NationStates Jolt Archive

We, the people of Granbia, are becoming more and more worried about the current line of action involving Gay Rights and Gay Marriage. As more and more proposals are submitted to repeal the Gay Rights Resolution, we are led to forsee that with enough time, a simple repeal will pass, un-guaranteeing the rights of human beings. Granbia sees no need to limit the rights of any individual, yet also wishes to submit a proposal to end this debate, which our nation sees as, well, rather simple:

-Most nations will agree that the basic rights of all homosexuals should be protected under law.

-Many nations would seek to repeal these rights because the word "marriage" is in the resolution.

Our proposal is tri-fold

1) Repeal Resolution 12

2) Submit a Proposal that guarantees the basic rights of Homosexuals under law.

3) Submit a Proposal defining "Civil Unions"

Arguement: Most Gay couples that are seeking marriage aren't just doing it so that they can use the word. Most are doing it because they want to get a house together, they want to have their significant other be their power of attorney if they're ill, and they want to, basically, be "married" under law.

On the other side, most/many that are against Gay Marriage are not against it to exclude these rights from homosexuals, they're against it because it changes the definition of a word, religious in invention, and in nature to many, that has been in place for thousands of years. If we change the definition of marriage, do we need to come up with a new term for those joined in the church? I think that the best compromise would be to define "Civil Unions," which will guarantee all of the liberties and "rights" of "marriage," but just be different in title. It is understood that this proposal will have flaws just as current resolutions have, but hopefully we can have resolutions that mirror our positions in the era, not just jump to one extreme or the other.


Respectfully Submitted

President Brandon J Yad, and,
The National Senate Of Granbia

Please lend your thoughts and concerns

Arguement: Most Gay couples that are seeking marriage aren't just doing it so that they can use the word. Most are doing it because they want to get a house together, they want to have their significant other be their power of attorney if they're ill, and they want to, basically, be "married" under law.

On the other side, most/many that are against Gay Marriage are not against it to exclude these rights from homosexuals, they're against it because it changes the definition of a word, religious in invention, and in nature to many, that has been in place for thousands of years. If we change the definition of marriage, do we need to come up with a new term for those joined in the church? I think that the best compromise would be to define "Civil Unions," which will guarantee all of the liberties and "rights" of "marriage," but just be different in title. It is understood that this proposal will have flaws just as current resolutions have, but hopefully we can have resolutions that mirror our positions in the era, not just jump to one extreme or the other.

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>

That arguement is disproven. Plus, marriage stopped being religious the moment secular governments got into it. Marriage is only religious if it is proceeded over by a holy man. Secular marriages happen all of the time.

...Our proposal is tri-fold...

Unfortunately, that's the problem with it. While I agree the original proposal was written to be a "stop gay bashing" resolution which reached much further than that mandate (to PC's chagrin), it isn't a feasibility, from a game mechanics standpoint, to have a repeal enact new law.

According to the rules I believe a repeal needs to be a repeal, only a repeal, nothing but a repeal. Unfortunately also I think the mods will delete thius proposal for that very reason. I suggest you grab your text and supporters and copy it down to Word or something, so you can come back to it when you resubmit a non-resolving repeal...which you will do, right?

*engages puppy dog eyes*

The arguement isn't about what "Webster" says. The importance of the definition of a word doesn't depend on what a book says that it is, it depends on how people choose to use it. The definition is in the dictionary as such because people are beginning to use the word that way, not because someone "decided" that that was the definition, and we all have to follow it.

Secondly, This is not a debate on Religion and Politics. It was cited as an example, and is only an example. Singling out a single piece of an arguement and making that the main point isn't a very valid statement against the proposal. The proposal is a Compromise between opposing sides, in the hopes that the rights of some won't be excluded from law and that beliefs (NON-RELIGIOUS) of many won't be impeded, which does nothing but create more tension, hate, and separation. It's not a boxing match where someone has to be champion and someone has to be KO'd. Let's find some middle ground.

