NationStates Jolt Archive

I am a Christian and against gay marriage. Unfourtunately I have no endorsements too repeal the resolution with so I ask that any Christian nation with 2 or more endorsements repeal the resolution.

*sigh*

Well, jump on the bandwagon. Isn't like there's not already 11 repeals in the line, none of which are close to getting the votes to get to quorum.

Aren't I already arguing with you about the abortion resolution? Anyway this time the resolution has gone too far. The UN has just changed the definition of marriage. What do you say to that?

I am a Christian and against gay marriage. Unfourtunately I have no endorsements too repeal the resolution with so I ask that any Christian nation with 2 or more endorsements repeal the resolution.

Why?

Aren't I already arguing with you about the abortion resolution? Anyway this time the resolution has gone too far. The UN has just changed the definition of marriage. What do you say to that?

YAY!

You do know I'm the author of that resolution?

The UN has just changed the definition of marriage. What do you say to that?

Considering that marriage existed before Christianity, I'd have to say that you're a hypocrite.

You did? Well I ask you to repeal it because soon you will have to get married to a guy or girl depending on your gender. To DemonLordEnigma I say if you read the bible you will know that the Lord says that marriage is between a man and a woman.

You certainly make a powerful argument quoting sources that not everyone believes in. While we're at it, the Institute of Unicorn Research (http://ipu.secularlife.org/) clearly shows that you're a blasphomer, and will be spending an eternity in the Purple Oyster.

Well Clamparapa, the reason you have not recieved any backing on your request is because it is backed by ignorance, religious doctrines, and complete stupidity. The separation of church and state is there for a reason. To keep you overly religious zealots from running the country. Do you honestly belive that gay folk wake up one day and DECIDE thier sexuall preferance?! These are people trying to live their lives to the happiest extent possible. Let them be and take their tax money.

You did? Well I ask you to repeal it because soon you will have to get married to a guy or girl depending on your gender. To DemonLordEnigma I say if you read the bible you will know that the Lord says that marriage is between a man and a woman.

You ask me to repeat it - I say no. And no member of my nation is required to be married.

The bible is only valid to christians, which the majority of the planet is not.

You certainly make a powerful argument quoting sources that not everyone believes in. While we're at it, the Institute of Unicorn Research (http://ipu.secularlife.org/) clearly shows that you're a blasphomer, and will be spending an eternity in the Purple Oyster.

:D

The church and state resolution is still a proposal. And yes I believe that gays chose to be gay. My resources are not entirely backed by religous dctorines. What if the UN comes up with a resoltion that states that you must marry a gay person?

Shut up Vastiva and no tsk tsk tsk like in our other argument.

Shut up Vastiva and no tsk tsk tsk like in our other argument.

OOC: Ok, how about "you're flaming"?

What if the UN comes up with a resoltion that states that you must marry a gay person?

Sounds fun, but it's a pretty weak statement. No one cares if the UN might do something, in this argument.

The U.N. would never make such a foolish notion as to force nations to marry this or that. What you demand is force people to behave in a way that is not true to themselves. What you demand of a gay person is self slavery and that I would not want to bestow upon anyone. You sir strike me as a fool with
little or no respect for the constitution which states that we are not to be denied the pursuit of happiness. You seek to derail that and force your beliefes on someone else. Furthermore, your retort was weak and you support none of your statements with logic or thought :headbang: .

Oh yeah How about every straight person in and out of this argument To you winged hussar I say it may be a weak retort but it's the truth and maybe the future if you don't repeal the gay rights law

I would bet heavily against.

:confused:

You haven't done anything to take away the absurdity of that notion. Yes, I can definitely see the UN resolution about that!

"Compulsory Homoerotic Love"
A resolution to restrict freedom in the name of moral decency
Strength: Strong
etc.

It is not the truth.

It may be the future, but Vastiva would bet heavily against such a future ever occuring.

You did? Well I ask you to repeal it because soon you will have to get married to a guy or girl depending on your gender. To DemonLordEnigma I say if you read the bible you will know that the Lord says that marriage is between a man and a woman.

I read the Bible. No where does it say we cannot change the definition later. Nor does it say we cannot adapt. In fact, with a couple of exceptions, the NT pretty much says you are to preach and let others decide. Taking away the option of sin does not a saved man make.

We have no more right to take this away from those who want it than others have right to force Christianity out of existance. If my people choose to commit what I OOCly view as sins, it is not my job to punish them for it. Nor is it yours.

They just changed the definition of marriage
Look I'm not against gays I'm just against what they stand for

The church and state resolution is still a proposal. And yes I believe that gays chose to be gay. My resources are not entirely backed by religous dctorines. What if the UN comes up with a resoltion that states that you must marry a gay person?Gays do NOT "choose" to be gay. The only "choice" gays have is to risk ostracism or worse by making the way God made them known to the outside world. People like you are one of the reasons it's such a risk.

And I'd also like to point out that your use of 1) no statistical evidence to support your cause and 2) the slippery slope fallacy make your argument even weaker than it was previously.

Sarzonia's not in the United Nations because too many of its laws infringe national soverignty. If you made an argument that you believe nations should determine their own marriage laws, I would at worst abstain. In fact, when the proposal came up for vote on my region's discussion board, I voted to abstain because I believe the United Nations shouldn't get into the business of telling other nations how to govern marriage. And I'm COMPLETLEY in favor of gay marriage.

Your truth my dear brainwashed boy, is one of violence, ignorance, and sefl loathing. My final say is this: Paganism existed long befor Christianity. If you truly want truth my dear apostle, read any histort book about the rise of christianity and what was done to the pagans and how their "festivals" were stolen away from them, culture, etc etc... Secondly, christianity is the largest buissness in the world. The fact that money is made off of Jesus is sickening to me as is the christian religion. Thirdly, your truth is backed by a book that has been revised by so many, no one would know the truth about it anymore. "KIng James" Your blind and rather foolish faith create nothing but ignorance and destruction. It preys upon the poor and weak minded and I and a quickly growing majority of people will no longer tolerate the idiocy of it. Good day my overly pious friend and perhaps you will learn one day to live your life your way, and others, theirs. :)

You haven't done anything to take away the absurdity of that notion. Yes, I can definitely see the UN resolution about that!

