Repeal 'Gay Rights' for the sake of democracy [Archive]

Tekania

18-04-2005, 16:07

My nation believes that it should be the decision of each individual member State whether or not public opinion supports gay marriage or not. In the Constitutional Monarchy of Imperial Great Britain, we don't believe in universal gay marriage as it discriminates against our popular beliefs, we do however feel that if a nation wishes to embrace gay marriage then they should feel free to do so, but that nation should not impose its beliefs on others. Therefore we propose to repeal resolution 12, please everyone who supports democracy go to the list of UN proposals and at the end will be @repeal Gay Rights' put your name on it to support it.

Gay rights was founded upon the principle of democracy, in that the majority of member nations and delegates decided this issue by vote upon both the "Gay Rights Resolution", and upon the subsequent "Definition of Marriage Resolution"; both of which protect the rights of such towards marriage to whom they choose.

Being Commonlaw, the Constitutional Republic supports the ideal that the people should be able to choose their own course in life with little interference from governmental authority. Thus, in this ideal, the idea of repealing said Resolution, and empowering government to control the relationships, contractual unions and familial responsibilities of the citizens of member-states, under the falacious guise that it is "discriminatory" is considered absurd.

The granting and/or protection of rights upon an individual, even when a majority may disagree with the allowance of said rights to a particular class/race/sex/type of person is not discriminatory. To grant a particular rights equal to that of the whole is by definition non-discriminory.

Given that a minority of nations wish to discriminate upon their populace on the basis of the particular opinions of a majority of their populace; the Constitutional Republic of Tekania sees no reason for the repeal of the "Gay Rights" resolution, to apply lisence upon this group to return to disciminatory practices contrary to the principles of a free and democratic society.

As such, we oppose this repeal on all legal and principled grounds....

On further grounds... Pulling from the other thread....

We need publicity for this repealing though, otherwise every nation will have to face the undemocratic enforcement.

The enforcement is democratic and representative. A majority of NSUN nations chose to impliment this policy upon the body of NSUN member-states, to protect in the undemocratic and discriminatory practices of some members of the same-said body.

Given that Resolutions enter the stage as proposals...

That the same-said proposals are written by members of this body....

That properly and duly elected Delegates cast vote for approval of resolutions to be presented upon the flood as Resolutions at vote...

And that, through the normative means of the republical principles, that national representatives from all member-states cast vote for or against the same resolution...

It is thus, that, every Resolution is empowered through the normal and proper democratic process, so that resolutions reflect the will and intent of the body of member-states of these United Nations...

Thus to level the principle of the "Gay Rights" resolutions enforcement as "undemocratic" is therefore considered patently absurd by this Constitutional Republic...

Mikitivity

18-04-2005, 16:53

My government voted yes, but conditionally. First, I think the idea of standardizing marriage in different government's makes about as much sense as standardizing religions. Though to most government's marriage is a civil union, there are still some cultural and religious connections to the idea of a state recognized civil union. The Council of Mayors does not feel it is our place to FORCE our will on the exact dictates of how a specific civil union should be defined.

That said, it is a matter of record that the Confederated City States, while recognizing the sovereign right for domestic independence in social matters, does also believe that there are many human rights that all nations (even non-UN members) should adhere to.

The question asked in this poll was, in my opinion, misleading. The threaded discussion is about gay rights, but the question seemed to focus on marriage. While I just stated that the Confederated City States is opposed to a top down approach in the UN standardizing moral or religious behavior one way or another, Mikitivity also feels that in order to protect minority groups against persecution and protect their civil liberties, that government's must take pro-active stances against discrimination and should promote equality.

With that in mind, it hardly seems fair that a society should forbid two consenting adults of the same gender from being recognized in a civil union if the government is recognizing couples of different genders. The City States would consider voting in favour of a repeal, if its language made this very point ... and "ENCOURAGED" nations to promote equality.

So please consider my government to be a "swing" vote when it comes to these issues. Repeals where we feel there would be a chance to improve the existing language of the original and strengthen its intent, while also recognizing some of the needs for domestic variability are the types of measures we'll support. Half thought out repeals that appear to discriminate against people based on their sexual preference or some other status, will be thought poorly of and opposed by the City States.

Cobdenia

18-04-2005, 17:40

"Repeal Gay Marriage for the sake of Democracy" makes about as much sense to the Cobdenians as "Tap dance nude whilst riding a donkey for the sake of the cheese industry"

Frisbeeteria

18-04-2005, 17:43

"Tap dance nude whilst riding a donkey for the sake of the cheese industry"
There is no part of this proposal that I do not like.

_Myopia_

18-04-2005, 17:53

As far as we are concerned, if an electorate would deny certain of its members rights and freedoms they deserve, those rights and freedoms take priority over democratic principles.

Vodoun

18-04-2005, 18:02

The government of Vodoun believes that we should not venture into the bedrooms of our citizens. They may do as they wish and we have decided not to vote to repeal 'Gay Rights'.

Krioval

18-04-2005, 18:02

Ahahahahaha! What's it been, a couple weeks since the last debate on this subject? And it starts with an appeal to the principles of democracy? Yeah, this has all the trappings of a restriction of civil rights wrapped in the veneer of 'democracy'. Not only would the seventy-five hells need to freeze, thaw, and explode, but the entire known universe would have to go hurtling, kicking and screaming, into oblivion before Krioval would even *consider* approving such a proposal. Good day.

Commander Raijin Dekker
Armed Republic of Krioval

Frisbeeteria

18-04-2005, 18:08

Not only would the seventy-five hells need to freeze, thaw, and explode, but the entire known universe would have to go hurtling, kicking and screaming, into oblivion before Krioval would even *consider* approving such a proposal.
There is no part of this proposal that I do not like, either.

2_D

18-04-2005, 18:10

For starters, Resolution 12 concerns "...the preservation of freedom and the respect of all..." by "member nations of the United Nations... pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life." It has nothing wrong to it. Tee only thing The Serene Republic of 2_D would be willing to ammend, *if anything* would be the line at the end, which states:

"resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations."

to:

"resolve that gay marriages be protected by law"

The point is: your law does not have to obligate gay people to marry, yet if they wish to do so, then they have some sort of protection.

Anyway...it is really a great resolution.

DemonLordEnigma

18-04-2005, 18:14

Powerhungry Chipmunks

18-04-2005, 18:19

As far as we are concerned, if an electorate would deny certain of its members rights and freedoms they deserve, those rights and freedoms take priority over democratic principles.

This is what I think most people here are overlooking--that we are giving up the individual nations' and people's right to determine the legality of gay marriage when the UN as a whole decides it to be a right too fundamental to allow member governments the discretion. We are sacrificing democracy with "Gay Rights" and the subsequent (actually effective) gay rights resolutions.