Unfortunately, that's the problem with it. While I agree the original proposal was written to be a "stop gay bashing" resolution which reached much further than that mandate (to PC's chagrin), it isn't a feasibility, from a game mechanics standpoint, to have a repeal enact new law.

According to the rules I believe a repeal needs to be a repeal, only a repeal, nothing but a repeal. Unfortunately also I think the mods will delete thius proposal for that very reason. I suggest you grab your text and supporters and copy it down to Word or something, so you can come back to it when you resubmit a non-resolving repeal...which you will do, right?

*engages puppy dog eyes*


Actually, i was hoping to do it in a repeal ("in the hopes that x and x resolutions will follow") , and 2 resolutions, which is where i'm worrying that it won't work. Can i expect that if the first one passes, the other two will, too?

The arguement isn't about what "Webster" says. The importance of the definition of a word doesn't depend on what a book says that it is, it depends on how people choose to use it. The definition is in the dictionary as such because people are beginning to use the word that way, not because someone "decided" that that was the definition, and we all have to follow it.

In which case, that also rules out the Bible and all other religious books. Which, in turn, makes the arguement of religious beliefs have no case anyway.

A simple fact of life: The definition of words is how they are used, and dictionaries change their definitions to match how it is used. And you'll find you're arguing with a dictionary that is consider to be one of The Authorities on word meanings, and all of those I can count on one hand. Merriam-Webster has decided the definitions of a lot of words we use today.

Secondly, This is not a debate on Religion and Politics. It was cited as an example, and is only an example. Singling out a single piece of an arguement and making that the main point isn't a very valid statement against the proposal. The proposal is a Compromise between opposing sides, in the hopes that the rights of some won't be excluded from law and that beliefs (NON-RELIGIOUS) of many won't be impeded, which does nothing but create more tension, hate, and separation. It's not a boxing match where someone has to be champion and someone has to be KO'd. Let's find some middle ground.

If this is not a debate on religion and politics, then don't bring them up. If you bring them up, don't be surprised when people discuss them when opposing your resolution.

And what I was singling out wasn't a "single piece of an arguement" but the whole arguement itself. Or did you forget to include part of it when you posted the arguement? Maybe you didn't bother to read the entire definition and just the part I bolded (bolded for emphasis, but not to be the entire point).

Remember "separate but equal" that was the official US attitude for awhile? That was a middle-ground solution, and this stinks of the similar ideology. You'll find that your arguement on marriage means you also have to find a new term for nonreligious marriages. You'll be changing the definition of marriage in the process to be a religious institution entirely when even the modern usage has it as a legal institution more than a religious one.

Also, even if this is considered legal, you'll have a snowball's chance in Hell of it actually passing. You'll have a problem with people like myself posting a logical arguement against it and people turning around and making you look like a bad guy with references to "separate but equal" in their arguements. And, finally, the very idea of separating these people out creates an unequal situation and more room for discrimination than Jupiter has clouds.

Marriage of course is decided by usage, of course, usage is not unique, words adapt through time by usage (marriage being one of them). But they always rely on their own etymological ancestors. The term "marriage" has it's own roots in english, namely a descendent of the Middle-English word "mariage" from Old-French "marier", which originated from a term merely mean "to combine" used in association with the nautical practice of inter-weaving two ropes, to make a semi-permanate union. Of course, through time, the term has developed to the application husband-wife unions. Of course, in usage, we can still see the transitive verb form of "marriage" that is "marry" still used in its orginal combinationory meaning... indicative of the etymological evolution of our language through time still holding its own roots.

I agree with the very basic thought of you referring to it as "seperate but equal." However, i think that it is a drastically overstated relationship. No one is being forced to go to a seperate place to be coupled, no one has to fill out extra paperwork, no one has to drink from a different water fountain. There is nothing physically seperating the two. The only difference is the legal name. When "seperate but equal" was in place, it was up to citizens and local police to uphold that ideal. This is a totally different case. If all legal rights are the same, the government isn't going to discriminate in upholding those rights (ie power of attorney, etc.). The only relationship between seperate but equal and this proposal is that they are seperate words, but equal "legal" meaning. I also beleive that a heterosexual marriage outside of the church could be a Civil Union if you wanted it to be. If you've been living with a girlfriend/boyfriend for many years, didn't want to get married, but still wanted to have power of attorney etc., this would be another viable option.

