NationStates Jolt Archive

We should defend the classic definition of marriage. Marriage is, and has been between a man and a women.

i agree this is wrong man and women all the way. :mad: gays are disgusting :sniper:

I'm a firm believer in equal right, however gays cannot impose their beliefs on the majority of people. There should be a separate word for the uniting of gays. We could call them civil unions. The only difference between a civil union and marriage is the NAME. They both will have the same rights. the loud minority can't take the definition of marriage and twist it to how they see fit. By doing this they would be segregating a large portion of people, the quiet majority.

Let's all stand up for equal rights not impossing on people and vote against this Resolution in the UN.

We should defend the classic definition of marriage. Marriage is, and has been between a man and a women.

No, no it isn't, and, no, no it hasn't.

i agree this is wrong man and women all the way. :mad: gays are disgusting :sniper:

The only thing that is disgusting here is your inability to not make a fool of yourself by uttering such vile and puerile comments.

I agree with the statement above. We should give gays full equal rights without impossing on the religious citizens. It is not fair to take the word "marriage" from it's real meaning and twist it so gays can use it. Why do gays want the word marriage so bad anyway? They should come up with their own cool word.

Support America! Vote against the UN resolution.

I agree with the statement above. We should give gays full equal rights without impossing on the religious citizens. It is not fair to take the word "marriage" from it's real meaning and twist it so gays can use it. Why do gays want the word marriage so bad anyway? They should come up with their own cool word.

Semantics is not reason enough to discriminate. For the same reason that the word is important to you, the word is important to gays.

Seriously, if your best argument against this proposition is "waah, but I don't want to call the same things by the same name because I want to make them feel inferior", then you're an opposition in trouble.

Listen here Fass! Gays should get EQUAL rightssss!!! But their rights stop as soon as they impose on someone elses. What is wrong with using a different word! Get over it people. Stop trying to piss people off!

Um, how about we let the INDIVIDUALS ACTUALLY INVOLVED in the relationship define it for themselves?

We should defend the classic definition of marriage. Marriage is, and has been between a man and a women.

The UN already recognizes gay marriages as legal. Read the damn passed resolutions before you post on here.

I'm a firm believer in equal right, however gays cannot impose their beliefs on the majority of people. There should be a separate word for the uniting of gays. We could call them civil unions. The only difference between a civil union and marriage is the NAME. They both will have the same rights. the loud minority can't take the definition of marriage and twist it to how they see fit. By doing this they would be segregating a large portion of people, the quiet majority.

Let's all stand up for equal rights not impossing on people and vote against this Resolution in the UN.

Bull-fucking-shit. And considering how often I cuss on here, me saying that is bad.

First, let's take a look at a diictionary:

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>

A dictionary reflects the social interactions and interpretations of the time. It is becomming increasing socially recognized that marriage does not have to be the classical definition. It isn't among just that minority when it finally makes it into this dictionary, and it'll be a social fact when the OED adds it.

Now, let's examine that crap you posted logically. If civil unions and marriages are going to be the same thing, then why the difference in terms? That makes about as much sense that defining "Americans" to be whatever race is the most prominant. The difference is terms is not to stop gays from "segregating a large portion of people," but to segregate them from the majority when they are trying to mix into it. If you are standing up for equal rights, then why the fuck are you trying to separate people from the majority and treat them differently?

This entire arguement of yours stinks of "separate but equal" on the sexual preference level.

All or nothing. This is your theory? You people need to learn how to compromise.

Listen here Fass! Gays should get EQUAL rightssss!!! But their rights stop as soon as they impose on someone elses. What is wrong with using a different word! Get over it people. Stop trying to piss people off!

A different word is not equal, so I don't buy your rhetoric. There's is no reason to call a gay marriage something else when it is clearly a marriage. Other than to make gays second rate citizens.

I don't care what the UN says. We need to change it. The will of the majority while protecting the minority.

