NationStates Jolt Archive

People, I am Emperor Nicholas asking you kindly to give me and my ally Jingoistic States support on banning gay marriage. My reason is that it is ethically immoral and should be banned because of one-(It is a crime against humanity. When gays marry they are actively giving up their right to bear children if they have not already had one. This simply stops human progression, so does people who remove their reproductive bearing organs without first having at least one child. You might say "what about people who decide not to have children?" Well these people might give it up but they are subject to change over time and they have not completelly given up their ability to bear children.) 2- (It's simply unethical, would you want your child exposed to to men holding hands and thinking it's right, or the same for two women.) 3-("For Christians Only"- it's an intrustion on God and his word. Marriage is between a man and a woman, not a man and a man or woman and a woman) So I ask you, help us ban gay marriages.

1) By this logic, any straight couple unable to have children cannot get married. This is also open discrimination. Plus, those who have surgeries to make themselves unable to bear children are usually straight, thus eliminating that as being related to homosexuality. Finally, with over 6 billion people on at least one planet I know of, this won't stop human progression any more than shooting Cheney would stop stop China from invading Japan. And let's not forget sperm donations and artificial insemination, which allow for reproduction to happen without sex (producing a few "virgin" births as well). There is nothing moral about this objection.

2) Actually, yes, I would. And holding hands is not necessarily a sign of actual affection beyond possible friendship. It must be accompanied by certain looks, movements, etc. to count as a sign of true affection. There is such a thing as friends holding hands, after all. Once again, no real ethical objection actually posed here.

3) Sex between two straight people is also a sin. It is part of the continuation of the Original Sin which Adam and Eve pulled. Also, marriage is no longer the realm of the religious due to the high number of secular marriages, which is another sin of itself. Therefore, inherent contradictions because of current marriage practices and common sense override this objection.

4) This is actually illegal. See the Gay Rights resolution.

5) This is just a cheap attempt to force your religious beliefs on others. Not everyone believes the same way you do and there are quite a few religious beliefs that allow for it.

6) Outlawing something you consider a sin does not reform the sinner but just makes them harder to identify. If you want to be rid of the sin, this is actually working against you.

7) There is already a topic on this. Please go there.

This is in violation of the "Gay Rights" resolution. Any attempt to ban gay marriages by a UN nation is unlawful.

The Constitutional Monarchy of Fass urges New Atlantian Island not to try going down this path, and hereby offers its support to all the gay people in New Atlantian Island.

I clearlly stated that if "they","They" themselves have given up the right, not God. Then they shouldn't get married, I never said people with artificial insemination(Which includes people who haven't removed their reproductive organs, but don't want to have children through sex) :sniper: If you had any common sense you would know what i meant by holding hands :p

Your logic: faulty
Your proposal: illegal
Our support: elsewhere

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

You are such an idiot, if i wanted to push my beliefs on others i would have started out saying "God doesn't like this etc, etc, etc." But i didn't did I, I said this was wrong because it was a crime against humanity and Atlantian Isand doesn't have any gay people(To the person who said they extended their help yadi yada yada yada.P.S- To add to it that i didn't try to push my beliefs on others i even put in a special section for people of my belief "For christians only" obviouslly not you.

I clearlly stated that if "they","They" themselves have given up the right, not God. Then they shouldn't get married, I never said people with artificial insemination(Which includes people who haven't removed their reproductive organs, but don't want to have children through sex) :sniper: If you had any common sense you would know what i meant by holding hands :p

1) I addressed the choice issue. Look where I mentioned the part about people getting themselves fixed is not related to gay marriage.

2) You really shouldn't comment about common sense, considering you didn't even bother to check whether or not this is even legal before proposing it.

3) If you are going to mention something in a proposal, you need a definition of what is meant by it. "Holding hands" has multiple meanings and connotations and, thus, assuming everyone will automatically think you mean a certain version is illogical. Plus, it effectively makes all forms of holding hands, due to a lack of being specific, illegal. You have to be specific in these.

