NationStates Jolt Archive

We, the people of Sorabia, feel that this resolution supports an unhealthy practice among the people of member nations.

We feel that a marriage is an emotional bond between a man and a woman, and which in the same time serves as the basis of human reproduction, and of course, no reproduction is possible between the homosexuals. Therefore it should be banned.

We also think that the official use of the word "gay" is highly inappropriate, since, in english language, it means "lively" or "happy", and we add that the word "homosexual" must be used instead.



Before we send this resolution to the UN, we wish to discuss it first, and hear any suggestions that could improve it. Since these are only the basic views, we welcome any advice.

The Empire of Reguastan would be behind this resolution, for homo's are, well... gay.

No, "gays are icky" is not an argument.

You will be actively counteracted by Fass, and, dare I say it, most of the regulars here.

There is a reason all attempts at repealing this resolution have failed. There is also a reason why a lot of the contents of this resolution are echoed in other resolutions. The NSUN frowns upon homophobic discrimination.

No support from me.

We feel that a marriage is an emotional bond between a man and a woman, and which in the same time serves as the basis of human reproduction, and of course, no reproduction is possible between the homosexuals. Therefore it should be banned.


Not all heterosexual marriages result in reproduction. Are sterile people therefore not allowed to marry? People who do not want children?


We also think that the official use of the word "gay" is highly inappropriate, since, in english language, it means "lively" or "happy", and we add that the word "homosexual" must be used instead.

Language evolves. Words change. Many words have many meanings. Deal with it.


Before we send this resolution to the UN, we wish to discuss it first, and hear any suggestions that could improve it. Since these are only the basic views, we welcome any advice.
Our advice would be: Don't submit it. It won't work. It's not worth the hassle. On anyone's part.

Not all heterosexual marriages result in reproduction. Are sterile people therefore not allowed to marry? People who do not want children?
92% of heterosexual marriages result with at least one child. Homosexual marriages can not pass the 0% under any circumstances. Therefore we think that this is a fine argument.

Language evolves. Words change. Many words have many meanings. Deal with it.
Word "gay" didn't change it entire meaning, and it is still used as it originaly was. "Homosexual" is a word that was primarly used to describe these kind of people, and we do not see why the OFFICIAL documents would not contain it. We do not care for slang, and people may call them what ever they like.

Argument is not that they are "icky". I, as a leader of the people of Sorabia, have my opinion, but that has nothing to do with the facts presented in our proposal.

Why should the UN care about a religious ceremony?

92% of heterosexual marriages result with at least one child. Homosexual marriages can not pass the 0% under any circumstances. Therefore we think that this is a fine argument.
If you're going to base an argument on reproduction, you must also outlaw those heterosexual marriages in which the participants choose to have no children, otherwise you are being inconsistant.

And who exactly gave you the power to define what marriage is?

If you're going to base an argument on reproduction, you must also outlaw those heterosexual marriages in which the participants choose to have no children, otherwise you are being inconsistant.

And who exactly gave you the power to define what marriage is?

Homosexual marriages will not end in having children for sure, but other marriages have a very good chance. We will pass the laws favouring the 3+ children in a marriage which, we feel, will boost our nation. I think I have made it quite clear that 0% of homosexual marriages will result in having children.

Noone gave me the right to determine what marriage is, as noone gave those who previously passed "Gay Rights" resolution the right to put the homosexual marriage under "special care" of the state.

Homosexual marriages can not pass the 0% under any circumstances. Therefore we think that this is a fine argument.

Homosexual people aren't sterile, you know. I know several who have children.

Really, breeding is not that difficult. It is also not a requirement for marriage.

I think I have made it quite clear that 0% of homosexual marriages will result in having children.

No, no you haven't. Again: Homosexuals aren't sterile.

Sorabia thinks that children should have a mother and a father, and not two mothers or two fathers. That was not the way the nature intended, or it would give the men a possibility to get pregnant.

Many marriages end up in divorce, and that, unfortunately is a fact, but in the start, children should be given the right to have a mother and a father.

Concerning the protection of a woman in marriage, and the protection of marriage itself, we will try to pass resolutions, which should be on your desks in a couple of days time.

Sorabia thinks that children should have a mother and a father, and not two mothers or two fathers.

Why?

That was not the way the nature intended, or it would give the men a possibility to get pregnant.

If nature had intended that people fly, it would have given them wings. If nature had intended that you use a global computer network to communicate, it would have given you a jack to plug yourself into it.

Nature has no intent. And even if it did, why should we respect it?

Many marriages end up in divorce, and that, unfortunately is a fact, but in the start, children should be given the right to have a mother and a father.

There is no such right, and it is impossible to have such a right. My father died when I was I child. Did I get a new one? No. Did I have the right to get a new one? No.

How is this in any case relevant to marriage? How do gay marriages affect straight marriages, and, as you seem to claim, affect those couples' fertility?

Concerning the protection of a woman in marriage, and the protection of marriage itself, we will try to pass resolutions, which should be on your desks in a couple of days time.

We look forward to decimating them as much as we have this proposal.

Why?
Because IT IS the way the nature works. And for the reasons why that is the case, see below.

If nature had intended that people fly, it would have given them wings. If nature had intended that you use a global computer network to communicate, it would have given you a jack to plug yourself into it.

Nature has no intent. And even if it did, why should we respect it?
Oh, but the nature has intended us to have a brain, which was our tool to achieve "wings". Biologically nature has said that it is not possible for two men, or two women to have children, since it didn't give them the reproductive organs necessary for this action.
Psychology, pedagogy and sociology have said that the children need to have both of their parents (male and female) to grow up as normal as possible. Children with only one parent have had harder childhood. Children who do not know who their mother, or father is, or who have two mothers or fathers are proven not to develop correctly. I do believe in psychology, and therefore I feel that this is a legitimate suggestion.

Children should not live inside a homosexual marriage, since it could have a bad influence on their identity. This is another thing that psychology has proven.

There is no such right, and it is impossible to have such a right. My father died when I was I child. Did I get a new one? No. Did I have the right to get a new one? No.
Are you implying that the children have no right to have a mother and father?

How is this in any case relevant to marriage? How do gay marriages affect straight marriages, and, as you seem to claim, affect those couples' fertility?
No one has ever claimed anything like that.
We do not think that homosexual marriages could affect homsexual couples' fertility. It is a silly thing to claim. However, it is not possible that two men, or two women (with each other) get pregnant, in any way.

Oh, but the nature has intended us to have a brain, which was our tool to achieve "wings". Biologically nature has said that it is not possible for two men, or two women to have children, since it didn't give them the reproductive organs necessary for this action.
Okay, but how does sex relate to marriage?
Marriage is not just about "Insert tab A into slot B".
Psychology, pedagogy and sociology have said that the children need to have both of their parents (male and female) to grow up as normal as possible. Children with only one parent have had harder childhood. Children who do not know who their mother, or father is, or who have two mothers or fathers are proven not to develop correctly.
Funny, the one study I saw said that children with two same-sex parents grow up normally, but I can't find it currently, so I suppose you can ignore me as I have no evidence yet.
Children should not live inside a homosexual marriage, since it could have a bad influence on their identity. This is another thing that psychology has proven.
I'd like to see this proof. I hear everyone talk about it, but I've never seen it.


You still haven't said what gives you the right to take away marriage rights. Your argument was that the other person didn't either, and that might make sense under national sovreignity I suppose, but under that argument you are violating your own logic. I don't understand why it is you want it banned.

CEA's Bill of Rights indicates that the country takes a strong stance against discrimination and towards equal rights for any and all of its citizens. Therefore, the CEA supports any resolution aiding our homosexual brothers and sisters fight against those who seem to indicate that the oppression of gays is a "good thing".

As a Christian nation, it is our obligation to give rights to any and all citizens of the CEA, regardless of sexuality, or any other factor.

This AGAIN... *sigh*

Because IT IS the way the nature works. And for the reasons why that is the case, see below.

No, that is not the way nature works at all. Nature is a wonderfully diverse thing - it has myriads of ways of doing the same thing. You need just look at different cultures, or even our closest related apes, and see that they do things differently, that they don't have any "mother, father, children" nuclear family.

Oh, but the nature has intended us to have a brain, which was our tool to achieve "wings". Biologically nature has said that it is not possible for two men, or two women to have children, since it didn't give them the reproductive organs necessary for this action.

Interesting. Nature "gave" us a brain to use to overcome our lack of wings, but didn't give gay people the same brain to use to figure out the simple task of fertilising on ovum and caring for the resultant child?

Psychology, pedagogy and sociology have said that the children need to have both of their parents (male and female) to grow up as normal as possible.

No, they haven't. I know they haven't. Prove that they have. And then define "normal".

Children with only one parent have had harder childhood.

Not necessarily, and it's most certainly not because they have one parent, but more because of society treating them differently.

Children who do not know who their mother, or father is, or who have two mothers or fathers are proven not to develop correctly.

No, no they aren't. I have read countless studies referenced by governments that have investigated this (for instance the overwhelming revue of the subject matter given in the RL Swedish parliamentary report called "SOU 2001:10, Children in homosexual families) and have come to the conclusion that the children grow up to develop and become no different than their counterparts in heterosexual families.

Your claim is flawed, and you do not define "correctly".


I do believe in psychology, and therefore I feel that this is a legitimate suggestion.

You believe in non-existent psychology. Male and female role models are claimed to be important - not that they be parents.

Children should not live inside a homosexual marriage, since it could have a bad influence on their identity. This is another thing that psychology has proven.

Again, no, no it hasn't (it has actually proved the contrary). And if you are going to claim that it has, prove it.

Are you implying that the children have no right to have a mother and father?

So you're saying that the government should have given me a new dad?

No one has ever claimed anything like that.
We do not think that homosexual marriages could affect homsexual couples' fertility. It is a silly thing to claim.

Then how can it be relevant to the issue of marriage?

However, it is not possible that two men, or two women (with each other) get pregnant, in any way.

Not true, but even if it were, how would that affect other people's marriages? And how would that be changed by marriage? Married, according to you, gay couples could not have children. Unmarried, according to you, gay couples could not have children. Why then deny marriage if it would be the same without it?

Okay, but how does sex relate to marriage?
Marriage is not just about "Insert tab A into slot B".
Sex is not anymore about reproduction. Marriage, however is. Not just that, but it is one of the main components of it.

I'd like to see this proof. I hear everyone talk about it, but I've never seen it.
I come from the familly of psychologists, so I can claim this with absoulte certitude.

I do not use popular Internet links. Books have a higher place in my studies.

You still haven't said what gives you the right to take away marriage rights. Your argument was that the other person didn't either, and that might make sense under national sovreignity I suppose, but under that argument you are violating your own logic. I don't understand why it is you want it banned.
I have already explained, why the nation of Sorabia is intersted in banning these kinds of marriages.
I may be violating my own logic, but that was the way I wanted to prove that my nation is being attacked from the same standpoint I was on, and that those who defend "homosexual rights" use double standards. As I have said, I may not have the right to define something, and neither do you, but you have passed this resolution nevertheless.

OOC; Just ot butt in on this debate, but I can't help but feel nature is not the way to justify these things. Look at this article for a start-

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,9865,1432991,00.html

It seems to me that nature disagrees with you when we have homosexual necrophiliac mallards....Nature, as has already been said, is remarkably flexible.

Sex is not anymore about reproduction. Marriage, however is. Not just that, but it is one of the main components of it.

I'm going to ignore (for once) the highly flammable parts of your post and respond only to what I consider the substantive part.

Marriage is a religious rite. I know, I've done it. You go up to the altar, the preacher says all this stuff about making promises to each other before God, and you agree never to have sex with anyone else for the rest of your life.

Government has no place recognizing a permanent religious covenant. There is no reason for married couples to get a tax break. There is no reason for medical benefits, insurance, etc. to be restricted to married couples.

You want to talk about tax breaks for people with children, you'll have my ear. You want to talk about government recognition of civil unions and property in joint tenancy, I'm all for it.

Marriage is fundamentally religious, not governmental.

Marriage is a religious rite. I know, I've done it. You go up to the altar, the preacher says all this stuff about making promises to each other before God, and you agree never to have sex with anyone else for the rest of your life.

Marriage is fundamentally religious, not governmental.

How interesting then that I know people who managed to get married without any religious involvement, and how I know that the altar didn't change the fact that you still had to sign a legal contract for your marriage to be valid, and that the church had no say over your marriage at all (unless you were unwise enough to let it).

Marriage is not religious at all. Some couples just choose to have an initiation ceremony in a religious setting.

No, that is not the way nature works at all. Nature is a wonderfully diverse thing - it has myriads of ways of doing the same thing. You need just look at different cultures, or even our closest related apes, and see that they do things differently, that they don't have any "mother, father, children" nuclear family.
And that is why thay are animals.

Interesting. Nature "gave" us a brain to use to overcome our lack of wings, but didn't give gay people the same brain to use to figure out the simple task of fertilising on ovum and caring for the resultant child?
Which would mean that a mother should give up her child, and give it to the two male homosexuals. It would also mean that a child would not have a mother in the first 4 years, when it needs her the most.

No, they haven't. I know they haven't. Prove that they have. And then define "normal".
Alas, but I know they have...
Normal, as used in it's usual meaning.

Not necessarily, and it's most certainly not because they have one parent, but more because of society treating them differently.
Of course, not necessarily. Still, it is harder for a child with one parent, than with the child with two parents.

If society treaties them differently, are you going to try to pass the resolutions that will change the psyche of society, since that would be impossible?

No, no they aren't. I have read countless studies referenced by governments that have investigated this (for instance the overwhelming revue of the subject matter given in the RL Swedish parliamentary report called "SOU 2001:10, Children in homosexual families) and have come to the conclusion that the children grow up to develop and become no different than their counterparts in heterosexual families.

Your claim is flawed, and you do not define "correctly".

"In a study published in the January 1996 issue of Developmental Psychology, London researchers Susan Golombok and Fiona Tasker found that children raised by a homosexual parent were much more likely to experiment with homosexual behavior themselves."


And something more.

"Dr Sotirios Sarantakos from Charles Stuart University, Australia did research comparing primary school children in married, cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual couples. Children in normal marriages faired the best, and children in homosexual homes the worst. Children of homosexual couples scored the lowest in language ability, mathematics and sport. They were more timid, reserved, unwilling to work in a team or talk about home lives and holidays. They felt "uncomfortable when having to work with students of a sex different from the parent they lived with" and were the least sociable. Although homosexual couples gave their children "more freedom", married couples cared for and directed their children most. Children of married parents had clear future plans, while the children of homosexuals and cohabiters wanted to leave school and get a job as soon as possible. Children of homosexuals were "more confused about their gender" and more effeminate (irrespective of their gender)."


Again, no, no it hasn't (it has actually proved the contrary).

Contrary? So, are you claiming that children in homosexual marriages are going to develope into an even better adults than those from heterosexual marriages? This is absurdity.

So you're saying that the government should have given me a new dad?
This is highly irrelevant, and it is not an answer to my question.

Not true,
NOT TRUE?
Then please, feel free to tell me how a man can get pregnant with another man.

Why then deny marriage if it would be the same without it?
Other marriages may have problems in trying to have children (problems they didn't forsee when they entered that marriage), in which case there is adoption.
Homosexual marriages should not be allowed to adopt children, because of the facts presented above.

Unfortunately, in this day and age, marriage has become more of a legal matter than a religious ceremony of union between two people. But that doesn't mean that it is strictly a government matter. Originally, there were no contracts, paperwork, and agreements other than the union itself. It was just two people, a ceremony, and in the end, a marriage. We've come to the point, however, where government has stuck its nose into religious affairs. Time and time we see this. But now, it's time we do something good, something right, something fair. I cannot, and will not, reserve my Christian views of "love thy neighbor" strictly to a certain class of mankind. Jesus himself said "where is the reward in only loving your neighbor and hating your enemy?"

Even Jesus befriended the outcasts of society. He made friends with those that society threw out. The tax collectors, the prostitutes, the sick, the homeless, the poor, and yes, even the sinners whom he dined with. We ourselves should follow this example, to "dine with the sinners", in hopes that the light of God shines even a fleeting pass of lumination over those who have been left in the darkness, so that they may see there is more to life than darkness, but that life is better spent in the lucid brightness of His glory.

Thank you, and good day.

And that is why thay are animals.

Other cultures are animals?

Which would mean that a mother should give up her child, and give it to the two male homosexuals. It would also mean that a child would not have a mother in the first 4 years, when it needs her the most.

They need a care giver, not a biological mother. And you omit lesbians in your flawed "reasoning".


Alas, but I know they have...

Prove it.

Normal, as used in it's usual meaning.

Which one?


Of course, not necessarily. Still, it is harder for a child with one parent, than with the child with two parents.

Again, not necessarily, and children to gay couples would have two parents. You can't seem to help dealing in the irrelevant.

If society treaties them differently, are you going to try to pass the resolutions that will change the psyche of society, since that would be impossible?

I would not punish single parents for the shortcoming of society, and , yes, I would act to make sure these children get the same opportunities. Again, what this has to do with gay marriages eludes me.


"In a study published in the January 1996 issue of Developmental Psychology, London researchers Susan Golombok and Fiona Tasker found that children raised by a homosexual parent were much more likely to experiment with homosexual behavior themselves."

Source? Original article?


And something more.

"Dr Sotirios Sarantakos from Charles Stuart University, Australia did research comparing primary school children in married, cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual couples. Children in normal marriages faired the best, and children in homosexual homes the worst. Children of homosexual couples scored the lowest in language ability, mathematics and sport. They were more timid, reserved, unwilling to work in a team or talk about home lives and holidays. They felt "uncomfortable when having to work with students of a sex different from the parent they lived with" and were the least sociable. Although homosexual couples gave their children "more freedom", married couples cared for and directed their children most. Children of married parents had clear future plans, while the children of homosexuals and cohabiters wanted to leave school and get a job as soon as possible. Children of homosexuals were "more confused about their gender" and more effeminate (irrespective of their gender)."

Source? Original article? Definition that was used to determine "confused" and to what?

Resultat från forskningen om barn i homosexuella familjer
Kommittén har funnit att den kunskap som finns om barn med
homosexuella föräldrar i andra länder har relevans för svenska förhållanden.
Inget har alltså framkommit som tyder på att det skulle
vara någon större skillnad för barn till homosexuella att växa upp i
Sverige än att växa upp i de länder där den internationella forskningen
har bedrivits. De internationella studierna har också utförts
med sådana metoder som brukar användas i Sverige vid annan psykologisk
forskning om barn. Kommitténs egna kompletterande
studier bekräftar de internationella resultaten.
Den samlade forskningen visar att barn med homosexuella föräldrar
har utvecklats psykologiskt och socialt på liknande sätt som
de barn de jämförts med. Inga skillnader har heller framkommit
vad gäller barnens könsutveckling. För en del barn kan det i vissa
skeenden av uppväxten uppstå konflikter som är relaterade till föräldrarnas
homosexuella läggning. Det handlar främst om att de
under de tidiga tonåren kan uppleva förälderns homosexuella läggning
problematisk sett i relation till kamratgrupper och jämnåriga.
Forskningen visar att barns förmåga att hantera sådana konflikter
är beroende av hur relationen är till föräldrarna. Barn som växer
upp i en kärleksfull miljö där barnet står i centrum för föräldrarnas
kärlek och omsorger har goda förutsättningar att hantera kriser
och konflikter av detta slag.
I forskningen har heller inga skillnader framkommit mellan
homosexuella och heterosexuella föräldrar vad gäller deras förmåga
att erbjuda barn god omsorg och omvårdnad. http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/108/a/608


The parts in bold mean:

"The combined research show that children with homosexual parents have developed psychologically and socially in the same way as the children they were compared to. No differences have been shown in their gender development, either"

And

"The research also shows that there are no differences between homosexual and heterosexual parents when it comes to the ability to provide good care and nurture to children"

The report gives complete references to peer-reviewed studies and research, something you've failed to do. Your "proof" is thus insufficient.

Contrary? So, are you claiming that children in homosexual marriages are going to develope into an even better adults than those from heterosexual marriages? This is absurdity.

Reading comprehension is a virtue. The contrary to your claim was that they developed no differently.

This is highly irrelevant, and it is not an answer to my question.

No, it isn't. You claim that children have a right to two different-sex parents. If that is true, why did I not have that "right"?


NOT TRUE?
Then please, feel free to tell me how a man can get pregnant with another man

Again, you omit lesbians. Last year a method for making it possible for women to have children without any sperm being involved was unveiled.

Also, if we keep to NS, there are several nations who have technology and xenobiologies you could only begin to imagine.