I agree with the statement above. We should give gays full equal rights without impossing on the religious citizens. It is not fair to take the word "marriage" from it's real meaning and twist it so gays can use it. Why do gays want the word marriage so bad anyway? They should come up with their own cool word.

Support America! Vote against the UN resolution.

"Support America"? Now you're trying to use patriotism as your arguement. Is your arguement so weak and pitiful that you must appeal to people's loyalty in order to try to get it to pass?

Marriage is not a religious institution any longer. It is an institution recognized by law. I don't need a church or a minister to get married. Nor is your church-dictated meaning the true meaning anymore.

All or nothing. This is your theory? You people need to learn how to compromise.

Compromise and civil rights never work together. Slaves only counting as 3/5 of a person for voting was a compromise. Separate-but-equal was a compromise. Beginning to see the clear picture?

Only if they make themselves feel second rate. Your can't argue with the facts, equal rights. Basically you are saying we should force people to define marriage as being between anyone. The next thing you know the libs will want to marry their fucking dogs.

Whey can't you open your mind, and stop impossing your views on others.

"Compromise and civil rights never work together. Slaves only counting as 3/5 of a person for voting was a compromise. Separate-but-equal was a compromise. Beginning to see the clear picture?"

You're comparing apples and oranges! We're talking about a fucking word not spliting a persons votes or taking away any of their rights.

Only if they make themselves feel second rate. Your can't argue with the facts, equal rights. Basically you are saying we should force people to define marriage as being between anyone. The next thing you know the libs will want to marry their fucking dogs.

Slippery slope is a falacy. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html)

Whey can't you open your mind, and stop impossing your views on others.

Look who's talking.

I'm not the one who is talking about stealing a sacrid word from people. I don't care if you already stole it, Give it back!

I'm not the one who is talking about stealing a sacrid word from people. I don't care if you already stole it, Give it back!

1. There are no sacred words, and no one can own words.

2. Language is not solid. It changes, and has changed.

Again, if your only argument is antiquated semantics, then you're an opposition in trouble.

By saying that the word has no meaning to the majority of people is just ignorant. Learn to compromise! Stop impossing your views on others. Support equal rights!

Just say it, "I am wrong"

admit it, you'll feel alot better

By saying that the word has no meaning to the majority of people is just ignorant. Learn to compromise! Stop impossing your views on others. Support equal rights!

Just say it, "I am wrong"

admit it, you'll feel alot better

"You are wrong".

wow. I said it. And I do feel better.

Thank you :}

By saying that the word has no meaning to the majority of people is just ignorant. Learn to compromise! Stop impossing your views on others. Support equal rights!

In opposing your all other than equal antiquated notion of what the word means, and your attempts at forcing this stale definition on others, I do just that.

Just say it, "I am wrong"

admit it, you'll feel alot better

Just admit you're a hypocrite.

Have you ever heard the phrase, "you do your thing, I'll do mine"? Alot of people, the majority of people don't want to have anything to do with gays.

The original definition of "marriage" descended from the Old-French world marrier, means to bind two or more ropes in a semi-permanate fasion; and was used as a nautical term in Old-French and Middle-English, as such, I hense-forth DEMAND that all nations using the historically nautical term marriage, for the purpose of describing husband and wife unions, be ceased immediately... As you have usurped the original definition of the word...

Gay marriage is legal, with or without this resolution, the term "gay-marriage" has already been established by law... This resolutions enpowerment, or denial, will not effect that in the least.

The Religious Right, has no right to exclusivity of language. Language is what it is... The term marrier/marriage, was adapted in an illusionary manner, as a descriptor of the semi-permanate union of men and women, the illusion to it can be taken to describe any form of semi-permanate union between one or more things or people... "Marriage of the thorn and rose", "Marriage of the sun and moon", "Marriage of the web and classroom"...

Arguments as to exclusivity of the term, show forth an ignorance of this language we call english... As such, you are etymologically ignorant.

Alot of people, the majority of people don't want to have anything to do with gays.

What backwards nation do you live in?