'Crime against humanity'? as a human I don't feel victimised by gay marriage. In fact I would call your proposed revoking of rights a crime against humans who wish to marry their own sex. And let's not forget the crime against the UN for an illegal proposal.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

You are such an idiot, if i wanted to push my beliefs on others i would have started out saying "God doesn't like this etc, etc, etc." But i didn't did I, I said this was wrong because it was a crime against humanity and Atlantian Isand doesn't have any gay people(To the person who said they extended their help yadi yada yada yada.P.S- To add to it that i didn't try to push my beliefs on others i even put in a special section for people of my belief "For christians only" obviouslly not you.

I happen to be a Roman Catholic. Thus, why I was arguing it.

Also, what you are proposing is a crime against humanity, not the other way around.

SO all of you believe gay marriage is right. Okay how about this, with the way you all are thinking this world will eventuall end up an immoral unethical place. I already know you responses, who are you to say whats immoral and unethical: Well nobody, but nature is, if nature and evolution intended for us to have sex with the same sex we would have been made with parts to do so. Any person would know man and man don't match and woman and woman don't either.

Atlantian Isand doesn't have any gay people(To the person who said they extended their help yadi yada yada yada..

Whatever the official stance of the New Atlantian Island government, Fass recognises the unavoidable existence of gay people in your country and calls out your hipocrisy and faulty logic in first recognising gay New Atlantian Islanders in your illegal and vile proposal and then denying their existence later on. We also codemn your defamatory rhetoric.

SO all of you believe gay marriage is right. Okay how about this, with the way you all are thinking this world will eventuall end up an immoral unethical place. I already know you responses, who are you to say whats immoral and unethical: Well nobody, but nature is, if nature and evolution intended for us to have sex with the same sex we would have been made with parts to do so. Any person would know man and man don't match and woman and woman don't either.

Prove what nature intended. Perhaps the fact that a man can achieve orgasm through stimulation of the prostate, and women through the clitoris not (just) the vagina indicates that it is natural… but I can't prove that now can I?

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

I just want to say that I see no problem with gay marriage if it's something that will make two people happy. I take the stance that if it doesn't effect you, why give a crap? I also think however that all unions, be they man-woman, man-man, or woman-woman, should be a civil union in the government's eyes, and then let each church decide who gets the term of marriage, if you feel, as do I, that there should be a separation of church and state. I see this as the rational course to take...

Okay how about this, with the way you all are thinking this world will eventuall end up an immoral unethical place.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

SO all of you believe gay marriage is right.

What you or anyone else believes is irrelevant - gay marriages are protected by the UN: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029602&postcount=13

Fass has always allowed gay marriages and none of the things you mention have happened here.

Natural animals do not have sex with the same sex, and if so they don't like it. Do you see our closest relative, the ape, having sex with the same sex, no sir.

Now that is simply not true. Even if it is many animals don't have opposable thumbs, should I cut them off?

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Natural animals do not have sex with the same sex, and if so they don't like it. Do you see our closest relative, the ape, having sex with the same sex, no sir.

Actually, apes are one of the most studied animals that exhibit homosexual behaviour: http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html

SO all of you believe gay marriage is right. Okay how about this, with the way you all are thinking this world will eventuall end up an immoral unethical place.

Uh huh. We're talking about a species that once had a nation that sponsored public orgies, forced people to fight to the death, and conquered a large portion of the world just because they could. I honestly doubt the world will ever reach that point again.

Also, time to face facts: Trying to take away the ability to sin has consistantly failed throughout history. Want an example? Take a long look at the high selling rate of pornography during the height of the rule of Catholicism.

I already know you responses, who are you to say whats immoral and unethical: Well nobody, but nature is, if nature and evolution intended for us to have sex with the same sex we would have been made with parts to do so.

Actually, nature is not ethical or moral. It is perfectly neutral, both in religious beliefs about it and in actuallity. It usually is nothing more than a blind tool of some deity or a force of the world that is perfectly balanced in good or evil. So, the ethics of nature as a whole do not apply.