I agree with the very basic thought of you referring to it as "seperate but equal." However, i think that it is a drastically overstated relationship. No one is being forced to go to a seperate place to be coupled, no one has to fill out extra paperwork, no one has to drink from a different water fountain. There is nothing physically seperating the two. The only difference is the legal name. When "seperate but equal" was in place, it was up to citizens and local police to uphold that ideal. This is a totally different case. If all legal rights are the same, the government isn't going to discriminate in upholding those rights (ie power of attorney, etc.). The only relationship between seperate but equal and this proposal is that they are seperate words, but equal "legal" meaning. I also beleive that a heterosexual marriage outside of the church could be a Civil Union if you wanted it to be. If you've been living with a girlfriend/boyfriend for many years, didn't want to get married, but still wanted to have power of attorney etc., this would be another viable option.

The government isn't going to discriminate, but the two people who are getting married might feel very hard done by and as if they are being discriminated against.

When my husband and I married, we did it before The Powers and The Lords to show our committment. And when two gay men get married, they do the same.

But now you are saying that they won't be able to. Two men who have a deep belief in religion, and want to declare their love for each other before The Powers and The Lords, can just be told that they can't, but it doesn't matter because it's just a word and it doesn't matter anyway.

I realise you are well meaning, but do you have ANY idea how offensive that statement is?

In my nation we had a term "twikina" - it was an increadibly derisive term for a male elf. So derisive and so insulting that - back in the distant past - it caused a few fights and one riot when it was ued. So it was phased out of the language by a campaign to show that racism is unacceptable, and will not be tolerated by the people of TilEnca.

But, by your arguement, it's just a word, so we can start using it without anyone caring, right?

Actually, i was hoping to do it in a repeal ("in the hopes that x and x resolutions will follow") , and 2 resolutions, which is where i'm worrying that it won't work. Can i expect that if the first one passes, the other two will, too?
No. You have to work like a dog to get even one proposal in queue. Nobody has gotten three consecutive resolutions into queue in over a year, and all three of those were defeated. (see the UN Timeline (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline).)


As a side note, Frisbeeteria refuses to even consider any proposal that comes to the forum as a resolution number rather than a name. You want to repeal "Gay Rights"? Then say "Gay Rights". Nobody cares that it's #12.

The government isn't going to discriminate, but the two people who are getting married might feel very hard done by and as if they are being discriminated against.

When my husband and I married, we did it before The Powers and The Lords to show our committment. And when two gay men get married, they do the same.

But now you are saying that they won't be able to. Two men who have a deep belief in religion, and want to declare their love for each other before The Powers and The Lords, can just be told that they can't, but it doesn't matter because it's just a word and it doesn't matter anyway.

If your freedoms aren't any different from anyone elses, and if no one is discriminating against you, and you still feel discriminated, it would seem that you were doing it to yourself. There is nothing in my proposal that says that a Civil Union could not be performed religiously.


I realise you are well meaning, but do you have ANY idea how offensive that statement is?

In my nation we had a term "twikina" - it was an increadibly derisive term for a male elf. So derisive and so insulting that - back in the distant past - it caused a few fights and one riot when it was ued. So it was phased out of the language by a campaign to show that racism is unacceptable, and will not be tolerated by the people of TilEnca.

But, by your arguement, it's just a word, so we can start using it without anyone caring, right?

I believe that one could find offense in almost any statement, depending on extreme interpretations. However, in Granbia, there have been small uprisings of citizens that are extremely offended for just the opposite reasons. I will not leave a voice of my country unheard.

