NationStates Jolt Archive

The UN doesn't have jurisdiction over churches. Thusly, Nations were none of the churches sanction gay marriage can legally or justly force those churches to condone gay marriage. This is a restriction of the rights of churches. For these reasons the UN must repeal laws of gay marriage.

I don't support gay marriages.

It says nothing about churches in the resolution, only the member governments.... If you are a governmental member, you sanction and endorse them, though there is no requirement in the text of Res #12 to force religious bodies to do so.

The UN doesn't have jurisdiction over churches. Thusly, Nations were none of the churches sanction gay marriage can legally or justly force those churches to condone gay marriage. This is a restriction of the rights of churches. For these reasons the UN must repeal laws of gay marriage.

Freedom of religion covers this. Try checking actual UN resolutions. You'll find the state must allow gay marriages, but cannot force churches to do so.

Bicwana works the same way my nation does (we talked): the government only sanctions civil unions for straights and gays. You have to go to a church to get a marriage license. Both are equal though. The problem is that all churches don't condone gay marriage, so legalizing and basically forcing gay marriage is an attack on church's rights.

Bicwana works the same way my nation does (we talked): the government only sanctions civil unions for straights and gays. You have to go to a church to get a marriage license. Both are equal though. The problem is that all churches don't condone gay marriage, so legalizing and basically forcing gay marriage is an attack on church's rights.

And?

Forbidding people to have sex with underage children can be an attack on church's rights if the church says father's have the right to take their daughters on the tenth birthday.

Forbidding a nation to outlaw prostitution can be an attack on a church's rights if the church outlaws sex before marriage.

Forbidding a nation to ignore the "Fair Trial" resolution can be an attack on church's rights if the church has the right to execute Satanists.

A resolution that asks for "peace on earth and good will to all people" can be an attack on Church's rights because the church might not treat men and women equally.

It can also be equally argued that a church refusing to marry two gay men is an attack on human rights, gay rights and civil rights.

The UN doesn't have jurisdiction over churches. Thusly, Nations were none of the churches sanction gay marriage can legally or justly force those churches to condone gay marriage. This is a restriction of the rights of churches. For these reasons the UN must repeal laws of gay marriage.

It can be argued that a church refusing to condone gay rights is an attack on the rights of gay people. So all churchs must be outlawed by the UN.

It can be argued that the Sun orbits the Earth. Anything can be argued. In fact, it can even be argued that there are some things that cannot be argued. But if you have a point to make in a debate, don't just claim that you can make it. Go ahead and make the point.

Churches are private personal institutions which exist, much like government, as an agreement between its members and their selected or formed institutional government. As such, impeding upon them views, which are contrary to their personal morality, is inherantly fascistic and totalitarian, and, in principle of NSUN standing resolutions regarding individual freedoms, a violation of law.

It can be argued that the Sun orbits the Earth. Anything can be argued. In fact, it can even be argued that there are some things that cannot be argued. But if you have a point to make in a debate, don't just claim that you can make it. Go ahead and make the point.

Ok. From the perspective of civil righs, everyone has the right to be treated equally, regardless of race, creed, colour, sexuality and hair colour. (And lots of other things, but you get the idea).

Ergo if a man and a woman are allowed to marry, a man and a man should be allowed to marry, because they must be treated equally.

Any church that refuses to accept this is violating their civil rights.

QED.

Ok. From the perspective of civil righs, everyone has the right to be treated equally, regardless of race, creed, colour, sexuality and hair colour. (And lots of other things, but you get the idea).

Ergo if a man and a woman are allowed to marry, a man and a man should be allowed to marry, because they must be treated equally.

Any church that refuses to accept this is violating their civil rights.

QED.

Churches are allowed. Just as they are allowed to preach certain acts are evil. It's part of the whole "freedom of religion" thing for churches to be allowed to do certain things.

Isn't marriage a church thing? And the state gives married people rights, that's all the gays want. Let gay/lesbian couples have the same rights as married people, under the state, but call it something else.

Isn't marriage a church thing? And the state gives married people rights, that's all the gays want. Let gay/lesbian couples have the same rights as married people, under the state, but call it something else.

It's amazing how many times I have to post this.

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>

The answer is: Sometimes, but mostly that doesn't matter.

Then why can't we just give homosexual couples the same rights under the law?

It's amazing how many times I have to post this.
Then stop posting it. A dictionary is a reflection of societal usage, not the other way around. The dictionary definition is entirely and completely irrelevant. If society decides that men can marry men and women can marry women, then Webster will change too.

Then stop posting it. A dictionary is a reflection of societal usage, not the other way around. The dictionary definition is entirely and completely irrelevant. If society decides that men can marry men and women can marry women, then Webster will change too.

Actually, I only post one definition from one dictionary for a reason. I find most people are not willing to argue with it and those that do I sometimes use my secondary point on, which is that it is pointless to argue the definition when there are so many views on it.

Then stop posting it. A dictionary is a reflection of societal usage, not the other way around. The dictionary definition is entirely and completely irrelevant. If society decides that men can marry men and women can marry women, then Webster will change too.

Actually, the dictionary is relevant. Because language is a reflection of social usage, and thus the definitions of words are a reflection of social usage.

It says nothing about churches in the resolution, only the member governments.... If you are a governmental member, you sanction and endorse them, though there is no requirement in the text of Res #12 to force religious bodies to do so.
And at the same time there is no requirement in the text requireing governments to perform gay marriages either, which is why in The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites all marriages must be peformed by an ordained member of the clergy, i.e. a priest, a rabbi, a minister, a pastor, a shaman, whatever. Which means that even though gay marriage is legal it has never actually happened in The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites.

Circumstancial gay marriages? What's next, circumstancial circumcision? ;)

The circumstance of circumstanctial circumcision can be a circus of a circumstance...

Isn't marriage a church thing? And the state gives married people rights, that's all the gays want. Let gay/lesbian couples have the same rights as married people, under the state, but call it something else.

Yeah - and all those coloured people who want to ride at the front of the bus? They don't really need to - they can ride at the back just as easily. It's the same bus, so why does it matter?

(/sarcasm)

Yeah - and all those coloured people who want to ride at the front of the bus? They don't really need to - they can ride at the back just as easily. It's the same bus, so why does it matter?

(/sarcasm)

It wasn't the fact that my grandma couldn't sit in the front of the bus, it was the fact that she had to move for a white person, that was not fair. Why make the church change something when the government can just let gay people have the same rights as married people. "So you can't get married in the church because you're gay? Then go get married in front of a judge."

It wasn't the fact that my grandma couldn't sit in the front of the bus, it was the fact that she had to move for a white person, that was not fair. Why make the church change something when the government can just let gay people have the same rights as married people. "So you can't get married in the church because you're gay? Then go get married in front of a judge."

There are a lot of straight people married by judges. And there is nothing saying the church has to change. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Cero.

There are a lot of straight people married by judges. And there is nothing saying the church has to change. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Cero.

Exactly let gays get married by a judge, and leave the church alone.

Exactly let gays get married by a judge, and leave the church alone.

So, in other words, change nothing. Gotcha.

It wasn't the fact that my grandma couldn't sit in the front of the bus, it was the fact that she had to move for a white person, that was not fair. Why make the church change something when the government can just let gay people have the same rights as married people. "So you can't get married in the church because you're gay? Then go get married in front of a judge."

You are so totally missing my point.

I have a friend who is gay. He is also deeply religious. He wants to get married in a church, infront of The Powers and The Lords, because he believes that marriage is a holy union infront of those who rule above in shadow.

But instead they are being asked to move down the bus cause "real marriages" have to be done.

I swear - if this was a matter of a black man marrying a white woman, there would not be a SINGLE dissenting voice about it because everyone accepts racism is a bad thing. But homophobia is the current "trendy" phobia, and it's easy enough to slip in to it because no one wants people to think they are gay.

Grow up people - there is a difference between "civil union" and "marriage" - because if there wasn't a difference then no one would be suggesting this.

I think he's posting the definition to point out that marriage is a legal thing, rather than a necessarily religious thing, so that legalising gay marriage is only about the legal state of gay couples, and wouldn't touch the church's right to refuse to bless their marriage.

You are so totally missing my point.

I have a friend who is gay. He is also deeply religious. He wants to get married in a church, infront of The Powers and The Lords, because he believes that marriage is a holy union infront of those who rule above in shadow.

Sorry for him, but people are going to vote against gay marriages because they believe in the Bible.

But instead they are being asked to move down the bus cause "real marriages" have to be done.