You want to talk evolution? Actually, homosexuality makes sense in the evolutionary scale. Part of evolution includes introducing methods of population control into larger species so they do not overpopulate a region and end up killing themselves off. There are many external mechanisms, but several species also have internal mechanisms. Homosexuality could actually be something humanity evolved in order to help it control its population growth until it reaches the point it can expand to other planets.

Any person would know man and man don't match and woman and woman don't either.

Not necessarily true. If it is a genetic trait, it means they are intended to love each other and help reduce the rate of human population growth. But, let's not forget bisexuals and hermaphrodites.

To the person who said what was the problem with gay marriage, its just wrong. If we give them this what other unethical rights would they want, "killing a black person because he offended him or something" thats what you're telling me. It sounds crazy but that is what i'm hearing.

To the person who said what was the problem with gay marriage, its just wrong. If we give them this what other unethical rights would they want, "killing a black person because he offended him or something" thats what you're telling me. It sounds crazy but that is what i'm hearing.

Again, "Slippery Slope" is a fallacy as fallacious as your statement that there are no gay animals. And you already grant homosexuals the right to marry. As a UN state you must. If you are not a UN state, then what are you doing here?

To the person who said what was the problem with gay marriage, its just wrong. If we give them this what other unethical rights would they want, "killing a black person because he offended him or something" thats what you're telling me. It sounds crazy but that is what i'm hearing.
Are you going to debate this or just repeat yourself?

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Natural animals do not have sex with the same sex, and if so they don't like it. Do you see our closest relative, the ape, having sex with the same sex, no sir.

It's been observed in apes, chimpanzees, dogs, cats, and even possibly a few others. Note this is limited to mammals.

To the person who said what was the problem with gay marriage, its just wrong. If we give them this what other unethical rights would they want, "killing a black person because he offended him or something" thats what you're telling me. It sounds crazy but that is what i'm hearing.

Killing people really isn't that unethical. If it was, we would have no reason to go to war.

Nature is designed to change overtime but what is natural will stay natural and when it is wronged then it rights itself.Exp: when man does something that sends it out of whack then it replies sometimes in a not so good manner, such as global warming, when we get rid of trees then you know what happens, and so we directlly hurt ourselves. The same is here when men have sex with one another they rupture their anus, well nature replies with this AIDS.

Well I do realize that some animals do change sex, but they do it "NATURALLY"!

Nature is designed to change overtime but what is natural will stay natural and when it is wronged then it rights itself.Exp: when man does something that sends it out of whack then it replies sometimes in a not so good manner, such as global warming, when we get rid of trees then you know what happens, and so we directlly hurt ourselves. The same is here when men have sex with one another they rupture their anus, well nature replies with this AIDS.

Are you really this ignorant of HIV/AIDS?

Well I do realize that some animals do change sex, but they do it "NATURALLY"!

As gay animals have gay sex naturally.

1) Stop personifying nature.
2) AIDS is not just from 'teh gay peoples'
3) Other species get variants of HIV (SIV, FIV ect.)
4) Unless you can prove it don't argue with it.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

But I do realize that guess what the people with the most AIDS infections are gay men. hhhmmmm wonder why?

Actually it's women.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

The difference between Gay humans and animals who can change sex is that they do it, once again "NATURALLY"

But I do realize that guess what the people with the most AIDS infections are gay men. hhhmmmm wonder why?

Actually it's straight African women.

The difference between Gay humans and animals who can change sex is that they do it, once again "NATURALLY"

Again: Gay animals have gay sex naturally.

Actually its Gay men

Gay humans do to… all the equipment is there.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

But we don't now do we.

Actually its Gay men
No.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

But we don't now do we.
Are you going to back up anything you say?

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Actually its Gay men

No, it isn't.

Tell me something, why is it naturally for i don't, 98.9% of us to like the opposite sex when we are little, we never say wow! he looks pretty when we are a boy or geee! She looks pretty when we are a girl.