Other marriages may have problems in trying to have children (problems they didn't forsee when they entered that marriage), in which case there is adoption.
Homosexual marriages should not be allowed to adopt children, because of the facts presented above.

Facts? Yeah, sure. :rolleyes:

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

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

We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.
IN VIEW of the Universal Bill of Human Rights, and the Gay Rights resolution;

The UN HEREBY :

DEFINES marriage as the civil joining of a member of any nation with any other member of any nation, regardless of sex, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, color, or any other characteristic, with the exception of age;

RECOGNIZES age of the individual(s) as a just reason for not recognizing marriage, as per Article One of the Child Protection Act;

FURTHER RECOGNIZES all nation's right to expand this definition beyond species borders as the individual governments see fit.

I thought it might be useful to post the text of what we're discussing.

Repealing Gay Rights won't have any effect on the legality of gay marriage.

Repealing Gay Rights won't have any effect on the legality of gay marriage.

I tried pointing that out a while ago. Let's hope you have better success.

Though this proposition is very unlikely to succeed, we in the Democratic Republic of United Sociologists feel the need to share our views on the issue.

We believe that marriage is an inherently religious act. As most modern religions are against homosexuality, we generally would see no problem with marriage being defined between a man and a woman.

HOWEVER

The vast majority of governments provide tax stipulations for married couples as well as insurance, custody rights, etc. being extended to married partners. AS THESE ARE LEGAL ISSUES it is a violation of any person's civil rights to say that they have less than equal LEGAL status than anyone else. THEREFORE, homosexuals must, at the very least, be afforded some stiupulation to grant them the same LEGAL status as heterosexual couples. The easiest method is thourgh the legalization of homosexual marriages, however we feel that the implementation of "Civil Unions" which grants all of the the same legal and financial benefits to homosexual couples as a marriage does to heterosexual couples would be acceptable. Though Civil Unions still are slightly socially unequal, it is not the government's place to legislate society.

As a footnote, the DRUC has legalized homosexual marriages because the votors expressed in clear detail that they believe homosexuals could still be faithful believers in their religion. We also have civil unions as well for both heterosexual and homosexual couple who do not wish to address religion as part of their relationship with each other.

Jon Cardin
Executive Committee Regent
The Democratic Republic of United Sociologists

The following arrives from the Commander of Krioval:

The idea that two men or two women somehow diminish the sanctity of another's marriage is upon the other to deal with. I don't worry that a man and woman diminish the very real bond between myself and my husband, so why is it that an opposite-sex pair should feel this way? Outmoded religious concepts have intruded far enough into civil society these days that we hardly need additional interference from ecclesiastical sources, and I say this as both head of Krioval and ceremonial leader of our state faith. Keep the two separate, at least when it comes to civil rights issues.

As to the idea that a same-sex couple is incapable of having children, I would like to point out mine, Alice and Alexei. One is biologically mine, while the other is adopted. If anything, adoption of children otherwise left to the state to raise should be lauded as a positive force; such children are far more likely to know love and support, and become well-balanced and productive adults.

In closing, with the sheer number of species that have been shown to engage in same-sex lifetime pair bonding, I submit that humans and other sentient beings are not removed from nature. Despite the ethereal concepts put forth in the more restrictive faiths, we are of an animal biology, and efforts to make a being "transcend" one's nature by denying that being the chance to appreciate one's choice of life partners is, in my opinion, criminal. A faith that instills pain and suffering among social subgroups simply because they represent easy targets is not a faith of compassion and love, and in my opinion, does not represent the true nature of the Divine.

Lord Raijin Dekker Darklighter, the Light
Commander of Krioval
High Paladin to Solokaro

Personally I don't really the point in any UN resolution enforcing gay rights on each and every UN nation, it's only perpose is to force nations with conflicting moral values to adhere to one set of nations values, ulimately interfering with a nations soveriegn right to it's own interpretation of moral values.

Of course, we generally don't have a problem with homosexuality in Noitan Teppup, while we don't allow same-sex marriages on the grounds that marriage itself is a union of a man and woman as husband and wife, we do allow homosexuals the right to a Civil Union which legally is the same as a Marriage in all respects with the main difference being that God himself doesn't reckognise the marriage.

I don't see why my nation should be opposed to homosexuality based on arguements about 'nature' however, afterall the majority of humans are not and will not be homosexual and current trends in Noitan Teppup suggest that this is not going to change and that previous increases in homosexuality can be attributed to the fact that it's become more acceptable so people aren't hiding it (and that it existed just as much before, but was underground).

Seeing as homosexuals are the minority, our population growth rate is hardly affected at all and is actually going up thanks to encouragement from government social programs which essentially help those who want to raise a family. The individuals sexual relationships are not our concern because providing they keep it between concenting adults within the privacy of their own residence then it's not going to have any negative affect on our society.

What we would concider rather negative to our society however, is that our sovereign right to make our own moral laws is over ruled by UN legislation. Such laws undermine our culture and our society, whom may not agree with other UN nations on certain moral issues. This is why Noitan Teppup cannot be a member of the UN.

We do, however, hope that more liberal nations of the UN, as well as the more authoritarian nations of the UN, understand that such resolutions ulimately breed discontent in the United Nations which could result in less nations, such as our own, taking membership with the group.

I find it odd that it's the more liberal nations who enforce their views on other less liberal nations regarding issues such as homosexuality. Liberal nations by nature are supposed to respect freedom in all forms, including a societies freedom to legislate against matters it conciders harmful to it's society. While Noitan Teppup doesn't concider homosexuality to be harmful to it's society, we could understand how harmful it would be to force Fundamentalist Christian nations to follow these laws.

As such we can understand why nations would want to repeal this resolution... the United Nations has gone too far in it's legislation and now it's hard for individual nations to make their own laws based on their societies preferance. The more resolutations that do this, the less variety of nations will be in the United Nations, eventually to the point where only a certain type of democracy will be able to be a member without losing it's indentify.

Thanks,

President Bob Jules of Noitan Teppup

I believe as a moral person that gay marriage is wrong I still think that the U.N. has an obligation to protect the rights of all people.

No support from me.

Regardless of the merits or lack thereof that this proposal brings to the table, I can say with some assurance that this will not be approved by enough nations to make quorum. I've been watching the proposal queue for over a year now, and there are almost always at least three or four of these anti-gay repeals on the boards. Most of us just ignore them.

If you enjoy the concept of hopeless arguments with absolutely zero chance of achieving consensus or converting anyone from one side to the other, more power to ya. Both sides can keep up this argument ad infinitum, in my experience. There are a couple thousand similar threads in UN, General, and even the RP forums if you run out of 'enemy combatants' on either side. Have at it.

In the meantime, here's some windmils for you to tilt at ...

http://starship.python.net/crew/marduk/images/mini/Windmills,%20Holland.jpg

We, the people of Sorabia, feel that this resolution supports an unhealthy practice among the people of member nations.

We feel that a marriage is an emotional bond between a man and a woman, and which in the same time serves as the basis of human reproduction, and of course, no reproduction is possible between the homosexuals. Therefore it should be banned.

We also think that the official use of the word "gay" is highly inappropriate, since, in english language, it means "lively" or "happy", and we add that the word "homosexual" must be used instead.

Before we send this resolution to the UN, we wish to discuss it first, and hear any suggestions that could improve it. Since these are only the basic views, we welcome any advice.

We suggest first you go through all the resolutions, as at least one more resolution deals with marriage in many forms, including homo- and heterosexual. Therefore, removing the Gay Rights Resolution will not achieve your goal.

We also do not approve of the "they're icky" reasoning you have put forth. If you do not have an arguement, then do not waste the time of the UN.

Homosexual marriages will not end in having children for sure, but other marriages have a very good chance. We will pass the laws favouring the 3+ children in a marriage which, we feel, will boost our nation. I think I have made it quite clear that 0% of homosexual marriages will result in having children.

Two words destroy your arguement:

"ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION".

We could also go into au pair agreements and "manual sperm donations", but enough is enough.

People, Authorities and Leader of Holy Empire of Seelenkrieg are FOR this kind of revision of “Gay Right” proposition.
Our Great Leader had noticed existence of this problem years and years ago. Since He is righteous and moral Leader, He passed that issue to Ministry of Affairs, which almost immediately put that proposition for vox populi – people voting.

The big question was: Is it normal to watch homosexual community getting bigger, knowing that they are influencing public opinions all the time, so they are influencing our own next generation and showing them that loving the same sex person is normal? On this way, is it going to reduce our natality? What about moral questions? What about religion?

And, my colleagues, our people decided to say NO to homosexuals. Since, we have understanding for our own people, we are not able to hate them, they are part of our society. We came to point where we had to resolve this problem. Then, Psychology expert teams were asked, and it came out that we had scientists that had been working with homosexuals for years. And this supreme doctors said that this poor people can be healed and made socially normal. Of course, it was understood that it required years and years of work, but our Great Leader and our Ministries made that sacrifice and gave big fund for making homosexual people normal heterosexual species. According to what our specialists said, it has conections with growing up and making own identity on one side and on other with problem with hormons. I, as a Minister of Foreign Affairs, don’t know what exact methods are they using, but know enough that these methods are not against any of our Laws, especially Law of Human rights. And today, this kind of dealing with a difficulty, is giving results. Not enough, but our society is getting (from our point of view) better and better.

But, of course, it is all about politics and trying to solve problems on each nation’s best way. If most nation thinks that it is normal to have homosexuals and not looking straight towards sexuality, than that is their problem. But, we all should know that it is not all about discrimination, but common sense, and that there are lots of different ways for solving problems and making our all lives better.

Thanks for your time,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Holy Empire of Seelenkrieg,
Vannia Shmaug

Then, Psychology expert teams were asked, and it came out that we had scientists that had been working with homosexuals for years. And this supreme doctors said that this poor people can be healed and made socially normal. Of course, it was understood that it required years and years of work, but our Great Leader and our Ministries made that sacrifice and gave big fund for making homosexual people normal heterosexual species. According to what our specialists said, it has conections with growing up and making own identity on one side and on other with problem with hormons. ,
Vannia Shmaug

Where did your psychologists get their degrees? DeVry? ITT Tech? lol

Sorabia, it seems that most of your argument is based on one thing: Your Opinion. and you see, when you try to force Your Opinon on other nations through the UN, your ass generally gets glassed.

OK, I've been thinking this for about 20 posts, but now that Fris came out with it...

if somebody mentions teh nazis, does godwin's law kick in and the thread gets locked or something?

most of this debate belongs in general or some other place I don't go.

repealing gay rights won't do anything. all its provisions are covered under subsequent resolutions anyway.

Seelenkrieg and Sorabia, we find your actions and opinions against homosexuals to be in violation of human rights. Thus, under the Humanitarian Intervention resolution, we are now going to proceed to bomb your nations with weapons of mass destruction until every living thing that can possibly oppress another living person is exterminated. We thank you for your cooperation as you scream in agony from the radiation or are disintegrated from the blasts of antimatter and graviton weapons.

Any hostile actions taken in response will be responded to with all available weapons, except the Planet Buster, being used in your extermination. Have a nice death.

-Admiral Obili
Commander of the Third DLE Fleet

Sorabia, it seems that most of your argument is based on one thing: Your Opinion. and you see, when you try to force Your Opinon on other nations through the UN, your ass generally gets glassed.
PRO: It is NSUN, not Sorabia, who is forcing their opinion on the rest of the world! From your name, you seem like a stalinist guerilla, and therefore a terrorist.

CON: Sorabia's argument is a gross violation of human rights! Plus, his name almost has arabia in it, which could make it muslim propaganda.


OOC: Choose whichever you agree with. The above are only provided to illustrate the eventual path of this thread.

Seelenkrieg and Sorabia, we find your actions and opinions against homosexuals to be in violation of human rights. Thus, under the Humanitarian Intervention resolution, we are now going to proceed to bomb your nations with weapons of mass destruction until every living thing that can possibly oppress another living person is exterminated. We thank you for your cooperation as you scream in agony from the radiation or are disintegrated from the blasts of antimatter and graviton weapons.

Any hostile actions taken in response will be responded to with all available weapons, except the Planet Buster, being used in your extermination. Have a nice death.

-Admiral Obili
Commander of the Third DLE Fleet
Thank you for sparing any of us who may co-habitate the same earth with them.

Thank you for sparing any of us who may co-habitate the same earth with them.

I have territory on Earth that I don't want destroyed. More efficient this way.

I need a list of nations exterminated. I think I'm going to start one now.

Where did your psychologists get their degrees? DeVry? ITT Tech? lol
Stop, you're killing me!

Well, we can't trump gay rights, but gays do not necessarily need to have "marriage", but a civil union with all the political benefits of marriage, just not the same name and religious ceremony

This is just an idea for anyone else to develop, I don't wish to take part in this argument.

Also
"Seelenkrieg and Sorabia, we find your actions and opinions against homosexuals to be in violation of human rights. Thus, under the Humanitarian Intervention resolution, we are now going to proceed to bomb your nations with weapons of mass destruction until every living thing that can possibly oppress another living person is exterminated. We thank you for your cooperation as you scream in agony from the radiation or are disintegrated from the blasts of antimatter and graviton weapons.

Any hostile actions taken in response will be responded to with all available weapons, except the Planet Buster, being used in your extermination. Have a nice death.

-Admiral Obili
Commander of the Third DLE Fleet "
That sounds a bit harsh, seeing that all they do is hate, not act out with that hate in a way that is completely destroys anyones life. You kill them because they hate, but then again, could you kill anyone just for saying "oh I hate such and such"?

Well, let me think, deciding what is good for your nation is gross human violation?! Ok, let me put on this way:

All that is said here is that marriage between people of same sex is unnatural, because there is no reproduction, which should be the first plan of the marriage. Because of that it shouldn’t be a proposal of one so big organization as UN. Every country should decide if it is good for it, if the people support it and if it goes with country’s political views. Maybe some countries are for it, but I’m not here to argue what is going on in some other’s backyard.

Next, about human violations- has anyone here said that homosexuals should be exterminated or tortured mentally or physically? Has anyone mentioned that they should be expelled from community or kicked in desert? I’ve even said above:

we have understanding for our own people, we are not able to hate them, they are part of our society.

we all should know that it is not all about discrimination, but common sense, and that there are lots of different ways for solving problems and making our all lives better.

And what about artificial insemination? Have you ever really given good thoughts of it? Think about human rights! There are huge amount of breaking human rights allowing homosexuals having children.

Watch this scenario: First of all, imagine if two male homosexuals want to have a child. They are looking for donating mother. Mother is supposed to give up her child after 9 months of pregnancy (first human rights violation – that woman is going to suffer bc of that all of her life). A child is growing up (let it be boy, so in next context I can call him - he). At the age of 3-4, when he is able to understand some things, his male parents are taking him to the park. All other kids are with mom and dad and he only is with “parents”. One kid is coming to him and asking: “Where is your mom? What is her name?” What is he supposed to tell: “Well, I have two dads instead of mom. They are gays.” How do you think that it is possible to explain a kid 4 years old that there hasn’t to be a mom in a family and that his mom actually gave up on him, how do you think to explain to a little kid that it isn’t odd to differ so much from other people? How do you think to explain to him what is gay? And later, kid is starting to go to school. Teacher is asking him what is the name of his parents? And he says: Bob and John. All the children laughing at him. Boy is coming home crying, once, twice, dozens and thousands of time. Isn’t that a human violation? And later, after so many years of torturing himself to understand all of these things and trying to fit in community, you are telling me that this is smaller human violation then not-allowing homosexuals to get married?

Well, you are wrong. Even if a kid was made in a tube (so mother can’t suffer), how can you explain to a kid or a teenager that he is made on artificial way, as a some kind of specimen????? You think you are not breaking any human rights? You are not thinking that that child is going to wonder through a deep fog all of his life not knowing how was he made and where he belongs? And, these problems are not usual teenager’s or child’s problems. These problems are not even easy for grown up person. And, that child’s problems are much more bigger then homosexuals’ problems of not getting married. And, pls, don’t come to me telling that you know lots of homosexual couples having child and everything is shiny happy people, I simply don’t buy it.


There are many and many other violations done to the other non-homosexual people by putting this proposal, so I already said I agree with mr. Sorabia for this repeal.

Regards,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Holy Empire of Seelenkrieg
Vannia Shmaug

P.S. For not allowing you to say What about lesbians, I emphasize that above scenario can be made for women too.

Well, we can't trump gay rights, but gays do not necessarily need to have "marriage", but a civil union with all the political benefits of marriage, just not the same name and religious ceremony

This is just an idea for anyone else to develop, I don't wish to take part in this argument.


Please read Resolution #81.

Well, that is one of the biggest arguments against gay FAMILIES, but this was supposed to be discussing marriage. While the above scenario is possible and damaging for the persons involved, it doesn't necessarily have to happen.

(I'm playing devil's advocate.)

if you want to use the argument that marriage between homosexual couples is un-natural, then i will go further and say that marriage is un-natural full stop. i mean, at the core, we are just pretty much animals with instincts, one of them to have sex. while it might be argued that it is sex in order to reproduce, i say not necessaraly. it is also for pleasure, another instinct. the institution of marriage limits us to one partner, and we have seen many cases of infidelity. which brings up another point: the divorce rate. marriage in this day and age is pretty much treated as a joke. how many couples do u see marry and end in divorce? that being said, homosexual couples tend to last a hell of a lot longer hetrosexual couples

Well, we can't trump gay rights, but gays do not necessarily need to have "marriage", but a civil union with all the political benefits of marriage, just not the same name and religious ceremony

This is just an idea for anyone else to develop, I don't wish to take part in this argument.

Also
"Seelenkrieg and Sorabia, we find your actions and opinions against homosexuals to be in violation of human rights. Thus, under the Humanitarian Intervention resolution, we are now going to proceed to bomb your nations with weapons of mass destruction until every living thing that can possibly oppress another living person is exterminated. We thank you for your cooperation as you scream in agony from the radiation or are disintegrated from the blasts of antimatter and graviton weapons.

Any hostile actions taken in response will be responded to with all available weapons, except the Planet Buster, being used in your extermination. Have a nice death.

-Admiral Obili
Commander of the Third DLE Fleet "
That sounds a bit harsh, seeing that all they do is hate, not act out with that hate in a way that is completely destroys anyones life. You kill them because they hate, but then again, could you kill anyone just for saying "oh I hate such and such"?
You think that's harsh?

Just wait until the Pretenama Panels get through with them!

Has anyone mentioned that they should be expelled from community or kicked in desert?
Uh, yes. Actually, someone has.

if you want to use the argument that marriage between homosexual couples is un-natural, then i will go further and say that marriage is un-natural full stop. i mean, at the core, we are just pretty much animals with instincts, one of them to have sex. while it might be argued that it is sex in order to reproduce, i say not necessaraly. it is also for pleasure, another instinct. the institution of marriage limits us to one partner, and we have seen many cases of infidelity. which brings up another point: the divorce rate. marriage in this day and age is pretty much treated as a joke. how many couples do u see marry and end in divorce? that being said, homosexual couples tend to last a hell of a lot longer hetrosexual couples
I love you, man!

I mean, woman. I mean, not that I'm calling you girly, but that I would love you if you were a woman. I admire and agree with you if you're a man. Not that there's anything wrong with homosexual attraction.

I mean, I am not gay.
But I admire your post.

We, the people of Sorabia, feel that this resolution supports an unhealthy practice among the people of member nations.

We don't believe in your viewpoints; therefore, what gives you a right to tell my people what to do just because you feel it is wrong?

We feel that a marriage is an emotional bond between a man and a woman, and which in the same time serves as the basis of human reproduction, and of course, no reproduction is possible between the homosexuals. Therefore it should be banned.

Well, most people feel marriage is an emotional bond between two people, regardless of their sex. Also, reproduction is still possible between homosexuals, as alternative means are used.

We also think that the official use of the word "gay" is highly inappropriate, since, in english language, it means "lively" or "happy", and we add that the word "homosexual" must be used instead.

I agree and disagree at the same time. Gay is a noun, technically, even though most people use it as an adjective or adverb. Gay is a male homosexual, lesbian is a female homosexual; use those as nouns, leave everything else out.

Since these are only the basic views, we welcome any advice.

Why are you against homosexuality? You never actually back up your claims. I hint you're trying to allude to Biblical reasons why without saying that and your proposal falls on its back as well.

I love you, man!

I mean, woman. I mean, not that I'm calling you girly, but that I would love you if you were a woman. I admire and agree with you if you're a man. Not that there's anything wrong with homosexual attraction.

I mean, I am not gay.
But I admire your post.
yeah yeah. i am a guy btw

OOC: This sig has really affected my posting.