Grow up people - there is a difference between "civil union" and "marriage" - because if there wasn't a difference then no one would be suggesting this.

We could make civil unions the same thing as marriage, but not done in the church. Why does no one understand that if you try and tell the church to allow the gay marriages, that every hillbilly, soccer mom, and TV evengelist will say you're trying to ban the Bible, and tell everyone they know to vote against your proposal.

Sorry for your friend but he might have to get married in Europe.

[added later]

Thanks _Myopia_, I'm not very articulate.

Some churches accept homosexual unions (Unitarian Universalism for example), though most do not... If a particular religious group does not accept you, then you need to find one that does... You cannot force people to accept things personally by law, you can only provide provision that their rights are protected... Passing a law, will not alter the creeds, confessions, or beliefs of a particular religion.

This is not even per se discriminatory, many of the churches who see homosexuality as a sin, as so in accordance with their own beliefs, also will not marry people who have been married before (adultry) or even marry people who are non-members... You can't claim to be a member of a particular religion, if your beliefs are not in-line with that particular religion.

Sorry for him, but people are going to vote against gay marriages because they believe in the Bible.


We don't have a bible. We don't even really have religous texts. The ones we have were pretty much supplanted by common sense when they were used to justify the massarce of around ten thousand people. After that we decided laws would be made by man, not by man's interpretation of the will of the divine beings.


We could make civil unions the same thing as marriage, but not done in the church. Why does no one understand that if you try and tell the church to allow the gay marriages, that every hillbilly, soccer mom, and TV evengelist will say you're trying to ban the Bible, and tell everyone they know to vote against your proposal.


I understand that. I really do. I just don't accept that just because it might piss some people off is a good reason not to do it.

Not to hark back to the good olds days of segregation (which we had a few hundred thousand years ago, but we got over it) but a lot of people objected to dwarves being treated as equals with humans. A lot of religious people were up in arms - pretty much the types you listed here. But the people back then didn't care, and eventually laws were passed and peoples' attitudes changed to be more tolerant and accepting of cultures and people different than themselves.



Sorry for your friend but he might have to get married in Europe.


He can get married in TilEnca - we actually apply common sense to the majority of our policies (not all obviously - we are a government after all!)

How about this: All couples must have a civil ceremony. If they want to do a religious ceremony too, fine for them, but they have to have a civil ceremony to be considered lawfully married.

(This would not, of course, overturn marriages already performed by religious officials who were, at the time, empowered to perform legally binding marriages. That would be an ex-post-facto law, and those are unethical.)

I found this site http://jsons.collegepublisher.com/main.cfm/include/detail/storyid/798636.html when I was looking for how much of the morality vote the President of the US got (The site is anti-bush). The reason not to mess with church people is because they vote with their Bible not with their minds, just think if we tried to say to the church to allow gay marriages that maybe 1/4 of the country would want to take use out. I'm for allowing civil unions, people can dress up like their in the church as long as they grant the same rights as marriage in the church or another church that believes what the Christians believe but they acccept gay marriages.

How about this: All couples must have a civil ceremony. If they want to do a religious ceremony too, fine for them, but they have to have a civil ceremony to be considered lawfully married.

(This would not, of course, overturn marriages already performed by religious officials who were, at the time, empowered to perform legally binding marriages. That would be an ex-post-facto law, and those are unethical.)
That’s what we do. Religious weddings legally count for nothing in TBlack. They must appear in front of a government official if they want it to count.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

I found this site http://jsons.collegepublisher.com/main.cfm/include/detail/storyid/798636.html when I was looking for how much of the morality vote the President of the US got (The site is anti-bush). The reason not to mess with church people is because they vote with their Bible not with their minds, just think if we tried to say to the church to allow gay marriages that maybe 1/4 of the country would want to take use out. I'm for allowing civil unions, people can dress up like their in the church as long as they grant the same rights as marriage in the church or another church that believes what the Christians believe but they acccept gay marriages.

And thesee are, most likely, the same church people who said they would rebel if blacks were allowed to marry whites. And they did. But they got over it and inter-racial marriage is now legal and fine.

You don't sit back and accept intolerance when you see it - you stand up and fight it. Cause it's the right thing to do. You see someone doing something wrong, you tell them. If they ignore you, they ignore you. But you don't just sit back and take it cause then you are condoning the behaviour you are suppsoed to be objecting to.

But what if it doesn't stop? God never said no to interracial marriages, he did say that man shouldn't sleep with man. I think people can get over everyone having the right to drink out of the same water fountain but never seeing two guys make out.

So what do you support, an overhaul of the church, civil unions, or something else?

But what if it doesn't stop? God never said no to interracial marriages, he did say that man shouldn't sleep with man. I think people can get over everyone having the right to drink out of the same water fountain but never seeing two guys make out.

So what do you support, an overhaul of the church, civil unions, or something else?
Paul said man shouldn't sleep with man. Paul. The Sodom thing was about humiliation and rape not about same sex.

Some people do believe that God said gays shouldn't marry, some people belie that God doesn’t want blacks to marry whites or women to vote. And they can believe that.

They don't have to marry the same sex, a different race, or (if they are a woman) vote but not leaving the option open for someone else is wrong.

Unless they can prove their God is real and that their interpretation of him is true then I don't think they should use law to promote there beliefs. Would it be different if a Muslim wanted you to follow there favourite law school?

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

But what if it doesn't stop? God never said no to interracial marriages, he did say that man shouldn't sleep with man. I think people can get over everyone having the right to drink out of the same water fountain but never seeing two guys make out.

So what do you support, an overhaul of the church, civil unions, or something else?

If it doesn't stop you keep opposing it until it does. How is this so hard to grasp?

And - in relation to this - my honest answer is to tell the various small minded, petty religions of the world to grow up.

However since I appear to be the only one who thinks that will be the best answer, I would support one of two things.

First - ban the word marriage thoughout the whole of the UN. Everyone can get married - gay, straight, black, purple, pink, green and polka dot - but no government gets to call it that.

Second - allow the word marriage to apply to every joining of a couple. So that everyone - gay, straight, black, purple etc etc etc - and everyone gets to call it that.

Otherwise I stay with the current resolution and campaign for it to never be repealed, and for it to be put up on the wall of every house in every nation :}

Paul said man shouldn't sleep with man. Paul. The Sodom thing was about [I humiliation[/I] and rape not about same sex.

Sorry, I'm not to big on the Bible but that's all mute

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #12
Gay Rights

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kundu

Description: WHEREAS it has been clearly witnessed there is an outspoken minority who wish to oppress gays.

We, the People's Republic of Kundu and the other peoples of the world wishing for the preservation of freedom and the respect of all hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life. We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.

Votes For: 12,705
Votes Against: 7,734

Implemented: Sat May 3 2003

To me, that means we have to enforce, gay marriages, not civil unions.

Wow! slow down guys.

Sorry for him, but people are going to vote against gay marriages because they believe in the Bible.

Is this a bad thing? That people vote on issues according to their beliefs? Sorry to tell you, but most nation's laws are based on religious beliefs. Here in America, they are based off of the Ten Commandments, which are remarkably similar to "The Rules" of almost every other religion; do not kill, do not lie, do not commit adultery, do not steal, love god, love others, etc. Now, of course, not all laws are dictated by these beliefs, but the foundation for them does.


This is not even per se discriminatory, many of the churches who see homosexuality as a sin, as so in accordance with their own beliefs, also will not marry people who have been married before...

Bravo, Tekania. Well spoken.


Unless they can prove their God is real and that their interpretation of him is true then I don't think they should use law to promote there beliefs. Would it be different if a Muslim wanted you to follow there favorite law school?

But the point is that laws are made by one's (or a group's) personal set of morals, ethics, and priorities, and these are usually shaped by religion. Its not like everyone in America has to follow the entire Law of Moses to the letter, far from it. There is just a core set of ethics that laws are based on. Oh, and I would not have that much of a problem with following the core Muslim beliefs, they are quite similar to my own.


And thesee are, most likely, the same church people who said they would rebel if blacks were allowed to marry whites. And they did.

Excuse me, which 'church people' revolted when segregation ended? These same 'church people' should have learned in Romans that What then? are we better than they [the Jews]? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;. Also in proverbs, also throughout Christ's teachings. It says clearly that no nationality if better than any other. It says otherwise concerning homosexuality.


some people belie that God doesn’t want blacks to marry whites or women to vote. And they can believe that.

But God DOESN'T. Your point id ridiculous and irrelevant.

Paul said man shouldn't sleep with man. Paul.
No he doesn’t. He doesn’t. The Law of Moses says this, in Deuteronomy. A couple thousand years before Paul’s Time.