Nature is designed to change overtime but what is natural will stay natural and when it is wronged then it rights itself.Exp: when man does something that sends it out of whack then it replies sometimes in a not so good manner, such as global warming, when we get rid of trees then you know what happens, and so we directlly hurt ourselves. The same is here when men have sex with one another they rupture their anus, well nature replies with this AIDS.

1) Actually, trees are not that important. They provide an insignificant amount of oxigen and their job to provent soil erosion can be easily replaced by something else.

2) There is no conclusive evidence humanity caused "global warming" or even that it is a problem. This could be the biggest case of coincidence in history (it has happened).

3) Actually, AIDS came from monkeys. So, a better case can be made against having sex with apes. Plus, homosexuality has existed for thousands of years. And, of course, you have revealed how little you know about AIDS.

Well I do realize that some animals do change sex, but they do it "NATURALLY"!

Certain amphibians, reptiles, and insects do change sex. However, homosexuality is among mammals, who are incapable of it without surgery. Wrong class of animal.

But I do realize that guess what the people with the most AIDS infections are gay men. hhhmmmm wonder why?

Nope. Straight women are the majority of those infected.

The difference between Gay humans and animals who can change sex is that they do it, once again "NATURALLY"

But none of the gay animals change sex.

Tell me something, why is it naturally for i don't, 98.9% of us to like the opposite sex when we are little, we never say wow! he looks pretty when we are a boy or geee! She looks pretty when we are a girl.
Just because it is normal for '98.9%'* of people doesn’t mean it is normal for everyone

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World
* assuming you are right

Tell me something, why is it naturally for i don't, 98.9% of us to like the opposite sex when we are little, we never say wow! he looks pretty when we are a boy or geee! She looks pretty when we are a girl.

"Uncommon" does not equal "unnatural".

Tell me something, why is it naturally for i don't, 98.9% of us to like the opposite sex when we are little, we never say wow! he looks pretty when we are a boy or geee! She looks pretty when we are a girl.

Actually, most children below a certain age really have little tolerance for the opposite sex. It's only modern media and certain hormones in food that has encouraged them to forcibly sexually mature early, and that is still partly rare. And, yes, young boys do occasionally call each other pretty and girls continue to call each other pretty and beautiful for most of their lives. It even used to be socially acceptable for men to refer to each other as handsome.

Also, it's more like 1.1% who actually like the opposite sex when they are little and are not just trying to act like adults.

You don't think trees are important for oxygen, what?! How about this, why do we make so many laws discouraging massive tree cutting. :sniper:

You don't think trees are important for oxygen, what?! How about this, why do we make so many laws discouraging massive tree cutting. :sniper:

Science has proven that plants are mostly useless for oxygen. Most of Earth's oxygen currently comes from bacteria and in the past it actually came from volcanos the most.

The laws reguarding tree cutting are to preserve the wilderness for the future, make sure the resources are still there when we need them, and to help prevent soil erosion.

Can we stick to the topic?

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

You just agreed that 98.9% of us start off straight, meaning this is a natural process doesn't it, okay then, this also means that homosexualism isn't. Right.

You just agreed that 98.9% of us start off straight, meaning this is a natural process doesn't it, okay then, this also means that homosexualism isn't. Right.
Who agreed to that again?

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

You just agreed that 98.9% of us start off straight, meaning this is a natural process doesn't it, okay then, this also means that homosexualism isn't. Right.

Actually, most children below a certain age really have little tolerance for the opposite sex. It's only modern media and certain hormones in food that has encouraged them to forcibly sexually mature early, and that is still partly rare. And, yes, young boys do occasionally call each other pretty and girls continue to call each other pretty and beautiful for most of their lives. It even used to be socially acceptable for men to refer to each other as handsome.

Also, it's more like 1.1% who actually like the opposite sex when they are little and are not just trying to act like adults.

Note the bolded section. It's a psychological, not biological, action. Psychology has a bad habit of being far from natural.

Just because it is normal for '98.9%'* of people doesn’t mean it is normal for everyone

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World
* assuming you are right
And my bold section

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

You just agreed that 98.9% of us start off straight, meaning this is a natural process doesn't it, okay then, this also means that homosexualism isn't. Right.