I agree and disagree at the same time. Gay is a noun, technically, even though most people use it as an adjective or adverb. Gay is a male homosexual, lesbian is a female homosexual; use those as nouns, leave everything else out.
i hate to defend him, but he is right. the term Gay meaning happy has been around for centuries, where as using it as a noun to describe homosexuals is more of a recent (ie, last 100 years) term

if you want to use the argument that marriage between homosexual couples is un-natural, then i will go further and say that marriage is un-natural full stop. i mean, at the core, we are just pretty much animals with instincts, one of them to have sex. while it might be argued that it is sex in order to reproduce, i say not necessaraly. it is also for pleasure, another instinct. the institution of marriage limits us to one partner, and we have seen many cases of infidelity. which brings up another point: the divorce rate. marriage in this day and age is pretty much treated as a joke. how many couples do u see marry and end in divorce? that being said, homosexual couples tend to last a hell of a lot longer hetrosexual couples

*scribbles note "favored nation trading status" beside the entry for Resistancia in his dossier*

i hate to defend him, but he is right. the term Gay meaning happy has been around for centuries, where as using it as a noun to describe homosexuals is more of a recent (ie, last 100 years) term

I didn't dispute that, did I? I'm just saying that society has changed the term, and this is the modern way it used. Language changes, as it has in this case, for better or for worse. You can't devolve language simply because you disagree with it, it doesn't work that way.

Well, we can't trump gay rights, but gays do not necessarily need to have "marriage", but a civil union with all the political benefits of marriage, just not the same name and religious ceremony

Um, did you even bother to check out what marriage is about anymore? Marriage is a union recognized by states. Many, many people have nonreligious marriages in both reality and in NS. And not all religions have a problem with homosexuality.

This is just an idea for anyone else to develop, I don't wish to take part in this argument.

Then why did you post?

That sounds a bit harsh, seeing that all they do is hate, not act out with that hate in a way that is completely destroys anyones life. You kill them because they hate, but then again, could you kill anyone just for saying "oh I hate such and such"?

According to the Humanitarian Intervention resolution, yes. Hating someone is a violation of human rights, in that the hatred causes an atmosphere in which they cannot prosper and can lead to suicide and many mental problems. And it can be argued to be an effective form of torture.

Well, let me think, deciding what is good for your nation is gross human violation?!

What you decided is. My nation isn't exactly above reproach, but I can at least boast that I'm trying to do something about the fact my people view humans as no better than unintelligent primates best served on the dinner table and that all religions are a form of mental disorders. Well, not as much about the religion one...

Ok, let me put on this way:

All that is said here is that marriage between people of same sex is unnatural, because there is no reproduction, which should be the first plan of the marriage. Because of that it shouldn’t be a proposal of one so big organization as UN. Every country should decide if it is good for it, if the people support it and if it goes with country’s political views. Maybe some countries are for it, but I’m not here to argue what is going on in some other’s backyard.

If it's unnatural, then why is homosexuality present in nature, including homosexual mates among nonsentient animals? Unless you can answer that, your arguement is relying on a flawed definition of marriage that is not backed by the reality of it. I'll leave it to others to point out what the reality of it is.

Next, about human violations- has anyone here said that homosexuals should be exterminated or tortured mentally or physically? Has anyone mentioned that they should be expelled from community or kicked in desert?

Bu DLE standards when it comes to sexual orientation, you are committing a form of mental torture. Your actions, based upon your posts here, are enough to have your entire people either enslaved or executed, and in DLE both amount to the same thing when you consider we occasionally eat our less evolved relatives from Earth.

I’ve even said above:

we have understanding for our own people, we are not able to hate them, they are part of our society.
we all should know that it is not all about discrimination, but common sense, and that there are lots of different ways for solving problems and making our all lives better.

And what about artificial insemination? Have you ever really given good thoughts of it? Think about human rights! There are huge amount of breaking human rights allowing homosexuals having children.

How? They are raising the children, treating them as they should, instilling socially-accepted beliefs in them (by DLE standards) while hopefully teaching them they have the right to follow their natural preferences in the area of sexual orientation, and trying their best to teach the children and make sure they have a better future.

Watch this scenario: First of all, imagine if two male homosexuals want to have a child. They are looking for donating mother. Mother is supposed to give up her child after 9 months of pregnancy (first human rights violation – that woman is going to suffer bc of that all of her life).

No evidence the mother actually suffers. If she chooses to have the child under that relationship, she accepts the fact she is going to give the child up and allow others to raise the child. It's not uncommon, in reality, for straight couples to use surrogate mothers as well.

A child is growing up (let it be boy, so in next context I can call him - he). At the age of 3-4, when he is able to understand some things, his male parents are taking him to the park. All other kids are with mom and dad and he only is with “parents”.

So, in your society, all mothers must take time off from work to raise their children? Not that way in all societies. This is a scenario unlikely to happen in my nation or any other enlightened nation for that matter.

One kid is coming to him and asking: “Where is your mom? What is her name?” What is he supposed to tell: “Well, I have two dads instead of mom. They are gays.” How do you think that it is possible to explain a kid 4 years old that there hasn’t to be a mom in a family and that his mom actually gave up on him, how do you think to explain to a little kid that it isn’t odd to differ so much from other people?

Once again, that is a problem in your society and not mine. That is a problem you need to solve instead of trying to change the entire UN just because you have a social problem you're unwilling to deal with. Have your government do its damned job instead of whining to us about it.

How do you think to explain to him what is gay? And later, kid is starting to go to school. Teacher is asking him what is the name of his parents? And he says: Bob and John. All the children laughing at him. Boy is coming home crying, once, twice, dozens and thousands of time. Isn’t that a human violation? And later, after so many years of torturing himself to understand all of these things and trying to fit in community, you are telling me that this is smaller human violation then not-allowing homosexuals to get married?

How is that any different than kids raised by one parent?

Most of that amounts to social issues in your nation that you need to solve. Those are not social problems shared by all nations, or even a majority of them. These are problems in your nation, and violations your nation is allowing to happen. Get to work adjusting your society and maybe my fleet won't exterminate you when you arrive. Big maybe.

Well, you are wrong. Even if a kid was made in a tube (so mother can’t suffer), how can you explain to a kid or a teenager that he is made on artificial way, as a some kind of specimen?????

Um, you do realise the immense problems with tube-growing, right? I shouldn't have to point out why even an FT nation such as my own uses surrogates instead.

You think you are not breaking any human rights? You are not thinking that that child is going to wonder through a deep fog all of his life not knowing how was he made and where he belongs? And, these problems are not usual teenager’s or child’s problems. These problems are not even easy for grown up person. And, that child’s problems are much more bigger then homosexuals’ problems of not getting married. And, pls, don’t come to me telling that you know lots of homosexual couples having child and everything is shiny happy people, I simply don’t buy it.

OOC: Then don't buy it. It's not my job to educate you to the fact that not everyone fits into your standards of reality and that sometimes people are surrounded by those who are understanding. But while you don't buy it, know that it's not as impossible as you think. Nor as unlikely.

There are many and many other violations done to the other non-homosexual people by putting this proposal, so I already said I agree with mr. Sorabia for this repeal.

Which is why my fleet is about to exterminate your nation.

Nevermoore feels that Sorabia's culture and belief systems are stuck in the middle ages, therefore We cannot support this proposal.

Krioval feels that after DLE's fleets are done with that nation, their moral and cultural values will be the most advanced thing there, next to the radiation counts, of course.

the government of gelfland would like to take this opportunity to point out the superiority of not recognising marrige at all. It is our beleif that the number and nature of a citizen's close companions is only of concern in the event of that citizen's murder.

the government of gelfland would like to take this opportunity to point out the superiority of not recognising marrige at all. It is our beleif that the number and nature of a citizen's close companions is only of concern in the event of that citizen's murder.

Works. Truly, we do not perceive what all the fuss is about. Once you remove the "its icky" arguement in all it's forms, there is no arguement to be had.

And who exactly gave you the power to define what marriage is?

Exactly. We should leave the definition of "marriage" to individual nations. You can't tell me what "marriage" should be. I can't tell you what "marriage" should be.

I declare the Armed Republic of the NeoCon Hubris' support FOR the repeal.

Just when I was beginning to like you... at a distance.

Well, if you want to put marriage under "everyone decides for themselves", you'll have to repeal that and resolution #81, and We wish you the best of luck considering the shooting war that got them both passed.

Of all the phony arguments for gay marriage, the phoniest is the argument that it is a matter of equal rights. Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have.

People who are simply living together can make whatever arrangements they want, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. They can divide up their worldly belongings 50-50 or 90-10 or whatever other way they want. They can make their union temporary or permanent or subject to cancellation at any time.

Marriage is a restriction. If someone's wife buys an automobile with her own money, under NeoCon marriage laws the husband automatically own half of it, whether or not his name is on the title. Whether that law is good, bad, or indifferent, it is a limitation of our freedom to arrange such things as we ourselves might choose. This is just one of many decisions that marriage laws take out of our hands.

Marriage laws have evolved through centuries of experience with couples of opposite sexes -- and the children that result from such unions. Society asserts its stake in the decisions made by restricting the couples' options.

Society has no such stake in the outcome of a union between two people of the same sex. Transferring all those laws to same-sex couples would make no more sense than transferring the rules of baseball to football.

Why then do gay activists want their options restricted by marriage laws, when they can make their own contracts with their own provisions and hold whatever kinds of ceremony they want to celebrate it?

The issue is not individual rights. What the activists are seeking is official social approval of their lifestyle. But this is the antithesis of equal rights.

If you have a right to someone else's approval, then they do not have a right to their own opinions and values. You cannot say that what "consenting adults" do in private is nobody else's business and then turn around and say that others are bound to put their seal of approval on it.

The rhetoric of "equal rights" has become the road to special privilege for all sorts of groups, so perhaps it was inevitable that gay activists would take that road as well. It has worked. They have already succeeded in getting far more government money for AIDS than for other diseases that kill far more people.

The time is long overdue to stop word games about equal rights from leading to special privileges -- for anybody -- and gay marriage is as good an issue on which to do so as anything else.

Incidentally, it is not even clear how many homosexuals actually want marriage, even though gay activists are pushing it.

What the activists really want is the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a death style in the era of AIDS.

They have already succeeded to a remarkable degree in our public schools, where so-called "AIDS education" or other pious titles are put on programs that promote homosexuality. In some cases, gay activists actually come to the schools, not only to promote homosexuality as an idea but even to pass out the addresses of local gay hangouts to the kids.

There is no limit to what people will do if you let them get away with it. That our schools, which are painfully failing to educate our children to the standards in other countries, have time for promoting homosexuality is truly staggering.

Every special interest group has an incentive to take something away from society as a whole. Some will be content just to siphon off a share of the taxpayers' money for themselves. Others, however, want to dismantle a part of the structure of values that make a society viable.

They may not want to bring down the whole structure, just get rid of the part that cramps their style. But when innumerable groups start dismantling pieces of the structure that they don't like, we can be headed for the kinds of social collapses seen both in history and in other parts of the world in our own times.

The importance of customs, traditions and moral values as a means of regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody's watching. Laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct so as to produce a civilized society. At best, the world leaders and the NSUN legislative system are the last desperate lines of defense for a civilized society. Unfortunately, too many of us see world leaders, resolutions, and the civil justice systems as society's first line of defense.

Customs, traditions, moral values and rules of etiquette, not laws and government regulations, are what make for a civilized society. These behavioral norms, mostly transmitted by example, word of mouth, and religious teachings, represent a body of wisdom distilled through ages of experience, trial and error, and looking at what works and what doesn't.

Customs, traditions and moral values have been discarded without an appreciation for the role they played in creating a civilized society, and now, we're paying the price. What's worse is that instead of a return to what worked, many of us fail to make the connection and insist "there ought to be a law." As such, it points to another failure of the so-called "great generation" -- the failure to transmit to their children what their parents transmitted to them.

so clearly NeoCon is a homophobe

@ DemonLordEnigma
Have you ever read what is written here? My country official Minister Vannia Shmaug said that our country has solved problem on its best way and it doesn't include homosexual marriages. According to our Laws, we are not breaking any human rights, because we do not make discrimination in the first plan, in the second, we are not making physical agression towards homosexuals. WE DO NOT HATE HOMOSEXUALS, ESP. IF THEY ARE MY OWN POPULATION? They are the same nation as I am. I can not hate my own brother! Actually, since We are not parts of UN, you can not use your little silly laws on my policy! Our court was deciding this very moments if we are going to be a part of your organization (it is quite big), but it seems that the suggestion is going to be thrown away and maybe reconsidered in future.

About the scenario, don't you understand? It is a theory... If it is not happening in your country, then nice going! Congratulations? It must be that your people were so tolerate to homosexuals thousand years ago. There have never been social patterns that existed in every society? Well, no comments.

About exterminating my people and my nation (isn't that violation of human rights - think of all poor children you are going to kill deffending homosexual rights, hahahahaha), COME AND GET ME. :sniper:


@ Resistancia
Well, I couldn't agree more. The real problem that UN should consider is defending children from mental pain after their parents' divorce or other mistakes that marriage can bring. I DO apsolutely agree with it. And don't make global laws (Gay Rights) about so small population in every country (actually, in my country it would make more bad effects then the good ones, bc majority of my population are conservatives and radicals, what about their rights?) and which are maybe not even useful. UN should be considering much more important matters - for example How to protect children? How to protect women? To explain what exactly would be happening after divorce? What benefits should be given to the kids? Etc. etc. etc. So many aspects of the subject... And since there are more divorces then even all single homosexuals in one nation, then that would be the first thing to be resovled by UN.
And, you said it by yourself, which later some of you guys used to explain why is he against the marriage by itself. If the marriage has no value today, then why should homosexual be so persuasive about gaining marriages? They can injoy their animal instincts without getting married.

And, I am saying: WE ARE NOT TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO IN YOUR COUNTRY! You can decide by yourself what direction are you taking in this issue. I put here my opinions, and was not trying to discriminate anyone. Which obviously you were doing by saying that my policy is wrong and asking me a question: What do you want? I just want to present my views and say that there are lots of holes in laws and that there are un-useful laws (by my opinion) instead of real ones. But no, you can not talk openly, here in this forum, because if your politics are against UN, you are getting treatened by extermination. WELL, AGAIN, ISN'T THAT BIG HUMAN VIOLATION?

And, how can you say what shall I do in my country? Have you ever come to visit me? How you ever talked with my Leader or our Delegations? Have you ever seen how do my people live? No! You haven't! So, you can never say if it is there any bad treatment to anyone of my glorious country and my glorious people!

And, pls, after writting so many posts of killing me and saying my policy is wrong, wait to answer to previous replies or my posts are going to get confusing. :confused:

Thanks for your time,
Minister of Deffence of The Holy Empire of Seelenkrieg
General Sadako Arakawa

Of all the phony arguments for gay marriage, the phoniest is the argument that it is a matter of equal rights. Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have.

The moment government regulated it, it became their baby. Too bad, so sad, suck it up.

People who are simply living together can make whatever arrangements they want, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. They can divide up their worldly belongings 50-50 or 90-10 or whatever other way they want. They can make their union temporary or permanent or subject to cancellation at any time.

However, they do not have the same rights as a couple who are married. It varies by the state, but can include such important things as raising the other's kids and visiting them in the hospital.

Marriage is a restriction. If someone's wife buys an automobile with her own money, under NeoCon marriage laws the husband automatically own half of it, whether or not his name is on the title. Whether that law is good, bad, or indifferent, it is a limitation of our freedom to arrange such things as we ourselves might choose. This is just one of many decisions that marriage laws take out of our hands.

Then you need to change your laws.

Marriage laws have evolved through centuries of experience with couples of opposite sexes -- and the children that result from such unions. Society asserts its stake in the decisions made by restricting the couples' options.

Marriage laws have also evolved through the centuries through the use of arranged marriages, often for political or economic means. Guess we should let the parents decide who their kids marry.

Society has no such stake in the outcome of a union between two people of the same sex. Transferring all those laws to same-sex couples would make no more sense than transferring the rules of baseball to football.

Actually, society does have a stake. It has a stake in what it tells its kids is okay and what isn't, attempting to influence their decisions in life. Not every influence comes from in the household.

Why then do gay activists want their options restricted by marriage laws, when they can make their own contracts with their own provisions and hold whatever kinds of ceremony they want to celebrate it?

Because of the legal benefits some states and nations have that are not available without being married, such as certain tax benefits.

The issue is not individual rights. What the activists are seeking is official social approval of their lifestyle. But this is the antithesis of equal rights.

What they are seeking is self-centered, but the same is true of every activist. What you are saying can be applied to oppressing just about anyone with a few twists.

If you have a right to someone else's approval, then they do not have a right to their own opinions and values. You cannot say that what "consenting adults" do in private is nobody else's business and then turn around and say that others are bound to put their seal of approval on it.

Err, that's not true of all parts of society. You don't need a military incapable of fighting because everyone in it is pregnant, for example. So, yes, sometimes approval is needed and sometimes it is a good thing.

The rhetoric of "equal rights" has become the road to special privilege for all sorts of groups, so perhaps it was inevitable that gay activists would take that road as well. It has worked. They have already succeeded in getting far more government money for AIDS than for other diseases that kill far more people.

This is beginning to sound a bit racist, and what I have to say in response to that is a bannable offense. Besides, the disease allows for diseases the human body normally ignores to be able to utterly destroy it. It's kinda a survival thing to deal with it. If you dislike surviving that much, there's always suicide.

The time is long overdue to stop word games about equal rights from leading to special privileges -- for anybody -- and gay marriage is as good an issue on which to do so as anything else.

And it leads to special privileges that others don't enjoy in what way?

Incidentally, it is not even clear how many homosexuals actually want marriage, even though gay activists are pushing it.

If it is never allowed, how will you know?

What the activists really want is the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a death style in the era of AIDS.

Uh, the majority of people with AIDS are straight, so that comment is the best piece of pro-homosexuality propoganda I have ever seen.

They have already succeeded to a remarkable degree in our public schools, where so-called "AIDS education" or other pious titles are put on programs that promote homosexuality. In some cases, gay activists actually come to the schools, not only to promote homosexuality as an idea but even to pass out the addresses of local gay hangouts to the kids.

You've never actually been to one of those programs, have you? They teach abstinance, not homosexuality. And I want evidence to support this bull you are trying to get us to eat.

There is no limit to what people will do if you let them get away with it. That our schools, which are painfully failing to educate our children to the standards in other countries, have time for promoting homosexuality is truly staggering.

Then spend more on education or do away with the schools. Sheesh.

If you're talking OOCly, know some of the nations by which the US can be shown to be failing by kick out students who are failing at a young age and don't give them a chance. Plus, there is a big habit of cutting the schools first. Those are issues of society and funding, not of what is taught.

Every special interest group has an incentive to take something away from society as a whole. Some will be content just to siphon off a share of the taxpayers' money for themselves. Others, however, want to dismantle a part of the structure of values that make a society viable.

They may not want to bring down the whole structure, just get rid of the part that cramps their style. But when innumerable groups start dismantling pieces of the structure that they don't like, we can be headed for the kinds of social collapses seen both in history and in other parts of the world in our own times.

You do realize you're representing a special-interest group, right?

The importance of customs, traditions and moral values as a means of regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody's watching. Laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct so as to produce a civilized society. At best, the world leaders and the NSUN legislative system are the last desperate lines of defense for a civilized society. Unfortunately, too many of us see world leaders, resolutions, and the civil justice systems as society's first line of defense.

If morality is so effective, then explain why the porn industry was so popular during the height of the Catholic Church's power.

Customs, traditions, moral values and rules of etiquette, not laws and government regulations, are what make for a civilized society. These behavioral norms, mostly transmitted by example, word of mouth, and religious teachings, represent a body of wisdom distilled through ages of experience, trial and error, and looking at what works and what doesn't.

The subjectivity of morality is what makes it impossible for that statement to be supported. This is sounding a lot like someone wants to live in a theocracy, and we all know how well they work. Just ask Afghanistan.

Customs, traditions and moral values have been discarded without an appreciation for the role they played in creating a civilized society, and now, we're paying the price. What's worse is that instead of a return to what worked, many of us fail to make the connection and insist "there ought to be a law." As such, it points to another failure of the so-called "great generation" -- the failure to transmit to their children what their parents transmitted to them.

Considering how the "great generation" acts, their parents didn't pass on much worthy of consideration.

@ DemonLordEnigma
Have you ever read what is written here? My country official Minister Vannia Shmaug said that our country has solved problem on its best way and it doesn't include homosexual marriages. According to our Laws, we are not breaking any human rights, because we do not make discrimination in the first plan, in the second, we are not making physical agression towards homosexuals.