In fact, it would be an increase of democratic freedom (on a national level) to repeal all the resolutions which force member nations to allow gay marriage. Heck, it would be an increase of nations', provinces' and local municpalities' democratic ability to represent their bodies to repeal any and all resolutions. The key is that we're giving up that right to represent the rights of our peoples' (on those national, provincial, and local levels) in the issue of gay marriage because we, as a UN, dictate that it's too much of a fundamental right for any government body to violate.

I'm not saying that we should do this--well, I support the repeal of "Gay Rights" because it's long been redundant and has always been an "in-the-appearance-of-action-though-actually-without-action resolution". But, on the whole, I'm not saying that gay marriage is something member nations need to have the right to disallow. I'm just saying that we are giving up our right to national/provicinal/local representation on this issue in making this an international issue--it is impairing representation of the person in government. To say otherwise is just naive.

Frisbeeteria

18-04-2005, 18:20

The point is: your law does not have to obligate gay people to marry, yet if they wish to do so, then they have some sort of protection.
Actually, NationStates UN resolutions cannot be made optional. They are mandatory in all member nations.

Neo-Anarchists

18-04-2005, 18:23

Actually, NationStates UN resolutions cannot be made optional. They are mandatory in all member nations.
:confused:
I thought that poster was referring to the actual marriage of gays to someone or other not being compulsory...

Frisbeeteria

18-04-2005, 18:27

"resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations."

to:

"resolve that gay marriages be protected by law"
I was addressing the removal of "member nations", but didn't address the use of "endorse". I don't believe that any form of the relevant resolution can be read as making gay marriage mandatory for any two people. Marriage and gay marriage are still, and always have been, a choice for the individuals.

Somniverus

18-04-2005, 18:31

Powerhungry Chipmunks

18-04-2005, 20:08

It is my opinion that the resolution being discussed doesn't take away any nation's rights more than any other resolution. So wanting this one repealed for that reason alone is just plain silly.

My suggestion to any nation with this sort of opinion about any resolution - that it should be repealed purely on the basis that they think individual nations should be left to themselves on the issue - should leave the UN.

I disagree. Nations have differing definitions of how much individual nations (and individual people) should be able to decide on their own. Many nations view the codification of marriage as a cultural issue and too unique to different societies to be acted upon with the UN's heavy-handed, far-removed-from-representation manner. I don't these nations--that differ in their opinions of how far the UN should go in managing its member nations--should leave the UN, or even deserved to be told that the should. Just because the majority feels a certain way doesn't mean that the minority should be discouraged from expressing its viewpoint as well.

In my opinion, the only time a "just leave the UN" response is viable or even partially warranted (and I do believe it's only ever partially warranted) is when a nation comes to the forum stating, "I don't want to comply!" Then, explaining to the nation that the only way the UN doesn't enforce its resolutions upon nations is if they aren't members can be a helpful and logical response. However, disagreeing with the majority's opinion and requesting/asserting non-compliance are two separate things. I don't think that nations which have various opinions on which resolutions should be repealed (for whatever reasons) should be told to leave the UN. In fact, I think the UN would lose a lot if all nations holding opinions differing from the majority left the UN.

Somniverus

18-04-2005, 21:37

I disagree. Nations have differing definitions of how much individual nations (and individual people) should be able to decide on their own. Many nations view the codification of marriage as a cultural issue and too unique to different societies to be acted upon with the UN's heavy-handed, far-removed-from-representation manner. I don't these nations--that differ in their opinions of how far the UN should go in managing its member nations--should leave the UN, or even deserved to be told that the should. Just because the majority feels a certain way doesn't mean that the minority should be discouraged from expressing its viewpoint as well.

In my opinion, the only time a "just leave the UN" response is viable or even partially warranted (and I do believe it's only ever partially warranted) is when a nation comes to the forum stating, "I don't want to comply!" Then, explaining to the nation that the only way the UN doesn't enforce its resolutions upon nations is if they aren't members can be a helpful and logical response. However, disagreeing with the majority's opinion and requesting/asserting non-compliance are two separate things. I don't think that nations which have various opinions on which resolutions should be repealed (for whatever reasons) should be told to leave the UN. In fact, I think the UN would lose a lot if all nations holding opinions differing from the majority left the UN.

Maybe I misunderstood what was said, and if I did, I'm sorry. It seemed to me that the argument put forth was on the basis that their nation wanted the freedom of choice on the matter, but didn't seem to fully explain why this subject was different from any other.

If the matter had been put forth with more reasoning, I still would disagree, but I would not have dismissed it that way.

Tekania

18-04-2005, 21:55

Let's take a hypothetical example...

Let's say a representative government passes legislation granting freedom of the press...

By repealing this protection, it is furtherment of democracy, because it then lets each state determine on its own whether or not to allow such activity.

However, it is also furtherment of democracy not to repeal... Since it is still a legislative provision voted on by the appointed electors for the people.

Since the body of NSUN members drafted, approved and voted for, to enact the "Gay Rights" resolution... Was that not, then "furtherment of democracy"; since it placed said "Gays" on equal legal footing in all aspects with non-"Gays"...

Second argument: Does the repeal of "Gay marriage" as per the description, remove said power from the NSUN to enforce the principle of Gay Marriage, and place it back into the power and determination of the member-states... It does not, since the Definition of Marriage also ensures, even past the "Gay Marriage" resolution, that such be a protected and equal right in provision, by mandating the limits upon which member states may define marriage. Thus, "Gay Rights" is redundant, in that it is one of two Resolutions which provide the same protection to the same criteria of people. (Though DoM expands past the scope of the Gay Rights Resolution).

Thus, the "argument for repeal" does not match the effects which are attained in repeal. In fact, Repeal of "Gay Rights" does not give the individual member-states the power to enact anything more than what they did before (still be constricted by the Definition of Marriage Resolution). Thus, the present "grounds" for this repeal, is incorrect. And therefore the repeal itself is logically (by its own argument) unwaranted.

IOW. The only logical and valid grounds presently for repeal of the "Gay Rights" resolution, is for redundancy due to the presence of the "Definition of Marriage" resolution. And that the "furtherment of democracy" issue to which it has been attached to; is an absurd claim at present.

Powerhungry Chipmunks

18-04-2005, 22:44

Vastiva

19-04-2005, 04:59

Vastiva

19-04-2005, 05:03

Gay rights was founded upon the principle of democracy, in that the majority of member nations and delegates decided this issue by vote upon both the "Gay Rights Resolution", and upon the subsequent "Definition of Marriage Resolution"; both of which protect the rights of such towards marriage to whom they choose.

We would mention here that "Discrimination Accord" - resolution #99 - also protects same-sex marriage through it's protections, specifically:

§ The UN condemns discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in recognized religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, age, language, school of thought, or intelligence.

§ The UN disallows member governments from discriminating the previously described rights (protection under law, participation in government, etc.) based upon such differences.

Another nail in the coffin of the "it's ICKY!" arguements....

Sidestreamer

19-04-2005, 05:16

Good Lord, they're at it again. :rolleyes:

And as long as you liberal fascist tyrants keep infringing upon our rights as Christians to maintain the purity and sanctity of marriage, we will never quit, so help us God!