Who are you to say what is "right" and what is "wrong"?
What is right for you may not be right for others. For example, being vegetarian is the "right" way of living for some, but not for everyone. It's a question of morals/etical beliefs.

Also, sexuality doesn't become an issue until you reach puberty, so using infant hood as an argument to prove that homosexuality is "wrong" makes your argument fallacious.

Didn't I tell you guys that someone would say that, and yes it is an arguable reason. :sniper:

Didn't I tell you guys that someone would say that, and yes it is an arguable reason. :sniper:

Alright, I'll give you that one. I'm amazed they said it as well. But his point about puberty still stands.

Okay, well I'm just going to go off on a few points I've read and what not. Just so nobody goes "oh he's a gay lover" or whatever, I want to make it clear that I have nothing wrong with people being gay, that's just the way they are, and I may be offended by some aspects of gays, I can be honest in that, but that does not give me reason to try to deny them the same rights I have. So with that, here goes...

First, you ban gay marriage, it won't stop people from being gay, so what's the point? Whether they can get married legally, or illegally, or whatever, they are going to be gay, have sex with eachother, and do whatever it is that gay people do. Why bother banning it in the first place? It doesn't get rid of "sin", it doesn't stop anybody from doing what you don't like.

Second, how could someone being gay possibly affect you? Maybe you let it. You let it get to you because you don't have that mental capacity to go "well they are who they are, whether I like it or not, and I can't stop that". You can't stop them from being gay just because you don't like it. You can't say it's inhumane just because you let it get to you. Gay's have absolutely no effect on any single person other than an excessively biased emotional effect. If we let all the politics in the world be run by emotion, you'd be secure in the fact that mankind would have been wiped out long ago.

Third, someone mentioned that nature does not condone same sex intercourse or something like that. Go get two male dogs, in breeding season, throw them in a pen together and watch. Those two dogs will actually try to mount eachother. I've seen it happen. So don't go around saying "oh it's against nature" because it isn't. Nature is limitless in its ability to change. The majority of the mammals in the world engage in same sex interaction of a sexual nature, in one form or another. Look at chimps, look at dogs, other apes, monkey's, etc etc etc.

Fourth, don't ever bring up the Bible or religion as a basis for banning gay marriage. There is a lovely thing called "separation of church and state" which is supposed to prevent religious opinion in politics. I'm a Christian, raised Christian, and I don't believe for a second that anything I read in the Bible should be forced upon someone else. Not everything in the world is of your faith or believes in what you believe. Any religious reason for banning something is obsurd. Explain to me why your religious beliefs should be imposed on other people.

Fifth, this is off topic but I felt compelled to say something. I'd like to see the scientific evidence that proves trees do not have an impact on the oxygen supply of the Earth. If you know anything about the history of this planet, you'd know that some million upon millions of years ago, bacteria and algae "WERE" and I stress "WERE", the primary ingredient to introducing oxygen into the atmosphere. But if you also know anything about this planet, you'd realize that in the last billion years or so, as trees began to gain dominance on land, the supply of bacteria and algae decreased. You take away every tree on this planet, you take away upwards of 50% of the air purifiers of Earth. Go read up on the cellular development of trees and plants and you'll find that they produce a good supply oxygen while at the same time managing to clean the air. Certain parts of this world are lucky enough to be burdened with a massive supply of algae, and other parts are not so lucky, and that is where the trees manage to clean the air. Every take notice of major cities where industrial pollution has taken a toll and trees seem to have just disappeared as a bulk unit? Think about it, go to LA, and you can see the massive pollution there, then think on how many trees are in LA. Not as many as we'd like to pretend. Anyway on that.

Sixth, to say something like "gay's are immoral" is really a biased opinion. Just like how Michael Moore says Bush is bad, his opinion is heavily biased. You personally don't think gay's are morally correct, so that is your personal opinion coming through, not a scientific or logical reason. If you had a logical reason saying that gays were the result of all diseases in the world or something and had scientific evidence to prove it, then maybe you wouldn't have such a logically defunct reason, but since the only reason one has is "it is immoral" or "not right" or whatever, the argument is useless.