The usage of slander is in no way related to this proposal. Civil Unions would not just refer to Gay couples, it would refer to anyone that wanted to have their power of attorney, and other rights available only to married couples, whether homosexual or not.

I agree with the very basic thought of you referring to it as "seperate but equal." However, i think that it is a drastically overstated relationship. No one is being forced to go to a seperate place to be coupled, no one has to fill out extra paperwork, no one has to drink from a different water fountain. There is nothing physically seperating the two. The only difference is the legal name.

Considering that the real power of marriage is in the lega world, creating the category of Civil Union is isolating a specific group from the majority and about equal to telling them they have to sit in different cars on the train than everyone else.

When "seperate but equal" was in place, it was up to citizens and local police to uphold that ideal. This is a totally different case.

Not in the least. The police will be required to enforce the law of making sure it is a Civil Union instead of a marriage and the citizens will be responsible for turning in those who break the law. Pretty much the same thing.

If all legal rights are the same, the government isn't going to discriminate in upholding those rights (ie power of attorney, etc.). The only relationship between seperate but equal and this proposal is that they are seperate words, but equal "legal" meaning.

Let me quote that definition again:

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>

Note the added emphasis. If you are going to give it the same rights as marriage, than leave it as marriage. This in effect creates a set of standards for differences between religion and not that will lead to inequality and religious persecution among the people.

I also beleive that a heterosexual marriage outside of the church could be a Civil Union if you wanted it to be. If you've been living with a girlfriend/boyfriend for many years, didn't want to get married, but still wanted to have power of attorney etc., this would be another viable option.

Uh, people can sign special contracts for power of attorney. The rest of the benefits are specific to marriage, and people usually only get married if they want to, whether secular or not. Classifying marriage outside the Church as Civil Unions is also a piece of religious discrimination, as the Church is not the only religion under which people get married. Unless you mean outside of the religious setting, in which case it makes no sense to have a separate distinction just because a minority of those on NS want to shove their religious beliefs down the throats of others.

This is, in effect, a worthless resolution. I see no merit in what it is attempting and see it as attempting something that will create inequality, intentional or not, in societies. It creates a scenario that will appeal to a minority that wish to push their views of their religion down the throats of others and, frankly, that disgusts me. In addition, it involves the repeal of a powerful civil rights resolution and creates the danger that resolution will not be replaced, an effective backstep for the UN.

The Empire of Nicod will not endorse perverse sexual acts, such as homofecalsodomy, as such endorsement harms childrens (as well as those who engage in such), destroys their innocence, and gives them a perverse notion of the purpose of sex provided by a loving God, and confuses them about the nature of male and female.

The Empire will allow any two (or more) people to rent a house, or to be able to visit each other in the hospital and such - but will not predicate those rights on ones engaging in sodomy or other such acts.

The government endorses and supports traditional marriage (life-long, faithful, under God, and between male and female), because that is what leads to the creation of new human life, and provides the best locus for the raising of that life. Sodomitic couplings cannot do either.

The government of Nicod supports no hate or other against anyone, but reserves its ability to make judgments about the acts in which people wish to engage (taking drugs, sodomy, smoking, etc. etc. ), and whether the commission of such acts benefits society as a whole - particularly children.

As such, the Empire of Nicod will not support 'civil unions', which are homomarriage in all but name.

The Emperor of Nicod

The Empire of Nicod will not endorse perverse sexual acts, such as homofecalsodomy, as such endorsement harms childrens (as well as those who engage in such), destroys their innocence, and gives them a perverse notion of the purpose of sex provided by a loving God, and confuses them about the nature of male and female.

The Empire will allow any two (or more) people to rent a house, or to be able to visit each other in the hospital and such - but will not predicate those rights on ones engaging in sodomy or other such acts.

The government endorses and supports traditional marriage (life-long, faithful, under God, and between male and female), because that is what leads to the creation of new human life, and provides the best locus for the raising of that life. Sodomitic couplings cannot do either.