--Welsh

Vastiva

19-04-2005, 06:15

And as long as you liberal fascist tyrants keep infringing upon our rights as Christians to maintain the purity and sanctity of marriage, we will never quit, so help us God!

--Welsh

We shall indeed attempt to find you a "liberal fascist tyrant" to direct your commentary towards.

All you are defending, Christian, is an idea. Much like the idea that women could not vote or lead, the idea that one skin color was better than another, the idea that bumps upon the head told one's future, or the idea that the "sound barrier" was insurmountable, it is an idea which has no basis in fact, no reason, and no conception of what is to come after it.

It is yet another parcel for the dustbin of history. Though we must say, we do rather enjoy the part in your book which goes "Do onto others as you would have done to you".

It took the Catholic Church 359 years to admit that they were wrong when they accused Galileo of heresy and condemned him to death, unless he recanted that the earth rotates around the sun. Since he wanted to live, he was forced to deny the truth and agree with the Church that the sun rotates around the earth, but he was still placed under house arrest until his death.

The Church is powerful and has a history of pressuring society and individuals to say and believe what "the Church" thinks is right. That is truly unfortunate, as these "blinders" do nothing to better mankind - and is that not the true "purpose" of the Church, not "purification through violence", but "understanding and acceptance"?

We leave you with this tale:

Mahatma Ghandi, the renowned leader of the people of India, in seeking to overthrow British colonial rule of his native land, was an avid reader. Although a Hindu, in his quest for freedom, he read the four Christian Gospels. He wanted to know more about Jesus of Nazareth. In his reading of the Gospels, Ghandi was impressed with this man whom Christians worship and follow. Where could he find out more about this Jesus whom Christians refer to as "the Christ - the Messiah?"

One Sunday morning Ghandi decided that he would visit one of the Christian churches in Calcutta. Upon seeking entrance to the church sanctuary, he was stopped at the door by the ushers. The ushers told him that he was not welcome, nor would he be permitted to attend this particular church as it was for 'high caste' Indians and 'whites' only. He was neither 'high caste', nor was he British. Because of the rejection by this church, 'the Mahatma' turned his back on Christianity. With this act, Ghandi rejected the Christian faith, never again to consider the claims of Christ! He was 'turned-off' by the sin of segregation that was practiced by the church. Ghandi later declared, "I'd be a Christian if it were not for the Christians!"

Another lovely leaf in the long history of acceptance by the Church.

There is far more in this creation then any small mind can appreciate - or accept. But travel does broaden the mind, it is said.

Travel well, pilgrim. "As you do to the least of mine, so you do to me".

Oh, yes - and "Judge not, lest ye be judged".

Namaste.

The Lynx Alliance

19-04-2005, 10:03

we have no problem with the resolution how it stands, except maybe the fact that the contents are covered in subsiquent resolutions, like the marriage and UBR resolutions, so seems slightly redundant

This is what I think most people here are overlooking--that we are giving up the individual nations' and people's right to determine the legality of gay marriage when the UN as a whole decides it to be a right too fundamental to allow member governments the discretion. We are sacrificing democracy with "Gay Rights" and the subsequent (actually effective) gay rights resolutions.

In fact, it would be an increase of democratic freedom (on a national level) to repeal all the resolutions which force member nations to allow gay marriage. Heck, it would be an increase of nations', provinces' and local municpalities' democratic ability to represent their bodies to repeal any and all resolutions. The key is that we're giving up that right to represent the rights of our peoples' (on those national, provincial, and local levels) in the issue of gay marriage because we, as a UN, dictate that it's too much of a fundamental right for any government body to violate.

I'm not saying that we should do this--well, I support the repeal of "Gay Rights" because it's long been redundant and has always been an "in-the-appearance-of-action-though-actually-without-action resolution". But, on the whole, I'm not saying that gay marriage is something member nations need to have the right to disallow. I'm just saying that we are giving up our right to national/provicinal/local representation on this issue in making this an international issue--it is impairing representation of the person in government. To say otherwise is just naive.
I disagree. Nations have differing definitions of how much individual nations (and individual people) should be able to decide on their own. Many nations view the codification of marriage as a cultural issue and too unique to different societies to be acted upon with the UN's heavy-handed, far-removed-from-representation manner. I don't these nations--that differ in their opinions of how far the UN should go in managing its member nations--should leave the UN, or even deserved to be told that the should. Just because the majority feels a certain way doesn't mean that the minority should be discouraged from expressing its viewpoint as well.

In my opinion, the only time a "just leave the UN" response is viable or even partially warranted (and I do believe it's only ever partially warranted) is when a nation comes to the forum stating, "I don't want to comply!" Then, explaining to the nation that the only way the UN doesn't enforce its resolutions upon nations is if they aren't members can be a helpful and logical response. However, disagreeing with the majority's opinion and requesting/asserting non-compliance are two separate things. I don't think that nations which have various opinions on which resolutions should be repealed (for whatever reasons) should be told to leave the UN. In fact, I think the UN would lose a lot if all nations holding opinions differing from the majority left the UN.
our best suggestion here, if you are so concerned about national rights, is to go to the NSUN page on the site, scroll down, and click on the 'Resign from UN' button, because that is the only way you wont be affected by the NSUN

Vastiva

19-04-2005, 10:22

Tekania

19-04-2005, 12:52

1. The church, and christianity in general, was never given "power" over marriage. It has been a familial institution since its inception.

2. The first legal example of civil authority being held over marriage came not from "Christians" but from a Roman Emporer, a pagan emporer at that.

3. The adoption of authority instituted by the church descends from the Roman rule, and not from any biblical authority.

Thus, the principle of Common Law in marriage is held in the Republic, as it is a familial institution, and thus applicable to the individuals only, and not to dictation by soceity in general.... It is not the place not purpose of government to uphold the so-called "Sanctity" in anything, especially in regards to provision of religious morality upon the general populace (Such is in fact a ideological failure to maintain the principles of the UBR in relation to individual religious liberties).

Irregardless of the freedom of states and persons to maintain their own set of beliefs and morality... One's morality is not to be allowed to do damage against the liberties of another, since such is the only true crime in relation to the principle of civil authority. Thus the "Gay Rights Resolution" rightly stands to prevent states, who in their anti-christ viewpoints, seek to damage the individual liberties of its own people.

Thus, under the Definition of Marriage, the Discrimination Accord and the Gay Rights resolutions; gays, that is, homosexuals and lesbians, are free, according to the dictates of their own conscience, to make their own choices in relation to life-partners and familial memberships and responsibilities. This comes irregardless of the moral opinions of the majority.