Seventh, marriage is not just a church ceremony and anyone that knows anything about the legal system should know that the documents you get from marriage from both a church and a judge, are considered "legal documents". By legal standards, marriage is a contract. And to deny marriage to gay's is basically telling them you can't engage in this contract. Research marriage and it's benefits and understand that just because marriage started as a church thing, it isn't just that anymore. There's more to it, on a legal basis.

Eight, denying gays the right to marriage and to a contract through marriage, and the contracts that can later be applied, is a breach of civil rights. That's almost as bad as denying people the right to vote, or denying people alcohol, or something like that. If you are going to deny gays, you might as well deny free speech and prevent any religious or political group from having peaceful assemblies, and while we're at it we can take away the right to keep guns, and the right to take into any religious belief.

Anyway on all that.

It certainly is arguable. But so is shouting 'ner ner' really loudly.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

You Can "NATURALLY" eat vegetation so whether you eat it only or some or not at all isn't a problem. But being gay is.

You can naturally do that to… It's not like you need attachments for anal sex (men), or oral, or mutual masturbation.

edit: you can't naturally produce children but some people don't want them, naturally.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Thank you for saying this because this is the whole point. When gays marry they now get rights that straight marriage couples do, this just isn't right, seeing that gays are unethical(Because of what they do). Its like giving a convict the right to vote like a free citizen. :sniper:

Thank you for saying this because this is the whole point. When gays marry they now get rights that straight marriage couples do, this just isn't right, seeing that gays are unethical(Because of what they do). Its like giving a convict the right to vote like a free citizen. :sniper:
For the last time will you please prove what is so wrong? Who are you thanking?

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

I'm sorry to say but thats not natural.

Nature is designed to change overtime but what is natural will stay natural and when it is wronged then it rights itself.Exp: when man does something that sends it out of whack then it replies sometimes in a not so good manner, such as global warming, when we get rid of trees then you know what happens, and so we directlly hurt ourselves. The same is here when men have sex with one another they rupture their anus, well nature replies with this AIDS.

AIDS is not natures answer to homosexuality. AIDS was the result of transmission from apes. Look up the scientific evidence for it and you'll find the genetic study of a family of apes and that the HIV virus spawned through a non-human blood line. And you can say "oh that's not possible to transmit diseases between species" in which case I'll reply with "ecoli, salmonella, rabies", all of which can and often are trasmitted through animals, and originated in animals, as was the HIV virus. It is a common misconception that the spread of the virus is the result of homosexuality. If you look at South Africa, statistically speaking, the majority of spread of HIV is the result of religious intervention, namely their priests and religious advocates stating that to have sex with a virgin will rid them of the disease. People respond to this and rape innocents all the time. My Grandma's family lives there and she gets horror stories on young children being raped, etc etc. In turn that virus gets transmitted from person to person, left and right, up and down. HIV is not the result of homosexuality, science and humanity has proven that.

I'm sorry to say but thats not natural.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/sloth.htm

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Fifth, this is off topic but I felt compelled to say something. I'd like to see the scientific evidence that proves trees do not have an impact on the oxygen supply of the Earth. If you know anything about the history of this planet, you'd know that some million upon millions of years ago, bacteria and algae "WERE" and I stress "WERE", the primary ingredient to introducing oxygen into the atmosphere. But if you also know anything about this planet, you'd realize that in the last billion years or so, as trees began to gain dominance on land, the supply of bacteria and algae decreased. You take away every tree on this planet, you take away upwards of 50% of the air purifiers of Earth. Go read up on the cellular development of trees and plants and you'll find that they produce a good supply oxygen while at the same time managing to clean the air. Certain parts of this world are lucky enough to be burdened with a massive supply of algae, and other parts are not so lucky, and that is where the trees manage to clean the air. Every take notice of major cities where industrial pollution has taken a toll and trees seem to have just disappeared as a bulk unit? Think about it, go to LA, and you can see the massive pollution there, then think on how many trees are in LA. Not as many as we'd like to pretend. Anyway on that.