I'm a hypocrit with facts, I'm a hypocrit with a good President, I'm a hypocrit with the majority of the House and Senate...

Maybe you should get in line

Only if they make themselves feel second rate. Your can't argue with the facts, equal rights. Basically you are saying we should force people to define marriage as being between anyone. The next thing you know the libs will want to marry their fucking dogs.

"Only if they make themselves feel second rate." You have no basic comprehension of humans, do you? What you are suggesting is we isolate a portion of population as being different and not allowed to use the traditional term. And you think that will make them equal to others. Try asking African Americans who lived through the early part of the 20th Century how well that works.

You separate one part of the population from the rest, you are inherently discriminating against that part. You saying they are not equal to the others. You are saying they are too different to be with the others. It doesn't work and will only lead to discrimination far worse than any currently committed and will take centuries of NS time to be rid of. Extermination squads are more humane than what you are proposing.

And beastiality is one worthy of opposition, but it is not equal to people marrying other people of the same sex.

Whey can't you open your mind, and stop impossing your views on others.

Why can't you do the same? I'm pointing out something factual about human nature. You're posting the same bullshit used to justify the "separate but equal" treatment of African Americans in the US for over a century.

You're comparing apples and oranges! We're talking about a fucking word not spliting a persons votes or taking away any of their rights.

Apples and oranges are still fruit. And that's what I'm talking about.

I'm giving you an example of the same logic used on humans and how it turned out. I'm pointing out why it doesn't work.

I'm a hypocrit with facts, I'm a hypocrit with a good President, I'm a hypocrit with the majority of the House and Senate...

Maybe you should get in line

You being an American is not going to make me pity you, so going down that road is a stillborn adventure.

I live in the most powerful nation on the face of the planet. I live in the most tolerant and diverse nation. I live in the richest nation. I live in the most influential. and I live in the most progressive.

The United States :mp5:

Get in line bitch

Have you ever heard the phrase, "you do your thing, I'll do mine"? Alot of people, the majority of people don't want to have anything to do with gays.

Not according to NSUN Resolution #12

I live in the most powerful nation on the face of the planet. I live in the most tolerant and diverse nation. I live in the richest nation. I live in the most influential. and I live in the most progressive.

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that and you might just make yourself fall for it.

Look man. You can't run a nation on emotions. You can't run a nation on just one side of the spectrum. You have to try and be in the middle, compromise. The left need to understand that they are moving further and further away from the mainstream.

I live in the most powerful nation on the face of the planet. I live in the most tolerant and diverse nation. I live in the richest nation. I live in the most influential. and I live in the most progressive.

The United States :mp5:

Get in line bitch

What nation are you talking about?

You live in a small, un-enfluential nation with no political freedom.

So what nation do you live in Fass?

I'm not the one who is talking about stealing a sacrid word from people. I don't care if you already stole it, Give it back!

It was stolen from being sacred long before gay marriages came up. Read the definition I posted.

By saying that the word has no meaning to the majority of people is just ignorant. Learn to compromise! Stop impossing your views on others. Support equal rights!

I am. You're not. I'm supporting equal rights with a knowledge of how humans really are and why separation doesn't work. You're posting the same logic of "separate but equal."

Just say it, "I am wrong"

admit it, you'll feel alot better

"You are wrong."

I feel a bit better. But I'd feel even more better if you realized the fallacy of your arguement.

Have you ever heard the phrase, "you do your thing, I'll do mine"? Alot of people, the majority of people don't want to have anything to do with gays.

The majority of the UN members on Nation States passed the two resolutions (well, possibly three) making gay marriage legal. Looks like you are wrong on that one. The majority spoke and you're not it.

I'm a hypocrit with facts, I'm a hypocrit with a good President, I'm a hypocrit with the majority of the House and Senate...

That is a far different arguement. And your logic on this one is faulty, but not something I want to go into here.

Maybe you should get in line

I'm in line with where humanity needs to head if it wants to advance, not the line that helps it stagnate and stay behind.