According to the UN, Gay Marriage is human rights. By not allowing it, you are violating human rights. Say hello to my death squads when they arrive.

WE DO NOT HATE HOMOSEXUALS, ESP. IF THEY ARE MY OWN POPULATION? They are the same nation as I am. I can not hate my own brother!

Actually, you can. With ease. I can even teach you how. And by your own admittance, you hate them in a way.

Actually, since We are not parts of UN, you can not use your little silly laws on my policy!

In this case, wrong. The Humanitarian Intervention is only to decide whether or not a nation can interfere in another, not whether or not the other has to allow it. Thus, it can be used effectively against nonmember nations as well. Because of someone bending the rules, you get screwed.

Our court was deciding this very moments if we are going to be a part of your organization (it is quite big), but it seems that the suggestion is going to be thrown away and maybe reconsidered in future.

You become part, you recognize gay marriage as legal. Kinda goes against your own beliefs.

About the scenario, don't you understand? It is a theory... If it is not happening in your country, then nice going! Congratulations? It must be that your people were so tolerate to homosexuals thousand years ago. There have never been social patterns that existed in every society? Well, no comments.

Actually, my people have history lasting millions of years of tolerating homosexuality. DLE is the second incarnation of civilization among my people.

About exterminating my people and my nation (isn't that violation of human rights - think of all poor children you are going to kill deffending homosexual rights, hahahahaha), COME AND GET ME.

A nation of six million? I can field an army larger than your nation without a sweat and overrun you with sheer numbers. And that's ignoring technology. You might want to consider how big of an enemy you are dealing with.

@ DemonLordEnigma
Have you ever read what is written here? My country official Minister Vannia Shmaug said that our country has solved problem on its best way and it doesn't include homosexual marriages. According to our Laws, we are not breaking any human rights, because we do not make discrimination in the first plan, in the second, we are not making physical agression towards homosexuals. WE DO NOT HATE HOMOSEXUALS, ESP. IF THEY ARE MY OWN POPULATION? They are the same nation as I am. I can not hate my own brother! Actually, since We are not parts of UN, you can not use your little silly laws on my policy! Our court was deciding this very moments if we are going to be a part of your organization (it is quite big), but it seems that the suggestion is going to be thrown away and maybe reconsidered in future.

About the scenario, don't you understand? It is a theory... If it is not happening in your country, then nice going! Congratulations? It must be that your people were so tolerate to homosexuals thousand years ago. There have never been social patterns that existed in every society? Well, no comments.

About exterminating my people and my nation (isn't that violation of human rights - think of all poor children you are going to kill deffending homosexual rights, hahahahaha), COME AND GET ME. :sniper:
you must be new here. you see, as soon as you joined the UN, this resolution came into effect upon your nation. therefor you actually have to recognise gay marriages, otherwise you are in violation of the UN resolution.

you must be new here. you see, as soon as you joined the UN, this resolution came into effect upon your nation. therefor you actually have to recognise gay marriages, otherwise you are in violation of the UN resolution.

He's not a UN member. So it doesn't apply.

And about the word GAY. I wasn't lazy, so I have gone to Global Library (although it is by UN, i can use it right?), and picked up a Websters Dictionary - Third Edition (Hologram told me it is the best dictionary) with ISBN 0-02-861673-1, Copyright c. 1997, 1996, 1994, 1991, 1988 by Simon & Schuster, INc. and found the word GAY:
1. joyous and lively; merry; happy; lighthearted
2. bright; brilliant (gay colours)
3. given to social rights and pleasures
4. wanton; licentious
5. a) homosexual
b) of, for, or relating to homosexuals (gay liberation)

Well, i haven't written it by myself...
Regards,
Minister of Deffence of The Holy Empire of Seelenkrieg
General Sadako Arakawa

And about the word GAY. I wasn't lazy, so I have gone to Global Library (although it is by UN, i can use it right?), and picked up a Websters Dictionary - Third Edition (Hologram told me it is the best dictionary) with ISBN 0-02-861673-1, Copyright c. 1997, 1996, 1994, 1991, 1988 by Simon & Schuster, INc. and found the word GAY:
1. joyous and lively; merry; happy; lighthearted
2. bright; brilliant (gay colours)
3. given to social rights and pleasures
4. wanton; licentious
5. a) homosexual
b) of, for, or relating to homosexuals (gay liberation)

Well, i haven't written it by myself...
Regards,
Minister of Deffence of The Holy Empire of Seelenkrieg
General Sadako Arakawa

In a discussion of homosexuality, which definition is the correct one is obvious.

Seelenkrieg, are you an UN member or in the process of application? if you answer no to either of these, you must be lost. this is the UN, for UN discussion, and therefore does not apply to you. so if you dont mind, there is the door

OOC: damn, when are we going to get some moderation of non-UN interference in UN discussion?
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Seelenkrieg, are you an UN member or in the process of application? if you answer no to either of these, you must be lost. this is the UN, for UN discussion, and therefore does not apply to you. so if you dont mind, there is the door

OOC: damn, when are we going to get some moderation of non-UN interference in UN discussion?
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:


Well, I don't see a sign FOR UN MEMBERS ONLY! I can discuss about my opinions. And, maybe even some threads can help me to join UN. Because, I still think that your proposals are silly. I'll become a member if I can change some laws or they get changed by some other person, and that's why I am here.
Isn't THAT a discrimination? You have to BE UN MEMBER to take a part in conversations?
Well, you UN guys are much bigger haters and breakers of civil rights then me, poor Non-UN member. :(


I can field an army larger than your nation without a sweat and overrun you with sheer numbers. And that's ignoring technology. You might want to consider how big of an enemy you are dealing with.

And how? Are you going to come to my millitary regime with army of bleached-white teeth, fur coats as the latest fashion trend, Harry Potter in your arms. Or maybe with almost half of your children population that roughly lives on the street?

Well, come and get me, it would be fun killing your latest Versace fashion soldiers with snipers.

OOC: damn, when are we going to get some moderation of non-UN interference in UN discussion?
You aren't. Anyone can speak here, member or not. Only members can vote, so only members have an actual effect on the process. That'll have to be enough.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Moderator Team

Well, I don't see a sign FOR UN MEMBERS ONLY! I can discuss about my opinions. And, maybe even some threads can help me to join UN. Because, I still think that your proposals are silly. I'll become a member if I can change some laws or they get changed by some other person, and that's why I am here.
Isn't THAT a discrimination? You have to BE UN MEMBER to take a part in conversations?
Well, you UN guys are much bigger haters and breakers of civil rights then me, poor Non-UN member. :(

um, the fact that it says United Nations on the thread should be clue enough. and since you are not a UN member, these resolutions do not affect you. as for laws changing, well, it will be a while before you join then, because as you can see, nothing really happens that fast around here, and rarely is a resolution repealed.

You aren't. Anyone can speak here, member or not. Only members can vote, so only members have an actual effect on the process. That'll have to be enough.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Moderator Team
damn, coz it gets annoying sometimes

damn, coz it gets annoying sometimes

Aha, I get it, if you go to Game Play forum, you must be in part of a game? And you are forbidden to read or post there?

Ok. Aha. Then if International Incidents are in question then you have to play RPs, and no, no way you can only read their posts or write a comment.

Etc. etc.

I think that this is directly against your own rules and that is also an act of breaking Human Rights laws. Maybe because my country is not like your UN members countries, you have to hate me?

This is the same story with homosexuals. And even I have never said that I hate them. And my rights are much more violeted then theirs with not allowing Homosexual marriages.

Thanks for your time,
General Sadako Arakawa

Well, I don't see a sign FOR UN MEMBERS ONLY! I can discuss about my opinions. And, maybe even some threads can help me to join UN. Because, I still think that your proposals are silly. I'll become a member if I can change some laws or they get changed by some other person, and that's why I am here.
Isn't THAT a discrimination? You have to BE UN MEMBER to take a part in conversations?
Well, you UN guys are much bigger haters and breakers of civil rights then me, poor Non-UN member. :(

We don't have a problem with nonmember nations. It just changes how we act a bit, as you are not affected by the resolutions unless you choose to be.

And how? Are you going to come to my millitary regime with army of bleached-white teeth, fur coats as the latest fashion trend, Harry Potter in your arms. Or maybe with almost half of your children population that roughly lives on the street?

I'm a dictatorial militaristic nation. The latest fashion trends are body armor with lots of guns. And, despite how outdated it is, you might want to check my technology thread to get an idea of what I'll be throwing at you. Needless to say, I wouldn't want to be in your nation when the shooting starts.

Well, come and get me, it would be fun killing your latest Versace fashion soldiers with snipers.

~Checks databases~

We have no entry for Versace. But I doubt they make the appropriate weapons anyway.

damn, coz it gets annoying sometimes

Eh, suck it up. I wasn't a UN member when I first started posting here. Now I've got one under my control and all of the worries that go with it.

I'm a dictatorial militaristic nation. The latest fashion trends are body armor with lots of guns. And, despite how outdated it is, you might want to check my technology thread to get an idea of what I'll be throwing at you. Needless to say, I wouldn't want to be in your nation when the shooting starts.



~Checks databases~

We have no entry for Versace. But I doubt they make the appropriate weapons anyway.

Yeah rite, and I am Donald Duck. I've never been to your country so I decided as a Minister of Deffence to see your references done by nationstates itself. And, it never says you are a dictatorial militaristic nation. Thou, it is said that you like fashion stuff and that you read Harry Potter.
And on the other side My nation is militaristic nation. Actually, that is our main issue in govenment. So, dream on, little dragon, your are going to be scrunched like a bug.

General Sadako Arakawa

Yeah rite, and I am Donald Duck. I've never been to your country so I decided as a Minister of Deffence to see your references done by nationstates itself. And, it never says you are a dictatorial militaristic nation. Thou, it is said that you like fashion stuff and that you read Harry Potter.
And on the other side My nation is militaristic nation. Actually, that is our main issue in govenment. So, dream on, little dragon, your are going to be scrunched like a bug.

General Sadako Arakawa

I love how people misjudge based on recent government decisions. You might want to check these sources:

http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=DemonLordEnigma

Government Budget Details Administration: $0.00 0%
Social Welfare: $0.00 0%
Healthcare: $366,043,122,678.45 5%
Education: $73,208,624,535.69 1%
Religion & Spirituality: $0.00 0%
Defence: $2,049,841,486,999.32 28%
Law & Order: $2,342,675,985,142.08 32%
Commerce: $1,903,424,237,927.94 26%
Public Transport: $585,668,996,285.52 8%
The Environment: $0.00 0%
Social Equality: $0.00 0%

http://www.sunsetrpg.com/nsxmlparser.php

Tax Rate: 12%
Government Budget: $8,625,181,279,109
Administration: $0
Welfare Spending: $0
Healthcare: $405,383,520,118
Education: $81,076,704,024
Spirituality: $0
Defence: $2,270,147,712,661
Law and Order: $2,594,454,528,756
Commerce: $2,107,994,304,614
Public Transport: $648,613,632,189
Envirnment: $0
Social Equality: $0
Government Waste: $517,510,876,747

Also, this site is going to be pretty helpful, though prices are based on what I would charge others:

http://www.freewebs.com/demonlordenigma/index.htm

Finally, look up my nation on NSWiki. The link is the Factbook link in my signature.

This is your nation by comparison:

Government Budget Details Administration: $1,187,401,017.60 50%
Social Welfare: $0.00 0%
Healthcare: $0.00 0%
Education: $0.00 0%
Religion & Spirituality: $237,480,203.52 10%
Defence: $284,976,244.22 12%
Law & Order: $688,692,590.21 29%
Commerce: $0.00 0%
Public Transport: $0.00 0%
The Environment: $0.00 0%
Social Equality: $0.00 0%

Tax Rate: 47%
Government Budget: $10,751,450,170
Administration: $4,945,667,078
Welfare Spending: $0
Healthcare: $0
Education: $0
Spirituality: $989,133,416
Defence: $1,186,960,099
Law and Order: $2,868,486,905
Commerce: $0
Public Transport: $0
Envirnment: $0
Social Equality: $0
Government Waste: $860,116,014

You're not going to survive, and this shall be over quickly.

I told you numbers has nothing to do with it. What use is of your army if it can not fight?

DO whatever you want, I' looking forward to it. :D

Anyway, we must stick to the subject, and the subject is whether "Gay Rights" proposal should be changed or not.

We both gave our arguments, so I think is better to leave some space for the other to take role on putting statements here.

Best wishes,
General Sadako Arakawa

I told you numbers has nothing to do with it. What use is of your army if it can not fight?

Who says my army will ever have to see yours to fight? I've been wanting to test out my new automated fighters.

DO whatever you want, I' looking forward to it. :D

I'll start the thread in a couple of hours.

Anyway, we must stick to the subject, and the subject is whether "Gay Rights" proposal should be changed or not.

We both gave our arguments, so I think is better to leave some space for the other to take role on putting statements here.

Best wishes,
General Sadako Arakawa

Bah! I think this horse is dead. For the 20th times. Let's stop kicking i' and, unless someone invents a new method of beatin', jus' let it lie and rot.

Off topic:
Tell me something DemonLordEnigma, are you waiting for new nations to show up so you can provoke them and attack them just to demonstrate power? It's not funny...
What do you expect me to say on your provocations?

Whatever...

I think that the current laws should stand, as after reading this thread, I see more sensical and wellbacked arguments for keeping the current laws than for upturning them.

Off topic:
Tell me something DemonLordEnigma, are you waiting for new nations to show up so you can provoke them and attack them just to demonstrate power? It's not funny...
What do you expect me to say on your provocations?

Whatever...

OOC: Actually, no. The number of wars to actually result from actions on here are zero, and will hopefully remain that way. It's mostly a lot of entertaining bluster that gets nowhere in the end. It's only when I get backed into a corner that I actually fight. In this case, I was simply going to "forget" to post the thread and move on. I try to keep my wars to a minimum these days, due to uncertainty if I'll be able to finish it with how my life is.

I think that the current laws should stand, as after reading this thread, I see more sensical and wellbacked arguments for keeping the current laws than for upturning them.

You got some examples? I'm wanting to know which ones struck you as the most sensible. It'll be for future reference, when this topic invariably turns up again.

The moment government regulated it, it became their baby. Too bad, so sad, suck it up.

Exactly. Once the government regulates something, it becomes their baby. And as we have seen in the UN, it can regulate everything brought before it. It assumes power on all matters and most resolutions absolve UN member's national identity.

This unrestricted power practiced by the UN is tantamount to totalitarian autocracy. The intentional neglect of governmental restraint is obvious.

I warn the Honorable UN Delegates and Members that the UN is a growing monster with tentacles strangling your sovereignty. The autocratic nature of this international body will lead us victims of political correctness and moral relativism, unless we stop its intrusion.


However, they do not have the same rights as a couple who are married. It varies by the state, but can include such important things as raising the other's kids and visiting them in the hospital.

I believe that homosexuals have inherent rights, but marriage is not one of them. Marriage is specifically designed for couples of opposite sexes. Therefore, marriage is a restriction. It is a religious institution that must be protected. Protected from government intrusion. I believe that "marriage" should be left to individual states to define.

The Gay Rights resolution abrogates the very principles of civil rights. The UN has shoved it down our throats and tainted those who oppose it as "bigots," "homophobes," "pigs." The resoultion trampled the inherent rights of nations to rule over their citizens without outside intervention. And those who wish to express their dissent are left with the option to withdraw their membership.

What kind of governmental body who righteously promotes "civil rights" but at the same time, force the dissenters to be outcasts? This is nothing but sheer hypocrisy.



Then you need to change your laws.

What for? To conform with everybody else? To absolve our national identity?

Marriage laws have also evolved through the centuries through the use of arranged marriages, often for political or economic means. Guess we should let the parents decide who their kids marry.

That is totally not the government's concern. The government should know its boundaries.

If you don't want parents to decide who their kids should marry, then why are are you supporting government intrusion to an institution that is alien to politics?


Actually, society does have a stake. It has a stake in what it tells its kids is okay and what isn't, attempting to influence their decisions in life. Not every influence comes from in the household.

The household, in a way, is the smallest unit of government. The household is where citizens learn their first words, their manners, customs, and tradition. It is the household that ultimately has influence over its inhabitants.

The influence coming from the government has its roots planted in the household. For it is the household where the government is modeled. The household has been existing since the creation of man.



What they are seeking is self-centered, but the same is true of every activist. What you are saying can be applied to oppressing just about anyone with a few twists.

True. And the government should restrain itself from favoring one activist over another. It is civil rights that we want, don't we? Leave the issue to individual nations. It is the respect for individuality where civil rights spring upon.

If the UN cannot abide by the very same principles it promotes, then I am very certain that the UN is a complete sham with unrestricted powers to trample every government it wishes. The UN is the embodiment of hypocrisy.

Err, that's not true of all parts of society. You don't need a military incapable of fighting because everyone in it is pregnant, for example. So, yes, sometimes approval is needed and sometimes it is a good thing.

So it is right to force every nation to approve the homosexual lifestyle? The stamp of approval doesn't come in force.



This is beginning to sound a bit racist, and what I have to say in response to that is a bannable offense. Besides, the disease allows for diseases the human body normally ignores to be able to utterly destroy it. It's kinda a survival thing to deal with it. If you dislike surviving that much, there's always suicide.

Racist?

"Sex doesn't cause AIDS--a virus does."

This has become the rallying cry of gays who fear the hidden message inherent in acknowledging that the disease is sexually transmitted.

You won't have the disease if you were responsible enough about your sexual health. And since the government is subsidizing AIDS research, irresponsible people are more emboldened to engage in dangerous sexual behavior.

They now reason, "Why should I stop? The government is finding a cure."

And it leads to special privileges that others don't enjoy in what way?

If there are rights for homosexuals, then where are the rights of the homophobes?

If people can't say homosexuals are bad, then why are people allowed to say homophobes are bigots?

Who are they to say that homophobes are bigots? Who are they to say that homosexuals are bad?

Aren't those special privileges? This is the situation that the government must ultimatley avoid. To restrain itself over social matters. To neither advance the priviledges and rights of social groups. It is best that the decision is left to individual nations.



If it is never allowed, how will you know?

Because no homosexual majority has asked us to decide over the matter. It's mostly heterosexuals advancing gay rights.

Are you homosexual?


Uh, the majority of people with AIDS are straight, so that comment is the best piece of pro-homosexuality propoganda I have ever seen.

Hmm... the majority of people with AIDS are straight.... interesting.

The percentage of heterosexuals with AIDS is lower than the percentage of homosexuals with AIDS.

Let's say 50% of the entire population has AIDS. 20% of those people are heteros, while 30% of those people are homosexuals.

In RL California, particularly, the epidemc has fallen heavily on gays, who constitute 90% of AIDS victims.


You've never actually been to one of those programs, have you? They teach abstinance, not homosexuality. And I want evidence to support this bull you are trying to get us to eat.

Yes. I've never been to any of those programs. It was reported in television when an enraged parent complained.

There was a case in Massachusetts in 2000 in which state education officials helped teach workshop for students as young as fourteen called "What They Didn't Tell You About Queer Sex and Sexuality in Health Class." The topics include sexual positions for gays, whether to use condoms, and how to have oral sex. It was all sponsored by the state's $1.5 million commission on gay and lesbian youth.

On a RL TV show, Scott Whiteman of the Parents' Rights Coalition, who attended the seminar and later helped expose what was goin on there. The transcript was this:

Host: Scott, you were there. You're speaking from experience in what you saw and heard. Was it discussed in front of 14-year old kids, subject matter like oral sex and the ingesting of semen?

Scott: Yes. One of the comments from one of the public officials after discussing oral sex was "I hear it's sweeter if you eat celery beforehand."

Host: Besides talking about ingesting semen in front of 14-year olds, they also talked about a practice called fisting. I want parents to know what was said. I want you to explain it bacause they need to know how radical it was.

Scott: Right. The question was, "What's fisting?" The answer was, "Sticking your hole hand in the A or P of another." And then it was given advocacy when someone said, "Why would anybody want to do that?" And a Department of Education employee said that it's an experience of opening up yourself fully to someone that you want to be that close and intimate with.

The whole thing was absolutely appalling, all the more so because it was being funded by the taxpayers.


If you're talking OOCly, know some of the nations by which the US can be shown to be failing by kick out students who are failing at a young age and don't give them a chance. Plus, there is a big habit of cutting the schools first. Those are issues of society and funding, not of what is taught.

I must also add that teachers with extreme political correctness have direct influence to children regardless of society and funding.

If the teacher wants to indoctrinate homosexual lifestyle, they have the right to do so. After all, the UN has approved a resolution to easily do this.

You do realize you're representing a special-interest group, right?