Check Scientific American, December of 2003. I got my information from an article in it which was about the dinosaurs dying off.

For the last time will you please prove what is so wrong? Who are you thanking?

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

He's thanking me for bringing up the part about contracts resulting from marriage and what not. But then again, he's making no sense.
The same contracts you can get in marriage are available to non-married couples as well, not all the same contracts, but a few of them involving property and what not. People of the same sex are denied those contracts now, regardless of whether they are gay or not. He needs to understand the legal system to argue anything about contracts.

Check Scientific American, December of 2003. I got my information from an article in it which was about the dinosaurs dying off.

Really? Thanks for bringing the source up. I was always taught the opposite. I'll go give that a read if I can find it. Thanks again.

He's thanking me for bringing up the part about contracts resulting from marriage and what not. But then again, he's making no sense.
The same contracts you can get in marriage are available to non-married couples as well, not all the same contracts, but a few of them involving property and what not. People of the same sex are denied those contracts now, regardless of whether they are gay or not. He needs to understand the legal system to argue anything about contracts.
Thanks.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

I've got to go, and all i got to say is homosexualism and homosexualism is immoral, unethical, and unnatural, you believe what you want. You all can sit there until you make it legal to drop nukes on each other because it isn't right to the taliban not to let them do what they want. But you must realize that this is wrong, it was 500 years ago and it is today, to allow it is simply crazy. People must realize where rights end and morality begins. The way you think will lead to the end of society in America and other free nations and eventually other nations.Exp. Try to figure this out.

Government+Freedom=media=opinion=media=decay of morality=lawlessness=destruction

Really? Thanks for bringing the source up. I was always taught the opposite. I'll go give that a read if I can find it. Thanks again.

No problem. I was also taught the opposite of that as well, which surprised me when I first read it.

I've got to go, and all i got to say is homosexualism and homosexualism is immoral, unethical, and unnatural, you believe what you want. You all can sit there until you make it legal to drop nukes on each other because it isn't right to the taliban not to let them do what they want. But you must realize that this is wrong, it was 500 years ago and it is today, to allow it is simply crazy. People must realize where rights end and morality begins. The way you think will lead to the end of society in America and other free nations and eventually other nations.Exp. Try to figure this out.

Government+Freedom=media=opinion=media=decay of morality=lawlessness=destruction

500 years ago it was also wrong to go against the official statement of the Church as the meaning to the Bible and to not give part of your income to the Church. The church also happened to be very corrupt at that time, so you picked a bad time.

I've got to go, and all i got to say is homosexualism and homosexualism is immoral, unethical, and unnatural, you believe what you want. You all can sit there until you make it legal to drop nukes on each other because it isn't right to the taliban not to let them do what they want. But you must realize that this is wrong, it was 500 years ago and it is today, to allow it is simply crazy. People must realize where rights end and morality begins. The way you think will lead to the end of society in America and other free nations and eventually other nations.Exp. Try to figure this out.

Government+Freedom=media=opinion=media=decay of morality=lawlessness=destruction
OOC: How do you explain members of the Taliban who believe their actions are morally justifiable?
Not like they exist in NS but still.

No problem. I was also taught the opposite of that as well, which surprised me when I first read it.

The second I saw "scientific american" I was like "well I just made myself look like an idiot" lol. Glad to know such a reputable magazine took that plunge :).

The second I saw "scientific american" I was like "well I just made myself look like an idiot" lol. Glad to know such a reputable magazine took that plunge :).

If it hadn't been in them, I wouldn't have even attempted to accept it. It just seems unbelieveable, much like viruses when you first learn about them or the idea of the Big Bang at first.

I've got to go, and all i got to say is homosexualism and homosexualism is immoral, unethical, and unnatural, you believe what you want. You all can sit there until you make it legal to drop nukes on each other because it isn't right to the taliban not to let them do what they want. But you must realize that this is wrong, it was 500 years ago and it is today, to allow it is simply crazy. People must realize where rights end and morality begins. The way you think will lead to the end of society in America and other free nations and eventually other nations.Exp. Try to figure this out.