"Compulsory Homoerotic Love"
A resolution to restrict freedom in the name of moral decency
Strength: Strong
etc.

Another fool with a muddled mind. *sigh*

Don't you dare say anything about my religion and how bad it is. Good bye to you too

I have one single world to sum up how bad your religion is: "CRUSADES"

They just changed the definition of marriage
Look I'm not against gays I'm just against what they stand for

Ok, now you have my attention.

What do "gays stand for"?

Another fool with a muddled mind. *sigh*

(psst! He was being sarcastic!)

(psst! He was being sarcastic!)
psst! hard to tell w/o a tone of voice to go on.

My sincere apologies for not noticing. *face becoming red from embarassement*

gays stand for having marriages and *gulps* sex with each other

gays stand for having marriages and *gulps* sex with each other

And perhaps you watch porn and *gulps* beat off. what is so dirty about that? Are they raping or pillaging your home? well then?

Wwwwwoooooooo don't go that far remember I'm still Christian

Wwwwwoooooooo don't go that far remember I'm still Christian

Yes the purist of the pure eh? You should be ashamed of yourself for even having those thoughts! quickly!.. go say 10 hail mary's and 15 1/2 Our Fathers and all will be forgiven!

I don't see what being Christian has to do with masturbating, or how it prevents barbarians from overruning your home and salting your fields.

I don't see what being Christian has to do with masturbating, or how it prevents barbarians from overruning your home and salting your fields.
merely mockery. It's called "sarcasm"

Don't mock me! I'm pretty new at this so sorry for arguing with the masters

merely mockery. It's called "sarcasm"

I was asking him. He said, "I'm a Christian!", as if it would make him innocent and virginal.

I'm not innocent and virginal. All I meant was that I believe in the Lord.

Then answer my question: How does that prevent invaders from raping your womenfolk and pillaging your countryside? It certainly didn't stop the Vikings.

gays stand for having marriages and *gulps* sex with each other

Ok... and....?

I have neighbors, they have sex with each other, doesn't mean anything to me. Why should it mean anything to you?

Why are you talking about the vikings? :confused: And no it doesn't stop invaders from pillaging my country and home.

I'm not innocent and virginal. All I meant was that I believe in the Lord.

Ok, so "Do onto others as you would have done onto you".

You want the right to marry who you want, right? So doesn't it make sense under that logic to give others the right to marry who they want?

here was the first resolution


Sexual Freedom

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Armstrongonia

Description: What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).

Votes For: 2,538
Votes Against: 318

Implemented: Thu Mar 13 2003


then you all had to get detialed.

the information that the UN said that what goes on between two or more consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the CONCERN of the STATE.

only concern you where to take was for medical reasons.


you have broke your own resolution by making it a concern for the public to care about 2 guys to have sex or 2 women or 1 man/woman and another 2 others.


for myselfi dont want to know what goes on between 2 people, i dont want to see what goes on in the privacy of their homes. but you all wanted to know.

I must admit that was good so I accept defeat :cool: and end this forum but not without your closing comments oh yeah and I wasn't here when they voted for that resolution

here was the first resolution


Sexual Freedom

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Armstrongonia

Description: What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).

Votes For: 2,538
Votes Against: 318

Implemented: Thu Mar 13 2003


then you all had to get detialed.

the information that the UN said that what goes on between two or more consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the CONCERN of the STATE.

only concern you where to take was for medical reasons.


you have broke your own resolution by making it a concern for the public to care about 2 guys to have sex or 2 women or 1 man/woman and another 2 others.


for myselfi dont want to know what goes on between 2 people, i dont want to see what goes on in the privacy of their homes. but you all wanted to know.

What went on behind closed doors was not the issue - it was the acceptance of civil marriage and the acceptance that sex and/or gender should play no part in civil decisions.

Besides, it bumped my economy as more marriages means more divorces, more marriages, more catering, more invitations, more dresses and suits...

Clamparapa, if you want to repeal "gay rights", you need two things

1) a good argument to get it voted through in the general assembly

2) a large constituency of delegates who feel likewise.

I suggest that you start gathering names of delegates who oppose "gay rights" if you're going to get anything done with this. You'll need 140. But even a small number will help.

Clamp,
Powerhungry Chipmunks is correct. Building your constituency and gathering a following is vital to rule the wor.... (excuse me) win any political clout. But also, going about it in an... *ahem* overzealous manner only builds walls. You need scientific support in this day and age to win the support of people who do not have the same faith as you have. Something like this perhaps?:
Sexual Freedom Act should be repealed due to increased mental health problems among homosexuals than heterosexuals resulting in unnecessary increased mental health costs worldwide. I refer you to the MIDUS survey:

Fergusson et al. reported a 21-year longitudinal study of a birth cohort of 1,265 individuals in Christchurch, New Zealand. (3) Among 1,007 individuals, 2.8% were homosexual or bisexual as assessed by orientation and relationships after age 16 years. Compared to heterosexuals, homosexuals and bisexuals were more likely to experience depression, [5] generalized anxiety disorder, [6] conduct disorder, [7] nicotine dependence, [8] other substance abuse and/or dependence, [9] multiple disorders, [10] suicidal ideation, [11] and suicide attempts. (3) , [12] The most elevated risk was for suicidal behavior and multiple disorders. Homosexuals and bisexuals had similar social, family, and childhood backgrounds as the controls, but tended to have experienced a higher rate of parental change during childhood and were slightly more likely to have criminally offending parents. Controlling for increased parental change and parental criminal offending left either similar associations or slightly higher ones than the unadjusted estimates. (3)
In a Dutch study, NEMESIS, (4, 5) representative of the Dutch population, 2.8% of 2,878 men and 1.4% of 3,120 women reported same-sex partners in the previous year (classified as homosexual). Compared to heterosexual men, homosexual men had a higher 12-month prevalence of mood disorders [13] and anxiety disorders [14] Compared to heterosexual women, homosexual women had a higher 12-month prevalence of substance use disorders. [15] More homosexual than heterosexual women had a lifetime prevalence of mood disorders. [16] More homosexual than heterosexual women had 1 or more lifetime psychiatric diagnoses. [17] More homosexuals than heterosexuals had 2 or more disorders during their lifetime. [18] The authors of the study asked all respondents about their HIV infection status; only one woman reported being HIV-positive, i.e., differences in HIV infection prevalence do not explain the psychiatric differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals in this study. (4) ..........

