world, and then maybe, just maybe, you'll have a point.

Prove that your god exists, either in this world or in a supernatural world, and then maybe, just maybe, you'll have a point.
Maybe you should prove that He doesn't exist.

I would think the burden of proof is on the side arguing that God exists because one, that is one of the points for the resolution, and two, given our current state of scientific knowledge, supernatural explanations are superfluous to explaining why volcanoes erupt, why ice floats, etc.

Homosexual marriage simpley devalues marriage.

Why?

It is a union of LOVE between a MAN AND A WOMEN.

Why?

(note the highlighted parts here, these are what homosexual relationships lack).

Why?

Maybe you should prove that He doesn't exist.

Is that your way of saying that you cannot prove He excists, perhaps even that you doubt His excistence, and that 'God says so' is the only argument you can come up with?

Maybe you should prove that He doesn't exist.

If we used the ridiculous standard for proof which you just suggested, we would have to assume that leprechauns, fairys, unicorns and the Greek and Roman gods were real until they could be disproved. No one could ever decide on what to believe if this was the case.

Therefore, the burden of proof lies on the one who makes the claim that something exists.

Yet somehow, that point always goes over their heads.

Maybe you should prove that He doesn't exist.

Irrelevant ... that nation isn't justifying its decisions based on "God". The other one is.

Think about this from a rational stand point ... if I were to come and quote to you a bunch of figures and "rules", you'd ask me where I got them. If I told you that my "Dog" told me, you'd likely laugh. But if I insisted that my "Dog" is in fact a very trusted source, you might ask to see proof that my "Dog"'s advise is worth listening to. Since I'm asking you to change your mind to follow my Dog, the burden of proof is my task. It isn't up to you to prove or disprove that my dog is in fact brilliant and humane and all-knowing.

Irrelevant ... that nation isn't justifying its decisions based on "God". The other one is.

Think about this from a rational stand point ... if I were to come and quote to you a bunch of figures and "rules", you'd ask me where I got them. If I told you that my "Dog" told me, you'd likely laugh. But if I insisted that my "Dog" is in fact a very trusted source, you might ask to see proof that my "Dog"'s advise is worth listening to. Since I'm asking you to change your mind to follow my Dog, the burden of proof is my task. It isn't up to you to prove or disprove that my dog is in fact brilliant and humane and all-knowing.Not that it matters, as your dog does not exist, there-fore you nor any-one else actually has a dog of any sort ;)

The disrespect, misquotations, falsely-pretensed assumptions, and clearly out-of-context quotes of the Bible in this thread are sickening to me.

I don't care if you believe the Bible or not, but if you don't, don't use it in arguments, especially if you're going to misrepresent it to try to prove your point and belittle someone.

Those of you trying to prove that Christians are bigots because of the old testament, if you would pull your head out of your closed-minded butts, and read far enough to actually understand what you're slamming us with, then you would learn that Jesus said the old rules are null and void. Jesus gave us new commandments, and the old ones are obsolete.

I agree with the repeal. Homosexuals should have the same human rights as everyone else, but marriage is not a human right. It was an institution set up for a man and a woman to live together until death do them part, have children if they chose, and if they did to raise those children to be civilized adults.

Homosexuals are not being denied the right to marry, they're just being denied the pleasure (for them) of twisting that institution to their interests. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Homosexuals also aren't being denied the right to love, they don't have to be "married" to live together (in sin, according to the bible) and love each other.

Well, there you go. I'm a Christian if you haven't noticed.

This is yet another issue of an excessive amount of value placed upoin a term. Marriage ceased being a religious institution when the ability for states to regulate it, liscence it, approve it, and nulliify it came into place. The connotation placed upon it as a union solely between one man and one female is a religious one. Therefore, for an international body to engage in debate hinging on moral beliefs not shared by every member nation is not only unintelligent, it is time wasting and divisive.

The issue must be addressed as a political one. The best decision for the UN to come to is whether or not sexual orientation is something which should prohibit discrimination. When looked at from this perspective, the answer becomes apparent.