First - ban the word marriage throughout the whole of the UN. Everyone can get married - gay, straight, black, purple, pink, green and polka dot - but no government gets to call it that.

But this doesn’t solve the problem at all. The disagreement will still be there.


Finally, seriously, how far do you think this will go? After Blacks were proclaimed equal, to say otherwise was called hate speech, as it should. But if homosexuality is proclaimed no different from heterosexuality, what will happen to doctrine that teaches that it is a sin? Do you seriously think that it will remain unaffected? I can guarantee you that it will not.

And if you want to talk numbers, fine. Here in the U.S. a dozen-odd states have voted on this issue. EVERY ONE voted to keep traditional marriage. Every one. It took only one self centered judge, however, to override the will of the people.

Now, it would be nice if we lived in a nice, perfect world where everyone was happy and got along. But we don’t. So, in our little, imperfect world, we have to do something called ‘appeal to the masses.’ It happens all the time in business. You can’t satisfy the wants of every person, to the majority has to suffice. And apparently here we want to keep marriage between a man and a woman. Those of you here, accept that most of the people don’t agree with you and move on. I would have done the same if Kerry had been elected or if the states had voted for gay marriage.

Now, does anyone want to bring up any real arguments?

Paul did not say men should not sleep with men, not exactly. He said the fact that they were doing this was an example of how God was punishing them, as if they got lice or boils or something.

Paul of course was single, had some unidentified "thorn in the flesh", told women to shut up, and was otherwise not very progressive.

OOC:

SalusaSacundus: First a word of warning. The mods don't like people who take names very similar to their own. I would not expect to survive long with a name like yours.*

Secondly, you appear to be arguing RL events (Kerry doesn't exist here) without understanding NS history. Gay marriage is allowed in all UN member-states, and has been for some time (since May 3 2003, to be precise). And guess what? The majority of people voted for it. You can easily see it in the list of passed proposals (Resolution #12: Gay Rights), or even by scrolling up to the post above yours.

But this has nothing to do with religion. What Gay Rights required was that gay marriages be endorsed and supported by law in the member nations. And yes, people can be married outside of the church. It is called a civil or common-law marriage. It isn't a new thing, either.

IC:
Within the Conseilin of Enn, all religions are allowed to marry, or not marry, whomever they wish. However, for the marriage to be legally verified, it must be registered with the Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages. The process is similar to how we gather marriages are performed within the Black New World.

* If it is you, SalusaSecundus, then I do apologise for mistaking you. But if that is the case, then I am sorry but I no longer respect you.
However, I seriously doubt that to be the case.

I don't support gay marriages.

Are you in the UN? (goes and looks. "New Willandia - UN MEMBER")

You do. Like it or not you do.



UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #12
Gay Rights

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kundu

Description: WHEREAS it has been clearly witnessed there is an outspoken minority who wish to oppress gays.

We, the People's Republic of Kundu and the other peoples of the world wishing for the preservation of freedom and the respect of all hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life. We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.

Votes For: 12,705
Votes Against: 7,734

Implemented: Sat May 3 2003

And at the same time there is no requirement in the text requireing governments to perform gay marriages either, which is why in The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites all marriages must be peformed by an ordained member of the clergy, i.e. a priest, a rabbi, a minister, a pastor, a shaman, whatever. Which means that even though gay marriage is legal it has never actually happened in The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites.

Sorry. You're in the UN, right?
(Checks - Flibbleites, UN MEMBER)

So that attempt is illegal as per :


UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #12
Gay Rights

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kundu

Description: WHEREAS it has been clearly witnessed there is an outspoken minority who wish to oppress gays.

We, the People's Republic of Kundu and the other peoples of the world wishing for the preservation of freedom and the respect of all hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life. We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.

Votes For: 12,705
Votes Against: 7,734

Implemented: Sat May 3 2003


As a member of the UN you have no choice in the matter. Your attempt to "make them not happen in my backyard" fails miserably as various UN Gnomes override your legal system, rewrite your laws, jail those who are attempting to prevent Gay Marriage, and get on with their lives.

Why? Because refusing to perform a gay marriage would be discriminatory, and that is spelled out as illegal in the resolution.

In short - you're a member of the UN, you abide by all UN Resolutions. You DO NOT get a choice in the matter.

Clear enough? Or is a repost of the relevant parts of the FAQ required?

* If it is you, SalusaSecundus, then I do apologise for mistaking you.

Mmm... don't believe it is. Obviously it isn't Sal's main account (re: join date, post count, lack of "NationStates Moderator Team" thingie), and it isn't his writing style. And he rarely argues pros and cons of UN resolutions. He more sticks to techie things.

I'll do some actual checking when I get home, but I'm 99.9% confident that it's just a random person who wanted to name himself after a planet in Dune. Unfortunately for him, he may get splorted as his name's definately close enough to cause confusion.

Eqaulity. Eqaulity. I don't believe I know the meaning of this word. Eqaulity by definition is the state of being equal, but that is impossible. By forcing eqaulity on someone, you are robbing them of their rights. By forcing people to do things against their morals, you are fueling a pressure cooker of hatred. Now as I believe one of the U.Ns main goals, is to spread "Civil Rights," and that is a lie, since when was it the UNs duty to say how we treat a minority, when it is the majority that matters. You can't just chose the minority, because you then say the majority can't do this or that. Corrupt is what this is. Behind lies of "equality" we are really forcing others to see someone else's version of whats right and wrong. No different than those Conservatives I hear so much about.

The UN has no duty. And I'd rather annoy people who take rights away then allow people to be oppressed.

The ones whose religions forbid it are free not to marry the same sex.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Vastiva, being in the UN Does not mean you support all of the resolutions. It means you adopt and enforce them. As long as the benefits of membership outweight the loss of sovereignty on issues, then you stay a member. When it does not, you leave. So, as a member AP adopts and enforces resolutions that it does not support.

For that reason AP respects the rights of keenly alive and exuberant persons to be equal to those who are depressed and sarcastic. And endorses and protects happy and exciting marriages.

Nice try, but you still lose.


UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #12
Gay Rights

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kundu

Description: WHEREAS it has been clearly witnessed there is an outspoken minority who wish to oppress gays.

We, the People's Republic of Kundu and the other peoples of the world wishing for the preservation of freedom and the respect of all hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life. We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.

Votes For: 12,705
Votes Against: 7,734

Implemented: Sat May 3 2003

Attempting to stop homosexual marriage would be discriminatory. Ergo, tzonk, you are added to the list of those who tried and failed.

The UN Gnomes are going to be busy.

(OOC) Since you are arguing about the real world, I figured I should step out of the world of Tori for a moment :}


Excuse me, which 'church people' revolted when segregation ended? These same 'church people' should have learned in Romans that What then? are we better than they [the Jews]? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;. Also in proverbs, also throughout Christ's teachings. It says clearly that no nationality if better than any other. It says otherwise concerning homosexuality.


The KKK. A body of good upstanding white folks who didn't want the blacks being treated as equal. And various people refer to the bible as the source of the reason why white people are better than black people. It doesn't make it right, and it might not even be what the bible says. But it was used as justification for a fair long while.


Finally, seriously, how far do you think this will go? After Blacks were proclaimed equal, to say otherwise was called hate speech, as it should. But if homosexuality is proclaimed no different from heterosexuality, what will happen to doctrine that teaches that it is a sin? Do you seriously think that it will remain unaffected? I can guarantee you that it will not.


Good.


And if you want to talk numbers, fine. Here in the U.S. a dozen-odd states have voted on this issue. EVERY ONE voted to keep traditional marriage. Every one. It took only one self centered judge, however, to override the will of the people.


And if you look back in to the past of the USA and find how many states first voted against equal rights, would the number be about the same?


Now, it would be nice if we lived in a nice, perfect world where everyone was happy and got along. But we don’t. So, in our little, imperfect world, we have to do something called ‘rappeal to the masses.’ It happens all the time in business. You can’t satisfy the wants of every person, to the majority has to suffice. And apparently here we want to keep marriage between a man and a woman. Those of you here, accept that most of the people don’t agree with you and move on. I would have done the same if Kerry had been elected or if the states had voted for gay marriage.


I'm sorry, but no. It is totally unacceptable to tell the minorty to "deal with it" just because they are the minority. If you expect people who are being discriminated against just to sit down and shut up because you don't think they have a chance of wining, then you haven't learned from history. Take the USA and the civil rights movement. What if - back in the beginning - Martin Luthor King Jr had just said "well - I don't suppose we will ever win so why should we bother"?