Look man. You can't run a nation on emotions. You can't run a nation on just one side of the spectrum. You have to try and be in the middle, compromise. The left need to understand that they are moving further and further away from the mainstream.

And you need to realise that this is an international forum and that your US-centrism is irrelevant.

I don't care about my fake online nation. I'm talking about reality.

Originally posted by Fass
Slippery slope is a falacy.

WRONG! - This can clearly be seen in abortion. First it was allowed for the first part of birth (first trimester i think) and now people want partial berth abortions in which the baby's head comes out and the doctor shoves scissors into its brain. WAY DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE.

Originally posted by Demon LordEnigma
And beastiality is one worthy of opposition, but it is not equal to people marrying other people of the same sex.

No but it's close. Sex between a man and a women certes new human life. Sex between a man and a man dones NOT! In addition it mixes the sperm of one man with the CRAP of another. Again NOT the same as between man and woman.

Last thing I'm going to say is that I don't hate gay people but what they do is wrong and NASTY. They need help, they don't need encouragement.

Good point. I forgot that the majority of the world is intolerant and not diverse whatsoever. When your countries are rotting away because you segregate people and give them safety nets don't come knocking on our door. We're getting sick of all the little pricks from the rest of the world who talk out of their ass

So what nation do you live in Fass?

OOC: Sweden, hence my lack of envy at your current domicile.

I live in the most powerful nation on the face of the planet. I live in the most tolerant and diverse nation. I live in the richest nation. I live in the most influential. and I live in the most progressive.

The United States :mp5:

Get in line bitch

Okay, now you're on my nerves. And now you've proven your arguement is fallacious and unable to stand on its own.

Look man. You can't run a nation on emotions. You can't run a nation on just one side of the spectrum. You have to try and be in the middle, compromise. The left need to understand that they are moving further and further away from the mainstream.

Actually, I can run a nation based on emotions. That's why I'm a dictator. I tell my people what to do, they do it. Simple.

On here, you are outside the mainstream. This game is not even hosted in the US. Nor is this the US. The US is an example, but only that on here.

So what nation do you live in Fass?

I don't know about Fass, but I'm an American.

I'm sorry man. You can come over here if you want!

WRONG! - This can clearly be seen in abortion. First it was allowed for the first part of birth (first trimester i think) and now people want partial berth abortions in which the baby's head comes out and the doctor shoves scissors into its brain. WAY DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE.

*sigh* Read the linked page before you make a further mockery of yourself.

I'm sorry man. You can come over here if you want!

OOC: To the US? Why in heavens would I want to move somewhere with a lower standard of living and with substantially worse civil and political rights than Sweden?

No but it's close. Sex between a man and a women certes new human life. Sex between a man and a man dones NOT! In addition it mixes the sperm of one man with the CRAP of another. Again NOT the same as between man and woman.

Actually, men and women no longer need to mate to reproduce. The invention of sperm banks, artificial insemination, and increasing rates of infertility all contribute to that being an arguement that no longer matters. Fertility drugs do help, but they may carry other problems.

Also, anal sex is not limited to men having sex with men.

Last thing I'm going to say is that I don't hate gay people but what they do is wrong and NASTY. They need help, they don't need encouragement.

What they do are the same things straight people do. The differences are far fewer than you think.

Good point. I forgot that the majority of the world is intolerant and not diverse whatsoever. When your countries are rotting away because you segregate people and give them safety nets don't come knocking on our door. We're getting sick of all the little pricks from the rest of the world who talk out of their ass

This is not even deserving of anything more civilized than a flame. Stop the flamebait.

I don't care about my fake online nation. I'm talking about reality.

Jefferson, if you're not here to operate within this game, then leave... I have no sympathy or ear for fascism as it exists in modern america...

The right rears its ugly head, they immediately associate marriage and sex... nothing but a bunch of horny adolescents...

OOC: Why couldn't Badnarik have won... we might actually be able to repair the US of all the damage caused by the idiotic, retarded dribble of the rightists and leftists that have been running this country (into the ground)... Ahh... bring back the founding fathers...