That being said, I should note to the body of these United Nations, that the representative of the Constitutional Republic of Tekania, is christian; that I most certainly consider homosexuality a sin, and that it is God who will make such judgements in the end. That I, even though possessing authority in the Republic, have responsibilities to the Republic to maintain and assert the Republics ideals of individual liberties and freedom of conscience; and that, nowhere within the dictates of my faith, have I been granted the civil authority to operate in an oppressing manner over others; whether they be sinners by the principles of said faith, or not... And that it is not my job to operate the morality of my faith upon the heads of the populace in general. Such a principle is vehemently opposed to the principles of liberty and freedom. And that as a Christian it is my job to shew forth Christ in my operations and purposes, in such as my place as both a Christian and a civil leader appointed by the Republic in representation; and not, to abuse my religion at the hands of the populace, and turn the ideals and purity of the Christian faith into a pharisiatic code to be dispensed on the populace in general...

Powerhungry Chipmunks

19-04-2005, 13:25

our best suggestion here, if you are so concerned about national rights, is to go to the NSUN page on the site, scroll down, and click on the 'Resign from UN' button, because that is the only way you wont be affected by the NSUN

1) The "Resign" button is at the top of the page. No "scrolling down" is necessary

2) As I said before (in fact, the portion you quoted; Heh, imagine that), advocating national rights is not the same as requesting/demanding freedom from UN resolutions or power or jurisdiction. It's just like in RL, some advocate US state rights and want them to have more power. Are these people trying to secede, or "resign" from the Union? No! They admit that there are federal powers over the states--a balance of state and federal powers, they just advocate the balance shift more in the direction of the states.

3) Again (it's almost like I've said this before...), to say that people who disagree with the majority of UN members on where to draw the "national rights" line should leave the UN is naive--perhaps also ignorant and immature. Nations with differing opinions have just as much of a right to belong to the UN as you. And they have just as much of a right to state their opinion here (without undue hassle or ignorant derision) as you.

Roma Reich

19-04-2005, 13:47

The Roman Reich sees no reason to force other countries to abide people who engage in fetishes. They can do what they want, but the Roman Reich government refuses to recognize a fetish

Ricardo and Smith

19-04-2005, 15:03

Rev.Ricardo will be supporting his ally Imperial Britain in this matter.

The wording needs to be changed.

There can be no room for gay 'marriage'.

Only gay 'civil union'.

No replies. Nuff said.

Neo-Anarchists

19-04-2005, 15:47

The Roman Reich sees no reason to force other countries to abide people who engage in fetishes. They can do what they want, but the Roman Reich government refuses to recognize a fetish
It appears you are a UN member.
In that case, you already do recognize homosexual unions and rights.
Resolution #7: Sexual Freedom: (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=6)
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Armstrongonia

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

Resolution #12: Gay Rights: (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=11)
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kundu

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

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

Reslution #80: Rights of Minorities and Women: (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=79)
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Amsterdam Junior

Description: The UN should recognize that all people are created equal. The matter of race, sex, religion or sexual preference should not make anyone less equal. These are inalienable rights of all UN nation citizens.

ARTICLE I- No one race or culture is better than another.

ARTICLE II- Males and Females should be treated as equals. Whether it be in the workplace or at home.

ARTICLE III- Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another.

ARTICLE IV- One should have the right to express their love for a member of the same sex.

Resolution #81: Definition of Marriage: (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=80) Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Vastiva

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.

Celatea

19-04-2005, 18:59

Frisbeeteria

19-04-2005, 19:09

Gay marriage is not a right!
Cogent argument. Nice use of exclamation points, btw. If you can't find logical reasons, shouting always convinces 'em.

Tekania

19-04-2005, 19:18

Gay marriage is not a right!

Gay marriage is the destruction of traditional values to appeal to a small minority group. If homosexuals wish to go on about their lifestyle they should learn to accept that they will be unable to marry in proceeding with their degeneracy.

The Holy Republic of Celatea will never support such legislation and until the UN changes its decision, it will not apply to be a member!

Homosexuals can have basic human rights but not the choice to marry!

Well, the UN begs to differ... Gay marriage is a right of presentment according to international law, and thus is a "granted" right amongst nations which afore had made such illegal.

However, Gay Marriage is not a "granted" right in the Constitutional Republic, nor is "marriage" a granted right... nor indeed are any rights "granted" by this Republic. All rights are considered inherant... Including the right of the people to form unions and contractural partnerships (Common Law Contract), their expression of religious beliefs, their freedom to speak about ideas on morality and politics, and the like. The purpose of the aforementioned resolutions was to grant rights to persons in states who had stollen the peoples inherant rights in regards to formation of family partnerships.

From the Common Law view, no state has the right or power to legislate upon the personal private contractural relationships between the individual members of that state...

Thus, all "Holy" governments, which wish to act against this viewpoint, are thus no longer operating under the authority of God, but rather by the power and descent of the Pegan law of the Roman Emire, and thus are the ideological descendants of Caesar Augustus, and not operating according to the dictates and law of God; since said marrital legislation is a purely Roman invention under Augustus, being before an operation of familial contract (Common Law)...

Fatus Maximus

19-04-2005, 22:16

If homosexuals wish to go on about their lifestyle they should learn to accept that they will be unable to marry in proceeding with their degeneracy.

That is your nation's opinion of homosexuality. You have the right to your opinion, regretably narrow-minded as it is. However, as long as our opinions outnumber your opinions, the UN will continue to allow gay marriages in it's member nations.

The Lost Heroes

20-04-2005, 00:25

Okay people gay marriage makes just about as much sense as dog marriage! Gay people go against everything that is right and just. Anybody who isnt an atheist can totally agree with my statements!

But seeing as how hes right, as long as there is more pro-gay rights people than against gay right people in the UN, we will continue to see gay rights being recognised... DOH! :headbang:

Neo-Anarchists

20-04-2005, 00:33

Somniverus

20-04-2005, 00:43

:D :D :D
Oh, Goddess, was that funny!

I think I love you.

Threnas

20-04-2005, 01:19

Anybody who isnt an atheist can totally agree with my statements!
I think you mean anyone who is a christian/muslim/jew(?) will agree with you, as there have been religions (and are probably) (that worship god(s)) that have either no opinion about it or find it nothing wrong with it.
Also there are christians/muslims/jews that find nothing wrong with gay marriages, but you could argue that those arent true believers in their faith (as I think that in all three religious books is said that being gay is wrong).

Vastiva

20-04-2005, 06:31

A perfect example of the sort of Christian Nation the rest of us can live in harmony with...

That being said, I should note to the body of these United Nations, that the representative of the Constitutional Republic of Tekania, is christian; that I most certainly consider homosexuality a sin, and that it is God who will make such judgements in the end. That I, even though possessing authority in the Republic, have responsibilities to the Republic to maintain and assert the Republics ideals of individual liberties and freedom of conscience; and that, nowhere within the dictates of my faith, have I been granted the civil authority to operate in an oppressing manner over others; whether they be sinners by the principles of said faith, or not... And that it is not my job to operate the morality of my faith upon the heads of the populace in general. Such a principle is vehemently opposed to the principles of liberty and freedom. And that as a Christian it is my job to shew forth Christ in my operations and purposes, in such as my place as both a Christian and a civil leader appointed by the Republic in representation; and not, to abuse my religion at the hands of the populace, and turn the ideals and purity of the Christian faith into a pharisiatic code to be dispensed on the populace in general...