If you see injustice and discrimination, you stand up against it, or you are condoning it.




Now, does anyone want to bring up any real arguments?

I like the way you have managed to write off the whole of the debates so far - saying that everyone is equal and that homophobia should not be made legal, as "not real". Out of curiousity, what would you consider a real arguement?

Churches (or temples or any other religious body) in Fass don't have the right to marry people.

Marriage is a contract between two people which the government acknowledges. The churches are completely irrelevant in this.

They can still bless couples however they see fit, but if they offer that service to straight couples, then they have to offer it to gays as well.

No, religion is not an excuse for discrimination.

Churches (or temples or any other religious body) in Fass don't have the right to marry people.

Marriage is a contract between two people which the government acknowledges. The churches are completely irrelevant in this.

They can still bless couples however they see fit, but if they offer that service to straight couples, then they have to offer it to gays as well.

No, religion is not an excuse for discrimination.

:)

Look, its not that big a deal. Gay people should be able to marry, but churches shouldn't be forced to let them marry. So what do we do? Legalize gay marriage, but allow churches the right to not have them take place inside the church. The only problem I have with the current resolution is that it say all nations have to allow gay marriage. It doesn't stop to consider non-secular nations that ban it. The resolution itself is an attack on human rights. The rights I'm talking about are the ones that religious people have.

Remember, we may hate bigots, but they have the right to be hateful, just as we have the right to hate them.

Here are the changes needed for the resolution:
-Change marriage to civil union.
-Marriage, since it is seen as a religious thing in many nations, is only allowed in churches that condone it.
-Allow churches that don't condone it the right to turn people away.(This includes churches that only allow gay marriage.)
-Make civil unions and marriages for people in all nations COMPLETELY equal.
-Allow straight and gay people all equal rights.
-Acknowledge that being straight or gay is a sexual preference, not two different societies or races. (This might sound like a weird thing to say, but there are people that treat it like its a disease, and there are people that treat homosexuals like they are a superior race. People on both side go too far.)

Thats it. It is a resonable compromise for all nation of the UN.

Look, its not that big a deal. Gay people should be able to marry, but churches shouldn't be forced to let them marry. So what do we do? Legalize gay marriage, but allow churches the right to not have them take place inside the church. The only problem I have with the current resolution is that it say all nations have to allow gay marriage. It doesn't stop to consider non-secular nations that ban it. The resolution itself is an attack on human rights. The rights I'm talking about are the ones that religious people have.

Remember, we may hate bigots, but they have the right to be hateful, just as we have the right to hate them.

Here are the changes needed for the resolution:
-Change marriage to civil union.
-Marriage, since it is seen as a religious thing in many nations, is only allowed in churches that condone it.
-Allow churches that don't condone it the right to turn people away.(This includes churches that only allow gay marriage.)
-Make civil unions and marriages for people in all nations COMPLETELY equal.
-Allow straight and gay people all equal rights.
-Acknowledge that being straight or gay is a sexual preference, not two different societies or races. (This might sound like a weird thing to say, but there are people that treat it like its a disease, and there are people that treat homosexuals like they are a superior race. People on both side go too far.)

Thats it. It is a resonable compromise for all nation of the UN.


You are still using two different phrases - "marriage" and "civil union". So you are still discriminating. And it's not a compromise for all nations of the UN, it's just giving all the homophobic bigots exactly what they want. Which isn't compromise, it's surrender.

You are still using two different phrases - "marriage" and "civil union". So you are still discriminating. And it's not a compromise for all nations of the UN, it's just giving all the homophobic bigots exactly what they want. Which isn't compromise, it's surrender.

Hear, hear! :)

I think Blackledge means that all legal bindings of this sort, whether straight or gay, would be civil unions, and marriage would become a non-legal thing, simply a religious blessing with no legal status.

But why should the irreligious amoung us, and those who don't conform to religious authorities' bigotries, have to surrender marriage, and settle for the distinctly less romantic "civil union"? Is the love existing between two atheists, or two men, or two members of a religion too minor to have a place of worship in which they could be blessed nearby, not equally deserving of the term marriage and all the meaning that accompanies it?

Marriage isn't what's recognized by the churches - matrimony is recognized by the churches - marriage is recognized by the state.

Thankyou.

Matrimony was a Roman legal state (matrimonium) and does not exist outside the scope of old roman law founded through Augustus Caesar, and is not found outside of Roman Law and its descent (The Roman Catholic Church)... Matrimonium was overturned for the Libertaire under the Magna Carta (Common Law) and is therefore no longer a valid functional legal state within states owning their principled descent from the principles of Common Law (OOC: RL UK, USA, French Republic, etc. and the US's soul existance is under the precept of Common Law, the Declaration of Independence was written by the authority of Common Law) and any nationstates which operate under said principles.

The Constitutional Republic of Tekania operates under the precept and authority of Common Law, and therefore state interference in Marriage is rendered null and void of any law and enforcement as an encroachment of civil liberties and freedom. Marriage exists in the state of Common Law contract only, and is not authoritatively legislated by any government or wordly authority, but only by parties involved in the contract.

The UN has no duty. And I'd rather annoy people who take rights away then allow people to be oppressed.

The ones whose religions forbid it are free not to marry the same sex.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Ah but I think the UN Charter (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.htm) says otherwise. Another very interesting thing is this charter, is that the rights of Gays is very much absent, but religious rights is present. If this is true, then forcing a Church to house the marriage of a gay is robbing said Church of it's right to deny the gay his or her marriage. Also we return to gay rights being absent of the UN's list, that means that all documents pushed forth by any nation to spread Gay rights, is oversteping a bondary. In English all proposals to force nations in the UN to give rights to gays, is null and void.

The UN has no duty. And I'd rather annoy people who take rights away then allow people to be oppressed.

The ones whose religions forbid it are free not to marry the same sex.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Ah but I think the UN Charter (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.htm) says otherwise. Another very interesting thing in this charter, is that the rights of Gays is very much absent, but religious rights is present. If this is true, then forcing a Church to house the marriage of a gay is robbing said Church of it's right to deny the gay his or her marriage. Also we return to gay rights being absent of the UN's list, that means that all documents pushed forth by any nation to spread Gay rights, is oversteping a bondary. In English all proposals to force nations in the UN to give rights to gays, is null and void.

Ah but I think the UN Charter (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.htm) says otherwise. Another very interesting thing in this charter, is that the rights of Gays is very much absent, but religious rights is present. If this is true, then forcing a Church to house the marriage of a gay is robbing said Church of it's right to deny the gay his or her marriage. Also we return to gay rights being absent of the UN's list, that means that all documents pushed forth by any nation to spread Gay rights, is oversteping a bondary. In English all proposals to force nations in the UN to give rights to gays, is null and void.

You are aware that all references to the UN are the Nation States UN? Not the one that exists in the real world, but the one that was created for this game.

It doesn't have a charter (as far as I am aware) and under Resolution #12 Gay Rights were written in to the laws of every nation that is a member. Yours, Mine, Theirs, Everybodys.

I just thought I would mention it :}

SalusaSacundus: First a word of warning. The mods don't like people who take names very similar to their own. I would not expect to survive long with a name like yours.*

Wait.... did I spell that incorrectly.... So I did.

I apologize for the confusion. I had no idea that someone was already SalusaSecundus.


Secondly, you appear to be arguing RL events

Point taken, but my reference to Kerry was an example. Please disregard my reference to every state opposing gay marriage.

But is this comment directed only towards me, or 1 Eyed Weasels' static and TilEnca's 'church people?' Quite frankly, your scrutiny seems a bit biased.


The KKK. A body of good upstanding white folks who didn't want the blacks being treated as equal. And various people refer to the bible as the source of the reason why white people are better than black people. It doesn't make it right, and it might not even be what the bible says. But it was used as justification for a fair long while.

First of all, if you mean the KKK, say the KKK. Second, the point it is doesn't say that blacks are inferior to whites, quite the opposite. It does say that homosexuality is a sin. The KKK interpreted the Bible incorrectly.


Good.

So, you want to ban Christianity and the Bible. Gotcha. Well, you can be the one that gets to tell 1/3 of the world that they are no longer allowed to practice their religion and they have to turn in their Bibles for burning. If this isn't a violation of civil rights, I don't know what is.


I'm sorry, but no. It is totally unacceptable to tell the minorty to "deal with it" just because they are the minority. If you expect people who are being discriminated against just to sit down and shut up because you don't think they have a chance of wining, then you haven't learned from history. Take the USA and the civil rights movement. What if - back in the beginning - Martin Luthor King Jr had just said "well - I don't suppose we will ever win so why should we bother"?