The two largest qualifiers for discrimination are race and religion. Race, an in-born trait, and religion, a personal decision based on morals.

The two prevailing thoughts on homosexuality use each of those same sources: one claims a genetic predetermination, the other a choice.

If, in our august body, we are unable to discriminate based on genetics in one sense, why in another? Along side that, if we are unable to descriminate based on choice of morality in one instance, why in this.

Homosexuality is not an issue which directly harms other citizens, such as theft, murder, assault or drugs traffiking. As such, claims to the contrary need be put aside for the remainder of debate.

In the application of rights, it is necessary to look at the parts of marriage that the homosexual community is most interested in. Any homosexuals looking to be married within any religious organisation understand that a government's regulation will have no effect on that appeal. They are simply looking for the property protection, insurance regulation, and other benefits of joint law. If people can't be denied tax benefits by being Catholic, why should they by being homosexual? If they can't be denied rights by being black, then why for this?

We from the People's Republic of Sharpsbourg ask that our fellow delegates deny all measures to remove the basic rights of citizens.

Premier Sanu

especially if you're going to misrepresent it to try to prove your point and belittle someone.

if you would pull your head out of your closed-minded butts,


In the future, you might try follow your own advice and refrain from belittling people yourself.

Maybe you should prove that He doesn't exist.
Since it was MAN to create religion, and MAN to create the concept of god, it thus belongs to man the burden of PROVING their concepts correct. It is NOT the burden of man to prove that the concepts are incorrect. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

To everyone who responded to my comment, I was simply trying to show you that while I may not be able to prove the God exists, you also can not prove that he doesn't exist. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

To everyone who responded to my comment, I was simply trying to show you that while I may not be able to prove the God exists, you also can not prove that he doesn't exist. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

If said being cannot be proved nor disproved, then it does not exist via Occam's Razor.

Things that exist can be proven to exist.
Things which cannot be proven to exist do not exist.

Simple.

And if that was the only arguement for, its weaker then most.

To everyone who responded to my comment, I was simply trying to show you that while I may not be able to prove the God exists, you also can not prove that he doesn't exist. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.I don't know ... I still have not seen Mikitivities " dog " yet ... ;)

* As another aside, kennel = " House of Dog ", and if there is no dog, would not the kennel be a structure that in actual fact has little purpose ? :D

* Ack, this is getting deep.

And , might I add, is not an absence of proof a fact that there may be no proof at all ?

* Not to disagree, just saying in some circumstance ...

Things that exist can be proven to exist.
Things which cannot be proven to exist do not exist.

Um...I disagree, in a manner of speaking.

I understand that you are using "Occam's Razor" and that certain philosophies hold this as a medium through which to transmit understanding of reality. But, speaking from a real-life perspective, this isn't the only way to view things. In fact, from a more scientific/mathematcial perspective, it's essentially impossible to prove that something does not exist. There are just too many variables which factor into real life and the actual human experience for there to be a truly all-inclusive study which isolates all these variables well enough to say that it is (redundantly speaking) "all-inclusive".

Perhaps I should rephrase this. Everyone experiences life differently. It is nigh unto impossible to definitively rank one's experience above another (or one's perception of that experience) If there is a philosophy which is worth following (much less worthy of an international legislative body to use as a basis for argument), it will allow for this, and let people view life as they will.

The fact I believe you're overlooking is the scale on which your philosophy requires application. While it might be impossible for one person to have it "proven" that God exists, to another it may be quite possible to have such a thing "proven". This proving and disproving is done on an individual level. The UN must bow to sovereignty on these religious issues. Not to national sovereignty, but to individual sovereignty.

http://www.terrier.com/fun/choicegallery.php3?pic=111

The All Knowing DOG has yet to steer my nation wrong, and unlike other supreme beings, he is happy to piddle on anybody regardless of their personal choices and does change his mind when confronted with changing times (like when having to decide which of two food bowls has better chow).