The government of Nicod supports no hate or other against anyone, but reserves its ability to make judgments about the acts in which people wish to engage (taking drugs, sodomy, smoking, etc. etc. ), and whether the commission of such acts benefits society as a whole - particularly children.

As such, the Empire of Nicod will not support 'civil unions', which are homomarriage in all but name.

The Emperor of Nicod

Whether you like it or not, as long as you are in this NSUN, you do endorse such acts, because you have no choice in the matter. The only way not to endorse, by the rules of this universe, is to resign.

Whether you like it or not, as long as you are in this NSUN, you do endorse such acts, because you have no choice in the matter. The only way not to endorse, by the rules of this universe, is to resign.

I will stay in the UN, so as to be able to debate issues.

The all powerful computer master may throw me out. But you all will end up, as you are, with all the people who agree with each other, and have no alternative viewpoints presented.

You are already losing the many who do not happen to agree with the majorities here.

Are you interested in diverse and different viewpoints?

Or are you intolerant of them?

Is this a tolerant game, or an intolerant one?

With many sincere regards,

The Emperor of Nicod

If your freedoms aren't any different from anyone elses, and if no one is discriminating against you, and you still feel discriminated, it would seem that you were doing it to yourself. There is nothing in my proposal that says that a Civil Union could not be performed religiously.


I am not buying this, no offence. If the term marriage has no special connotations - if you can easily substitute "civil union" for "marriage" then why is everyone trying so damn hard to ban "gay marriage"? There must be something about the term "marriage" that some people find special - both gay and straight a like. So unless you are willing to ban the term "marriage" throughout the UN, then you are discriminating if you will not let gay people be "married" under law. It is as simple as that, and it is not the minds of the people, but in the words written in to law.


I believe that one could find offense in almost any statement, depending on extreme interpretations. However, in Granbia, there have been small uprisings of citizens that are extremely offended for just the opposite reasons. I will not leave a voice of my country unheard.


Neither will I.


The usage of slander is in no way related to this proposal. Civil Unions would not just refer to Gay couples, it would refer to anyone that wanted to have their power of attorney, and other rights available only to married couples, whether homosexual or not.

So you would be willing to outlaw the term "marriage" throughout the UN? That would be part of the proposal? Cause that is about the only way I will be willing to accept it.

And where did you get slander from?

I will stay in the UN, so as to be able to debate issues.

You, as all powerful computer master, may throw me out. But you will end up, as you are, with all the people who agree with each other, and have no alternative viewpoints presented.

You are already losing the many who do not happen to agree with the majorities here.

Are you interested in diverse and different viewpoints?

Or are you intolerant of them?

Is this a tolerant game, or an intolerant one?

With many sincere regards,

The Emperor of Nicod

This is not a matter of what people want, this is a matter of how things work. The Game Organizational Director (G.O.D.) has designed this universe to function in a certain way; whether anyone in particular likes it or not, the G.O.D. operates as he wills, with no constraints by any others, what he says, is law, and how he decides is universal constant.

In becomming a NSUN member in this universe, you automatically (as long as a member) operate in accordance with, and by all accounts of what is decided by NSUN vote. As such, your national government in Nicod, endorses gay and lesbian marriage, because the NSUN says you do, this is a fact, it is as constant and solid a fact as gravity, the first-law of thermodynamics, or Plank's Constant. That is the provision of this system, and how the G.O.D. has dictated things shall work, and how they will work. You can "say" you do not endorse such all you want, your national laws however, which are automatically controled by NSUN resolution beyond your own power to change, except through resignation, say that your government most certainly does.

Now, debate ONLY comes in this universe, within the realm of NSUN universal law, in the principle of debating on your agreement or disagreement in the form of raising issues through resolution proposal, or repeal proposal... However, once an issue has already been voted upon, it is enacted as such, through no power of constraint by yourself, untill such a time as you can garner support for a repeal of that resolution.