Excuse me, there is a HUGE difference between equality between races and gay marriage. One was discrimination. It was wrong. The other is the definition of marriage.

In America, a gay man has every right that a straight man has. The right to vote, drive, marry a woman. No man has the right to marry another man. Now, I am fine with 'civil union' between homosexuals, but not marriage, and to me there is a difference between the two. I would be fine with this because I realize that many people do not think as I do. I think they are wrong, but I realize that it would not be fair if everything went my way. So I'll compromise, something you seem unable to do.


Out of curiousity, what would you consider a real arguement?

What I mean is that some of the points brought up here have been complete rubbish, from your 'church people;' to The New Black World saying that Paul said no to gay marriage and that some people interpret the Bible saying that God opposes gay marriage; to you telling 'petty religions of the world' to grow up, grow out of their doctrine. Who are to tell 2 billion people that they need to change their beliefs, that their doctrine is false?


You can't just chose the minority, because you then say the majority can't do this or that. Corrupt is what this is.

Exactly.


You are still using two different phrases - "marriage" and "civil union". So you are still discriminating. And it's not a compromise for all nations of the UN, it's just giving all the homophobic bigots exactly what they want. Which isn't compromise, it's surrender.

But it's not marriage! It just isn't. And besides, this is a compromise. You want gay marriage, I don't. And this is a compromise that I'd be willing to accept.


You keep calling me a 'religious fanatic' and a bigot; have I been harping to repeal the ruling? No. I accept that I have lost, and I'm not going to whine and scream about it. I've only explained why I think gay marriage shouldn't be made legal.

So, you want to ban Christianity and the Bible. Gotcha. Well, you can be the one that gets to tell 1/3 of the world that they are no longer allowed to practice their religion and they have to turn in their Bibles for burning. If this isn't a violation of civil rights, I don't know what is.

I highly doubt that, and I don't believe that is what he said.

Just to play Devil's Advocate here for a moment...

Assuming, for a moment, that UN nation X has separation of church and state. Chruches exist within nation X, but they are not connected to the government in any way, shape, or form. Now, since these churches are private institutions, do they not have the right to choose with whom they associate?

Just as the real world NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) wouldn't be terribly interested in granting a white supremicist membership, a particularly hardline church in nation X probably wouldn't be horribly welcoming to homosexuals.

Briefly, the question here is: Does Gay Rights, by default, remove the rights of private organizations to choose with whom they associate?

If you say yes, this is a much more wide ranging Resolution than I think anybody ever considered, or possibly even wanted.

As I read it, if the churches are separate from the state, they would have the right to refuse to perform homosexual marrages. HOWEVER, since the Gay Rights Resolution demands "... that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations," nations must make "homosexual marriage" available to any couple that wants it, be it via a Justice of the Peace, wedding chapel, or whatever.

Removing the right of private organizations to associate how they chose is a very dangerous precident, and would have very wide-reaching results.

Just something to mull over.

Nice try, but you still lose.



Attempting to stop homosexual marriage would be discriminatory. Ergo, tzonk, you are added to the list of those who tried and failed.

The UN Gnomes are going to be busy.

Not trying to stop homosexual marriage. Just illustrating that a gay marriage is the only one AP is required to protect and endorse. If AP finds the marriage is not a gay one, it removes the associated priviledges until the marriage meets the UN Criteria. This is to protect the physical and emotional well being of all our citizens.

Please, make sure all of the criteria for a logical argument are met before using ergo. The word is sancrosanct, and you have a bad habit of avoiding its proper use.

Proper: If (as you missed the point of the post it is beneficial to use if and not assume you know what another person is actually talking about) you are attempting to stop homosexual marriage, then you are being discriminatory. Ergo, you are in violation of UN Resolutions, and tzonk...

Ask yourself: who made me realize it was necessary to define marriage in the first place? :)

Ah but I think the UN Charter (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.htm) says otherwise. Another very interesting thing is this charter, is that the rights of Gays is very much absent, but religious rights is present. If this is true, then forcing a Church to house the marriage of a gay is robbing said Church of it's right to deny the gay his or her marriage. Also we return to gay rights being absent of the UN's list, that means that all documents pushed forth by any nation to spread Gay rights, is oversteping a bondary. In English all proposals to force nations in the UN to give rights to gays, is null and void.

Wrong UN. You didn't think we were voting for resolutions for the Real UN, did you? Because if so, I must openly laugh at you for the next six days.

First of all, if you mean the KKK, say the KKK. Second, the point it is doesn't say that blacks are inferior to whites, quite the opposite. It does say that homosexuality is a sin. The KKK interpreted the Bible incorrectly.

Actually, the KKK are working off an interpretation started long before they existed. It's not them who misinterpreted the Bible, just that they are continuing the misinterpretation.

So, you want to ban Christianity and the Bible. Gotcha. Well, you can be the one that gets to tell 1/3 of the world that they are no longer allowed to practice their religion and they have to turn in their Bibles for burning. If this isn't a violation of civil rights, I don't know what is.

He never said that. You are putting words in his mouth and misinterpreting what he said to benefit your arguement on purpose.

And, there are churches around that are Christian and willing to allow gays in them and even marry them. Christianity was forced to adapt to the idea of the world being round, so it will adapt to the idea of homosexuals being treated the same as everyone else.

Excuse me, there is a HUGE difference between equality between races and gay marriage. One was discrimination. It was wrong. The other is the definition of marriage.

In America, a gay man has every right that a straight man has. The right to vote, drive, marry a woman. No man has the right to marry another man. Now, I am fine with 'civil union' between homosexuals, but not marriage, and to me there is a difference between the two. I would be fine with this because I realize that many people do not think as I do. I think they are wrong, but I realize that it would not be fair if everything went my way. So I'll compromise, something you seem unable to do.

I've pointed out multiple times on this forum why this logic is faulty. I'll say it one last time. If you cannot figure it out, you are beyond help.

The idea of "separate but equal" was that African Americans would be given facilities equal to caucasians. However, it was still separating them out from the rest of the population. If humanity was a civilized species, it might have worked out, but humanity isn't a civilized species and won't be anytime soon.

Segregating people from the majority is a form of discrimination. That has been established by the Surpreme Court, by history, by how people who have been segregated have been treated by the others, and by common sense. Are you going to tell all of them they are wrong? Because so far you are.

Also, your logic was how "separate but equal" was justified. All you've done is change the targets and the words.

What I mean is that some of the points brought up here have been complete rubbish, from your 'church people;' to The New Black World saying that Paul said no to gay marriage and that some people interpret the Bible saying that God opposes gay marriage; to you telling 'petty religions of the world' to grow up, grow out of their doctrine. Who are to tell 2 billion people that they need to change their beliefs, that their doctrine is false?

Not all of those "2 billion" people agree with you. Also, the number is smaller than that. 1/3 was true back around when we had 4.5 billion but isn't true anymore. The rise of the Neo Pagan religions and Islam, combined with the general view of Christianity as an intolerant religion out to kill everyone who disagrees with it or force them through reeducation camps, have managed to cause the religion to go into a decline, with the largest decline rate being, iirc, in the US. I had a year of extinction estimate somewhere, but can't find it right now.

But it's not marriage! It just isn't. And besides, this is a compromise. You want gay marriage, I don't. And this is a compromise that I'd be willing to accept.


You keep calling me a 'religious fanatic' and a bigot; have I been harping to repeal the ruling? No. I accept that I have lost, and I'm not going to whine and scream about it. I've only explained why I think gay marriage shouldn't be made legal.

Marriage is the union of two, or more in some cultures (like mine), people under law. That is the current NS definition. And every dictionary I have looked in, including Merriam-Webster and the OED (the top two Authorities on word definitions), agree with legal status being important in the definition of marriage. Both the MW and the OED include the word in their first definition.

He never said that. You are putting words in his mouth and misinterpreting what he said to benefit your arguement on purpose.

Now, lets think about this for a moment. Gays are ruled no different than straights. Nowk, the book of Deuteronomy is hate speech and banned. He said this would be a good thing. Churches are not allowed to teach their full doctrine. Infact, the printing of is is also illegal.

Segregating people from the majority is a form of discrimination. That has been established by the Surpreme Court, by history, by how people who have been segregated have been treated by the others, and by common sense. Are you going to tell all of them they are wrong? Because so far you are.

Also, your logic was how "separate but equal" was justified. All you've done is change the targets and the words.


Wow, wow. I never said I approved segregation, I said it was wrong. How you got that out of my post, I don't know.