Clamp,
Powerhungry Chipmunks is correct. Building your constituency and gathering a following is vital to rule the wor.... (excuse me) win any political clout. But also, going about it in an... *ahem* overzealous manner only builds walls. You need scientific support in this day and age to win the support of people who do not have the same faith as you have. Something like this perhaps?:
Sexual Freedom Act should be repealed due to increased mental health problems among homosexuals than heterosexuals resulting in unnecessary increased mental health costs worldwide. I refer you to the MIDUS survey:

Fergusson et al. reported a 21-year longitudinal study of a birth cohort of 1,265 individuals in Christchurch, New Zealand. (3) Among 1,007 individuals, 2.8% were homosexual or bisexual as assessed by orientation and relationships after age 16 years. Compared to heterosexuals, homosexuals and bisexuals were more likely to experience depression, [5] generalized anxiety disorder, [6] conduct disorder, [7] nicotine dependence, [8] other substance abuse and/or dependence, [9] multiple disorders, [10] suicidal ideation, [11] and suicide attempts. (3) , [12] The most elevated risk was for suicidal behavior and multiple disorders. Homosexuals and bisexuals had similar social, family, and childhood backgrounds as the controls, but tended to have experienced a higher rate of parental change during childhood and were slightly more likely to have criminally offending parents. Controlling for increased parental change and parental criminal offending left either similar associations or slightly higher ones than the unadjusted estimates. (3)
In a Dutch study, NEMESIS, (4, 5) representative of the Dutch population, 2.8% of 2,878 men and 1.4% of 3,120 women reported same-sex partners in the previous year (classified as homosexual). Compared to heterosexual men, homosexual men had a higher 12-month prevalence of mood disorders [13] and anxiety disorders [14] Compared to heterosexual women, homosexual women had a higher 12-month prevalence of substance use disorders. [15] More homosexual than heterosexual women had a lifetime prevalence of mood disorders. [16] More homosexual than heterosexual women had 1 or more lifetime psychiatric diagnoses. [17] More homosexuals than heterosexuals had 2 or more disorders during their lifetime. [18] The authors of the study asked all respondents about their HIV infection status; only one woman reported being HIV-positive, i.e., differences in HIV infection prevalence do not explain the psychiatric differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals in this study. (4) ..........

Not to dump all over your statistics, but does it say if the people who are suffering all these disorders were free to promote themselves as gay, without any prejudice and so forth? Or were all these people forced to be in the closet?

I am just curious, because forcing people to behave in a way that is contrary to their own nature is, at a guess, a good way to make them have mental problems.

TilEnca,
If you would like to read the report you can go to www.amazinginfoonhomosexuals.com and click on the mental health cue. (It is a 14 page report) But studies clearly show that in an accepted homosexual relationship that suicide rates, alcoholism, tobacco use, illegal narcotics use, pedophilia and psychiatric therapy are considerably higher in homosexuals than heterosexuals. Many of these studies were done in Scandinavia and in Holland where "homophobes" are not only frowned upon, they can be imprisoned for disagreeing with the homosexual lifestyle. They also took into account AIDS and HIV infection stress factor and it did not alter the results.

TilEnca,
If you would like to read the report you can go to www.amazinginfoonhomosexuals.com and click on the mental health cue. (It is a 14 page report) But studies clearly show that in an accepted homosexual relationship that suicide rates, alcoholism, tobacco use, illegal narcotics use, pedophilia and psychiatric therapy are considerably higher in homosexuals than heterosexuals. Many of these studies were done in Scandinavia and in Holland where "homophobes" are not only frowned upon, they can be imprisoned for disagreeing with the homosexual lifestyle. They also took into account AIDS and HIV infection stress factor and it did not alter the results.

Edit

This is a site that says homosexuals need help and can be changed back to straight sex. It is such an insulting idea I can't tell you how much it makes me feel sick.

If you can show me a study from a site that is not so blatantly homophobic then I will pay attention to it. Until then you can BITE ME (no offence)

You did? Well I ask you to repeal it because soon you will have to get married to a guy or girl depending on your gender. To DemonLordEnigma I say if you read the bible you will know that the Lord says that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Yes, mein Fuhrer!

pedophilia [is] considerably higher in homosexuals than heterosexuals.

While all of the other things you mentioned ARE more common in homosexuals, most likely due to the fact that idiots like you are telling them that they can be someone besides who they are, this is NOT true.

This is a blatant myth, and completely wrong.

While all of the other things you mentioned ARE more common in homosexuals, most likely due to the fact that idiots like you are telling them that they can be someone besides who they are, this is NOT true.

This is a blatant myth, and completely wrong.

But, like I said, this study comes from a site that says homosexuality can be cured. So you do have to remember the source :}

I would be more than happy to. How about the U.S. Comorbidity Survey, the National Lesbian Health Care Study, the Women's Health Initiative Study, or you can read "Sexual Orientation and Mental Health: data from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS)". And please don't be offended when I must respectfully decline your request to "bite" you.

But, like I said, this study comes from a site that says homosexuality can be cured. So you do have to remember the source :}

Ok, I'm only targeting the arguements that the general public (of the world, not the US) could concievably believe. Anyone worthy of being called homo "sapiens" can tell from scientific proof and empirical reasoning that homosexuality can't be "cured" and isn't a disease or sickness.

To Saipea:
...in a paper published in 2000 by Blanchard, Barbareee, Bogaert, Dicky, Klassen, Kuban, and Zucker2 the authors noted that the best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men..; in contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys.... Thus the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles" (p. 464)
this is a "pro-gay" bias study which, at the end of the article, these fine Canadian doctors of medicine state that the best way for society to react to this phenomenon is to (and forgive me for generalizing) tolerate it, as well.

Why?
I agree with the repeal. I know this is going to sound weird, but once you change the definition of marriage, you open the floodgates for tons of other types of marriges, such as business "marriages" and animal "marriages" and all sorts of other things we don't want. Just something to consider.