I only speak of less government intrusion. We're not here to ban homosexuals, what we want is to repeal a resolution and take back our sovereignty.


If morality is so effective, then explain why the porn industry was so popular during the height of the Catholic Church's power.

Didn't homosexuals use religion to advance their ideas too? Didn't they say that God would never turn anyone away?


The subjectivity of morality is what makes it impossible for that statement to be supported. This is sounding a lot like someone wants to live in a theocracy, and we all know how well they work. Just ask Afghanistan.

How about the Vatican? Any recent genocide happening there?

We do not want theocracy, what we want is less government intrusion and take back our sovereignty.


Considering how the "great generation" acts, their parents didn't pass on much worthy of consideration.

We can blame it on liberalism.

How do you expect children to listen to their parents when we have people like you supporting a resolution that almost forbids to do that?

So much for your principle of civil rights and individuality.

Exactly. Once the government regulates something, it becomes their baby. And as we have seen in the UN, it can regulate everything brought before it. It assumes power on all matters and most resolutions absolve UN member's national identity.

It can only regulate what the majority of its members want to regulate. You're underestimating the greed that has kept nuclear weapons from being regulated all of this time.

This unrestricted power practiced by the UN is tantamount to totalitarian autocracy. The intentional neglect of governmental restraint is obvious.

I know. Gotta admire democracy at work.

I warn the Honorable UN Delegates and Members that the UN is a growing monster with tentacles strangling your sovereignty. The autocratic nature of this international body will lead us victims of political correctness and moral relativism, unless we stop its intrusion.

I'm an atheistic nation that has a vampire in a position of power, is ran by an advanced android, and that builds massive weapons capable of amounts of destruction so large we don't measure them. I honestly doubt I could get any more morally relativistic.

And, yes, morality is relative. Just compare your statements to mine to get an example. We don't share the same morality on this issue.

I believe that homosexuals have inherent rights, but marriage is not one of them. Marriage is specifically designed for couples of opposite sexes. Therefore, marriage is a restriction. It is a religious institution that must be protected. Protected from government intrusion. I believe that "marriage" should be left to individual states to define.

The last time I checked, marriage started out as a political institution and that is stayed that way for thousands of years. The religious parts were due to a lack of separation between religion and politics in many early civilizations, though that has mercifully changed in some.

So, really, all you have is the "My morality does like it!" arguement, which has failed to fly in the last 20 times it's been tried.

The Gay Rights resolution abrogates the very principles of civil rights. The UN has shoved it down our throats and tainted those who oppose it as "bigots," "homophobes," "pigs." The resoultion trampled the inherent rights of nations to rule over their citizens without outside intervention. And those who wish to express their dissent are left with the option to withdraw their membership.

Guess what? That's how the UN works. We're very aware of the national sovereignity issue. If you don't like not having any, you're just going to be a vocal minority fighting an impossible battle against forces that don't give a damn about what you say and are not going to change just to favor you. Harsh, but that's how it is.

What kind of governmental body who righteously promotes "civil rights" but at the same time, force the dissenters to be outcasts? This is nothing but sheer hypocrisy.

It's called democracy. The majority rules. This is pretty much the system many people think will work. From your experience, has it?

What for? To conform with everybody else? To absolve our national identity?

To fix your social issues. They're your social issues, so try dealing with them yourself. And if it's such a big issue that you absolutely cannot live with it, remember the UN is optional. You may not like the advice, but considering the past history of this issue that amounts to the only way you can get what you want.

That is totally not the government's concern. The government should know its boundaries.

What boundaries? The DLE government only has the boundaries it chooses, and at any time those can change. You have to remember that not all governments have the same boundaries.

If you don't want parents to decide who their kids should marry, then why are are you supporting government intrusion to an institution that is alien to politics?

Considering the long history of arranged marriages and the fact that a large portion of them were political, I would say that marriage is just as much apart of politics as the death penalty is.

The household, in a way, is the smallest unit of government. The household is where citizens learn their first words, their manners, customs, and tradition. It is the household that ultimately has influence over its inhabitants.

The influence coming from the government has its roots planted in the household. For it is the household where the government is modeled. The household has been existing since the creation of man.

Once again, not true of all political systems. Many dictatorships are as far from the family model as you can get.

True. And the government should restrain itself from favoring one activist over another. It is civil rights that we want, don't we? Leave the issue to individual nations. It is the respect for individuality where civil rights spring upon.

Which is ignoring a simple problem: With the exception of certain political types, governments are organizations, not individuals. Different rules apply.

If the UN cannot abide by the very same principles it promotes, then I am very certain that the UN is a complete sham with unrestricted powers to trample every government it wishes. The UN is the embodiment of hypocrisy.

The UN holds the rights of the individual person as paramount. Since a large number of government types are organizations, it feels free to ignore the governments. It is about the rights of the individual citizens, not the rights of those in power. And the UN itself is a choice, not a requirement, that you make. You agree to join it as it is and accept the roles it has laid out. At the end of the meal, don't complain about the bill.

So it is right to force every nation to approve the homosexual lifestyle? The stamp of approval doesn't come in force.

It has the right to do a lot of things people don't like. Guess what? That's simply the system. You don't like it, you're going to have a miserable time here. And if you are going to just complain about how it is without offering anything more than the typical "Let's remove all of the UN's power!" bullshit I've seen a dozen times before, you're wasting everyone's time.

Racist?

Twas beginning to look that way.

"Sex doesn't cause AIDS--a virus does."

This has become the rallying cry of gays who fear the hidden message inherent in acknowledging that the disease is sexually transmitted.

You won't have the disease if you were responsible enough about your sexual health. And since the government is subsidizing AIDS research, irresponsible people are more emboldened to engage in dangerous sexual behavior.

They now reason, "Why should I stop? The government is finding a cure."

Being responsible in the area of sexual behavior doesn't prevent you from catching the disease. It can be transmitted through blood as well, often through contaminated blood donations or sharing of needles while taking drugs. That's part of what made it such of a problem.

Oh, and finding a cure has proven impossible. The disease mutates too much for vaccines to work.

If there are rights for homosexuals, then where are the rights of the homophobes?

You have the right to hold your opinion, express it, and sulk silently when it doesn't become law. The UN protects free speech for a reason.

If people can't say homosexuals are bad, then why are people allowed to say homophobes are bigots?

People can say it. You just have to be prepared to accept what others say in return. This is sounding like you wanted to spout and are now whining because you are getting bit for your words.

Who are they to say that homophobes are bigots? Who are they to say that homosexuals are bad?

They are the ones who voted the decision in, and the ones who have successfully kept the opposition out. None of this is really anything I haven't heard before from people who suddenly realized they can't do anything.

Aren't those special privileges? This is the situation that the government must ultimatley avoid. To restrain itself over social matters. To neither advance the priviledges and rights of social groups. It is best that the decision is left to individual nations.

Why? Why should a government restrain? All you have given me is worthless rhetoric that amounts to a "Because I say so!" for your reasoning. I have yet to see anything in your arguement worth considering and nothing to back it. When you're done with the drama, try posting an arguement.

Because no homosexual majority has asked us to decide over the matter. It's mostly heterosexuals advancing gay rights.

If the group with advantages is so focused on helping a group that lacks them, there probably is a problem worth dealing with. Ever consider that?

Are you homosexual?

That is far too personal a question to ask and it is in your best interest to not press it.

Hmm... the majority of people with AIDS are straight.... interesting.

The percentage of heterosexuals with AIDS is lower than the percentage of homosexuals with AIDS.

Okay, you're in for a few treats.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108724
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/prhivprev.htm

Now, while the second one is just a single state and the first one leaves out men, those two are, the last time I checked, representative of the nation. I'm currently tracking down that article, which may take some time. However, I would like some evidence to support what you are saying.

Let's say 50% of the entire population has AIDS. 20% of those people are heteros, while 30% of those people are homosexuals.

In RL California, particularly, the epidemc has fallen heavily on gays, who constitute 90% of AIDS victims.

Can I see where you got this?

Yes. I've never been to any of those programs. It was reported in television when an enraged parent complained.

Uh huh. You do realize that one measely enraged parent may not have been actually paying attention. Hell, remember the story of Spongebob Squarepants being accused of teaching homosexuality? Stupidity at its finest.

When claims like that are made, take them with a grain of salt until you can find out more information. They often turn out not to be true.

There was a case in Massachusetts in 2000 in which state education officials helped teach workshop for students as young as fourteen called "What They Didn't Tell You About Queer Sex and Sexuality in Health Class." The topics include sexual positions for gays, whether to use condoms, and how to have oral sex. It was all sponsored by the state's $1.5 million commission on gay and lesbian youth.

On a RL TV show, Scott Whiteman of the Parents' Rights Coalition, who attended the seminar and later helped expose what was goin on there. The transcript was this:

Host: Scott, you were there. You're speaking from experience in what you saw and heard. Was it discussed in front of 14-year old kids, subject matter like oral sex and the ingesting of semen?

Scott: Yes. One of the comments from one of the public officials after discussing oral sex was "I hear it's sweeter if you eat celery beforehand."

Host: Besides talking about ingesting semen in front of 14-year olds, they also talked about a practice called fisting. I want parents to know what was said. I want you to explain it bacause they need to know how radical it was.

Scott: Right. The question was, "What's fisting?" The answer was, "Sticking your hole hand in the A or P of another." And then it was given advocacy when someone said, "Why would anybody want to do that?" And a Department of Education employee said that it's an experience of opening up yourself fully to someone that you want to be that close and intimate with.

The whole thing was absolutely appalling, all the more so because it was being funded by the taxpayers.

Wow. You found the one class on sexuality worth attending. That's an extreme minority and not representative of the majority of classes, so you really can't trust it as being worthy. Try attending a local one in your area and don't be surprised with what happens.

I must also add that teachers with extreme political correctness have direct influence to children regardless of society and funding.

Which can be a good or bad thing, depending on what they say. Not every teacher instill their political views into their students, and iin my experience the more liberal teachers are the ones least likely to do so. But I don't claim my experience in the area is the only experience.

If the teacher wants to indoctrinate homosexual lifestyle, they have the right to do so. After all, the UN has approved a resolution to easily do this.

Actually, no. No UN resolution states you must allow the teaching of homosexuality, and I challenge you to find one that does (good luck, we're nearing 100).

I only speak of less government intrusion. We're not here to ban homosexuals, what we want is to repeal a resolution and take back our sovereignty.

Been over this already. You gave up your sovereignity at the door.

[/quote]Didn't homosexuals use religion to advance their ideas too? Didn't they say that God would never turn anyone away?[/quote]

Actually, that was Christ. Congrats. You just insinuated that Christ is a homosexual.

How about the Vatican? Any recent genocide happening there?

Nah. Most of the recent ones have been committed by secular governments. The Catholic Church has hopefully learned its lesson.

We do not want theocracy, what we want is less government intrusion and take back our sovereignty.

Then leave the damn UN! Sheesh.

We can blame it on liberalism.

What's so bad about liberalism? In reality, the United States itself was actually founded by the liberals of the time. They wanted to have a say in government, the government said otherwise, and we all know the rest. Hell, a lot of ideas currently conservative, such as proper English, were at one time quite liberal. It's part of how society advances.

How do you expect children to listen to their parents when we have people like you supporting a resolution that almost forbids to do that?

Physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Not the intended application, but it works.

So much for your principle of civil rights and individuality.

The principle survives in the form I wish it to.

Mmmm. Coffee.


Of all the phony arguments for gay marriage, the phoniest is the argument that it is a matter of equal rights. Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have.

Well, no, considering most legal systems give a greater weight to the decisions of the one considered a spouse where, say, medical considerations are under debate. So this one doesn't hold water.



People who are simply living together can make whatever arrangements they want, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. They can divide up their worldly belongings 50-50 or 90-10 or whatever other way they want. They can make their union temporary or permanent or subject to cancellation at any time.

True.



Marriage is a restriction. If someone's wife buys an automobile with her own money, under NeoCon marriage laws the husband automatically own half of it, whether or not his name is on the title. Whether that law is good, bad, or indifferent, it is a limitation of our freedom to arrange such things as we ourselves might choose. This is just one of many decisions that marriage laws take out of our hands.

Marriage laws have evolved through centuries of experience with couples of opposite sexes -- and the children that result from such unions. Society asserts its stake in the decisions made by restricting the couples' options.

Society has no such stake in the outcome of a union between two people of the same sex. Transferring all those laws to same-sex couples would make no more sense than transferring the rules of baseball to football.

Last line makes no sense. Firstly, as a member of the UN, you have same-sex marriage (Resolution #81). And all the laws apply in all directions. As a result, you have an economic boost ("more marriage = more divorce = more income for divorce lawyers" is the simplest, as is "more marriage = more weddings = more catering/dresses/shoes/etc"). This makes sense in a very basic way - it adds to your bottom line, your economy.

Society therefore has an equal stake in all marriages, regardless of the sexual orientation of the participants - which is as irrelevant as their eye color or shoe size.



Why then do gay activists want their options restricted by marriage laws, when they can make their own contracts with their own provisions and hold whatever kinds of ceremony they want to celebrate it?

Legal recognition and the protections thus gained. Next?


The issue is not individual rights. What the activists are seeking is official social approval of their lifestyle. But this is the antithesis of equal rights.

This would take some really fancy tap-dancing to prove (that “equal recognition under law” is somehow not “equal rights”). I don’t think you’ve got the moves to put it over on anyone, but… we’ll see.


If you have a right to someone else's approval, then they do not have a right to their own opinions and values. You cannot say that what "consenting adults" do in private is nobody else's business and then turn around and say that others are bound to put their seal of approval on it.

This has nothing to do with approval. Next.



The rhetoric of "equal rights" has become the road to special privilege for all sorts of groups, so perhaps it was inevitable that gay activists would take that road as well. It has worked. They have already succeeded in getting far more government money for AIDS than for other diseases that kill far more people.

Irrelevant.



The time is long overdue to stop word games about equal rights from leading to special privileges -- for anybody -- and gay marriage is as good an issue on which to do so as anything else.

I agree here. No special privileges. EVERYONE should be able to marry whomever they want, no exclusions, no “you can’t marry them because it’s icky” arguments. Complete agreement.

Well, that scuttles your argument…



Incidentally, it is not even clear how many homosexuals actually want marriage, even though gay activists are pushing it.

Irrelevant.



What the activists really want is the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a death style in the era of AIDS.

Scare tactics, and still irrelevant.



They have already succeeded to a remarkable degree in our public schools, where so-called "AIDS education" or other pious titles are put on programs that promote homosexuality. In some cases, gay activists actually come to the schools, not only to promote homosexuality as an idea but even to pass out the addresses of local gay hangouts to the kids.

Off topic and still irrelevant.



There is no limit to what people will do if you let them get away with it. That our schools, which are painfully failing to educate our children to the standards in other countries, have time for promoting homosexuality is truly staggering.

So put down some legislation in your nation. Ours says “no sexual type can be promoted above any other”. Seems to work.



Every special interest group has an incentive to take something away from society as a whole. Some will be content just to siphon off a share of the taxpayers' money for themselves. Others, however, want to dismantle a part of the structure of values that make a society viable.

What was the topic of this again?



They may not want to bring down the whole structure, just get rid of the part that cramps their style. But when innumerable groups start dismantling pieces of the structure that they don't like, we can be headed for the kinds of social collapses seen both in history and in other parts of the world in our own times.

Yep, should never have had that American Revolution. It just hacked away at the structure that they didn’t like….



The importance of customs, traditions and moral values as a means of regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody's watching. Laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct so as to produce a civilized society. At best, the world leaders and the NSUN legislative system are the last desperate lines of defense for a civilized society. Unfortunately, too many of us see world leaders, resolutions, and the civil justice systems as society's first line of defense.

You do have a point coming up somewhere, right?



Customs, traditions, moral values and rules of etiquette, not laws and government regulations, are what make for a civilized society. These behavioral norms, mostly transmitted by example, word of mouth, and religious teachings, represent a body of wisdom distilled through ages of experience, trial and error, and looking at what works and what doesn't.

…. Right, and?...



Customs, traditions and moral values have been discarded without an appreciation for the role they played in creating a civilized society, and now, we're paying the price. What's worse is that instead of a return to what worked, many of us fail to make the connection and insist "there ought to be a law." As such, it points to another failure of the so-called "great generation" -- the failure to transmit to their children what their parents transmitted to them.

You’re so far off topic here, you’ve lost your audience. Sorry, can’t support your initial hypothesis as you blew it out of the water yourself. And the rest… well, when you finish the thought, do print it.

It can only regulate what the majority of its members want to regulate. You're underestimating the greed that has kept nuclear weapons from being regulated all of this time.

It regulates what the majority has been fooled to regulate.


I know. Gotta admire democracy at work.

Democracy? What democracy? Didn't see that in the UN leadership.

I'm an atheistic nation that has a vampire in a position of power, is ran by an advanced android, and that builds massive weapons capable of amounts of destruction so large we don't measure them. I honestly doubt I could get any more morally relativistic.

You don't have to say. Your thick-headedness is absolutely supreme. I guess it stretches to the ends of the universe (if there's any).

And, yes, morality is relative. Just compare your statements to mine to get an example. We don't share the same morality on this issue.

Exactly. And look at the autocratic system that prevents the dissenter from speaking out.

Since we have different sets of moral code, I am wondering how one moral code is supreme to another by law. Oh yeah--the system is flawed.


The last time I checked, marriage started out as a political institution and that is stayed that way for thousands of years. The religious parts were due to a lack of separation between religion and politics in many early civilizations, though that has mercifully changed in some.

Yet to be proved.

So, really, all you have is the "My morality does like it!" arguement, which has failed to fly in the last 20 times it's been tried.

Of course, when people like you shove their moral code down our throats, it looks so appealing. Why? Because the blanket of "civil rights" rhetoric has covered the bankrupt ideology.


Guess what? That's how the UN works. We're very aware of the national sovereignity issue. If you don't like not having any, you're just going to be a vocal minority fighting an impossible battle against forces that don't give a damn about what you say and are not going to change just to favor you. Harsh, but that's how it is.

Yeah. Its harsh. Good luck to us. :)


It's called democracy. The majority rules. This is pretty much the system many people think will work. From your experience, has it?

Where does it state that the UN runs a democratic system?


To fix your social issues. They're your social issues, so try dealing with them yourself. And if it's such a big issue that you absolutely cannot live with it, remember the UN is optional. You may not like the advice, but considering the past history of this issue that amounts to the only way you can get what you want.

Yup. And we're trying to fix it through the UN. The UN who invoked their authortity over our social issues. We're taking back our sovereignty.


What boundaries? The DLE government only has the boundaries it chooses, and at any time those can change. You have to remember that not all governments have the same boundaries.

Right. And the UN system everyone seems to adore has no boundaries. It still amazes me why people vote against some resolutions if they really like a limitless UN. And since the UN is limitless, it has began to take the shape of totalitarian rule.


Considering the long history of arranged marriages and the fact that a large portion of them were political, I would say that marriage is just as much apart of politics as the death penalty is.

Yet to be proved.


Once again, not true of all political systems. Many dictatorships are as far from the family model as you can get.

Communism was based on family model. Modern radicalism is the return of the repressed. Its values--equality, cooperation, unity--are the survival codes of small, vulnerable groups with knowledge goals and shared interests. But the morality of tribal communities are self-defeating and disastrous when applied to complex environments such as the UN. The socialist agenda and its tribal ethos produce social atavisms--the paternalistic politics characteristic to socialist states.


Which is ignoring a simple problem: With the exception of certain political types, governments are organizations, not individuals. Different rules apply.

A very good reason why the UN has been running a system of double standards.


The UN holds the rights of the individual person as paramount. Since a large number of government types are organizations, it feels free to ignore the governments. It is about the rights of the individual citizens, not the rights of those in power. And the UN itself is a choice, not a requirement, that you make. You agree to join it as it is and accept the roles it has laid out. At the end of the meal, don't complain about the bill.

Yes, we have agreed to join the UN. It doesn't say we don't have the right to complain. Isn't that the reason we have repeals? To overturn bad resolutions?

It has the right to do a lot of things people don't like. Guess what? That's simply the system. You don't like it, you're going to have a miserable time here. And if you are going to just complain about how it is without offering anything more than the typical "Let's remove all of the UN's power!" bullshit I've seen a dozen times before, you're wasting everyone's time.

We're trying. Is opposition now being outlawed?


Twas beginning to look that way.

You're wrong then.


Being responsible in the area of sexual behavior doesn't prevent you from catching the disease. It can be transmitted through blood as well, often through contaminated blood donations or sharing of needles while taking drugs. That's part of what made it such of a problem.

How many got the disease from blood donors? If this is the real problem, then let's limit how much blood bloodbanks should give.