As such, at present, while you may not agree with the practice of it, gay marriage is legal in your nation, and endorsed by your national laws till such a time as you either resign, or the resolution is repealed through further proper proposal of repeal. You, yourself, have no power to make the practice of homosexual activity, or that of gay marriage illegal in your nation as long as you are a UN member, and there is UN resolution in place legalizing it.

Unlike you, I do not argue, constantly, with G.O.D.

Look, we don't need to look up definitions and meanings. Simply put, change the word 'marriage' to 'civil union.' The reason to do this is all churches don't condone gay marriage, but the UN resolution forces them to do so. This is an attack on a church's rights. The UN should not be forcing people of some religions to accept what their religion outlaws or speaks against.

And I'd feel the same way if there were churches that don't condone straight marriages.

To make things fair for people of all faiths and sexual preferences, make it civil union. Let churches decide whether or not to have certain marriages.

But make both marriages and civil unions COMPLETELY equal in the eyes of the law. Everyone can adopt kids, buy homes, whatever!

In becomming a NSUN member in this universe, you automatically (as long as a member) operate in accordance with, and by all accounts of what is decided by NSUN vote. As such, your national government in Nicod, endorses gay and lesbian marriage, because the NSUN says you do, this is a fact, it is as constant and solid a fact as gravity, the first-law of thermodynamics, or Plank's Constant. That is the provision of this system, and how the G.O.D. has dictated things shall work, and how they will work. You can "say" you do not endorse such all you want, your national laws however, which are automatically controled by NSUN resolution beyond your own power to change, except through resignation, say that your government most certainly does.

As such, at present, while you may not agree with the practice of it, gay marriage is legal in your nation, and endorsed by your national laws till such a time as you either resign, or the resolution is repealed through further proper proposal of repeal. You, yourself, have no power to make the practice of homosexual activity, or that of gay marriage illegal in your nation as long as you are a UN member, and there is UN resolution in place legalizing it.

Unlike you, I do not argue, constantly, with G.O.D.

Well, I see that you have answered my question - which is that this is an intolerant game.

However, it is obviously not G.O.D. I am arguing with, but you.

I shall henceforth complain about the UN resolutions which I disagree with and are impacting my country in a bad way.

Should I get enough support, I will propose repeals of those resolutions.

Will you be assuaged, O Master of Intolerance?

The Emperor of Nicod

Look, we don't need to look up definitions and meanings. Simply put, change the word 'marriage' to 'civil union.' The reason to do this is all churches don't condone gay marriage, but the UN resolution forces them to do so. This is an attack on a church's rights. The UN should not be forcing people of some religions to accept what their religion outlaws or speaks against.

And I'd feel the same way if there were churches that don't condone straight marriages.

To make things fair for people of all faiths and sexual preferences, make it civil union. Let churches decide whether or not to have certain marriages.

But make both marriages and civil unions COMPLETELY equal in the eyes of the law. Everyone can adopt kids, buy homes, whatever!

Why? Why should a whole group of society be forced to accept a new word because some other group of society is too bigoted to accept what is self evident to a great number of other nations? Why should the UN be forced to give in to petty minded bigotry?

Marriage - as a word - obvious has some significance to some people, otherwise there woudl not be such an effort made to ban it. So why should those who believe in it's signficance, but just happen to be gay, be forced to accept a manufactured alternative and bow to the opinion of the small minded ?

Well, I see that you have answered my question - which is that this is an intolerant game.

However, it is obviously not G.O.D. I am arguing with, but you.

I shall henceforth complain about the UN resolutions which I disagree with and are impacting my country in a bad way.

Should I get enough support, I will propose repeals of those resolutions.

Will you be assuaged, O Master of Intolerance?

The Emperor of Nicod

If you can write a repeal, promote it, get it to the floor and get it passed then you will have my respect. It is not an easy thing to get something passed in the first place, and getting something repealed is (I suspect - I have never tried) even harder.

And the game is not intolerant. And neither am I. I listen to all people's views - even those I violantly disagree with - because the UN is, after all, a democractic body.