Government+Freedom=media=opinion=media=decay of morality=lawlessness=destruction

I don't think you've ONCE provided justifying evidence for any of your biased (and also extremely homophobic) claims in this thread. So far, you've proved nothing, and have merely displayed your personal beliefs as fact. Basically, your argument that homosexuality is "immoral, unethical, and unnatural" is completely fallacious.

Well this has been fun…

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Well this has been fun…

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

I agree. :p

where civil rights end and morality begins?

The entire point of civil rights is to have morals that are non-religous be instilled into us. Like the moral of acceptance, the moral of free speech, etc.

civil rights are there to provide equality of everything.

you are wrong, and i apologize for your..lack of support

I agree with this motion because it is first of all PERFECTLY LEGAL
If you cannot repeal laws the system can coherently get corrupted
Although i belive in this ban for quote unquote "religious" reasons i also belive it for scientific reasons
long story short : if it was ment to happen they could reproduce on their own

The good of all is good for all
Kalrate

word :sniper:

I agree with this motion because it is first of all PERFECTLY LEGAL
If you cannot repeal laws the system can coherently get corrupted

Actually, it is illegal as long as the Gay Rights resolution remains in play.

Although i belive in this ban for quote unquote "religious" reasons i also belive it for scientific reasons
long story short : if it was ment to happen they could reproduce on their own

There are many straight couples also unable to reproduce on their own, therefore your reason is not scientific if it is just against gays. If you are against both, remember we have such options as not even needing to have sex to get pregnant and adoption to cover those.

The good of all is good for all
Kalrate

word :sniper:

This is not the good of all.

long story short : if it was ment to happen they could reproduce on their own

Gay people are neither stupid nor sterile, and so can reproduce in the same way straight people reproduce.

La Terra di Liberta will not support any resolution that takes away freedoms from people and minimizes them. Period.

Gay people are neither stupid nor sterile, and so can reproduce in the same way straight people reproduce.

so a guy sticking his **** in a guys *** hole is normal reproduction? wow u should be a sex ed teacher!

so a guy sticking his **** in a guys *** hole is normal reproduction? wow u should be a sex ed teacher!

Why do people forget everything about the birds and the bees as soon as they think of gay people?

Gay people aren't more sterile than straight people. Gay people aren't more stupid than straight people, and can thus figure out what to do to get a child.

Seriously, getting a woman knocked up isn't that difficult and is not something straight people have a monopoly on. What is needed is sperm, eggs and a uterus, not heterosexuality, and thus lots of gay couples have children. They've just had to plan for them a bit more.

so a guy sticking his **** in a guys *** hole is normal reproduction? wow u should be a sex ed teacher!

Where did you find him stating that in his post? No where? Didn't think so.

Please, people, actually read what people are saying when replying to this. Those of you who already are are fine.

I agree with this motion because it is first of all PERFECTLY LEGAL If you cannot repeal laws the system can coherently get corrupted

First, I don't think you know what "coherent" means, second, if you'd taken the trouble to go have a look at the thread for the repeal of the Gay Rights resolution, which has to pass before you can ban gay marriage, we probably wouldn't have to waste our time with this discussion.

long story short : if it was ment to happen they could reproduce on their own

If you judge a relationship on the basis of whether or not reproduction takes place, I fear you're not going to have much of a sex life.

Okay, look, in my opinion, all relationships, homo or hereto, should be based on love, not on reproduction. Based on that, homosexual relationships clearly pass the test of "if it was meant to happen".

Now, I've posted this in almost every gay marriage discussion I've come across, and I invite you to have a gander:

12 Reasons Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites does support the repeal of the "Gay Rights" resolution only because we don't believe that the UN has any business dictating marriage laws to its members, we must oppose this resolution for the same reason.

This is illegal until the Gay Rights proposal is repealed.

Locked.