I agree with the repeal. I know this is going to sound weird, but once you change the definition of marriage, you open the floodgates for tons of other types of marriges, such as business "marriages" and animal "marriages" and all sorts of other things we don't want. Just something to consider.

Business marriages have existed for hundreds of years and animal marriages are nothing new to NS.

To Saipea:
...in a paper published in 2000 by Blanchard, Barbareee, Bogaert, Dicky, Klassen, Kuban, and Zucker2 the authors noted that the best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men..; in contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys.... Thus the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles" (p. 464)
this is a "pro-gay" bias study which, at the end of the article, these fine Canadian doctors of medicine state that the best way for society to react to this phenomenon is to (and forgive me for generalizing) tolerate it, as well.

I see, the phrasing is quite unclear when taken out of context.
I thought you meant that pedophiles were more likely to be homosexual than straight (there's still a 2:1 ratio 'in favor' of straight people).

I'll admit that homosexual attraction is 2-5 times higher amongst pedophiles than straight people (it's actually 8-10%), but there are simply no logical implications that can be drawn from this, especially when people claim that sexuality is changeable (which it isn't).

Even if people did acknowledge that sexuality isn't a conscious decision, the pathology of a pedophile and a normal person is so different that it's impossible to make such distinctions.
Furthermore, we must consider the differences between percentages and actual numbers. There are no where near as many pedophiles as normal people, and therefore to use percentages with such a small number of people is quite misleading.

Again, I fail to see how this arguement has anything to do with prohibiting to people who love each other to get married.

Business marriages have existed for hundreds of years and animal marriages are nothing new to NS.

I think marriage between humans an animals was meant, and I too have a problem with that, as their is a clear issue with consent.

I think marriage between humans an animals was meant, and I too have a problem with that, as their is a clear issue with consent.

I was also talking about marriages between humans and animals.

I was also talking about marriages between humans and animals.

Their is no consent in that marriage, there is an implication of rape in the form of beastiality, there is psychological trauma felt by the animal, and it is a flagrant abuse of the environment.
It's not even a logical thing to be considering.

Saipea,
Yes, the information is quite unclear when paraphrased, I tried to include all relevant information but it's such a small space to reply in, please know that it is not my intention to mislead anyone. As for what this has to do with the marriage issue.... absolutely nothing. I was merely trying to assist Clamparapa in trying to base his reasoning for the repeal on actual argument, (be it discounted as false, considered homophobic, taken as gospel, etc.) instead of basing it on religious zeal. He or she seems new to the community and to politics in general, and I was just trying to help him/her from getting frustrated. When TilEnca and yourself began prying me for more debate, I just couldn't resist goading you on. My apologies.

Their is no consent in that marriage, there is an implication of rape in the form of beastiality, there is psychological trauma felt by the animal, and it is a flagrant abuse of the environment.
It's not even a logical thing to be considering.

I know. I don't allow it, which is well within what this resolution allows one to do. Just pointing out it doesn't actually change anything in that area.

When TilEnca and yourself began prying me for more debate, I just couldn't resist goading you on. My apologies.

No, I'm authentically interested in what you have to say. One of us is misinformed. One of us is right. This isn't a "gray" issue. Facts are facts, and from facts we derive everything.
That's why a religious arguement is not valid. It is subjective, and ergo, null.

I know. I don't allow it, which is well within what this resolution allows one to do. Just pointing out it doesn't actually change anything in that area.

Which is why I'm making a resolution to change that and a few other things.

I agree with the repeal. I know this is going to sound weird, but once you change the definition of marriage, you open the floodgates for tons of other types of marriges, such as business "marriages" and animal "marriages" and all sorts of other things we don't want. Just something to consider.

Not to point out the flaw in your logic, but even if you repeal Gay Rights it is not going to stop gay marriage. Under the recent Definition of Marriage resolution, marriage is defined as two people being joined as a couple. And under the dozen other resolutions that say you must apply the law equally to every person in your nation you would not be able to marry hetrosexual couples and not homosexual ones. You would either have to continue to marry gays (not you personally, but you would have to continue to allow marriage of gay couples) or you would have to ban marriage throughout your nation.

Saipea,
I honestly look at homosexuality from a health issue. The HIV-AIDS epidemic in homosexual males is transmitted through sexual contact at a whopping 86.5% So the issue of marriage doesn't really enter into it for me. Unless the issue is monogamy, and then I would tell them what I tell all of my promiscuous male friends, be they heterosexual or homosexual, : STOP WHORING AROUND DAMMIT!!!! It seems to me that if you want a marriage or even a civil union with someone, at some point in time, you actually would have to be considered joined in matrimony, or legality or something with that other person and not everybody else with a nice ass in order to receive the benefits and rights of the aforementioned merger.

I was merely trying to assist Clamparapa in trying to base his reasoning for the repeal on actual argument, (be it discounted as false, considered homophobic, taken as gospel, etc.) instead of basing it on religious zeal.


I did originally post this, but I edited out in favour of ranting against homophobic websites (grin)

Even if all your evidence is 100% true, which is highly open to question, the idea that gay rights should be repealed because gay men are more likely to be suicidal, manic depressive and generally not of sound mind is an "interesting" arguement.

By outlawing gay rights you are not going to make everyone straight. You are just going to enable all the rampant homophobes of the UN (of which there appear to be quite a lot) to be able to make homophobic laws and generally screw over every gay person. Which is NOT the best way to stop them being suicidal, manic depressive and generally not of sound mind.

It is the decision of the Commonwealth of Bellmonte that all homosexual and heterosexual marriages will be recognized as marriage in the eyes of the government. We believe in equality, peace, and most of all: human rights. We find that the recent proposition to ban gay marriage is in direct violation of human rights and we feel that the UN and the other nations in the world have no right to mandate what the government recognize as a "legal" marriage.

=======================================================
= This message was approved by the government of the Commonwealth =
= of Bellmonte. =
=======================================================

I think we should only outlaw legislators. And you're right, all of my information is highly questionable considering there are other government studies that state the opposite of any facts you, I, or anyone else can find. I just didn't want poor Clamparapa being torn down because of his faith. So, until next time, my fellow politicians, it's been real!!