Sharing needles while taking drugs? Isn't that a part of irresponsibility?

Oh, and finding a cure has proven impossible. The disease mutates too much for vaccines to work.

Let's scrap all AIDS research then. You're saying its useless anyway.


You have the right to hold your opinion, express it, and sulk silently when it doesn't become law. The UN protects free speech for a reason.

Thank you.

People can say it. You just have to be prepared to accept what others say in return. This is sounding like you wanted to spout and are now whining because you are getting bit for your words.

Have you ever been censored by moderators?


They are the ones who voted the decision in, and the ones who have successfully kept the opposition out. None of this is really anything I haven't heard before from people who suddenly realized they can't do anything.

So you're joining the popular view? Gays are in, straight people are out.


Why? Why should a government restrain? All you have given me is worthless rhetoric that amounts to a "Because I say so!" for your reasoning. I have yet to see anything in your arguement worth considering and nothing to back it. When you're done with the drama, try posting an arguement.

Huh? Didn't I say government restraint prevents totalitarian autocracy? I thought you admire democracy so much?


If the group with advantages is so focused on helping a group that lacks them, there probably is a problem worth dealing with. Ever consider that?

So you're advocating socialism? Why not help criminals in prison who don't have their freedom too? I thought its the majority who rules?


That is far too personal a question to ask and it is in your best interest to not press it.

Then it proves me right that majority of homosexuals really don't care about marriage. It is heterosexuals who advocate them and create an illussion of "civil rights" issue.

It's either you're a hetero pushing for gay rights or a homosexual pushing for gay rights. You could be either one. I wouldn't comment on that matter.

Now, while the second one is just a single state and the first one leaves out men, those two are, the last time I checked, representative of the nation. I'm currently tracking down that article, which may take some time. However, I would like some evidence to support what you are saying.

Ever wonder why homosexuals are the strongest voice in pushing AIDS research?


Can I see where you got this?

Chicago Tribune, "the two largest groups known to be at risk for AIDS and which together account for 90 percent of all cases--male homosexuals and intravenous drug users" from D. Horowitz book "Left Illusions".

Uh huh. You do realize that one measely enraged parent may not have been actually paying attention. Hell, remember the story of Spongebob Squarepants being accused of teaching homosexuality? Stupidity at its finest.

I couldn't grasp your view that a parent with a very graphic statement could "not have been..paying attention."

When claims like that are made, take them with a grain of salt until you can find out more information. They often turn out not to be true.

Try watching the news and be aware of government education programs funding these kinds of curriculum. Try learning about the National Education Association who advocates radical sexual agendas for children.



Wow. You found the one class on sexuality worth attending. That's an extreme minority and not representative of the majority of classes, so you really can't trust it as being worthy. Try attending a local one in your area and don't be surprised with what happens.

I thought you wanted evidence? I presented you one but dismissed it. Try looking for government programs funded by taxpayes for the NEA's radical agenda.


Which can be a good or bad thing, depending on what they say. Not every teacher instill their political views into their students, and iin my experience the more liberal teachers are the ones least likely to do so. But I don't claim my experience in the area is the only experience.

I bet you aren't aware of the scum liberalism has brought to the nation's campuses and universities.


Actually, no. No UN resolution states you must allow the teaching of homosexuality, and I challenge you to find one that does (good luck, we're nearing 100).

You're right. The resolution only makes teaching homosexuality a lot easier.


Been over this already. You gave up your sovereignity at the door.

And we're taking it back. This is a tough road to take. We're aware of the strong opposition.


Actually, that was Christ. Congrats. You just insinuated that Christ is a homosexual.

Did really imply that? Or was it the homosexuals who used that reason?

Actually, I remember the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.


Nah. Most of the recent ones have been committed by secular governments. The Catholic Church has hopefully learned its lesson.

I thought you were talking about wacked theocratic governments like Afganistan?



Then leave the damn UN! Sheesh.

Possible option but it takes away the challenge.


What's so bad about liberalism? In reality, the United States itself was actually founded by the liberals of the time. They wanted to have a say in government, the government said otherwise, and we all know the rest. Hell, a lot of ideas currently conservative, such as proper English, were at one time quite liberal. It's part of how society advances.

Actually, the Founder's disliked the idea of democracy. They feared mob rule. Because democracy will eventually lead to breaking away with the nation's principles. They created a republic instead. Safeguarding it with the creation of the Electoral College. Ensuring that there is no tyranny by the majority.

Liberalism is not their agenda. Thomas Jefferson have said, "The policy of the American government is to leave its citizens free, neither restraining them nor aiding them with their pursuits."

OOC: I mention here, by the time my message posted, DLE had already done a spectacular job of lambasting. Bad forum, bad! Should get you some coffee.

It regulates what the majority has been fooled to regulate.

If they have been fooled, they camn repeal. They always have the choice of paying attention as well.

Democracy? What democracy? Didn't see that in the UN leadership.

In every case of mob-rule, you always have leaders who come to the front. This is the old pack mentality in play.

If by leaders you are refering to the delegates of the Pacifics, you are sorely mistaken. Despite the massive number of endorsements each one holds, in reality all of them combined amount to a small minority of the votes cast. Even if they combined all of their power together, the majority of the UN could vote the opposite way and totally crush them by a huge margin. If you'll bother to check while the voting is going on, you'll notice the majority of delegates come from minor regions and are voting for only a handful of people, in their case with them quickly losing power if they go against their supporters. In addition, unlike in a republic, you don't need a representative for your voice to be heard, as you can vote directly and have it count. I'm willing to bet a few hundred votes come from regions without delegates.

It's not a pure democracy, but it's as close as you can realistically get.

You don't have to say. Your thick-headedness is absolutely supreme. I guess it stretches to the ends of the universe (if there's any).

You do know this can be construed as flamebaiting, right?

Exactly. And look at the autocratic system that prevents the dissenter from speaking out.

Gee, you seem to be quite loud...

Since we have different sets of moral code, I am wondering how one moral code is supreme to another by law. Oh yeah--the system is flawed.

The only perfect system is death. But that's mainly because, even for immortals, death is inevitable.

[quote]Yet to be proved.

It's as proven as the claim of religion being the primary purpose.

Of course, when people like you shove their moral code down our throats, it looks so appealing. Why? Because the blanket of "civil rights" rhetoric has covered the bankrupt ideology.

I have yet to see how it's bankrupt. And in my case, I have the scientific theory that sexual preference is genetically-programmed (along with the majority of human personality), the frequency of it in nature, the fact reproduction doesn't even require sex, and a few other odds and ends to throw out. You have a moral code that isn't even shared by everyone. Between conflicting moralities, evidence wins.

Yeah. Its harsh. Good luck to us. :)

Luck? You'll need an act of God.

Where does it state that the UN runs a democratic system?

A democractic system is demonstrated. A republic requires representatives to run, while a democratic system can completely ignore them and still function. The UN runs under the latter.

Yup. And we're trying to fix it through the UN. The UN who invoked their authortity over our social issues. We're taking back our sovereignty.

Uh huh. Then why have you failed to drum up support for this? It's a battle you've pretty much lost already.

Right. And the UN system everyone seems to adore has no boundaries. It still amazes me why people vote against some resolutions if they really like a limitless UN. And since the UN is limitless, it has began to take the shape of totalitarian rule.

Ah, the wonders of democracy.

The UN has the limits the mods and the majority impose. The UN is actually quite limited in its scope. Just look at the number of things it is not legally allowed to do.

Yet to be proved.

Far from disproved.

Communism was based on family model. Modern radicalism is the return of the repressed. Its values--equality, cooperation, unity--are the survival codes of small, vulnerable groups with knowledge goals and shared interests. But the morality of tribal communities are self-defeating and disastrous when applied to complex environments such as the UN. The socialist agenda and its tribal ethos produce social atavisms--the paternalistic politics characteristic to socialist states.

True communism is the ideal of everyone working together and everything split equally. The attempts at communism were far from that ideal.

And, while entertaining, that is all a useless waste of electrons that doesn't disprove my point and is more pointless propaganda that will fail to do anything constructive.

A very good reason why the UN has been running a system of double standards.

Yes. Because they work for the UN.

Yes, we have agreed to join the UN. It doesn't say we don't have the right to complain. Isn't that the reason we have repeals? To overturn bad resolutions?

About losing sovereignity? Not a bit. Ignorance is no excuse, and joining with knowledge is fully accepting that you'll lose some. Either way, you really have no room for complaint.

We're trying. Is opposition now being outlawed?

No, but I'm letting you know that we want oppositing with some real bite, not your toothless gumming. All of your arguement continues to be worthless rhetoric that doesn't actually prove anything and tries its best to distract from the topic and try to get the other side to agree with you by using unsupportable bullshit. When you have an arguement, try posting it.

You're wrong then.

Going by how it looked.

How many got the disease from blood donors? If this is the real problem, then let's limit how much blood bloodbanks should give.

Sharing needles while taking drugs? Isn't that a part of irresponsibility?

At first? Several thousand. Blood screening exists, but it's not always accurate and sometimes a bit of tainted blood slips by.

Oh, and the needles part isn't part of sexual irresponsibility, which was your arguement. Try to remember your own arguement when replying.

Let's scrap all AIDS research then. You're saying its useless anyway.

I said vaccines are pretty much impossible. I never said we couldn't find a cure.

Have you ever been censored by moderators?

This is irrelevant to the discussion. Quit trying to distract from the topic and trying to covertly attack the poster. If you continue, I will be forced to assume you are a troll and react accordingly.

So you're joining the popular view? Gays are in, straight people are out.

This isn't even based on what I said. Try responding to what I said instead of trying to put words in my mouth.

Huh? Didn't I say government restraint prevents totalitarian autocracy? I thought you admire democracy so much?

I see you haven't been paying attention. This question is already answered. Try reading.

So you're advocating socialism? Why not help criminals in prison who don't have their freedom too? I thought its the majority who rules?

Once again, trying to pervert what I said. Your providing meanings to my words that do not exist in context. If this is what I can expect from you, don't waste my time by replying.

Then it proves me right that majority of homosexuals really don't care about marriage. It is heterosexuals who advocate them and create an illussion of "civil rights" issue.

It's either you're a hetero pushing for gay rights or a homosexual pushing for gay rights. You could be either one. I wouldn't comment on that matter.

Okay, now you've stepped over the line. You're performing ad hominim attacks and using a person's unwillingness to reveal personal information over the internet as a weapon against them. As such, I must act accordingly.

Ever wonder why homosexuals are the strongest voice in pushing AIDS research?

Ever wonder why college kids protest war?

Chicago Tribune, "the two largest groups known to be at risk for AIDS and which together account for 90 percent of all cases--male homosexuals and intravenous drug users" from D. Horowitz book "Left Illusions".

Uh huh. And what credentials does he have?

I couldn't grasp your view that a parent with a very graphic statement could "not have been..paying attention."

Easily. They briefly hear something they don't like while half-paying attention, leap to a conclusion and then run their mouth off. It happens all of the time.

Try watching the news and be aware of government education programs funding these kinds of curriculum. Try learning about the National Education Association who advocates radical sexual agendas for children.

Try learning about the surprising number of sexually-active teenagers who are getting pregnant through ignorance of safe sex practices and rebelling against their parents. If abstinance fails, try safety.

I thought you wanted evidence? I presented you one but dismissed it. Try looking for government programs funded by taxpayes for the NEA's radical agenda.

Their agenda isn't that radical. If someone wanted to really learn that much about sex, the local porn shop would be more than enough help in that department and provide them with things not even the NEA is touching. Getting the porn is what older friends are for.

I bet you aren't aware of the scum liberalism has brought to the nation's campuses and universities.

Now you're posting even more flamebait.

You're right. The resolution only makes teaching homosexuality a lot easier.

In what way? By making marriage allowed by law? Nothing says you have to look upon it with favor, just that you have to allow it.

And we're taking it back. This is a tough road to take. We're aware of the strong opposition.

I have yet to see any victories that didn't turn around and become defeats. Good luck.

Did really imply that? Or was it the homosexuals who used that reason?

Actually, Christ said the equivolent of it and millions of Christians have repeated it for hundreds of years. Try reading the New Testament. It'll do you some good.

Actually, I remember the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Two impious cities that have little relevance today. They were destroyed because of a lack of people with faith in God in them. The rest of the actions could have been forgiven.

I thought you were talking about wacked theocratic governments like Afganistan?

Nope. Try such nations as the United States, Britain, China, Russia, Portugal, Spain, Germany, Japan, Nigeria, and Iraq. Note that Iraq was a secular nation during the majority of its genocides.

Possible option but it takes away the challenge.

And it saves you the embarassment of failure.

Actually, the Founder's disliked the idea of democracy. They feared mob rule. Because democracy will eventually lead to breaking away with the nation's principles. They created a republic instead. Safeguarding it with the creation of the Electoral College. Ensuring that there is no tyranny by the majority.

Liberalism is not their agenda. Thomas Jefferson have said, "The policy of the American government is to leave its citizens free, neither restraining them nor aiding them with their pursuits."

You do realize that what Thomas Jefferson wrote was, in his time, liberal ideas, right? Keep in mind that standards of what goes against the status quo change throughout the centuries. So, yes, liberalism was their agenda.

And who exactly gave you the power to define what marriage is?

Who gave the UN the power to define what marriage is?
While I don't agree with Sorabia's reasons for the repeal, I agree with the repeal itself.

Marriage should be a religious issue, not a political issue. Any "civil union" benefits should be equal, regardless of who the union is between, but by using the term "marriage" you make it an issue of religion. Also, the usage of the term "gay" is not appropriate. While some may not be offended by such, many are.

The "Gay Rights" resolution, ignoring all other resolution, promises rights specifically to those of a specific belief. Any resolution regarding any form of human rights should clearly state that if the right is given to one, it must be given to all. It should not state that one group must be given a specific right (in this case, giving homosexual couples the right to marriage) while not stating that everyone else (in this case, heterosexual couples) is also promised the same right.

The resolution has it's pros, but it has too many cons to be considered good. It's like protecting the plants in a rainforest, but saying we won't stop you if you want to kill all the animals.

Aha, I get it, if you go to Game Play forum, you must be in part of a game? And you are forbidden to read or post there?

Ok. Aha. Then if International Incidents are in question then you have to play RPs, and no, no way you can only read their posts or write a comment.

Etc. etc.

I think that this is directly against your own rules and that is also an act of breaking Human Rights laws. Maybe because my country is not like your UN members countries, you have to hate me?

This is the same story with homosexuals. And even I have never said that I hate them. And my rights are much more violeted then theirs with not allowing Homosexual marriages.

Thanks for your time,
General Sadako Arakawa
i am puzzled: how the (expletive) does it go against our human rights laws? this is politics, not human rights. and to explain myself, i just find it rather irritating when nations pop their noses in when the discussion doesnt affect them. also, i dont see how your rights are violated by allowing homosexual marriages. i mean, if a hetro couple gets married, it doesnt affect you, so how would a homosexual couple getting married affect you?

also, as stated, the horse is dead. this is the umpteenth time this resolution has been put up for repeal, yet none have succeded, even one based on the resolution being redundant. you just have to live with it

Here's what I don't really get. Why is this issue constantly submitted and resubmitted. It's not as if there's a strong chance of 6% of the Regional Delegates supporting it, and even if it came close, so many of them would be bombarded by an anti-proposal telegram campaign so as to make it extremely difficult to maintain one's position for a repeal. Also, the constant mention of religion as a reason to restrict the definition of marriage is going to bother the heck out of a lot of people who might otherwise give a repeal even the most cursory glance. This is because, and it may shock several UN members, not everybody in the NSUN is a conservative monotheist! There are liberal and moderate monotheists who couldn't care less who marries who. There are atheists, polytheists, and pantheists who are even less likely to care, at least when the sex of the two people is concerned. Finally, even some conservative monotheists couldn't care less.

So, in closing, Krioval is forced to wonder why this diminutive yet shrill minority of UN members doesn't decide to simply depart the influence of resolutions that won't likely be repealed OR to tolerate and abide by said resolutions rather than hem and haw at them while resorting to such political wankery as using phrases "moral law", "religious principle", or "for the children".

Lord Jevo Telovar
United Nations Ambassador
Armed Republic of Krioval

I am done arguing. It is pointless to argue about morality we do not share. I am currently doing a telegram campaign to repeal a different resolution. Wish me a miracle.

Tata!

Pawnmania wil actively oppose any attempts to repeal the Gay Rights Resolution. It is in our country's best interest to allow people of all creeds, races, and sexual orientations to live their lives as free from government interference as possible.

The nation of Ranis will support this appeal all the way. We believe that gay marrage is wrong and wish to prevent it.

and to explain myself, i just find it rather irritating when nations pop their noses in when the discussion doesnt affect them. also, i dont see how your rights are violated by allowing homosexual marriages. i mean, if a hetro couple gets married, it doesnt affect you, so how would a homosexual couple getting married affect you?

also, as stated, the horse is dead. this is the umpteenth time this resolution has been put up for repeal, yet none have succeded, even one based on the resolution being redundant. you just have to live with it

I can not see that I pop my nose where it shouldn't be. Maybe I want to join UN, but I can't, because it has laws that I can not use in my country. That would be bad for my country, that would be bad for UN itself, because you don't want your members not to respect your own laws. Again, I would join UN if it had different laws, so if I can discuss here if people are going to change them, I am reconsidereing again my joining UN. See? That's why I am posting here.
Second, homosexual's marriages would affect my people, because, according to what they say, they don't want it. What can I do with it? Can I put a law that my own people can not respect, and even start hating the government? My population is conservative. So, they are really moral. That means they don't allow homosexual marriages, but on the other side, since they are moral, understanding and patriotic they don't hate them. We are just finding other ways to solve the problem.
I think that is really good explanation for my deeds, and my posting on this subject.

Thanks for your time,
Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Vannia Shmaug

p.s. About breaking the human rights here on this forum, is all about free speech and putting arguments in public. Since I said I don't like the proposal several of you said They are going to exterminate me (first violation), other said, since I am not UN member, I can not post here. I am sorry but I can have opinion even if I am not UN member- that is discrimination and that is human rights violation of my people (since I am talking for them). And, as I said above, I am not mixing in UN jobs, but I am myself looking for different solutions for ruling my nation, one of solutions is being an UN Member.

Pawnmania wil actively oppose any attempts to repeal the Gay Rights Resolution. It is in our country's best interest to allow people of all creeds, races, and sexual orientations to live their lives as free from government interference as possible.


I fully agree with Pawnmania and will also actively oppose any form of appeal to this resolution. As for other countries LEADERS know what is best, not CITIZENS! So stop trying to tell us it is what your citizens want and control them better.


-Lord Dalian
Ministry of Foreign Relations/UN Ambassador
The Holy Empire of Pation

About breaking the human rights here on this forum, is all about free speech and putting arguments in public. Since I said I don't like the proposal several of you said They are going to exterminate me (first violation), other said, since I am not UN member, I can not post here.

Of course you can post here. It's just that your opinion is next to worthless to those of us who are already in the UN and are working within the system to add or delete issues we consider actionable. Waiting for the "perfect climate" to join the UN simply looks cowardly to Krioval. As to the threats of annihilation, you can deal with them. Since you're not even under the protective wing of the United Nations, theoretically Krioval could invade your nation, pillage, rape, and burn, and do it all while describing it in lurid detail to anybody who wants to listen. Since the UN's laws don't apply to you, they certainly don't protect you.

If, to your people, the idea of same-sex marriage is so abhorrent, then they don't want to join the UN. That's fine. But if you're in the UN, you have to allow SSM. What an individual nation's citizens want or don't want is irrelevant in terms of which resolutions are imposed - they all are.

I As for other countries LEADERS know what is best, not CITIZENS! So stop trying to tell us it is what your citizens want and control them better.

-Lord Dalian
Ministry of Foreign Relations/UN Ambassador
The Holy Empire of Pation

I would say that our Leader’s responsibility is to try to represent our majority population’s (heterosexuals) rights then ones belonged to minority (homosexuals), and I look at that as ruling one country. You can not say that what majority thinks is irrelevant. Maybe it would be if our people ask from our Leader to start a war against someone or not to develop industry. But, since, this is something about social and human rights of individials so they have to decide it their way. If it’s not like that then I think it’s bad. It’s like that our Leader put law that says: “ Go cheat on your wives and husbands because I tell so!”, or “ You mustn’t sleep with your wife or husband more then 2 times a month.” or…

Waiting for the "perfect climate" to join the UN simply looks cowardly to Krioval. As to the threats of annihilation, you can deal with them. Since you're not even under the protective wing of the United Nations, theoretically Krioval could invade your nation, pillage, rape, and burn, and do it all while describing it in lurid detail to anybody who wants to listen. Since the UN's laws don't apply to you, they certainly don't protect you.