And , might I add, is not an absence of proof a fact that there may be no proof at all ?

Not necessarily it could simply mean that the proof hasn't been discovered yet. After all nobody has proven that evolution occurs yet (And by evolution I mean an animal turning into something completly different).

Those of you trying to prove that Christians are bigots because of the old testament, if you would pull your head out of your closed-minded butts, and read far enough to actually understand what you're slamming us with, then you would learn that Jesus said the old rules are null and void. Jesus gave us new commandments, and the old ones are obsolete.

Can you say me where in the New Testament Jesus discussed homosexuality ?
I say Jesus, and not an apostle !

And the fact is, mariage is an administrative union too.
No homosexual religious mariage, I understand, but this is not an official mariage.
As a State, I don't believe in discrimnation, and the legal mariage is a State matter. Religion is not my concern, as long as religion is a private matter of thing.

PS: Sorry for my poor english.

Not necessarily it could simply mean that the proof hasn't been discovered yet. After all nobody has proven that evolution occurs yet (And by evolution I mean an animal turning into something completly different).

Oh dear.

Okay, yes, accepted, evolution hasn't been proved beyond any doubt, but is there any other way to explain how we got all this life all of a sudden? Which also is consistent with the evidence we've unearthed so far? If there is one, I'd be willing to consider it.

Alright, okay, I think that's enough of this religious stuff since this discussion is threatening to divorce itself completely from the original subject, pun unintentional. Alright. So now here is a simple answer that religious grounds are insufficient to justify overturning the protection of gay marriage - not everyone shares your religion, therefore you should not use it as an excuse to deprive a sizable number of people a civil right.

Oh dear.

Okay, yes, accepted, evolution hasn't been proved beyond any doubt, but is there any other way to explain how we got all this life all of a sudden? Which also is consistent with the evidence we've unearthed so far? If there is one, I'd be willing to consider it.
Obviously, to some people there is...

Alright. So now here is a simple answer that religious grounds are insufficient to justify overturning the protection of gay marriage - not everyone shares your religion, therefore you should not use it as an excuse to deprive a sizable number of people a civil right.
Acutally my reason for wanting this resolution repealed is that the UN has no business dictating marriage laws.

But if the UN does so and you cannot get it undone, there is nothing preventing you from resigning and making your own group. There are a few on here who have done just that.

Obviously, to some people there is...

Of course, but there isn't evidence to support the c... I said I wasn't going to drive it even further off topic...

Acutally my reason for wanting this resolution repealed is that the UN has no business dictating marriage laws.

Now that justification really has nothing to do with religion, and I think a much better approach to take.

But do keep in mind the history of this resolution to which the Powerhungry Chipmunks pointed out included a movement to pass this to stop a continuous and long-series of debates attempting to outlaw homosexual marriages.

My opinion is that the effort to repeal this resolution, if based on only the marriage issue, should be done by presenting an alternative.

You'll notice that the North Pacific responded to the repeal of the Fight the Axis of Evil resolution by bringing back from the table Sydia's "Convention Against Terrorism" and offered the proposal as an alternative should the repeal of the first resolution pass. I can assure you that Sydia, my government, and many of the nations actually voting against this repeal motion actually are now very committeed to seeing that Sydia's proposal get its chance on the UN floor.

I think leaders behind the movement to repeal any resolution should be able to present an alternative or plan of action.

What we can not allow is the legalization of gay marriage. It threatens the morality of all of our citizens.

What is soo bad about gay marriage?? I don't understand why it is such a big deal. So what two people want to get married that just happen to be of the same sex. How does it threaten the morality of your citizens?? It would only the gay people that would have if any some moral issues.


God Bless
Erica

When ye're on board ship six months at a time and no port of call in sight, you will fondle anything in sight. If it even twitches, you will do more than fondle.

Let's be practical here. When you can't be wi' the one ye loves, loves wahte'er ye're with.

How about a resolution perpetually barring the UN from legislating the marriage laws of member states as a replacement?