I think we should only outlaw legislators. And you're right, all of my information is highly questionable considering there are other government studies that state the opposite of any facts you, I, or anyone else can find. I just didn't want poor Clamparapa being torn down because of his faith. So, until next time, my fellow politicians, it's been real!!

Just so as you know - I don't think they are tearing him down because of his faith. It's just that given the wide range of faiths in the UN (ranging from Christian to Islam to atheist to Catholic to "The Lords and The Powers" to ones you won't have even heard of) an arguement that gay rights should be repealed because one religion has a problem with it is not going to fly as a reason to do it.

ok, now this thread I can use my botched together, anti-religion arguement on, but I'll go for a simple one. I think marriage shouldn't be recognized by any government because it's no longer worth the paperwork. Sixty percent of marriages end in divorce in the United States and many more around the world. Marriage should be granted by the church of your choosing and you simply apply for a civil union from the governament.

* As a side note, the Central Park Zoo in New York has three pairs of homosexual penguins and a pair of homosexual monkeys and many other zoos/aquariums around the world have homosexual couples of animals, so I doubt it's a matter of chouice, it's both biology and enviroment, as is heterosexuality.

... then you're going to have to repeal the "Definition of Marriage" resoluton, as it states marriage is a civil joining.

You did? Well I ask you to repeal it because soon you will have to get married to a guy or girl depending on your gender. To DemonLordEnigma I say if you read the bible you will know that the Lord says that marriage is between a man and a woman.

And to you, I say that if you paid attention to the real world you'd know that not everyone chooses to live their lives according to what YOUR Lord and/or the Bible says. You'd also know that United States government is based on SEPARATION of church and state and that to make laws based on what the Bible says would be a DIRECT violation of said principles. Not that that matters anyway, since I'm pretty sure this is an international forum, so not only is everyone here NOT American...we're not all Christian!

Saipea,
I honestly look at homosexuality from a health issue. The HIV-AIDS epidemic in homosexual males is transmitted through sexual contact at a whopping 86.5% So the issue of marriage doesn't really enter into it for me. Unless the issue is monogamy, and then I would tell them what I tell all of my promiscuous male friends, be they heterosexual or homosexual, : STOP WHORING AROUND DAMMIT!!!! It seems to me that if you want a marriage or even a civil union with someone, at some point in time, you actually would have to be considered joined in matrimony, or legality or something with that other person and not everybody else with a nice ass in order to receive the benefits and rights of the aforementioned merger.

1. I'd like to see a source
2. I don't care, let those who've contracted HIV/AIDS die
3. The fact that a large percentage of them have the disease has nothing to do with giving them equal rights, nothing whatsoever, and is just as pointless and null as your other arguements
4. I loathe promiscuous people lacking scruples, see point 2
5. I would personally remove all benefits for marriage anyways, as they would lower taxes

Hmm... All this argument and strife out of what? Another religious issue... Yep, the way I see it if religion is forced to be kept in the home and banned from organizing a lot of thing will be easier and more peaceful... Just a thought.

-- The Rouge Nation of Theocide
Region: Free from Religious Hypocrisy

I actually started writing a reply for just about every second post in this thread. After getting past 2 pages of 6, I thought " No, this is a load of utter crap. " and stopped. Because, quite frankly, the U.N. is not a " Christian " organisation exclusively, nor should it have to be. This is just another stale instance of certain people being told to stop trying to shove their bible down our throats under the cover of something they find " icky " just because they think they have some ordained-by-the-mighty right to rule over us. Well news flash, I myself am not at all into your " disgusting " hetero-sexual activites. The horror, I'm sure.

* Geee, I missed this crap we got every two weeks, :D

I actually started writing a reply for just about every second post in this thread. After getting past 2 pages of 6, I thought " No, this is a load of utter crap. " and stopped. Because, quite frankly, the U.N. is not a " Christian " organisation exclusively, nor should it have to be. This is just another stale instance of certain people being told to stop trying to shove their bible down our throats under the cover of something they find " icky " just because they think they have some ordained-by-the-mighty right to rule over us. Well news flash, I myself am not at all into your " disgusting " hetero-sexual activites. The horror, I'm sure.

* Geee, I missed this crap we got every two weeks, :D

Now I remember why I've missed you. :)

ok, now this thread I can use my botched together, anti-religion arguement on, but I'll go for a simple one. I think marriage shouldn't be recognized by any government because it's no longer worth the paperwork. Sixty percent of marriages end in divorce in the United States and many more around the world. Marriage should be granted by the church of your choosing and you simply apply for a civil union from the governament.

* As a side note, the Central Park Zoo in New York has three pairs of homosexual penguins and a pair of homosexual monkeys and many other zoos/aquariums around the world have homosexual couples of animals, so I doubt it's a matter of chouice, it's both biology and enviroment, as is heterosexuality.

No.... That makes to much sense

Clamparapa, if you want to repeal "gay rights", you need two things

1) a good argument to get it voted through in the general assembly

2) a large constituency of delegates who feel likewise.

I suggest that you start gathering names of delegates who oppose "gay rights" if you're going to get anything done with this. You'll need 140. But even a small number will help.

Okay, how about this...

The gay rights act is covered under the Human Rights act.
It does nothing in addition to that act. Therefore it is not necessary.

A nation does not have to be against gay rights to be against this bill. It need only be cognizant of umbrella resolutions that make group specific resolutions obsolete.

Screw that, new idea...well, same idea, new method, repeal the resolution and not recognize ANY form of marriage! Forget about it, that way, if you get divorced, you can keep your stuff! I need some backing on this one.

:fluffle: :sniper: me
marriage

Okay, how about this...

The gay rights act is covered under the Human Rights act.
It does nothing in addition to that act. Therefore it is not necessary.

A nation does not have to be against gay rights to be against this bill. It need only be cognizant of umbrella resolutions that make group specific resolutions obsolete.

Exactly. The resolution does two things: protect "all from dicrimination anywhere" (to paraphrase an already overly-general statement), and force member nations to endorse gay marriages. Both of these are very easily covered in resolutions passed since (or at least, could be argued as such). "Gay Rights", according to this line of thinking, is just a waste of paper, now.

That's the argument (with proper telegramming and homework) that could get the resolution repealed. The repeal would be an effort to clean up UN bureaucracy.