I'm a firm believer in equal right, however gays cannot impose their beliefs on the majority of people. There should be a separate word for the uniting of gays. We could call them civil unions. The only difference between a civil union and marriage is the NAME. They both will have the same rights. the loud minority can't take the definition of marriage and twist it to how they see fit. By doing this they would be segregating a large portion of people, the quiet majority.

Let's all stand up for equal rights not impossing on people and vote against this Resolution in the UN.

You need to rethink your use of the word segregation here. What you propose is to distinguish between classes of people and what they can legally do. There's a word for this. It's called segregation. Breaking this, no matter what the "silent majority" (and if they're a majority why are they so silent?) says, is not segregation. It is integration. To give an example: a group of students are not permitted into a university because they are part of an vocal minority who another vocal minority says would offend the values/sensibilities of a silent majority in the university and community at large. The opposing minority says, "We have another university for people like you. You can go to that. It's the same but there's another word for it. In any case, we can't have you here, because imposing your desire for an equal opportunity to be present here would violate the will of a silent majority here and thus segregate them and oppress them. We can't have you twisting the definition of who can go to school here and who can't as you see fit."
Incidentally, the "group of students" in this example are all black. The university is the University of Mississippi. Eventually the National Guard is called out and the students are integrated (yup, integrated) into the school community.

Second, you claim to support equal rights? How can you possibly say that banning people from marrying is supporting equal rights? Even if you want to use the word "civil union" instead, what you're talking about is still preventing people from experiencing marriage based on the accident of birth (ie sexual orientation). You claim to be against the imposition of one's beliefs on others? So imposing your belief that gays should not get married because gay marriage is different than straight marriage is somehow not the same as what you oppose? Explain how.

I don't care what the UN says. We need to change it. The will of the majority while protecting the minority.

Explain how banning gay marriage "protect[s] the minority."
Sometimes, too, the will of the majority is wrong. If a majority of Australians (since almost all are white) voted to make Aborigines slaves, would you consider that right? Once majority rules infringes on the rights of the minority, it ceases to be fair.

Only if they make themselves feel second rate. Your can't argue with the facts, equal rights. Basically you are saying we should force people to define marriage as being between anyone. The next thing you know the libs will want to marry their fucking dogs.


And so banning people from marrying but saying they can have a legal union instead won't make them feel second rate? How about you talk to some homosexuals about this and see if they would feel second rate. I can tell you from experience, they'll say it does.
Force people to define marriage as between anyone? Well I'd say for the most part yes. But you'd have to limit it to those who actually consent and are legally recognized as able to do so (eg adults).
In other words, no I don't think marrying dogs should be legalized. Despite what you may think, homosexuals and dogs are not comparable. For one thing, the dog is NOT HUMAN. A homosexual IS HUMAN. So don't make the comparison any more because it's incredibly offensive. A couple more reasons: A dog, unlike a human, cannot consent to marriage or sex. Thus any marriage is void and any sex is rape. Second, a dog cannot love you back, at least not in a romantic way.

So all of you please stop saying your bigotry and comparing homosexuals to dogs is a way to protect equal rights and prevent the imposition of dogma on others. And for goodness' sake, stop saying that ending oppression would be a means of oppressing you. Think about the two kinds of "oppression" we're talking about here.

I read the link (DUH) and slippery slope is still legitimate in my eyes. First off, i didn't say that gays will want bestiality but that slippery slope is not a fallicy. Also, abortino was a slippery slope because it gave people the right to kill their child and as a result, now people want more and more rights to kill their children even after they are born. Lastly, i have no idea who wrote that site and for all i know that guy (or girl) could be a pot head.

Said by Pisgah Forest
Sometimes, too, the will of the majority is wrong. If a majority of Australians (since almost all are white) voted to make Aborigines slaves, would you consider that right? Once majority rules infringes on the rights of the minority, it ceases to be fair.