Vastiva

20-04-2005, 06:32

Rev.Ricardo will be supporting his ally Imperial Britain in this matter.

The wording needs to be changed.

There can be no room for gay 'marriage'.

Only gay 'civil union'.

No replies. Nuff said.

If you're in the UN, no reply is necessary, as you've already shown you don't read former resolutions - which you are automatically in compliance with, no exceptions.

Vastiva

20-04-2005, 06:35

I think you mean anyone who is a christian/muslim/jew(?) will agree with you, as there have been religions (and are probably) (that worship god(s)) that have either no opinion about it or find it nothing wrong with it.
Also there are christians/muslims/jews that find nothing wrong with gay marriages, but you could argue that those arent true believers in their faith (as I think that in all three religious books is said that being gay is wrong).

Let's see... we're not athiests, we're Deists... and we do not agree with that statement.

So much for that sort of silliness.

Krioval

20-04-2005, 06:41

Huh. Polytheists are at least 95% of Krioval's population. We're further from atheism than Christians!

The Lynx Alliance

20-04-2005, 11:11

1) The "Resign" button is at the top of the page. No "scrolling down" is necessary

2) As I said before (in fact, the portion you quoted; Heh, imagine that), advocating national rights is not the same as requesting/demanding freedom from UN resolutions or power or jurisdiction. It's just like in RL, some advocate US state rights and want them to have more power. Are these people trying to secede, or "resign" from the Union? No! They admit that there are federal powers over the states--a balance of state and federal powers, they just advocate the balance shift more in the direction of the states.

3) Again (it's almost like I've said this before...), to say that people who disagree with the majority of UN members on where to draw the "national rights" line should leave the UN is naive--perhaps also ignorant and immature. Nations with differing opinions have just as much of a right to belong to the UN as you. And they have just as much of a right to state their opinion here (without undue hassle or ignorant derision) as you.
sorry if this is seeming like a flame here, but we have seen your nation complain again and again over this and other issues. for those initially comming in, we suggest they give it a chance. for those who have been here for a while, and continue complaining about 'national issues' or 'national soveriengty' as you have done on many an occasion, we then give the suggestion to hit the resign button. also, to do with the main topic, we would like to put on this record:

Daddy where are you?
Daddy where are you?
I'd buy that for a dollar

oops, wrong record.... ahhh, here it is:

This has been tried before, and failed every time....
This has been tried before, and failed every time....
This has been tried before, and failed every time....

oops, we appologise, as the record is broken due to over-use.....

Tekania

20-04-2005, 12:35

Okay people gay marriage makes just about as much sense as dog marriage! Gay people go against everything that is right and just. Anybody who isnt an atheist can totally agree with my statements!

I'm not an atheist... And I disagree with your statements.

Watches as The Lost Heroes world-view comes-a-crashin' down...

Did you miss my entire discourse on this subject?

I'm a christian... However, being such does not necessitate the backwards step towards romanist views of subjegating the population to God and His laws in the secular world... In fact, such itself goes against the very foundation and principle of Christianity.

The Lynx Alliance

20-04-2005, 12:58

I'm not an atheist... And I disagree with your statements.

Watches as The Lost Heroes world-view comes-a-crashin' down...

Did you miss my entire discourse on this subject?

I'm a christian... However, being such does not necessitate the backwards step towards romanist views of subjegating the population to God and His laws in the secular world... In fact, such itself goes against the very foundation and principle of Christianity.
OOC: actually, though i admit i havent been to church for over 15 years (lutheren, i might add), but i do believe that if someone was to confess their sins before they die to a priest, and not commit any after, they could enter heaven. must make some staunch homophobic christians cringe that homosexuals can use this loophole in order to get into heaven.

Tekania

20-04-2005, 13:34

OOC: actually, though i admit i havent been to church for over 15 years (lutheren, i might add), but i do believe that if someone was to confess their sins before they die to a priest, and not commit any after, they could enter heaven. must make some staunch homophobic christians cringe that homosexuals can use this loophole in order to get into heaven.

OOC: Being Presbyterian, and of Reformed ideology, I don't necessarily buy that viewpoint loophole. Though such would be applicable to late-in-life conversion concepts in which the person is saved. No where in the course of biblical texts have men themselves been granted the determintive power to decide who is and is not saved. Which is my argument against the bulk of the "moral majority"/"Christian Right"/"Christian Coalition" theological views. As Christians the form and function is to preach and teach, and allow God to handle the actual work involved towards the salvation of the individual (the impartation of His Spirit upon the sinner, and impartation of saving grace upon the unregenerate). In my honest viewpoint, the fundamentalist viewpoint which extended out of the later part of the reformed movement to cement the factions together; has stepped back into the Puritan/Romanist mentality of the secular aspects of the church possessing some power to make determinations over the actual spiritual state of the persons, and using cooersion and force towards people as if it were saving work. Such goes against the very gospel purpose itself to preach and teach, and show forth Christ in our work to our fellow persons. The Reformed view is that sin is not the act, but the intent itself, and thus the church operates under that persepective. No, the work of salvation is one of God's and not man's, but regenerate man's place is to teach and preach Christ, both in word and deed... Deed not as in formenting secular law in conformity to God's laws, but in living under God's laws and demonstrating this to the sinner, both God's law and grace. So that, from my perspective, the bulk of the fundamentalist movement is sinning themselves, by working towards creating secular laws in the enforcement of God's law, they concentrate on the legality of sin, as opposed to performing the actual commandment of God towards the Gospel (which is preaching and teaching Christ towards the sinner); that instead of living as Christ, and showing Him in their words and acts, they instead seek to secularize God's law into legal code; thus surrendering the gospel and God's primary and most forceful commandment upon His people (teaching and preaching). Whether or not homosexuals may engage in their acts under secular law plays no part, one way or the other, towards their state of salvation. Do I believe homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God? Yes... Does this mean I secularize that law to bring worldly condemnation upon them for their acts? No... The answer is to demonstrate Christ to them, not to secularize Christ for the benefit of pharisiatic law-keeping. In God's eyes, sin is sin... regardless of the act... Whether it is homosexuality, adultry, lying, theft, or what not... It is all equally abhorent in the eyes of God... Fundamentalists have lost this view, and instead concentrate on their "pet" sins of their own invention, in the secularization of God in pharisiatic manners.

Now, given that they have abandoned this "Commandment" and in light of biblical texts indicating the power of God towards salvation, and how God Himself works in his people to will towards His pleasure [PH 2:13]. I would question the fundamentalists state of salvation, given that they themselves are unable to follow God's own law themselves in not preaching and teaching, and instead seeking political powers contrary to the Gospel message...