Not all of those "2 billion" people agree with you. Also, the number is smaller than that. 1/3 was true back around when we had 4.5 billion but isn't true anymore.
Hmmm... according to religioustolerance.org, 33% of the world were Christians in the year 2,000.


combined with the general view of Christianity as an intolerant religion out to kill everyone who disagrees with it or force them through reeducation camps

Yes, and who's the bigot here?

Sorry. You're in the UN, right?
(Checks - Flibbleites, UN MEMBER)

So that attempt is illegal as per :



As a member of the UN you have no choice in the matter. Your attempt to "make them not happen in my backyard" fails miserably as various UN Gnomes override your legal system, rewrite your laws, jail those who are attempting to prevent Gay Marriage, and get on with their lives.

Why? Because refusing to perform a gay marriage would be discriminatory, and that is spelled out as illegal in the resolution.

In short - you're a member of the UN, you abide by all UN Resolutions. You DO NOT get a choice in the matter.

Clear enough? Or is a repost of the relevant parts of the FAQ required?
I know that as a UN member my nation is required to allow gay marriage, however nowhere in the "Gay Rights Resolution" dies it say that my nation has to peform them, and in fact my nation's marriage laws strictly prohibit any government official from performing any type of marriage. So if a gay couple want to get married in my nation they have every right to do so, they just have to find an ordained member of the clergy who will perform the ceremony.

Now, lets think about this for a moment. Gays are ruled no different than straights. Nowk, the book of Deuteronomy is hate speech and banned. He said this would be a good thing. Churches are not allowed to teach their full doctrine. Infact, the printing of is is also illegal.

If you go even by the decency laws of the US, the entire book is banned. It does include incest, murder, and a bunch of other things frowned on in other books.

Wow, wow. I never said I approved segregation, I said it was wrong. How you got that out of my post, I don't know.

Let's compare what you were saying to the dictionary definition of segregate:

Main Entry: 1seg·re·gate
Pronunciation: 'se-gri-"gAt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -gat·ed; -gat·ing
Etymology: Latin segregatus, past participle of segregare, from se- apart + greg-, grex herd -- more at SECEDE
transitive senses
1 : to separate or set apart from others or from the general mass : ISOLATE
2 : to cause or force the separation of (as from the rest of society)
intransitive senses
1 : SEPARATE, WITHDRAW
2 : to practice or enforce a policy of segregation
3 : to undergo genetic segregation

The parts in bold match your arguement.

Hmmm... according to religioustolerance.org, 33% of the world were Christians in the year 2,000.

That explains everything.

While they are a great internet source, their information is a bit outdated and sometimes from bad sources. Also, they've been known to sometimes get information wrong or not include enough in a category to actually cover it.

Yes, and who's the bigot here?

I'm a Roman Catholic. I'm just pointing out the factors that have lead to Christianity being in decline. Truth doesn't matter as much as perception in this world.

I know that as a UN member my nation is required to allow gay marriage, however nowhere in the "Gay Rights Resolution" dies it say that my nation has to peform them, and in fact my nation's marriage laws strictly prohibit any government official from performing any type of marriage. So if a gay couple want to get married in my nation they have every right to do so, they just have to find an ordained member of the clergy who will perform the ceremony.

You lose.

Your government (as this is a civil ceremony) has given the ability to decide law to the church. This puts the church under the authority of the resolution. As such, if they refuse, it is obstructionist and discriminatory, and they are removed.

Another problem is "Christian Revisionism"...

However, the argument of this thread is merely state sanctioned marriage (or lack thereof in my libertarian state)... and not pertained to what individual churches wish to do in relation to their ceremonial unions.

You lose.

Your government (as this is a civil ceremony) has given the ability to decide law to the church. This puts the church under the authority of the resolution. As such, if they refuse, it is obstructionist and discriminatory, and they are removed.

Actually, no... The resolution applies to the general government, not church governments... No church is required to perform a ceremony out-of-line with its own beliefs, or criteria.

Even with religious institutions, you will have gay-marriage... (sic the UU will perform such).

You are aware that all references to the UN are the Nation States UN? Not the one that exists in the real world, but the one that was created for this game.

It doesn't have a charter (as far as I am aware) and under Resolution #12 Gay Rights were written in to the laws of every nation that is a member. Yours, Mine, Theirs, Everybodys.

I just thought I would mention it :}


I burst out laughing when I heard this, really I did. You try to make me look like a fool by comparing our little play UN with the real thing. I made the inferance that since this is based on the UN, it would play by the same rules. Sure Gays may have the same rights, but that was already explained in a post above mine, so I'll skip explaining it to you in hopes you will actually read back.

You lose.

Your government (as this is a civil ceremony) has given the ability to decide law to the church. This puts the church under the authority of the resolution. As such, if they refuse, it is obstructionist and discriminatory, and they are removed.

Who are you to say what is protest and what is not?

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #12
Gay Rights

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kundu

Description: WHEREAS it has been clearly witnessed there is an outspoken minority who wish to oppress gays.

We, the People's Republic of Kundu and the other peoples of the world wishing for the preservation of freedom and the respect of all hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life. We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.

Votes For: 12,705
Votes Against: 7,734

Implemented: Sat May 3 2003
Originally Posted by Flibbleites
I know that as a UN member my nation is required to allow gay marriage, however nowhere in the "Gay Rights Resolution" dies it say that my nation has to peform them, and in fact my nation's marriage laws strictly prohibit any government official from performing any type of marriage. So if a gay couple want to get married in my nation they have every right to do so, they just have to find an ordained member of the clergy who will perform the ceremony.
Originally posted by Vastiva: Your government (as this is a civil ceremony) has given the ability to decide law to the church. This puts the church under the authority of the resolution. As such, if they refuse, it is obstructionist and discriminatory, and they are removed.

Religions do not conduct civil ceremonies, they conduct religious ceremonies. The UN has in no way mandated that a system of civil joining exist in every NS. The Fibbles government has no civil system of marriage. As it has no such system, it is not violating any UN rules. Therefore, it can not be said that civil power has been transferred to any religious group.

Fibbles is required to endorse gay marriage and protect them. That means if a religion grants whatever gay people are in his country marriages, then his government endorses and protects them from discrimination by other citizens/religions.

Now, if Fibbles government grants any benefits to those couples married by churches, acknowledges them as one entity for tax purposes, for example, then it is required to do so for any marriages given by a church, including one that grants gay marriages. To not do so would be discrimination against a religious group, and a violation of UN Resolutions. There is no rule extending UN Resolutions to religious groups.

There appears to be a train of thought that the UN has created system of marriage for all UN NS. The Human Rights Initiative and Gay Rights resolution do not do that. The UN has merely defined marriage, if it passes, and requires UN Nations to promote and endorse marriages non-discriminatorily if such a system exists in the NS. The UN has not required NS to grant marriages.

Actually, no... The resolution applies to the general government, not church governments... No church is required to perform a ceremony out-of-line with its own beliefs, or criteria.

Even with religious institutions, you will have gay-marriage... (sic the UU will perform such).

If the government decides the secular authority to create the civil condition of "marriage" rests in the church, and as the UN oversees secular authority...

The rest follows naturally.

Ah but I think the UN Charter (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.htm) says otherwise. Another very interesting thing is this charter, is that the rights of Gays is very much absent, but religious rights is present. If this is true, then forcing a Church to house the marriage of a gay is robbing said Church of it's right to deny the gay his or her marriage. Also we return to gay rights being absent of the UN's list, that means that all documents pushed forth by any nation to spread Gay rights, is oversteping a bondary. In English all proposals to force nations in the UN to give rights to gays, is null and void.

*thwap*

This is the NATION STATES UNITED NATION. It has no relevance to the "Real UN". And Vice Versa.

Stop pulling this up, you've done it twice and are only proving you still don't get the point. There is no connection between the "real" United Nations and the Nation States United Nations.

Stop pulling this up, you've done it twice and are only proving you still don't get the point. There is no connection between the "real" United Nations and the Nation States United Nations.

And, if you submit anything as a proposal citing RL UN data, chances are it won' see the light of day. So, it's a good thing to try and keep everything unrelated to the RL UN to make it habit.

I burst out laughing when I heard this, really I did. You try to make me look like a fool by comparing our little play UN with the real thing. I made the inferance that since this is based on the UN, it would play by the same rules. Sure Gays may have the same rights, but that was already explained in a post above mine, so I'll skip explaining it to you in hopes you will actually read back.