Well, I see that you have answered my question - which is that this is an intolerant game.

However, it is obviously not G.O.D. I am arguing with, but you.

I shall henceforth complain about the UN resolutions which I disagree with and are impacting my country in a bad way.

Should I get enough support, I will propose repeals of those resolutions.

Will you be assuaged, O Master of Intolerance?

The Emperor of Nicod

You are confusing realism with intollerance, n00b.

And since everyone has a voice, and even in the hyper-control instigated on its members by the UN there is choice (membership or not), is free and tollerant, since you are allowed to speak, and allowed to participate.

Now, the question is... do I have sympathy for the one, who agrees to certain contractural constraints, and then whines about them later... no I do not. Ignorance is no excuse...

I certainly have my own qualms over the "endorsement" issue in this resolution. Inherantly my nation is libertarian in nature, and we do not like legislating upon private personal institutions such as marriage, but were forced to by this legislation... We of course disagree with it based on its inherantly statist viewpoint, as opposed to moral concerns (which we believe government has no right to legislate upon personal morality, but only in arbitrational capacity between a conflict of rights of two or more individuals).

Look, we don't need to look up definitions and meanings. Simply put, change the word 'marriage' to 'civil union.' The reason to do this is all churches don't condone gay marriage, but the UN resolution forces them to do so. This is an attack on a church's rights. The UN should not be forcing people of some religions to accept what their religion outlaws or speaks against.

Read the actual resolution. The UN forces churches to do nothing. It forces governments to make it legal. There is a difference.

And I'd feel the same way if there were churches that don't condone straight marriages.

Go back to what I said above.

To make things fair for people of all faiths and sexual preferences, make it civil union. Let churches decide whether or not to have certain marriages.

Nowhere does it state the churches must give these marriages, only that they are legal. It is up to the individual governments whether or not the churches are forced to go along with this. Like I said, try reading the actual resolution.

But make both marriages and civil unions COMPLETELY equal in the eyes of the law. Everyone can adopt kids, buy homes, whatever!

We've been over this. Read the other posts.

The Empire of Nicod will not endorse perverse sexual acts, such as homofecalsodomy, as such endorsement harms childrens (as well as those who engage in such), destroys their innocence, and gives them a perverse notion of the purpose of sex provided by a loving God, and confuses them about the nature of male and female.

By joining the UN, you have said you do. If you want to stay, suck it up or try to get it repealed.

The Empire will allow any two (or more) people to rent a house, or to be able to visit each other in the hospital and such - but will not predicate those rights on ones engaging in sodomy or other such acts.

Homosexuality does not necessarily mean sodomy, and sodomy does not necessarily mean homosexuality. The two are separate issues.

The government endorses and supports traditional marriage (life-long, faithful, under God, and between male and female), because that is what leads to the creation of new human life, and provides the best locus for the raising of that life. Sodomitic couplings cannot do either.

Sodomic couplings can be between male and female. Also, today couplings are not even needed for reproduction, so that arguement is no longer valid. Just have people donate to sperm banks and women withdraw from them. It's that easy.

The government of Nicod supports no hate or other against anyone, but reserves its ability to make judgments about the acts in which people wish to engage (taking drugs, sodomy, smoking, etc. etc. ), and whether the commission of such acts benefits society as a whole - particularly children.

There is no evidence that homosexuality among those who raise the child lead the child to be homosexual. I can even provide a personal example if you wish.

As such, the Empire of Nicod will not support 'civil unions', which are homomarriage in all but name.

You already support "homomarriage" by being in the UN, so that's a little late. Also, Civil Unions don't have to be between homosexuals.

I will stay in the UN, so as to be able to debate issues.

You don't need membership in the UN to debate issues. I'm not a UN member (though I represent one who is too shy right now) and I debate them heavily.

The all powerful computer master may throw me out. But you all will end up, as you are, with all the people who agree with each other, and have no alternative viewpoints presented.