Powerhungry Chipmunks

20-04-2005, 14:08

sorry if this is seeming like a flame here,

You're right, it does. I'm sorry repeated advocacy for national rights annoys you. My bad. I do hope you'll accept my apology and I promise it will happen again an indefinite number of times more--so long as UN members are ignorant of such things.

About the repeal of "Gay Rights", eventually it will pass. Why? Because it should: the resolution is do-nothing weak, too old to have relevant language, and opposed by more than just the "ignorant conservatives". There hasn't been a Gay Rights repeal with any sort of a telegram campaign--its potential to succeed when given an adequate argument is unknown. It's gonna make it one of these days. Just you watch.

Threnas

20-04-2005, 14:13

Let's see... we're not athiests, we're Deists... and we do not agree with that statement.

So much for that sort of silliness.

unless you agree with me, I dont really understand why you think im being silly. Seeing as I said that you dont have to be an atheist to find gay marriage normal (all be it in slightly more words).

Tekania

20-04-2005, 15:07

unless you agree with me, I dont really understand why you think im being silly. Seeing as I said that you dont have to be an atheist to find gay marriage normal (all be it in slightly more words).

That response was in relation to "The Lost Heroes" response...

Okay people gay marriage makes just about as much sense as dog marriage! Gay people go against everything that is right and just. Anybody who isnt an atheist can totally agree with my statements!

Statement 1: "Okay people gay marriage makes just about as much sense as dog marriage!"

Statement 2: "Gay people go against everything that is right and just."

Final Statement : "Anybody who isnt an atheist can totally agree with my statements!"

--Anaylization of final statement--

Subject of sentence: "Anybody who isnt an atheist"

That is to say, anyone who does not subscribe to Atheistic theology. That is, all monotheists and/or polytheists.

Action of sentence: "can totally agree with my statements"

That is to say, will affirm the truth of aforementioned Statements 1 & 2.

Thus, "All monotheists and polytheists will affirm the truth that gay marriage makes as much sense as dog marriage; and that all monotheists and polytheists will affirm the truth that Gay marriage is wrong and unjust."

So therefore, regardless of particular theological views within the realm of theistic thought, all persons, Catholic, Reformed, Protestant, Anabaptist, Adventist, Mormon, Hindi, Pagan, etc. will adhere to the truth that dog marriage = gay marriage; and that allowing gays to be married is unjust and wrong.

Statement 1: again.... "gay marriage makes as much sense as dog marriage."
Marriage, is the principle union by which two or more persons are pledged into a familial union with one another through written or unwritten contract, and thus share in all legal responsibilities of the other party. The principle is vehemently scentient in its precept, thus the parties have to posses a sense of self-identity for the form and function. Thus, two men, or two women enter in this union, and it is a union which makes sense, in both an emotional and pratical operation of continuance and understanding of symbolic union and share of life with one another. Thus it makes sense. Being that I am "Christian" and "Reformed" I an monotheistic, and therefore am applicable to the Subject matter of the aforementioned Conclusive statement.

Statement 2: again.... "gay people go against everything that is right and just"
Being just, thereby the principle of "justice" which is the aspect of fairness in law and legality. Therefore the assumption is that "gay people are against justice" in that they believe the principle that the law is unfair... This is connected with rightness in the first part of the principle clause, so therefore must also identify as being right before the law. Since the law is designed around justice, that is to present equal fairness to all, therefore the legal principle is that gay people themselves, play no part in the principle of opposition to what is or is not "just" as they themselves are not passing laws which present themselves discriminatory to other parties. Therefore Statement 2 is negated... Once again, being Christian and Reformed in view; I disagree with this statement, thus making me applicable to the Conclusive statement.

Conclusive Statement: "Anybody who isnt an atheist can totally agree with my statements..."

Given that I am a party applicable to the preliminary subject of the matter, being monotheistic, therefore I, according to the action clause of the statement, can agree with the truth of the previous two statements. However, in pratical application, as demonstrated by others and myself... I do not, and neither do others subscribing to theistic views regarding the existance of one or more gods... And therefore existing as such, yet being in disagreement therefore negates the final conclusive statement.

Since Statements 1 & 2 are hinged, by the final statement, upon the beliefs of the mono and poly-theists, it therefore means negation of the conclusion, leads to negation of the two primaries, thus negating the entire post. And therefore, all three statements of the post are thereby falsified by pratical application of the subject matter.

Krioval

20-04-2005, 17:15

All right, we have finally broken the fourth wall. Gods, is this any less ridiculous than the last bitchy attempt to repeal this resolution, all of two weeks ago?

Bitewaldi

21-04-2005, 01:54

Vastiva

21-04-2005, 05:27

All right, we have finally broken the fourth wall. Gods, is this any less ridiculous than the last bitchy attempt to repeal this resolution, all of two weeks ago?

Nope, and it's receiving the same bitchy response.

Hirota

21-04-2005, 08:59

it's OT, but I saw this little snippet from Tek:That being said, I should note to the body of these United Nations, that the representative of the Constitutional Republic of Tekania, is christian; that I most certainly consider homosexuality a sin, and that it is God who will make such judgements in the end. It's something of a pet subject of mine with homosexuality and the bible - I'm not going to go into detail, but in the past I have been able to suggest the bible itself made no mention of homosexuality in the context of a committed, loving relationship - and if anything the bible does suggest examples of a committed loving homosexual relationship and makes no effort to condemn. Of course, it depends which version of the bible you refer to. ;)

Sorry tek, I'm not trying to debunk your faith, but the bible as a piece of material for justification on various positions from my perspective, is pretty poor.

Komokom

21-04-2005, 09:34

Once I finished having a good chuckle at the poll ...

( I mean seriously, you didn't choose a public poll. I mean don't you want to know who wants to force gay marriage rights down your throat ? I know I would. Maybe I and they could start going out as an item or something ... But really, no public poll ? Its like god heard my prayers. Why, I could almost assume from this the voices in my head weren't lying about that. But enough, I have to go set some things on fire now ... hehehe ... )My nation believes that it should be the decision of each individual member State whether or not public opinion supports gay marriage or not.Good, becauses thats a matter of national soverignty, not democracy, anyway.In the Constitutional Monarchy of Imperial Great Britain, we don't believe in universal gay marriage as it discriminates against our popular beliefs, we do however feel that if a nation wishes to embrace gay marriage then they should feel free to do so, but that nation should not impose its beliefs on others.1) I would assume these " discriminates against our popular beliefs " would be that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry, right ? That seems to be what your skirting around anyway with the poor argument of " democracy " of all things, which oldlly enough, is what put those laws where they are now, in the first place. Funny, that.

2) " we do however feel that if a nation wishes to embrace gay marriage then they should feel free to do so " is nice of you to say so, because currently, they can, and, they have to.

3) " but that nation should not impose its beliefs on others " unless the nation is in fact a " direct democracy " and runs all its laws into the books via a vote of absolute majority then the national government is going to be forcing its beliefs on somebody in the nation. That is a nice feeling you have there, but in any socio-poitical reality, or N.S. it does kind of fall apart in application.Therefore we propose to repeal resolution 12, please everyone who supports democracy go to the list of UN proposals and at the end will be @repeal Gay Rights' put your name on it to support it.