I really am sorry - I wasn't trying to make you look like a fool I swear.
It's just sometimes people wander in here off the streets (so to speak), not realsing that this is attached to a game (Nation States) and they find us discussing the UN, not realising it's not the actual UN.

I just wanted to make sure you were not proceeding from a false premise.

If I offended you, I am really very sorry!

If the government decides the secular authority to create the civil condition of "marriage" rests in the church, and as the UN oversees secular authority...

The rest follows naturally.

The government doesn't decide anything. If a government chooses not to legislate the issue, or merely has the procedure that it only accepts marriage as performed by an ordained member of a clergy... That has no direct bearing on the gay-rights resolution; there are churches (Unitarian Universalism) who will perform ceremonies for gays. The UN has no power, by restriction placed upon it through its own resolutions, to take over institutional governments... And to even advocate that is criminal in nature... institutional governments are not members of the UN, and the UN has no right or authority to press any view on them, contrary to their instituted nature.

Sorry.... Vastiva... Your views are neither liberal, nor correct, not in line with the complete scope of NSUN resolutions... And Vasitva, if you continue the blatant, rightist tactic, advocating the violation of Res#26-Art.1... I will be forced to place you on report.

** The difference between Rightists, Leftists, and Libertarians... Rightists talk about freedom; Leftists dream about freedom; and Libertarians actually BELIEVE in freedom **

...the Bahgum ambassador for human rights re-reads the briefing notes and quietly leaves the room...

Oh..so this isn't the circumcise gay males proposal?.......

If the government decides the secular authority to create the civil condition of "marriage" rests in the church, and as the UN oversees secular authority...

I've been trying to put that into words for a while. Wow, sometimes I really need a brain laxative.

The problem arrises, for those of us of Common Law principle, is that by advocating the allowability of the state to make descisions upon institutional governments; that it therefore created the precedent for NSUN law to order the violation of other NSUN laws... If such is allowed, you are looking at the complete downfall and destruction of this body.

I'm sorry, institutional governments are protected under NSUN resolution "Universal Bill of Rights" Article I. They have the NSUN protected right to their faith. And there are enough of them, so that by removing the authority of marriage from the general government; in no way violates the principles or freedom enjoined by NSUN Resolution "Gay Rights".

The only loophole would be the definitive question of the Nations which does so definition and scope of institutional governments in relation to the UBR Art.1... Since by definition, in enforcement of the freedom, liberties and rights of Article 1.... Institutionalized Agnosticism, Irreligion, and Atheistic groups, would be as valid a marker of civil authority in this capacity, as that of the RCC, Presby's and what not.

ok saying that the church shouldnt have to house gay marriages is plain stupid if you are a christian.
god created everyone as equal the bible states. so why treat gays differently??
either that or you agree that your religion is lying........
and as for atheists. if there are any atheists opposing gay marriage here why do you care if the church does this?

you may all be taking it down to UN technicalities here but it boils down to the fact that this debate revolves around religious and ethical disputes.

ok saying that the church shouldnt have to house gay marriages is plain stupid if you are a christian.
god created everyone as equal the bible states. so why treat gays differently??
either that or you agree that your religion is lying........
and as for atheists. if there are any atheists opposing gay marriage here why do you care if the church does this?

you may all be taing it down to UN technicalities here but it boils down to the fact that this debate revolves around religious and ethical disputes.

Institutional AKA Church Governments have a duty to operate by the precepts of their faith; which include limitations and such imposed upon their intendents based on such faith. Which includes the operation of open or closed communion, who they will and will not marry, and the involvement of their laity in church government.

This Republic has neither the intend nor desire to outlaw or control thought.

Its as simlpe as this. Humanity is flawed. Flat out, straight up, flawed. No one has the answers because there arent any questions that are simple enough to have one. NO ONE shoudl tell you how to live. NO ONE should tell you who to love. What to think. What to feel. They can create laws and consecquences to actions. But no one can tell you what the best way to live is.

Looked at from Locke, the government is only insittuted to protect my stuff. Therefore the government can keep itself out of our lives. Unless of course theres a homosexual band of gangsters trying to steal my stuff.

If the government decides the secular authority to create the civil condition of "marriage" rests in the church, and as the UN oversees secular authority...

The rest follows naturally.

Read what you wrote. Then analyze it. Think really hard.
Then delete it.

What the fuck is wrong with you people? Gay marrige my ass. Im not gonna bring god into this because there is no need. But seriously what the fuck is wrong with you people. If two guys wanna do it that fine, do it SOMEWHERE ELSE WHERE I DOTN HAVE TO SEE, HEAR, OR KNOW ABOUT IT. I mean even physicaly, girls and guys are ment to go togethor...if you get my drift....guys and guys is just fucking wrong. its not natural, if it was than penguins and horses would be gay.........last time i checked my two dogs werent going at it and their both guys. But i mean seriously if anyone has seen this tell me but until then think it over in the UN debate, that and the fact that most of the debate topics in there are retarted. No androids should not be given rights their not even fucking human, yes nuclear weapons should be alowed its called defence, i mean the list goes on and on....god dam UN. And dont teligram me to say stop bitcking just exit the Un, i cant my region demands it if i want to be part of the defence unit, and dont say leave the region, its the best in this game. I just hate the UN fucking up my nation with all its god dam mother fucking liberal wing bicthnuts views.

Sincerely and angry kid

any q's? my naiton is called Brenous VI mail me it will be fun!

Spelling, grammar, and chain of thought as opposed to run on sentences.

Being a libertarian, I'm sure you do not want my synopsis of the "right-wing"....

What the fuck is wrong with you people? Gay marrige my ass. Im not gonna bring god into this because there is no need. But seriously what the fuck is wrong with you people. If two guys wanna do it that fine, do it SOMEWHERE ELSE WHERE I DOTN HAVE TO SEE, HEAR, OR KNOW ABOUT IT. I mean even physicaly, girls and guys are ment to go togethor...if you get my drift....guys and guys is just fucking wrong. its not natural, if it was than penguins and horses would be gay.........last time i checked my two dogs werent going at it and their both guys. But i mean seriously if anyone has seen this tell me but until then think it over in the UN debate, that and the fact that most of the debate topics in there are retarted. No androids should not be given rights their not even fucking human, yes nuclear weapons should be alowed its called defence, i mean the list goes on and on....god dam UN. And dont teligram me to say stop bitcking just exit the Un, i cant my region demands it if i want to be part of the defence unit, and dont say leave the region, its the best in this game. I just hate the UN fucking up my nation with all its god dam mother fucking liberal wing bicthnuts views.

Sincerely and angry kid

any q's? my naiton is called Brenous VI mail me it will be fun!


There is evidence to suggest some animals are gay. Does that help?

What the fuck is wrong with you people? Gay marrige my ass. Im not gonna bring god into this because there is no need. But seriously what the fuck is wrong with you people. If two guys wanna do it that fine, do it SOMEWHERE ELSE WHERE I DOTN HAVE TO SEE, HEAR, OR KNOW ABOUT IT. I mean even physicaly, girls and guys are ment to go togethor...if you get my drift....guys and guys is just fucking wrong. its not natural, if it was than penguins and horses would be gay.........last time i checked my two dogs werent going at it and their both guys. But i mean seriously if anyone has seen this tell me but until then think it over in the UN debate, that and the fact that most of the debate topics in there are retarted. No androids should not be given rights their not even fucking human, yes nuclear weapons should be alowed its called defence, i mean the list goes on and on....god dam UN. And dont teligram me to say stop bitcking just exit the Un, i cant my region demands it if i want to be part of the defence unit, and dont say leave the region, its the best in this game. I just hate the UN fucking up my nation with all its god dam mother fucking liberal wing bicthnuts views.

Oh what a load of HORSE crap.

First off, homosexuality is natural, otherwise it would not occur in a natural world. It has existed since the dawn of time and the very founders of Western civilization praised it as the highest form of a relationship. It occurs naturally in dolphins, monkeys, dogs, lions (as well as some other members of the cat family), and some forms of birds. According to studies by Simon LeVay in 1993, sexual orientation can be linked to the human brain. LeVay studied brains of both homosexual and heterosexual men and found a small but VERY IMPORTANT difference in the hypothalamus, the part of the brain that regulates hormones and a million other things.

Also, Hamer and Copeland in 1994 did some case studies on homosexuals... They suspect that it might even be somewhat genetically linked. One such study was of forty-four pairs of brothers that were ALL homosexual. They found that thirty-three pairs had a distinctive genetic pattern involving the X chromosome. Moreover, the gay brothers had an unsually high number of gay relatives - but only on their mother's side, the source of the X chromosome.