Go for it, AP.

I actually started writing a reply for just about every second post in this thread. After getting past 2 pages of 6, I thought " No, this is a load of utter crap. " and stopped. Because, quite frankly, the U.N. is not a " Christian " organisation exclusively, nor should it have to be. This is just another stale instance of certain people being told to stop trying to shove their bible down our throats under the cover of something they find " icky " just because they think they have some ordained-by-the-mighty right to rule over us. Well news flash, I myself am not at all into your " disgusting " hetero-sexual activites. The horror, I'm sure.

* Geee, I missed this crap we got every two weeks, :D

Eyes...burning...too...many...italics...

Eyes...burning...too...many...italics...

:p

Ok, you can do Captain Kirk, can you do Picard? LOL!

screw you all, I'll get everything I know to vote against the repealment!

screw you all, I'll get everything I know to vote against the repealment!

I agree, the repeal should be voted against.

Vastiva supports Gay Rights!

I won't be voting to repeal it, no way. Maybe the legislation isn't needed, but I get the feeling if it isn't there, people will find a way to wiggle out of the obligation.

Go for it, AP.

Alright, once this one fails I will throw together a repeal.

I won't be voting to repeal it, no way. Maybe the legislation isn't needed, but I get the feeling if it isn't there, people will find a way to wiggle out of the obligation.

*buys you a drink... and a cookie*

:)

I won't be voting to repeal it, no way. Maybe the legislation isn't needed, but I get the feeling if it isn't there, people will find a way to wiggle out of the obligation.

If people are going to wiggle out of the obligation with it gone, they're going to wiggle out of the obligation with it there, too.

A Chipmunk convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

I'll be curious. What would you want done, PC?

:p

Ok, you can do Captain Kirk, can you do Picard? LOL!

ROFL!

I'll be curious. What would you want done, PC?

Hm...I don't know.

I guess I want those who oppose "Gay Rights" to bandy together, to work and work and to get something done. Right now, the pattern seems to be:

"I don't believe in gay marriage"

"I'm gonna propose a repeal"

"Oh no, it failed!"

"I'm leaving the UN!"

Part of me wants to see "Gay Rights" repealed so there will actually be a little political balance in the UN (even if it is arguing over technicalities). But another part of me really, really doesn't want to be around if the repeal hits the floor. So I'm not sure how I should suggest that the anti-"Gay Rights" crowd should get their act together and get 'er done, without opening myself up to flame from the forum.

Ok, now you have my attention.

What do "gays stand for"?
Hmm.. since I'm gay, I'm probably fairly well qualified to answer this. We stand for pretty much the same things other people stand for: good jobs, safe homes, a healthy environment in which to raise our children, fiscal responsibility, social compassion etc. We feel love the same way heterosexuals do and we want basically the same things from life that heterosexuals do. The only difference is that our nature compels us to want to share those things with a person of the same sex rather than the opposite sex.

Originally Posted by Vastiva
Ok, now you have my attention.

What do "gays stand for"?

Hmm.. since I'm gay, I'm probably fairly well qualified to answer this. We stand for pretty much the same things other people stand for: good jobs, safe homes, a healthy environment in which to raise our children, fiscal responsibility, social compassion etc. We feel love the same way heterosexuals do and we want basically the same things from life that heterosexuals do. The only difference is that our nature compels us to want to share those things with a person of the same sex rather than the opposite sex.

No, no, I wanted to hear his viewpoint on the matter. You see, I have one cousin who is a prostitute, another who is a model; I have aunts and uncles of most every sexuality you can name. Experience has given me your view - and an understanding that "packaging doesn't matter".

What I'd like to hear is his viewpoint - as in "what do 'gays' stand for that is so offensive?"

And I'll bet its the "icky" factor.

Simply put, homosexual rights is a necessary branch of individual freedoms. While I or others may have personal, individual morals towards the issue; this does not translate into our political motiviations as such.

Now, while I may have a sympathetic ear towards the views expressed at the core of the "religious right"... I in no way see any credance to make their views law; as it is an abandonment of liberty and freedom. As long as a particular action in no way impacts the liberty and freedoms of another; I cannot, in lieu of better judgement, make such activities illegal to make another group "more comfortable".

Nowhere within the scope of textual credance towards the ecclesia, was it given the power or authority to rule over the unconverted; or even dictate upon them what they can or cannot do. They certainly were given the function to "preach" and "teach". They were given a degree of power over the spiritual welbeing of the ecclesia, but nothing outside of it. This is where the religious right has screwed up, and corrupted their own doctrines for their own perverse pleasure; to control, connive, and attack the world at their own expense. They do so in the name of "God", but without His authority (which is in all essence 'taking the name of the Lord in vain'... and is an equal sin to homosexuality, adultry, theft, etc... which they so rampantly talk about).

The ecclesia has its own government whose purpose it is to instruct its own body within the scope of their spiritual welbeing, but ONLY THEIR'S... not the entire planet's... It is not the purpose of the general government to rule upon the spiritual welbeing of the populace, and it should not be hijacked for that purpose. Those adopting christian morality and law; should abide by the commands they were given in their operation... and that alone... To preach and teach, for the purpose of leading people into the ecclesia by the power of God, and not through their own sinful corruption of His name...

*(written from the Reformed viewpoint)*

I agree, the repeal should be voted against.

Vastiva supports Gay Rights!


Here, Here i will not stand for this repeal. we are all people here no matter who we like or love.

Simply put, homosexual rights is a necessary branch of individual freedoms. While I or others may have personal, individual morals towards the issue; this does not translate into our political motiviations as such.

Now, while I may have a sympathetic ear towards the views expressed at the core of the "religious right"... I in no way see any credance to make their views law; as it is an abandonment of liberty and freedom. As long as a particular action in no way impacts the liberty and freedoms of another; I cannot, in lieu of better judgement, make such activities illegal to make another group "more comfortable".

Nowhere within the scope of textual credance towards the ecclesia, was it given the power or authority to rule over the unconverted; or even dictate upon them what they can or cannot do. They certainly were given the function to "preach" and "teach". They were given a degree of power over the spiritual welbeing of the ecclesia, but nothing outside of it. This is where the religious right has screwed up, and corrupted their own doctrines for their own perverse pleasure; to control, connive, and attack the world at their own expense. They do so in the name of "God", but without His authority (which is in all essence 'taking the name of the Lord in vain'... and is an equal sin to homosexuality, adultry, theft, etc... which they so rampantly talk about).