So, in other words there will be only one person in the UN? Wow. I bet he'll be lonely. But at least he'll have an easier time of passing proposals.

You are already losing the many who do not happen to agree with the majorities here.

You mean the minorities who want to impose their religious views on others? Good riddance. You're not saving anyone's souls, just making it harder to identify the sinners.

Are you interested in diverse and different viewpoints?

Yes, when they have a good arguement and are not using religion as a crutch to cover the fact they have no logical arguement. Find something besides the religion crutch and maybe I'll listen. Your interpretations of the Bible is not the only one.

Or are you intolerant of them?

Is this a tolerant game, or an intolerant one?

Now you're being a hypocrite. The proof:

As such, the Empire of Nicod will not support 'civil unions', which are homomarriage in all but name.

You are arguing for us to be tolerant, yet you are arguing an intolerant viewpoint. Arguing an intolerant viewpoint and then accusing us of intolerance for arguing against you is hypocritical, a bad tactic, and making your side look even worse.

Well, I see that you have answered my question - which is that this is an intolerant game.

See my above point about hypocrisy. And stop the flamebait.

However, it is obviously not G.O.D. I am arguing with, but you.

But G.O.D. sets the policy, so arguing with him makes no difference.

I shall henceforth complain about the UN resolutions which I disagree with and are impacting my country in a bad way.

If you don't like it that much, leave. Leave the UN entirely. Please.

Should I get enough support, I will propose repeals of those resolutions.

It's been tried. And shot down. Plus, the mods will probably kick you out of the UN for spamming the proposals section.

Will you be assuaged, O Master of Intolerance?

Irony.

So, in other words there will be only one person in the UN? Wow. I bet he'll be lonely. But at least he'll have an easier time of passing proposals.


I realise this is not the time for levity, or comedy, but if there is only one person he won't be able to get the two endorsements needed to put proposals before the delegates. So how will he ever pass one? (grin)

gay ppl have the full right to be gay...especially considering most gay / lesbian ppl dont choose to be gay/lesbian - they just are naturally.

I guess I'm Metatron, hee!

But, yeah, DemonLordEnigma pretty much got it right with everything in that last omnibus post.

And, Nicod... seriously... "homomarriage"? Come on... show a little tact.

We, the people of Granbia, are becoming more and more worried about the current line of action involving Gay Rights and Gay Marriage. As more and more proposals are submitted to repeal the Gay Rights Resolution, we are led to forsee that with enough time, a simple repeal will pass, un-guaranteeing the rights of human beings. Granbia sees no need to limit the rights of any individual, yet also wishes to submit a proposal to end this debate, which our nation sees as, well, rather simple:

-Most nations will agree that the basic rights of all homosexuals should be protected under law.

-Many nations would seek to repeal these rights because the word "marriage" is in the resolution.

Our proposal is tri-fold

1) Repeal Resolution 12

2) Submit a Proposal that guarantees the basic rights of Homosexuals under law.

3) Submit a Proposal defining "Civil Unions"

Arguement: Most Gay couples that are seeking marriage aren't just doing it so that they can use the word. Most are doing it because they want to get a house together, they want to have their significant other be their power of attorney if they're ill, and they want to, basically, be "married" under law.

On the other side, most/many that are against Gay Marriage are not against it to exclude these rights from homosexuals, they're against it because it changes the definition of a word, religious in invention, and in nature to many, that has been in place for thousands of years. If we change the definition of marriage, do we need to come up with a new term for those joined in the church? I think that the best compromise would be to define "Civil Unions," which will guarantee all of the liberties and "rights" of "marriage," but just be different in title. It is understood that this proposal will have flaws just as current resolutions have, but hopefully we can have resolutions that mirror our positions in the era, not just jump to one extreme or the other.


Respectfully Submitted

President Brandon J Yad, and,
The National Senate Of Granbia

Please lend your thoughts and concerns


You can't get a tri-part anything to pass in the UN all at once.

You might get the first through.

The bigots would block the other two.

Leave it alone.

Thank you.