1) This is actually nothing to do with " the right to democracy " or what-ever the original weak argument actually was, other then the fact it would utilise a simple democratic process to remove laws that provide equality and protect a minorities civil rights. In effect, your trying to use democracy now to remove something that democracy put in place in the first place. That is where the relation to democracy begins and ends for you, I'm afraid. You really should be trying to use the concept of " National Soverignty ", which is a whole different can of worms I don't wan't to open.

( Because by now I'm pretty sure there are enough counter-arguments to that to put it past its used-by date .. )

2) Actually, only delegates can " put their name on " a repeal. You should appeal to delegates to do this, and request members who read this to inform / petition their delegates.

...

Don't get me wrong, its perfectly valid for you to ask for this to be repealled if that is what you want. I just don't think you''ve used a very good argument at all for it.

Tekania

21-04-2005, 12:36

it's OT, but I saw this little snippet from Tek: It's something of a pet subject of mine with homosexuality and the bible - I'm not going to go into detail, but in the past I have been able to suggest the bible itself made no mention of homosexuality in the context of a committed, loving relationship - and if anything the bible does suggest examples of a committed loving homosexual relationship and makes no effort to condemn. Of course, it depends which version of the bible you refer to. ;)

Sorry tek, I'm not trying to debunk your faith, but the bible as a piece of material for justification on various positions from my perspective, is pretty poor.

OOC:Which I have read up on myself, that interpretive; though I can't find it lining up well with the entirety of the text. That being said, I also don't adhere to the Post-Millenial/Preterist and Pre-Millenial views that christians have been set about to create God's kingdom on earth throug civil operations. I'm amillenialist in my eschatology.

Enn

21-04-2005, 13:56

What do you know, the instant DLE leaves, Komokom shows up again. Pity they can't both be around at the same time.

Powerhungry Chipmunks

21-04-2005, 14:04

1) This is actually nothing to do with " the right to democracy " or what-ever the original weak argument actually was, other then the fact it would utilise a simple democratic process to remove laws that provide equality and protect a minorities civil rights. In effect, your trying to use democracy now to remove something that democracy put in place in the first place. That is where the relation to democracy begins and ends for you, I'm afraid. You really should be trying to use the concept of " National Soverignty ", which is a whole different can of worms I don't wan't to open.

Wait, are you suggesting that some decisions made through the democratic process are more "democratic" than others? Or are you saying that democracy inherently includes civil rights? Or are you just rambling nonsensically?

First, repealing "Gay Rights" neither increases nor decreases the ability for individual nations to legalize/outlaw gay marriage. "Gay Rights" does nothing to UN nations anymore--and, even when it did, it failed to adequately protect gay rights. The arguments of this repeal are plausible if you take it in a context or repealing the resolutions really ensuring gays rights: D of M, Discrimination Accord, Rights of Minorities and Women, Fairness and Equality, The Sexes Rights, and UBR.

And in such a context, the argument for this repeal is valid in appealing to democracy, representation, the decision of the people, etc. The argument is that the UN is too far removed to make an effective decision in an--alleged--uniquely social and cultural issue. If one were to let individual nations determine the legality and benefits afforded gay marriage than it would be more democratic. The decision would be made with respect to individual nation customs and beliefs. The problem with that many people have is that they believe gay marriage to be too fundamental of a human right for individual nations to determine on their own.

To repeal D of M, Discrimination Accord, and UBR, et al, would increase the individual and individual nation's say in government--democracy. It would just do so at the possible expense of civil rights.

I just don't think you''ve used a very good argument at all for it.

On the contrary I believe the argument specified would be quite effective in rallying those against "Gay Rights", as well as ganking a sizable chunk of those who'll go for the 'increase of democracy' part.

I think the problem is that some in the forum have a Right<->Wrong argument fixation--they attempt to judge an argument's merits and effectiveness on how much they think it is right or wrong. When we decide whether we buy into an argument--ourselves--it's within our license to do that (think of the argument in terms of rightness and wrongness), but when we predict how well and argument will work on a whole, legitimately, we can only attempt to predict how others will react to it: based on its rhetorical appeals and effectiveness--removed from our personal views of it. It's why we call Nixon's "Vietnamization" speech "effective" even though many feel it immoral, misleading to the public, and even undermining of free speech.

It's called detachment, objectivity, clinical distance, whatever, but I think it's best to utilize it here (and all proposals, really). In which case, I say this is about the best iteration of National Sovereignty/Democracy argument I've seen yet. Not complete albeit, but it's the best yet. To say that it is not a more effective argument than its predecessors is a fallacy.

Tekania

21-04-2005, 15:20

It's not detachment that is being used here... That's a falacy the Sovereigntists keep trying to convince people the issue is about...

The Sovereigntists argue that it is "furtherment of democracy" in that it grants more power to the individual nation to make democratic descisions... That is the "surface" of the issue, however, that is not the issue at all at its core.

The sovereigntist agruement is that there should be a possession of right to one group/person to tyranize another group/person under arbitrary criteria. Be it moral or religious argument.

IOW: The issue here is that "Gay Rights" interferes with the ability of the state to tyranize a minority of its population based upon the dictates of the leading forces of that state, whether it be by democratic decision (tyrany by majority) or by autocratic means... It is at this point the hypocrisy of their viewpoint surfaces. Because their argument is that the imposition of legislation of this "tyranizes" a state, because it is a majority decision by the overall body of UN nations... Which counter acts the majority decision of a particular member-states populace. As can been seen ,readily, their logic would dictate to them that the act of imposition to prevent tyrany upon anothers actual life is logical, in that, of the two impositions it is the lesser.... As this is the over-rule and "tyrany" upon the conceptual life of one group, to prevent the over-rule and "tyrany" upon the actual life of another. Which is more important, protection of conceptual ideas, or protection of actual situations? Any sain person would see the later is the more important. Just as one can see the difference between protesting an abortion clinic, and actually bombing it; one can also see the difference between protecting the rights of an individual from tyrany; and that of imposing against the rights of an individual in tyrany. One has a right to their beliefs; but in all logical reality, their rights are limited in action; one does not have the right to act upon a belief where this action imposes upon the rights of another. That being said, the "Gay Rights" and other subsequent resolution operate under this principle... People/States certainly have the right to belief that homosexuality is wrong; however, since operation of action upon that belief imposes upon the right of another, they do not logically possess the right to act upon that belief... Which is what the original legislation prevents against.

That being said, I am one of the few who are actually "disconnected" from this issue at heart... possessing personal beliefs in consideration of homosexuality as being "wrong"; I realize the effect of the imposition of this belief, and chose rather, in a responsible manner, to support the view of possession of their rights to equate both. I am disconnected, as I look at the issues based upon how they treat all people, regardless of my personal morality.