The ecclesia has its own government whose purpose it is to instruct its own body within the scope of their spiritual welbeing, but ONLY THEIR'S... not the entire planet's... It is not the purpose of the general government to rule upon the spiritual welbeing of the populace, and it should not be hijacked for that purpose. Those adopting christian morality and law; should abide by the commands they were given in their operation... and that alone... To preach and teach, for the purpose of leading people into the ecclesia by the power of God, and not through their own sinful corruption of His name...

*(written from the Reformed viewpoint)*

*blinks*

What he said.

Where did you get that from? And if you wrote it - go into speachwriting.

First off the first thing to do is to discover what divides people on the gay rights issue, then we are closer to solving this (and I hate to use the term) 'problem.'

And for the record: Theocide will be voting against the repeal...

First off the first thing to do is to discover what divides people on the gay rights issue, then we are closer to solving this (and I hate to use the term) 'problem.'

And for the record: Theocide will be voting against the repeal...

What divides people is the "icky" factor, when you get down to it. Same thing that happened with the Civil Rights issue in the 50s.

Of course, now, interracial marriages are common. Give it 40 years, and this will be another non-issue that our descendants laugh their arses off about. "You got upset about that, gramma? ROFL!"

*blinks*

What he said.

Where did you get that from? And if you wrote it - go into speachwriting.

I wrote it... from my own religio-political view.

You haven't done anything to take away the absurdity of that notion. Yes, I can definitely see the UN resolution about that!

"Compulsory Homoerotic Love"
A resolution to restrict freedom in the name of moral decency
Strength: Strong
etc.

That is obviously nonsensical. An organisation that stands for equal protection of the rights of minorities does not axe the rights of those who consider themselves the majority. It has not the moral obligation or duty to decide for people what they have to eat, nor whom to love. In promoting "gay rights" the U.N. did not try to exercise that. But certain religious groups have done, and still continue to do so even in states in the "real world" (The "United States of Wacko", for example), influencing legislation, wanting to determine whom people are allowed to love or be sexually attracted to. One cannot choose whom to love or being sexually attracted to. Therefore homosexuality is not a chosen lifestyle.

The reason what it is all about is that religious people do not think people different from them should receive rights. They consider rights as their property and therefore ferociously guard them.

That is obviously nonsensical. An organisation that stands for equal protection of the rights of minorities does not axe the rights of those who consider themselves the majority. It has not the moral obligation or duty to decide for people what they have to eat, nor whom to love. In promoting "gay rights" the U.N. did not try to exercise that. But certain religious groups have done, and still continue to do so even in states in the "real world" (The "United States of Wacko", for example), influencing legislation, wanting to determine whom people are allowed to love or be sexually attracted to. One cannot choose whom to love or being sexually attracted to. Therefore homosexuality is not a chosen lifestyle.

The reason what it is all about is that religious people do not think people different from them should receive rights. They consider rights as their property and therefore ferociously guard them.

(psst! he was being sarcastic!)

My nation does not support the idea of homosexual marriage. The passing of an act that approves of the homosexul lifestyle is against everything that a nation should stand for. The acceptance of homosexual marriage is a tragedy, as is the belief in marriage between those of different races. We should futhermore ban the marriages for all blacks and latinos, allowing only chosen races the right to marry. The Empire of Lutianu believes homosexual marriage should be banned as should all Jewish marriages, because they will destroy the moral fibers of what the United Nations stand for.

My nation does not support the idea of homosexual marriage. The passing of an act that approves of the homosexul lifestyle is against everything that a nation should stand for. The acceptance of homosexual marriage is a tragedy, as is the belief in marriage between those of different races. We should futhermore ban the marriages for all blacks and latinos, allowing only chosen races the right to marry. The Empire of Lutianu believes homosexual marriage should be banned as should all Jewish marriages, because they will destroy the moral fibers of what the United Nations stand for.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

~wheeze~

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ~wheeze~ HAHAHAHAHA!

Good one. Try reading the passed resolutions. Gay marriage was legal a year ago. Also, if you do read them, you will find the UN does not follow your moral compass. Just because you believe it doesn't mean the majority does.

My nation does not support the idea of homosexual marriage. The passing of an act that approves of the homosexul lifestyle is against everything that a nation should stand for. The acceptance of homosexual marriage is a tragedy, as is the belief in marriage between those of different races. We should futhermore ban the marriages for all blacks and latinos, allowing only chosen races the right to marry. The Empire of Lutianu believes homosexual marriage should be banned as should all Jewish marriages, because they will destroy the moral fibers of what the United Nations stand for.

My, those UN Gnomes have been kept busy rewriting your laws for you. No need to thank them, they keep you in compliance with all UN Resolutions automaticly.

HA!

that was a point, not an statement, it's supposed to be sarcastic. no one actually believes that crap. it's kind of how i view people who don't believe in gay marriage. i give them the same puzzled look, then laugh. i respect the opinion of people on every moral issue (abortion, etc), but this one i can't find a legitimate arguement by my opposing side

that was a point, not an statement, it's supposed to be sarcastic. no one actually believes that crap. it's kind of how i view people who don't believe in gay marriage. i give them the same puzzled look, then laugh. i respect the opinion of people on every moral issue (abortion, etc), but this one i can't find a legitimate arguement by my opposing side

You would be amazed how many people believe that crap.

Well Clamparapa, the reason you have not recieved any backing on your request is because it is backed by ignorance, religious doctrines, and complete stupidity. The separation of church and state is there for a reason. To keep you overly religious zealots from running the country. Do you honestly belive that gay folk wake up one day and DECIDE thier sexuall preferance?! These are people trying to live their lives to the happiest extent possible. Let them be and take their tax money.