Yes, there has been many studies on whether or not homosexuality is a choice or is a product of society. It may just be that some people choose homosexuality because of sociological issues, but there is FAR more evidence backing up biological issues. Ask any homosexual if they CHOSE to be gay or not. I can remember a speaker I once listened to that said (and I quote), "I would never choose to be hated." If she had the choice, she would have avoided so much STUPID and MISGUIDED hatred from narrow minded morons. Seeing as how sexual orientation is based in biology, homosexuality is not a matter of choice and more than skin color. If this is so, shouldn't gay men and women expect the same legal protection from discrimination as African Americans?

Don't bring your blatant homophobia here. You'll get owned.

(Source of numbers and information: John C. Macionis)

And I just love the liberal bashings there at the end. You realize that almost everything in modern day life is a "liberal" idea, right? We wouldn't have come to America without liberals. We would not have revolted against the British if not for liberals. We would not have had Christianity if not for liberals. ...So don't give me that absolute bullshit that liberalism is a poison. Both conservatism and liberalism are perfectly acceptable and normal ways of life. If you don't like it, then leave. Who cares if it is the best region? Do you realize that this game is not really a competitive one? I cannot attack some other nation and then my region will back me up. Chill out and deal with it... Or leave. Plain and simple.

There is evidence to suggest some animals are gay. Does that help?

Yup like the adorable gay penguin couple at one of the major zoos in the US. I can break out the stats in my college bio text if anyone really wants me to, of course than I have to get it out of the attic, but what the hey... if it proves that lame duck wrong.

Hey, hey people. This isn't as bad as you think. The name of the resolution is the same right as everyone else, so even if you're a country tht opresses the masses, then it doesn't affect you at all, because the gays are still no better than an average straight peon.

Consider! X nation has a civil rights setting of outlawed, and same with political rights. Thus X nation has always had equal rights, since no one has rights to begin with.

Originally Posted by Brenous VI
What the fuck is wrong with you people? Gay marrige my ass. Im not gonna bring god into this because there is no need. But seriously what the fuck is wrong with you people. If two guys wanna do it that fine, do it SOMEWHERE ELSE WHERE I DOTN HAVE TO SEE, HEAR, OR KNOW ABOUT IT. I mean even physicaly, girls and guys are ment to go togethor...if you get my drift....guys and guys is just fucking wrong. its not natural, if it was than penguins and horses would be gay.........last time i checked my two dogs werent going at it and their both guys. But i mean seriously if anyone has seen this tell me but until then think it over in the UN debate, that and the fact that most of the debate topics in there are retarted. No androids should not be given rights their not even fucking human, yes nuclear weapons should be alowed its called defence, i mean the list goes on and on....god dam UN. And dont teligram me to say stop bitcking just exit the Un, i cant my region demands it if i want to be part of the defence unit, and dont say leave the region, its the best in this game. I just hate the UN fucking up my nation with all its god dam mother fucking liberal wing bicthnuts views.

Sincerely and angry kid

any q's? my naiton is called Brenous VI mail me it will be fun!

I find you to a very obtuse person. Please don't plant flame bait with an unthought out rant. If you would like to join us in actual debate, check your facts, from both sides of the story, before going off on senseless ramblings.

Sorry, I haven't been posting, (I need to study for my History, Spanish, and Science Exams) but I really believe that homosexuals couples should have the same rights in the eyes of the law that heterosexual couples. If they have a placed to get blessed, then great but, if they don't then whatever you're still together with the person you love. Really, isn't that what everyone wants?

its not natural, if it was than penguins and horses would be gay.........last time i checked my two dogs werent going at it and their both guys.

It has been found to be genetic in lower animals (sheep among others). Traits found to be genetic in lower animals invariably are found to be genetic in humans as well. So, it is very likely to be a recessive genetic trait.

If you are a homophobe, why do you and your macho guy friends hang out together under white sheets? Honestly, if that is how you share your repressed selves with one another; you are so deep in the closet you are finding christmas presents.

The government doesn't decide anything. If a government chooses not to legislate the issue, or merely has the procedure that it only accepts marriage as performed by an ordained member of a clergy... That has no direct bearing on the gay-rights resolution; there are churches (Unitarian Universalism) who will perform ceremonies for gays. The UN has no power, by restriction placed upon it through its own resolutions, to take over institutional governments... And to even advocate that is criminal in nature... institutional governments are not members of the UN, and the UN has no right or authority to press any view on them, contrary to their instituted nature.

Sorry.... Vastiva... Your views are neither liberal, nor correct, not in line with the complete scope of NSUN resolutions... And Vasitva, if you continue the blatant, rightist tactic, advocating the violation of Res#26-Art.1... I will be forced to place you on report.

** The difference between Rightists, Leftists, and Libertarians... Rightists talk about freedom; Leftists dream about freedom; and Libertarians actually BELIEVE in freedom **

Ok, I'm willing to discuss this one. Mind taking it to TG?

Sorry, I haven't been posting, (I need to study for my History, Spanish, and Science Exams) but I really believe that homosexuals couples should have the same rights in the eyes of the law that heterosexual couples. If they have a placed to get blessed, then great but, if they don't then whatever you're still together with the person you love. Really, isn't that what everyone wants?

Well yes, but no :}

This resolution is disgraceful. The UN has absolutley no jurisdcition over marriage. Civil or other wise. The aims of the United Nations is to promote peace,security and to up hold humanitarian law. This is too contraversial. Why not propose a resolution defining one religion or banning gays? The UN has no right to impose this resolution if passed.

This resolution is disgraceful. The UN has absolutley no jurisdcition over marriage. Civil or other wise. The aims of the United Nations is to promote peace,security and to up hold humanitarian law. This is too contraversial. Why not propose a resolution defining one religion or banning gays? The UN has no right to impose this resolution if passed.

Who gets to define "humanitarian law"?

This resolution is disgraceful. The UN has absolutley no jurisdcition over marriage. Civil or other wise. The aims of the United Nations is to promote peace,security and to up hold humanitarian law. This is too contraversial. Why not propose a resolution defining one religion or banning gays? The UN has no right to impose this resolution if passed.

I've read nowhere where the "aim" of the United Nations is as you describe... I have read that it lets' "you mold the world to your view".

IRT Mekonia

Sorry, but you seem to be about a year too late on that gay marriage thing.

This resolution is disgraceful. The UN has absolutley no jurisdcition over marriage. Civil or other wise. The aims of the United Nations is to promote peace,security and to up hold humanitarian law. This is too contraversial. Why not propose a resolution defining one religion or banning gays? The UN has no right to impose this resolution if passed.

Quite bloody obviously, the UN DOES have jurisdiction here... Otherwise it would not be up for vote... And winning by a massive lead.

Quite bloody obviously, the UN DOES have jurisdiction here... Otherwise it would not be up for vote... And winning by a massive lead.
I like you…

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

This resolution is disgraceful. The UN has absolutley no jurisdcition over marriage. Civil or other wise. The aims of the United Nations is to promote peace,security and to up hold humanitarian law. This is too contraversial. Why not propose a resolution defining one religion or banning gays? The UN has no right to impose this resolution if passed.

Defining one religion: Those exist. Reported one to the mods last night.
Banning gays: Reported one of those to the mods last night as well.

If the UN has no right to impose this, why haven't the mods deleted it?
If the jurisdiction is not there, then why have so many people voted on it? Also, why has the UN already passed three resolustions setting rules on marriage? Maybe you need to read the UN history.

I think the U.N. Should have no control over this, some states may not condone gay marraige on a religous note and I think it is wrong to force states to allow this, it violates states rights, and we the southernbemocrats will leave the un if this bill is past and strongly advise all other nations apposed to this bill to leave the un as well.

the un may have the right to do this, but we have the right to stop them! SO DO SO. The un should just recognize that each state has the right to decide on gay marraige on it's OWN!

I think the U.N. Should have no control over this, some states may not condone gay marraige on a religous note and I think it is wrong to force states to allow this, it violates states rights, and we the southernbemocrats will leave the un if this bill is past and strongly advise all other nations apposed to this bill to leave the un as well.

You're too late. It already has. Over a year ago, to be exact.

I think the U.N. Should have no control over this, some states may not condone gay marraige on a religous note and I think it is wrong to force states to allow this, it violates states rights, and we the southernbemocrats will leave the un if this bill is past and strongly advise all other nations apposed to this bill to leave the un as well.

Didn't the South lose the war over States Rights?
And wasn't it over some issue involving how humans should be treated?

Just checking.

Yep, thats me, subtle as a brick.