If, to your people, the idea of same-sex marriage is so abhorrent, then they don't want to join the UN. That's fine. But if you're in the UN, you have to allow SSM. What an individual nation's citizens want or don't want is irrelevant in terms of which resolutions are imposed - they all are.

If you see waiting a “perfect climate” to join UN is cowardly, then you see it that way. I see it as a principle that our Leader sticks to. He is not going to join an organization that has rules to be respected that we can’t respect. I see that as a quality of our Leader. Since UN has laws that we cannot respect, we will wait untill some of them are changed. I see joining our nation to UN at this moment as a hypocrisy. Maybe, We’ll never join. Who knows? But, I think that we should follow the situation of international politics, and try to figure out if we can influence for UN to change. Is it wrong?


Regards,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of The Holy Empire of Seelenkrieg,
Vannia Shmaug

It seems that sorabia is trying to argue non-absolutely the absolute side of an absolute vs. relative truth argument. The argument I have for gay marriage is simply this: Marriage is relatively meaningless as an institution because the government cannot enforce it for what it means, i.e., prohibit adultry, because that would violate right to privacy; all it can do is treat two people as one unit for purposes of convenience. This need not be limited to heterosexual couples, nor to couples, but to any group of people living together. The problem most people have against gay marriage is that it assumes the pretext that those involved are having sex. Most people wish to rid the institution; I say, instead, change the pretext.

I hope you enjoy.

Also, the usage of the term "gay" is not appropriate. While some may not be offended by such, many are.

Pardon me, but will you all stop with the political correctness issues. There are worse things that saying something that might offend some small number of people. If the term is absolutely derogetory (spelling?), such as the term "******", then it is absolutely inapproriate, but if it just might happen to offend some random person, then so be it.

1. Language is colloquial. We cannot change the "common tongue".
2. No one can be thought police. You can work to change ways, not minds.
3. Many of these so-called "political correctness advocates" think that they are open-minded. They are not. They exclude an entire group of views that they would have to take into account to be open-minded; they are called CLOSED-MINDED VIEWS. If you are truly open-minded, even close-minded views would have to be worthy of your consideration, as does every other view.

Where does it state that the UN runs a democratic system?


The UN doesn't necessarily run a democratic system, but has acknowledged several contractual obligations to the world, some similar to social contract, that insinuate a democratic philosophy. I know that they are not necessarily coincidental, but are close enough.

I bet you aren't aware of the scum liberalism has brought to the nation's campuses and universities.


1. Assault the view, not the view-holder; that goes both ways
2. I will leave this to a quote by Churchhill: "If you are not a liberal when you are twenty, then you have no heart, and if you are not a conservative by the time you are fifty, then you have no brain."


Didn't homosexuals use religion to advance their ideas too? Didn't they say that God would never turn anyone away?

Actually, that was Christ. Congrats. You just insinuated that Christ is a homosexual.

1. Christ made a "hate the sin, love the sinner" point, which some people transformed into "don't care about the sin, love the sinner", which is what the original author was trying to say.

2. Don't use someone's exact wording against them; that's really asanine.

Of course you can post here. It's just that your opinion is next to worthless to those of us who are already in the UN and are working within the system to add or delete issues we consider actionable. Waiting for the "perfect climate" to join the UN simply looks cowardly to Krioval. As to the threats of annihilation, you can deal with them. Since you're not even under the protective wing of the United Nations, theoretically Krioval could invade your nation, pillage, rape, and burn, and do it all while describing it in lurid detail to anybody who wants to listen. Since the UN's laws don't apply to you, they certainly don't protect you.

If, to your people, the idea of same-sex marriage is so abhorrent, then they don't want to join the UN. That's fine. But if you're in the UN, you have to allow SSM. What an individual nation's citizens want or don't want is irrelevant in terms of which resolutions are imposed - they all are.
i am in agreeance here. if you are waiting fot the 'perfect climate' or a radical change, you will be waiting an awful long time. once you get through this resolution, there are quite a few others that you would have to repeal, especially, going by your stance, the resolution protecting the rights of women and minorities.
another thing, the moral majority is really a minority. they just tend to shout louder than anyone else

Keep in mind I skipped a page or two... but I would like to point out some simple logical fallacies presented by the creator of this thread...


"Sorabia thinks that children should have a mother and a father, and not two mothers or two fathers. That was not the way the nature intended, or it would give the men a possibility to get pregnant"

Fallacy, argument from nature. Just because something is natural (and I'm not saying that this is), doesn't mean it is right. Plain and simple.

"I come from the familly of psychologists, so I can claim this with absoulte certitude.
I do not use popular Internet links. Books have a higher place in my studies."

Fallacy, appeal to authority. Whether you have a "familly of psychologists" or not has no bearing on the arguement. If you would like to list their names, and verifiable credentials, then you it COULD add to your arguement-- but not really. For one, I'm sure there are, as in any acedemic field, an equal amount of "experts" who contradict them. Secondly, just because they are in the field, doesn't mean I don't have a brain capable of reading and learning things from outside my discipline and fully understanding its content.

These are two, if you would like me to list more, I would be glad... for future reference: reason and logic tend to help a an argument.

Pardon me, but will you all stop with the political correctness issues. There are worse things that saying something that might offend some small number of people. If the term is absolutely derogetory (spelling?), such as the term "******", then it is absolutely inapproriate, but if it just might happen to offend some random person, then so be it.

1. Language is colloquial. We cannot change the "common tongue".
2. No one can be thought police. You can work to change ways, not minds.
3. Many of these so-called "political correctness advocates" think that they are open-minded. They are not. They exclude an entire group of views that they would have to take into account to be open-minded; they are called CLOSED-MINDED VIEWS. If you are truly open-minded, even close-minded views would have to be worthy of your consideration, as does every other view.


While maybe from the "nit-picking" side of things, I half-agree with you... but "political correctness" is important. It's not about being "open-minded" or what-not... it is about giving words proper meaning. Words are not important (literally), but the meanings they have are. For example, in Canada, the new word for the aboriginals of our nation are called First Nations. It went from Savages to Indians, to Natives, to First Nations. When you read these words, did you not think of different things? Savages brings to mind an obvious negative connotation-- these people are less of a person than you are and must be changed or 'taken care of'. Indians telles you nothing of who these people are, because they're not from India. Natives on the other hand, brings in a positive connotation. Natives means that these people were first people to live in Canada. Finally, First Nations has this meaning (first inhabitants) and also infers that they are a distinct "Nation", with their own set of history, culture, and beliefs. As you can see, words are not simply words... they have meaning. These First Nations people in Canada want to be called what they feel best describes them, and on top of that, as a minority, declares their special status to the rest of Canada.

You use "******" as an example of a word that you wouldn't use because it it clearly wrong. But you can not be for certain that other words that you or others say might not have equal amounts of hate in it for others. You use this word because of its long history of being used as hate and it is now socially stigmitized. But it has had a long history, a history when people said "it's just a word to describe them".

Language is informal, but the meanings behind them are often well-thought out. Thanks for reading. :)

Second, homosexual's marriages would affect my people, because, according to what they say, they don't want it.
BOO-F*@#$ing-HOO!
The rights of a minority should NEVER ever be decided on by the majority. That is how the Holocaust was able to occur. That is how the Yugoslav conflict mothballed. That is how almost all Native Americans were wiped out by Europeans.

Don't they teach History in Seelenkrieg?

Sorabia thinks that children should have a mother and a father, and not two mothers or two fathers. That was not the way the nature intended, or it would give the men a possibility to get pregnant.

Many marriages end up in divorce, and that, unfortunately is a fact, but in the start, children should be given the right to have a mother and a father.

Concerning the protection of a woman in marriage, and the protection of marriage itself, we will try to pass resolutions, which should be on your desks in a couple of days time.

The Armed Republic of The A- Team agrees, and would support any effort to have the act repealed.

Ok, Gay rights. First of all why are homosexuals so important that they get their own legislation. seriously now. Why are homosexuals so special or more important than the rest of the heterosexuals. Why is it that we elevate homosexuals to have a greater importance or worth than those who are not. That's like enacting hate crime legislation. Just cause some one is homosexual they get to have a tougher jail sentence applied to the perp. Last time I check even homosexuals were people too. last time I checked they already had the same right as everyone else. Unless homosexuals can be proven to not be human then by all means enact legislation to protect them. I guess what i'm trying to convey is that its unfair to the rest of us to give a few people special treatment just because of their status, or sexual preference. That's my take. I didn't want this to get hung up on marriage as that's another resolution that needs addressing. Even though I'm not a delegate I do support the repeal of any resulotion that gives any special treatment over others.

DoU

We, the people of Sorabia, feel that this resolution supports an unhealthy practice among the people of member nations.

We feel that a marriage is an emotional bond between a man and a woman, and which in the same time serves as the basis of human reproduction, and of course, no reproduction is possible between the homosexuals. Therefore it should be banned.

We also think that the official use of the word "gay" is highly inappropriate, since, in english language, it means "lively" or "happy", and we add that the word "homosexual" must be used instead.



Before we send this resolution to the UN, we wish to discuss it first, and hear any suggestions that could improve it. Since these are only the basic views, we welcome any advice.

Bloody homophobe.

The UN believes in FREEDOM and JUSTICE for all. Repealing the resolution goes against the foundation ideologies of the UN.

Ok, Gay rights. First of all why are homosexuals so important that they get their own legislation. seriously now. Why are homosexuals so special or more important than the rest of the heterosexuals. Why is it that we elevate homosexuals to have a greater importance or worth than those who are not. That's like enacting hate crime legislation. Just cause some one is homosexual they get to have a tougher jail sentence applied to the perp. Last time I check even homosexuals were people too. last time I checked they already had the same right as everyone else. Unless homosexuals can be proven to not be human then by all means enact legislation to protect them. I guess what i'm trying to convey is that its unfair to the rest of us to give a few people special treatment just because of their status, or sexual preference. That's my take. I didn't want this to get hung up on marriage as that's another resolution that needs addressing. Even though I'm not a delegate I do support the repeal of any resulotion that gives any special treatment over others.

DoU

Gay people don't have special rights. But they do need extra legal protection to make sure they have EQUAL rights. Because it's quite clear that currently they do NOT have equal rights in many aspects of life. In some countries they have no rights at all. And even in the most liberal of countries, even ten or twenty years ago, gay rights were non-existant.

And another misconception is the idea that gay rights harms the rights of others. It doesn't. It's all about achieving EQUALITY, where EVERYONE has special rights.

We don't need special rights for heterosexual white males because historically they have never been discriminated against.

I realise you find it silly to give gay people more rights seeing as they are already human with human rights. But unfortunately, it doesn;t work like that in reality. Gay people ARE discriminated against. And extra protection is needed to stop that. In an ideal society that extra protection wouldn't be needed. But we don't live in a Utopia.

Re people saying that children need role models of both sexes, i.e. a mother and father:

This is not necessary. Even if female AND male influences are needed, these role models can be found in the extended family (which even gay people have!) e.g. grandparents, aunts & uncles, sisters, close family friends, etc. Just because the parents may be of the same sex does not mean a lack of contact with family role models of both sexes.

Re people saying that children need role models of both sexes, i.e. a mother and father:

This is not necessary. Even if female AND male influences are needed, these role models can be found in the extended family (which even gay people have!) e.g. grandparents, aunts & uncles, sisters, close family friends, etc. Just because the parents may be of the same sex does not mean a lack of contact with family role models of both sexes.
You are perfectly correct! I have no idea what kind of credentials this Seelenkrieg persons family of psychologists has, but it can't be anything that would get them any decent job aside from preaching at the local chapter of Westboro Christians. I am a recent graduate of Sociology, and am currently studying law as a post graduate study at UBC. My focus, is that of family law. And I can vouch for exactly what you have said above.

Just one simple off-topic.

I think that far too many people consider NS to be a real life. People, this is just a game. This is a forum where we write as leaders, or ministers of nations, and not as John, Bob, Maria, etc. This is a forum where we do not write expreiences from real life, because it destroys the charm of the game, and I think that you shoul represent your countries and nations, and not yourselves.
You are not individuals, and this is a game.
I have ceased to argue with people, since I have noticed many non-game related content (like this one - "Bloody homophobe").

Why can't one world leader call another world leader a bloody homophobe? I would call Mugabe a bloody homophobe for example.

But I see your point, and I agree- things like "my parents are psychologists blah blah blah". Asides from the fact it probably isn't true, it is irrelevant.

Why can't he?
Well, let's just say that things are not done that way in real life. You may think whatever you feel like, but in front of cameras you smile, and that is way the things are done.
Maybe I could call him a "bloody conformist", but is there a point? Maybe some manners would be nice.

Besides, the leader of the nation of Sorabia comes from a family of psychologists (so, not a real life situation :)).

Just me, a player...

Ok, Gay rights. First of all why are homosexuals so important that they get their own legislation. seriously now. Why are homosexuals so special or more important than the rest of the heterosexuals. Why is it that we elevate homosexuals to have a greater importance or worth than those who are not. That's like enacting hate crime legislation. Just cause some one is homosexual they get to have a tougher jail sentence applied to the perp. Last time I check even homosexuals were people too. last time I checked they already had the same right as everyone else. Unless homosexuals can be proven to not be human then by all means enact legislation to protect them. I guess what i'm trying to convey is that its unfair to the rest of us to give a few people special treatment just because of their status, or sexual preference. That's my take. I didn't want this to get hung up on marriage as that's another resolution that needs addressing. Even though I'm not a delegate I do support the repeal of any resulotion that gives any special treatment over others.

DoU
we are in full agreeance here, since whatever is covered in this resoluiton is covered in others. however, this time this isnt the argument on hand, and unfortunatly the attempt based on this argument failed to gain support to go to vote. this is the only way we would agree to repealing this resolution: as in it has be superseeded

The argument could be made that "Gay Rights" is an indirect replicate in that it requires that:

...all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life.

Thus, it is not only about the rights of gays. Granted, the combination of Resolutions 80 and 81 effectively cover most, if not all of Resolution 12, but it's far less clear-cut to me than the education resolution case, where the replication was direct.

The argument could be made that "Gay Rights" is an indirect replicate in that it requires that:



Thus, it is not only about the rights of gays. Granted, the combination of Resolutions 80 and 81 effectively cover most, if not all of Resolution 12, but it's far less clear-cut to me than the education resolution case, where the replication was direct.
as i have stated, this is a good argument, but unfortunatly, it isnt the basis for this argument. and as i have said, the repeal based on supercetion unfortunatly failed. as you have stated, it isnt as clear cut as the one regarding education.
on an interesting side note: after the said education resolution was successfuly repealed, there were some which put up proposals effectively bringing it back, and of course they were removed. the moral of this: go through and read ALL the resolutions before planing a reapeal/submission. there are many things that are covered in other areas, so repealing one resolution will do next to nothing, and also, with areas covered, your submission will be ignored by most

This whole thread is making me reluctant to come to the UN forum.

"You know, a lot of nazis were gay, and Hitler opposed gay marriage."

There. I've mentioned nazis, I've mentioned Hitler, I hereby declare Godwin's Law in effect and beseech you all to stop.

This whole thread is making me reluctant to come to the UN forum.

"You know, a lot of nazis were gay, and Hitler opposed gay marriage."

There. I've mentioned nazis, I've mentioned Hitler, I hereby declare Godwin's Law in effect and beseech you all to stop.
what was Godwin's Law again? and i heard that Hitler was a closet gay anyway

quote some page I found from google.

One of the most famous pieces of Usenet trivia out there is "if you mention
Hitler or Nazis in a post, you've automatically ended whatever discussion
you were taking part in". Known as Godwin's Law, this rule of Usenet has a
long and sordid history on the network

quote some page I found from google.

One of the most famous pieces of Usenet trivia out there is "if you mention
Hitler or Nazis in a post, you've automatically ended whatever discussion
you were taking part in". Known as Godwin's Law, this rule of Usenet has a
long and sordid history on the network
i guess that is because in most other forums the mods instantly see nazi or hitler, assume the thread is going to degenerate, and lock it

no, it's because once that happens, the discussion has exceeded its useful lifespan.

*sigh* go google it. the canonical formulation isn't quite what I posted above from that quote - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)'s entry is the widely-accepted definition.

And it includes


Intentional invocation of this so-called "Nazi Clause" is ineffectual.

i will invoke Quirk's Exception then. but i do agree, this kind of argument has gone on for sooooo long that there just about be a sign saying "dont bother to repeal 'Gay Rights'"

"You know, a lot of nazis were gay, and Hitler opposed gay marriage."



Maybe the Gay Nazis didn't support Gay Marriage either. I know some Gay Conservatives that don't.

Children who do not know who their mother, or father is, or who have two mothers or fathers are proven not to develop correctly.

Show me one child with one mother and one father who has developed "correctly"?

I would define "correctly" as "in the best way". I know many two-heterosexual-parent families that abuse their children. I know many gay people who would never do such a thing.

Furthermore, a child brought up "correctly" will be a good/nice person. A child of a single-sex relationship is less likely to be homophobic; hence he/she is a nicer/better person than a homophobe, who is more likely to come from a heterosexual-parented family.


Are you implying that the children have no right to have a mother and father?


No. But many have neither. I submit that a child with no parents or abusive parents or teenage parents (or someone else unable to bring up a child, e.g. drug-addicted prostitute) would be better off adopted by a same-sex couple.

We do not think that homosexual marriages could affect homsexual couples' fertility. It is a silly thing to claim. However, it is not possible that two men, or two women (with each other) get pregnant, in any way.

Adoption. The world has too many babies and not enough parents. We should be encouraging unions which raise but do not produce children.

I say Zota 2 has the right to decide who and what to hate , even my people want to send the gays to death camps so be it , and my state , Florida which is the only in the union to ban gay adoptions has seen what this has done to children , I am not saying being rised by a homosexual will make you one but I believe it is too hard on a child to go thru that, my closing statement is stay out of people's free will if they want to hate have them hate.

I say Zota 2 has the right to decide who and what to hate , even my people want to send the gays to death camps so be it , and my state , Florida which is the only in the union to ban gay adoptions has seen what this has done to children , I am not saying being rised by a homosexual will make you one but I believe it is too hard on a child to go thru that, my closing statement is stay out of people's free will if they want to hate have them hate.

The sheer quantity of ignorance demonstrated in the above quoted bit is astounding. First, real-life incidents aren't part of the NationStates universe; don't include them. And besides, there's nothing, IRL or so far shown on NS that children raised by a same-sex couple are any less well-developed except in places plagued by bigotry and intolerance. Krioval, for example, has no such problems whatsoever.

As to the "people have a right to hate", that's not true if you're a member of the NSUN. Then you can either follow the resolutions passed here or leave. You can, of course, work on a repeal, but you're bound by the original until you should succeed; there's no ignoring a resolution just because you want to. And besides, I can't imagine "protect my right to hate people just because" is all that great a rallying cry. If anything, it detracts from any of the reasonably worded statements against the original resolution.

Keep up the "good" work. :D

Right to Hate is a catchy phrase. What would a resolution with that name look like?

Our Federation is not behind this proposal.

McGonagall considers that we have more important resolutions to discuss at the NSUN so rejects this proposal.

It will not reach a quorum so can safely be ignored.

I say Zota 2 has the right to decide who and what to hate , even my people want to send the gays to death camps so be it , and my state , Florida which is the only in the union to ban gay adoptions has seen what this has done to children , I am not saying being rised by a homosexual will make you one but I believe it is too hard on a child to go thru that.
My Husband and I beg to differ.

Our son, growing up in a tolerant atmosphere, is just as well off in every single way as he would be had he been adopted by a heterosexual couple. Any "hardships" incurred by the children of same-sex couples is brought about by intolerance and bigotry. Which is why, it is not the parents who are to blame, but folk like yourself and your precious Florida, who breed ill will throughout society.

The Empire of Sidestreamer avidly and proudly backs any effort to repeal the rights to commit sodomy and pedophilia, which is embodied in the homosexual agenda and is an affront to humanity, Christianity, and for the secularists, even an affront to Darwinism.

Furthermore, this "Gay Rights" resolution is, like many other resolutions, a restriction on national soverignty, which is paramount to cultural advancement and national/regional security. We also support the repeal in the name of freedom for our nations to govern ourselves and our own morality, rather than being forced to appease the whims of the New World Order.

--Major Jude Welsh, interim Ambassador to the UN from Sidestreamer

The Empire of Sidestreamer avidly and proudly backs any effort to repeal the rights to commit sodomy and pedophilia, which is embodied in the homosexual agenda and is an affront to humanity, Christianity, and for the secularists, even an affront to Darwinism.Apparently you don't realize that this is protected under the "Sexual Freedom" resolution.