:fluffle: Although in my nation, there are no such thing as gay or straight marriages, since everyone are genderless. However, I WILL SUPPORT GAYS who want to get married for the same benefits that straight people get. It's only fair since they are human too. And no, it is not by choice they are gay, but some will refuse to believe, acknowledge, or understand that. Well, that's their own unfortunate ignorance. It's not like a nation's national security will drop, or their deficit will drastically increase because gays want to express their love on another level and grow a family. Unless your nation is stupid enough to cause a riot because of such a ridiculous debate on the "Definition of Marriage". It's just a word for Pete's sake. It probably has a different meaning or origin, or no meaning at all in other languages.
In any case, to Clamparapa, believe what you want. But just shut up about it because no really cares. Sorry.

I would assume from the responses here that everyone is simply missing the point of this resolution. It denies the national sovriengty rights of each and every member nation. If you desire to have such legislation, then have it in either your region or nation. You should have absolutely no say in the matter when it comes to my nation, regardless of the current stance my citizens take. It should be legislated that each and every nation have the opportunity to take this ideal on at the national level and not the international.

Repeal gay rights? Why don't you just kill them off while you're at it. Just because you're the minority doesn't mean you should have any fewer rights than the majority.

Repeal gay rights? Why don't you just kill them off while you're at it. Just because you're the minority doesn't mean you should have any fewer rights than the majority.
Just kill them off??? Such argumentive logic is ludicrous.

Just kill them off??? Such argumentive logic is ludicrous.


:rolleyes:
Although the movie was a hysterical satire, it's absurd to think that that there are actually people who are trying to convert homosexuals from "their icky, depressing, self-hating lives!" Unfortunately, this is a fact and I feel bad for those people who are forced to be in the closet in their nations.
Since I am a bisexual, of couse I am going to support gay marriage where I reside. Yet I admit that the UN should not have the right to force every nation to ban or condone gay marriage. People should not be forced to believe in just one side, reguardless whether they agree or disagree. That would be simular to World Dictatorship, and that never seems to work in this race.
This is really a non-issue here. I would vote for neither side. And if that makes me a fence-sitter, then so be it. I'm used to that.

I support the base intent of the original Gay Rights resolution.

If a state is going to legislate marriage; and then deny it to a segment of their population; they no longer exist as a free state. If in deed they were "moral" and "free" they would not descriminate in marriage; and create polygamous unions with the state. (All state sanctioned, licensure of marriage; is by definition polygamy, since it makes the state a signatory to a marriage union; and therefore makes the marriage multi-party, where the state becomes one of the spouses).

Through their delegates, the people of the world have decided not to restrict marriage (a human invention), to any segment of the population. This means that homosexuals are still the same homosexuals, and heterosexuals are still heterosexuals. To repeal the UN resolution would be falsely believing that Marriage is an efficient detterrent to prevent people from being homosexual (which it is not). Thus, if those who are in favor are repealing the UN resolution are against homosexuals, this is not the efficient course of action to take. You cannot save people if they don't want your help. Let humans decide what happens on Earth, and the spiritual powers decide what happens after death. :sniper:

You would be amazed how many people believe that crap.

I suppose your right, sad, but true

Resolutions like this have almost no chance of being passed because NS is becoming more liberal and progressive. :cool:

Resolutions like this have almost no chance of being passed because NS is becoming more liberal and progressive. :cool:
You know, I've hear that the entire time I've been playing. That's getting on towards a year now, and I must say it's getting old.

You know, I've hear that the entire time I've been playing. That's getting on towards a year now, and I must say it's getting old.

I see. I`ve only been on NS for about a month or so.

Sorry if I seemed rude. It's just that the cumulative effect of so many people saying very similar things has done interesting things to my psyche.

You did? Well I ask you to repeal it because soon you will have to get married to a guy or girl depending on your gender. To DemonLordEnigma I say if you read the bible you will know that the Lord says that marriage is between a man and a woman.


And that is simply because not all members are Christian, I'm not. I refuse to recognize Christian Ethics based solely on Christian beliefs on the basis that as a non-Christian your ethics do not apply to me.

Through their delegates, the people of the world have decided not to restrict marriage (a human invention), to any segment of the population. This means that homosexuals are still the same homosexuals, and heterosexuals are still heterosexuals. To repeal the UN resolution would be falsely believing that Marriage is an efficient detterrent to prevent people from being homosexual (which it is not). Thus, if those who are in favor are repealing the UN resolution are against homosexuals, this is not the efficient course of action to take. You cannot save people if they don't want your help. Let humans decide what happens on Earth, and the spiritual powers decide what happens after death. :sniper:

*puts "Ouame" on Vastiva's "Favored Nations" list*

And that is simply because not all members are Christian, I'm not. I refuse to recognize Christian Ethics based solely on Christian beliefs on the basis that as a non-Christian your ethics do not apply to me.
And here I thought you were another n00b. :D you're all right! I couldn't agree more. ^_^

And that is simply because not all members are Christian, I'm not. I refuse to recognize Christian Ethics based solely on Christian beliefs on the basis that as a non-Christian your ethics do not apply to me.

Not all Christians agree on ethics within their beliefs either. I'm still waiting for him to tell where, in the Bible, it says you cannot change the definition of marriage.

I consider myself a devout Catholic, but I still support Gay Rights and Marriage. I'm not going to let the Church, of all things, tell me how to run my own country. I turn to the Bible for spiritual guidance and peace of mind, not for "Moral Justice". Justice, Freedom, and Truth are in the realm of the Constitution and other Legal documents, not the Bible or any other religious text.

I'm not going to let the Church, of all things, tell me how to run my own country. I turn to the Bible for spiritual guidance and peace of mind, not for "Moral Justice". [...]

If only all nations saw things this way...

The U.N. would never make such a foolish notion as to force nations to marry this or that. What you demand is force people to behave in a way that is not true to themselves. What you demand of a gay person is self slavery and that I would not want to bestow upon anyone. You sir strike me as a fool with
little or no respect for the constitution which states that we are not to be denied the pursuit of happiness. You seek to derail that and force your beliefes on someone else. Furthermore, your retort was weak and you support none of your statements with logic or thought :headbang: .

A) That's the Declaration of Independence.
B) What do American state documents have to do with UN resolutions for all the nations of earth?

A) That's the Declaration of Independence.
B) What do American state documents have to do with UN resolutions for all the nations of earth?

Even more so with NS, which includes multiple Earths and doesn't include the US.