I couldn't have said it better myself (just because majority of people are in favor of gay marraige - that doesn't mean it's right.

OOC: Why couldn't Badnarik have won... we might actually be able to repair the US of all the damage caused by the idiotic, retarded dribble of the rightists and leftists that have been running this country (into the ground)... Ahh... bring back the founding fathers...

OOC: Oh, please, let's not go there. The US clearly is not the benchmark in these matters, so stop dragging your internal affaires into this.

I read the link (DUH) and slippery slope is still legitimate in my eyes. First off, i didn't say that gays will want bestiality but that slippery slope is not a fallicy. Also, abortino was a slippery slope because it gave people the right to kill their child and as a result, now people want more and more rights to kill their children even after they are born. Lastly, i have no idea who wrote that site and for all i know that guy (or girl) could be a pot head.

And for all we know, you could be a coke-head, or doped up on LSD... your point?

I read the link (DUH) and slippery slope is still legitimate in my eyes. First off, i didn't say that gays will want bestiality but that slippery slope is not a fallicy. Also, abortino was a slippery slope because it gave people the right to kill their child and as a result, now people want more and more rights to kill their children even after they are born. Lastly, i have no idea who wrote that site and for all i know that guy (or girl) could be a pot head.

It doesn't matter what it is in your eyes - "slippery slope", especially the kind you mention, is defined as a fallacy and you have not disputed the definition in any way, except to quote some irrelevant US-centric topic.

The difference between a rightist and a libertarian is.... a rightists always TALKS about freedom, while a LIBERTARIAN actually BELIEVES in it...

I read the link (DUH) and slippery slope is still legitimate in my eyes. First off, i didn't say that gays will want bestiality but that slippery slope is not a fallicy. Also, abortino was a slippery slope because it gave people the right to kill their child and as a result, now people want more and more rights to kill their children even after they are born. Lastly, i have no idea who wrote that site and for all i know that guy (or girl) could be a pot head.



I couldn't have said it better myself (just because majority of people are in favor of gay marraige - that doesn't mean it's right.

1. Who wants to be able to kill their children after their born? Murderers? I'm sorry but the morning after pill and putting your baby in a dumpster are not in the same category.
2. Then you accept that opposition to gay marriage is not necessarily a majority opinion? If you don't and you're just using that for the purposes of the argument that makes sense as well, but I'd like to know. Besides, you completely failed to address my point that the illegality of gay marriage is an imposition of dogma and furthermore a form of segregation and oppression. Furthermore, you conveniently left off the part about when the majority infringes on the rights of the minority. Are you saying that not banning gay marriage would infringe on the rights of those that want gay marriage banned? What right would that be? To define marriage for everyone else? Pardon me but that sounds again like the imposition of beliefs on others.

I'm a hypocrit with facts, I'm a hypocrit with a good President, I'm a hypocrit with the majority of the House and Senate...

Maybe you should get in line

(OOC)
A hypocrite who can't spell :}

And, if my history serves me well, a hypocrite whose nation was founded by people fleeing religious intolerance and wanting freedom from persecution :}

(OOC)
A hypocrite who can't spell :}

And, if my history serves me well, a hypocrite whose nation was founded by people fleeing religious intolerance and wanting freedom from persecution :}

Amen to that... The US is a republic, governed by its foundational principles... Religious based law is not part of that concept, and neither is majority rule, (Yes, congress and the president are SUPPOSED to have limits to what they can do)...

Simple fact is, by the principles of liberty and freedom, the right has no reasonable grounds of authority to DENY marriage to any two consenting individuals... marriage is a private institution... and should not be legislated upon by government... I could care less what some prick in a pulpit, or some treasonist who claims to be an american wants... Simple fact is, if you do not support and defend LIBERTY and FREEDOM of the individual, you are not an american... you may have been born within its territory, but you do not believe on one f***ing thing the nation was founded upon, and I have no ear for your fascistic, meaningless, treasonist dribble...

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=375244