Furthermore, this "Gay Rights" resolution is, like many other resolutions, a restriction on national soverignty, which is paramount to cultural advancement and national/regional security. We also support the repeal in the name of freedom for our nations to govern ourselves and our own morality, rather than being forced to appease the whims of the New World Order.

--Major Jude Welsh, interim Ambassador to the UN from Sidestreamer
If you are really interested convincing the UN to respect national soverignty I suggest you check out the National Soverignty Coalition, the link's in my sig.

An affront to Darwinism? How interesting, since it has been determined that the gene causing the "metabolic" trait in Kriovalian males increases the likelihood of homosexuality, yet that same gene, causing that same trait in Kriovalian femals increases their fertility and reduces the chances of malformed babies in those women. Obviously natural selection works quite well in Krioval, since our population continues to rise. But enough speculation:

How has allowing same-sex marriage in Sidestreamer adversely affected your nation's functioning? And yes, you allow it, since you abide by all NSUN resolutions.

lol

"even [if, sic] my people want to send the gays to death camps so be it"


Is this for real? So you believe every country has the right to do whatever they want... whatever... anything? A little extreme and... well... crazy in my opinion. Do I really have to cite examples of atrocities that clearly moral intuition would tell us should have been preveneted... I think not.

The Empire of Sidestreamer avidly and proudly backs any effort to repeal the rights to commit sodomy and pedophilia, which is embodied in the homosexual agenda and is an affront to humanity, Christianity, and for the secularists, even an affront to Darwinism.

Not all Christians agree. In fact, I've seen several point out that Christianity has no actual religious basis that doesn't involve miscontruing or purposefully mistranslating their own holy book.

And Darwinism also supports the idea, as this would be nature's way of eliminating certain traits and our forcing certain actions upon gays is forcing certain traits to survive. Of course, that ignores the fact humanity regularly alters the genetics of plants and has found a way of reproduction of itself that doesn't involve sex.

Furthermore, this "Gay Rights" resolution is, like many other resolutions, a restriction on national soverignty, which is paramount to cultural advancement and national/regional security. We also support the repeal in the name of freedom for our nations to govern ourselves and our own morality, rather than being forced to appease the whims of the New World Order.

Same bullshit national sovereignity arguement that never applies.

Welcome to the UN. You chose to give that up at the door. Either suck it up or beat yourself up, as at this point you have only yourself to blame on that one.

The Empire of Sidestreamer avidly and proudly backs any effort to repeal the rights to commit sodomy and pedophilia, which is embodied in the homosexual agenda and is an affront to humanity, Christianity, and for the secularists, even an affront to Darwinism.
...good luck with that...
And you do know that Darwinism isn't something that we squabble over and try to keep protected and such, right? It's a theory.

Isn't pedophilia banned by a resolution anyway? Oh yeah, it is. Resolution #22, conveniently enough called "Outlaw Pedophilia".

I think a country should have the rights to have marriages between two any people if they decide to, but if they don't want to have marriage between two homosexuals then they could have cival unions that provide all the same right.

I think a country should have the rights to have marriages between two any people if they decide to, but if they don't want to have marriage between two homosexuals then they could have cival unions that provide all the same right.

This is what we're talking about, just so you understand - civil marriage. Religious institutions can define religious marriage however they'd like. The state is not allowed to discriminate, though, between same- and opposite-sex couples when issuing a state license.

It is always worthwhile to review the source material.


Definition of Marriage (UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #81)
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Description: Description: IN VIEW of the Universal Bill of Human Rights, and the Gay Rights resolution;

The UN HEREBY :

DEFINES marriage as the civil joining of a member of any nation with any other member of any nation, regardless of sex, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, color, or any other characteristic, with the exception of age;

RECOGNIZES age of the individual(s) as a just reason for not recognizing marriage, as per Article One of the Child Protection Act;

FURTHER RECOGNIZES all nation's right to expand this definition beyond species borders as the individual governments see fit.


Votes For: 11,904
Votes Against: 7,473

Implemented: Thu Nov 25 2004

eek I want an option to not have to abide by that. It isn't like im a biggot but I believe marriage is betweeen man and women, but gay couples should have every right of a married man and women in a cival union.

But nationstates is to liberal to have it changed and you can't ammend resolution :(
Or am I wrong would people acctualy accept a proposition which allows a country to choice to have marraige be between striaght couples only and or both? But arn't option in proposals not allowed?

eek I want an option to not have to abide by that. It isn't like im a biggot but I believe marriage is betweeen man and women, but gay couples should have every right of a married man and women in a cival union.

But nationstates is to liberal to have it changed and you can't ammend resolution :(
Or am I wrong would people acctualy accept a proposition which allows a country to choice to have marraige be between striaght couples only and or both? But arn't option in proposals not allowed?

From the UN FAQ:


The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do)

eek I want an option to not have to abide by that. It isn't like im a biggot but I believe marriage is betweeen man and women, but gay couples should have every right of a married man and women in a cival union.


We have an idea for you. How about you call the "partnership" of a man and a woman a "cival union"? And you give them all the same rights, but it's not a marriage. Sound fair?

Please look up the word "bigot" in the dictionary.

Ya you can tell that to my gay friends. Marriage has been a union between man and women for thousands of years and I simply belive it should stay that way.

But the name of the thing isn't going to change peoples oppinions on gay marriage there will still be gay haters if they are joined by marriage or cival union.

Btw
I know my nation has to obey it but I don't have to like it.

Ya you can tell that to my gay friends. Marriage has been a union between man and women for thousands of years and I simply belive it should stay that way.

But the name of the thing isn't going to change peoples oppinions on gay marriage there will still be gay haters if they are joined by marriage or cival union.

Btw
I know my nation has to obey it but I don't have to like it.
I think you're missing the point.

Gay Rights only says you must allow what you call civil unions.
You don't even have to call them marriages in your own laws, you just have to give them the same legal and property rights you give married couples.

I don't know how to communicate this more clearly. Your concept of marriage isn't affected by this resolution.

Isn't pedophilia banned by a resolution anyway? Oh yeah, it is. Resolution #22, conveniently enough called "Outlaw Pedophilia".

Then you have exposed a contradiction in UN law. Homosexuality promotes pedophilia since it part of the same slope of immoral, deviant sexual depravity.

In the Sisham district of my Empire's St. Jude City, considered a homosexual mecca by the leftist trash rag "Out" based in the Isle of Jenova (Sidestreamer), has had the highest number of arrests per capita for pedophile behavior. Are you telling me gay sex has nothing to do with it?

To enforce #22, we need to eliminate this resolution.

An affront to Darwinism? How interesting, since it has been determined that the gene causing the "metabolic" trait in Kriovalian males increases the likelihood of homosexuality, yet that same gene, causing that same trait in Kriovalian femals increases their fertility and reduces the chances of malformed babies in those women. Obviously natural selection works quite well in Krioval, since our population continues to rise. But enough speculation:

What kind of science is this? Do homosexuals breed? Can a man and a man or a woman and a woman bear children?


How has allowing same-sex marriage in Sidestreamer adversely affected your nation's functioning? And yes, you allow it, since you abide by all NSUN resolutions.

It has saddened our Lord Jesus Christ and our God. We joined the UN to lead a force to undo this assault and will bear the burden of sin, as Jesus did, by unwillingly permitting this evil as long as we can until the Christians and moralists of the world come together and refuse to endorse the hijacking of the Biblical institution of marriage. Homosexuality, even more than divorce, is an agent of corruption to the institution of marriage.

And it also provides special rights and is detrimental to democracy. Homosexuals have a right to marry with members of the opposite sex, like heterosexuals. Why should they be given the addtional right to marry the same sex?

We have an idea for you. How about you call the "partnership" of a man and a woman a "cival union"? And you give them all the same rights, but it's not a marriage. Sound fair?

Please look up the word "bigot" in the dictionary.

Typical liberal. Ignorant to the Christian roots of marriage, the ambassador from Vastiva is quick to label one as a "bigot" for defending marriage against the homosexual hordes who seek to pervert it.

:rolleyes:

Saddened our Lord Jesus Christ? Christian roots to marraige? I was excited to find a thread with a meaningful debate, until I read these last few pages. What about the atheist nations out there? It's the UN's duty to hold them to a higher standard then Christianity. :headbang:

Typical liberal. Ignorant to the Christian roots of marriage, the ambassador from Vastiva is quick to label one as a "bigot" for defending marriage against the homosexual hordes who seek to pervert it.
OOC:
BWAAAAAAH HAAAAAAAAH HAAAAAH!!!@1!

Oh, that's too good. I'm making that my .sig on my other board.

No, seriously. I'm laughing too hard. I can hardly breathe.


IC: Does the kind gent from Sidestreamer deny that marriage predates Christianity? Does the kind gent from Sidestreamer deny that marriage exists in non-Christian societies, and is a holy rite in other religions?

Marriage is not rooted in Christianity.

:D

92% of heterosexual marriages result with at least one child. Homosexual marriages can not pass the 0% under any circumstances. Therefore we think that this is a fine argument.


Word "gay" didn't change it entire meaning, and it is still used as it originaly was. "Homosexual" is a word that was primarly used to describe these kind of people, and we do not see why the OFFICIAL documents would not contain it. We do not care for slang, and people may call them what ever they like.

Argument is not that they are "icky". I, as a leader of the people of Sorabia, have my opinion, but that has nothing to do with the facts presented in our proposal.

Etymological idiocy...

Words have different meanings... Some meanings are added OR REMOVED as usage changes.

Slang words are words or the usage of a word, which has not been accepted in the general usage of the language... "Gay" as a synonym of "Homosexual" is not a "Slang" term... It is an offical accepted definition of "gay" in the English Language, and has been since its official inception into normal usage as of the year 2000. In general, when a word or usage remains in the language for a period exceeding 50 years, leaves its "casual usage" state and enters officiality...

Typical liberal. Ignorant to the Christian roots of marriage, the ambassador from Vastiva is quick to label one as a "bigot" for defending marriage against the homosexual hordes who seek to pervert it.

"Christian Marriage" is not "Christian Marriage" it is Roman marriage, the legal precedent by the Emporer Augustus for the government pervue and control of Marriage... Prior to Caesar Augustus, government did not legislate marriage, but was instead considered a familial right. It remained such in "western society" untill the signing of the Magna Carta and the re-enforcment of the commonlaw, which removed the power of governments following western thought, from power over the commonlaw (pre-government) institution of marriage... Since the repeal of the commonlaw by the anti-christian romanists of the falsely labled "Christian Right", the antichrist "christian revisionists" and the like, it has been reinstituted as a power of government... Such is not the case, marriage is familial, not governmental... In all fact, any government legislating upon marriage, cannot classify itself as folling christian morality... since its legislation over the pre-existing institution is an afront and sin against the God they falsly claim to follow.

Is anyone else feeling the nagging desire to post nothing but "We Are Family" lyrics in this thread? :D

Then you have exposed a contradiction in UN law. Homosexuality promotes pedophilia since it part of the same slope of immoral, deviant sexual depravity.
We do hope the good delegate of Sidestreamer is speaking in jest, as this is frankly ridiculous.

Sidestreamer, it is regretable you were molested as a child (surely that is the only thing that could prompt such narrow-mindedness), but just because of that doesn't mean ALL gays are responsible. :D

Then you have exposed a contradiction in UN law. Homosexuality promotes pedophilia since it part of the same slope of immoral, deviant sexual depravity.

That qualifies as the most asinine statement I've heard yet. And I've been in the UN for years.



In the Sisham district of my Empire's St. Jude City, considered a homosexual mecca by the leftist trash rag "Out" based in the Isle of Jenova (Sidestreamer), has had the highest number of arrests per capita for pedophile behavior. Are you telling me gay sex has nothing to do with it?

Most likely it's the same heavy metals in the water that caused you to make that statement in the first place.


To enforce #22, we need to eliminate this resolution.

Illogical and stupid.

Typical liberal. Ignorant to the Christian roots of marriage, the ambassador from Vastiva is quick to label one as a "bigot" for defending marriage against the homosexual hordes who seek to pervert it.

Foremost, Vastiva is not a Christian nation, never was and never will be. Secondly, we find the representative from Sidestreamer to be ridiculously ignorant of the roots of marriage and the historical events within his own church.

We therefore will be ignoring whatever else you have to say as you are clearly not worth our time.

Then you have exposed a contradiction in UN law. Homosexuality promotes pedophilia since it part of the same slope of immoral, deviant sexual depravity.

In the Sisham district of my Empire's St. Jude City, considered a homosexual mecca by the leftist trash rag "Out" based in the Isle of Jenova (Sidestreamer), has had the highest number of arrests per capita for pedophile behavior. Are you telling me gay sex has nothing to do with it?

To enforce #22, we need to eliminate this resolution.

Homosexuality and Paedophilia are seperate issues... I will not only tell you "gay sex" has nothing to do with it... But it is an established fact that the two are not related.

The Constitutional Republic of Tekania would only support a repeal of the Gay Rights resolution, assuming first that all governmental legislation upon the Commonlaw institution of Marriage is also banned... And all governments, local, federal and international, are made powerless to interfere with familial marriage by any law.

I'd approve this proposal in a heartbeat. We could definitely use some more repeals of these awful resolutions that trespass on national sovreignty.

The Constitutional Republic of Tekania would only support a repeal of the Gay Rights resolution, assuming first that all governmental legislation upon the Commonlaw institution of Marriage is also banned... And all governments, local, federal and international, are made powerless to interfere with familial marriage by any law.


I see no harm in a repeal of the resolution, since "Gay Rights" in effect does nothing. I don't engage in the the moral/christian/whatever arguments, I just think we as a UN should not tolerate the lofty-ideals-mixed-with-no-execution this resolution propogates. Real protection for gays has only been extended through the resolutions passed after "Gay Rights".

Sidestreamer, it is regretable you were molested as a child (surely that is the only thing that could prompt such narrow-mindedness), but just because of that doesn't mean ALL gays are responsible.

A. Your statement is a personal attack, not a debate-worthy rebuttle. It is only weakening others' perception of you.

B. Even if he were molested as a child, that would be a no-no for aggresive debate. It would constitute flaming/flamebaiting.

C. The logic you use doesn't even fit together clearly, and is itself an example of narrow-mindedness. By extension, one could claim "it is regretable that you were attacked by Christians who claimed all gays molested kids--because they were molested by gays themselves--when you were a child(surely that is the only thing that could prompt such narrow-mindedness)"

Acknowledged, bad form on my part, but can you really say it's worse than "Homosexuality promotes pedophilia since it part of the same slope of immoral, deviant sexual depravity." (At least my stupid attack has a clause at the end.) :rolleyes:

Sidestreamer, it is regretable you were molested as a child (surely that is the only thing that could prompt such narrow-mindedness), but just because of that doesn't mean ALL gays are responsible. :D
I love this guy!

Uh, not in a gay way.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Homosexuality and Paedophilia are seperate issues... I will not only tell you "gay sex" has nothing to do with it... But it is an established fact that the two are not related.
I'd just like to point out: that statement is bullshit.

They're not the same thing, but they're not unrelated.

They're not the same thing, but they're not unrelated.
Just as pedophelia and "straight-sex" are related.

I am amazed at the amount of things said on here that just do not need to be.

I love this guy!

Uh, not in a gay way.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

;)

I love you too, YGSM... and yes, I do mean in a gay way.

j/k :D

Just as pedophelia and "straight-sex" are related.

I am amazed at the amount of things said on here that just do not need to be.
Right.

Just point me to the websites for NAMGLA and NAWBLA.

I think you're missing the point.

Gay Rights only says you must allow what you call civil unions.
You don't even have to call them marriages in your own laws, you just have to give them the same legal and property rights you give married couples.

I don't know how to communicate this more clearly. Your concept of marriage isn't affected by this resolution.
Well the way the other person was talking I got the wrong message, but as I stated before I have nothing wrong with with gays having the same rights as a married couple.

But doesn't the propsal call there union a marriage because it changes the defintion to a union between any two people?

Well the way the other person was talking I got the wrong message, but as I stated before I have nothing wrong with with gays having the same rights as a married couple.

But doesn't the propsal call there union a marriage because it changes the defintion to a union between any two people?
yes. but it doesn't say you have to use the word "marriage" in your nationstate. you're free to call it a civil union locally, as long as you recognize the right. heck, you could probably call it a "gay, unnatural union of perverts" in your local law, as long as you recognize the right.

mebbe not though. that last was a suggestion of the scotch, not me

Ya I have no problem with that its ah ok with me.

OOC:
BWAAAAAAH HAAAAAAAAH HAAAAAH!!!@1!

Oh, that's too good. I'm making that my .sig on my other board.

No, seriously. I'm laughing too hard. I can hardly breathe.


IC: Does the kind gent from Sidestreamer deny that marriage predates Christianity? Does the kind gent from Sidestreamer deny that marriage exists in non-Christian societies, and is a holy rite in other religions?

Marriage is not rooted in Christianity.

Not the corrupted, immoral secularist version of marriage, no. Even in those ancient societies, the purpose of marriage was to bear children and maintain a monogonous couple. Homoesexuals, on average, have 6 times as many sexual partners, and bear not a single child without resorting to unnatural means.

Even Muslims recognize that!

Muslims are the biggest practitioners of homosexuality on earth.
Why do you think they're called turkish baths, anyway?

That's all besides the point. There is no version of marriage rooted in Christianity.

Marriage has been in existance since the dawn of time. Early Humans have had monogamous relationships to protect the Offspring and genetic lineage.

Animals from the Humble Penguin to the Great Blue Whale enact monogomous relationships in a similar fashion.

May i remind the Members that gay persons might have a better sucess rate at relationships had marriage been an option. People when married try harder to resolve differences and to stay together. Especially when the Married couple have Children.

And One further point. No religious grouping has the larger share of the Homosexuals in this NS World, from catholic priests to muslem turkish prison guards, to fun and expressive hindu types.

NEWS FLASH!

Are you saying there are heterosexual wiccans?
What about the Amazon warriors? Wasn't the story that they were all lesbians? One might think whoever their god was(is) had(s) a higher proportion of gay devotees.

[disclaimer]Please don't flame this flamebait. The humor potential was reaching untenable levels.[/quote]

Is anyone else feeling the nagging desire to post nothing but "We Are Family" lyrics in this thread? :D

We are family, (we are family)
I got all my sisters with me
We are family
Get up everybody sing
We are family (we are family)
I got all my sisters with me (i got all my sisters with me)
We are family (we are family)
Get up everyboby sing

:rolleyes:

Personal rights are of UN concern. Sometimes, the UN (or a national government) has to say that they aren't going to say anything about something. In the case of the Sex Industry Worker Act, the NSUN decided that prostitution was legal, arguing that it's a matter of personal choice. The same thing could be done with this, as far as it isn't already covered by earlier resolutions. The UN can effectively bypass national governments and put the decision where it belongs: the people themselves.

but "political correctness" is important

I don't think that it is unimportant, but rather that we should focus on the person speaking, not the person to whom is spoken. If the thinking behind a word or phrase is bad, then it is understandable to reject it. The word "gay" does not qualify, nor do the words "lady", "woman", commonly rejected by feminists (spelling?).

Not the corrupted, immoral secularist version of marriage, no. Even in those ancient societies, the purpose of marriage was to bear children and maintain a monogonous couple. Homoesexuals, on average, have 6 times as many sexual partners, and bear not a single child without resorting to unnatural means.

Even Muslims recognize that!

Even speaking biblically, polygamy has been a common form.

Marriage was familial, till your romanist ancestors via edict by Caesar Augustus made marriage a legislative aspect (which untill remained untill the last few centuries when the Common Law was re-enforced to transfer authority over marriage back to personal familial unions) and more recently, the overturning of the common law, to re-enact Caesar Augustus' legislative marriage edicts by the modern-day neo-romanists. The simple fact is... Marriage predates government, therefore its institution is Common Law, and it is not authorized for government to legislate upon it. And, the Constitutional Republic interprets all law, national and international with the Common Law, since all Common Law lays with the people, the supreme authority over all forms of government, national and international... Thereby, even with present NSUN laws regarding marriage, the Constitutional Republic does not legislate upon it, and does not have any marriage laws. Common Law is supreme, since all other law extends from it. The only legislative codified laws, regarding such, exist as a restatement of Common Law...That is, case law in regards to the contractural unions of persons (marriage)... From the civil aspect, Marriage is no different then any other form of Contract Law... And is handled equally as such... It is a contractural union... Irregardless of cursory non-tandgible aspects you or others wish to apply to it in the attempt to control the private life of your citizens.