That being said, there is no "furtherment" here... Civil rights are most certainly connected to responsible democracy, as the consideration of the whole should always be upon all its members. And that the well-being of the minority should be in the mind of the responsible minority.

The UN makes consideration of this.... The minority Sovereigntists do not in their state operations... Thus the laws, such as this stand, to prevent irresponsible states from imposing tyrany upon minority sections of its population under the guise of responsible government.... The issue here is not right or wrong, but responsibility vs. irresponsibility.... And the rulling here is that governments which impose tyrany upon their minority, are being irresponsible in their place as a government.

The Lost Heroes

21-04-2005, 21:35

I'm a christian... However, being such does not necessitate the backwards step towards romanist views of subjegating the population to God and His laws in the secular world... In fact, such itself goes against the very foundation and principle of Christianity.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Well if you are a christian you must know that it goes against the christian beliefs to be homosexual. And you must also know that since homosexuality is a SIN that gay people will end up in Hell!

Tekania

21-04-2005, 21:48

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Well if you are a christian you must know that it goes against the christian beliefs to be homosexual. And you must also know that since homosexuality is a SIN that gay people will end up in Hell!

"Well if you are a christian you must know that it does against christian beliefs to be homosexual.".... Yes, I do....

"And you must also know that since homosexuality is a SIN that gay people will end up in Hell!".... Yes, as will murderers, blasphemers, harlots, witches, adulterers, lyers, thiefs, the disobedient, etc. etc. etc. etc.

HOWEVER... That has no bearing on gay marriage's legality or illegality in civil law. We are commanded to love the sinner, and to preach and teach, as well as demonstrate christ in OUR lives.... not to legislate christ like some petty pharisee.... DISOBEDIENCE is a sin, "The Lost Heroes" and as such, you are a sinner as well, for not OBEYING God's commandments. You sir, are going to hell, and will be there right next to all those "sinners" you point fingers at, and wish to tyranize... You'll be there right after Christ looks upon you in final judgement and says "I never knew you, get away from me you workers of iniquity...." Maybe you should roll that around in your head for some time; and if so be you are indeed christian, as you claim to be, maybe your spirit will be convicted of your sin, and you will return to Christ.

Powerhungry Chipmunks

22-04-2005, 02:22

It's not detachment that is being used here... That's a falacy the Sovereigntists keep trying to convince people the issue is about...

Huh? Is this in reference to my mention of "detachment"? If so, I'm kind of confused as to how this and the following explanation is related to my statement.

Venerable libertarians

22-04-2005, 02:38

This thread has been rated.

DLEBR = 10

Thank you.

Hirota

22-04-2005, 09:38

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Well if you are a christian you must know that it goes against the christian beliefs to be homosexual. And you must also know that since homosexuality is a SIN that gay people will end up in Hell!

Thats a matter of opinion and who you listen to, and which version of the bible you read from.

I would go into more detail, but I don't want Venerable libertarians to have to go above 10 on his scores for this thread.

Irish_Free_States

22-04-2005, 10:59

"i am not a good debater i do not mean offence with what i write if it is misinterpreted i will try to explain as best as i can."

well i voted for apealing the un resolution because it should be up to the individual nations to decide because it would fit in with the society and religion of that nation especially mine. the UN should respect the culture and beliefs of the nation and why it bans or allows Gay marrage

Hirota

22-04-2005, 11:14

well i voted for apealing the un resolution because it should be up to the individual nations to decide because it would fit in with the society and religion of that nation especially mine. IMO, the UN and a majority of member states generally sees the rights, cultures and beliefs of an Individual above that of the state - which is why you'll see so many UN members unified in opposition to repealling such resolutions.

If you disagree with that perspective, and you are outvoted, you could always resign. <shrugs>

Hirota

22-04-2005, 11:46

another thing, just looking at the title of this discussion: "Repeal 'Gay Rights' for the sake of democracy" - the title itself is misleading!

One of the key concepts of democracy for me is liberty, which allows each individual the greatest amount of freedom consistent with order.

We didn't see order suddenly vanish when this resolution passed, there was no anarchy. So as long as they (homosexuals) are happy, and there is no sudden crime wave or collapse of law and order what is the problem?

Sabreon

22-04-2005, 12:14

The Empire of Sabreon takes the position that the rights of the homosexual community are the same as the rights of all others in Sabreon. They may do as they wish, and like all citizens of Sabreon they will be treated equally according to their tax bracket.

Vastiva

23-04-2005, 05:31

What do you know, the instant DLE leaves, Komokom shows up again. Pity they can't both be around at the same time.

Dum da dum da dum da da - Batman

The Lost Heroes

23-04-2005, 18:04

:cool: Hahaha I just love how my posts get everybody stirred up, too bad they are all the truth :-D

Neo-Anarchists

23-04-2005, 18:14

:cool: Hahaha I just love how my posts get everybody stirred up, too bad they are all the truth :-D
Perhaps you could actually argue your point? Or did you just ignore the refutations of your points?

Waldesia

23-04-2005, 19:18

Vastiva

23-04-2005, 19:39

Tekania

23-04-2005, 19:42

Tyranny of the Left! Our nation should not be forced to allow homosexual deviants be married! It's not like the Roman Church would ever give their holiest blessing to such a union either.

Waldesia supports REPEALING the resolution on homosexual "marriage."

Deviant: (adj) "Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society." (n) "One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards."

Gay Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: Kundu
Description: WHEREAS it has been clearly witnessed there is an outspoken
minority who wish to oppress gays.
We, the People's Republic of Kundu and the other peoples of the world wishing
for the preservation of freedom and the respect of all hereby resolve that all
member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from
discrimination in all parts of life. We also resolve that gay marriages be
protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.
Votes For: 12,705
Votes Against: 7,734

Approval rate: 62%

Sexual Freedom
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: Armstrongonia
Description: What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the
privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is
neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons
(e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).
Votes For: 2,538
Votes Against: 318

Approval Rate: 88%

Definition of Marriage
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights Strength: Mild Proposed by: Vastiva
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

Approval Rate: 61%

Average Approval Relation towards Gay marriage and Gay Rights: 70%

Wouldn't that make you the "deviant"; since it is you who are 'Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society' ?

Waldesia

23-04-2005, 20:42

They are deviating from the Natural Law which has been written in the hearts of men in every age. Regardless, the Emperor has spoken and given his vote.

Hail Waldesia!

Vastiva

23-04-2005, 20:48

They are deviating from the Natural Law which has been written in the hearts of men in every age. Regardless, the Emperor has spoken and given his vote.

Hail Waldesia!

*Vastivan's bisexual Caliph and representative to the UN laughs his head off at that one*

Frisbeeteria

23-04-2005, 21:01

Regardless, the Emperor has spoken and given his vote.
And yet, gays and lesbians continue to get married legally in Waldesia. There is not a thing the Emperor can do about it as long as his nation wears this emblem on its flag:

http://www.nationstates.net/images/un_member.gif

You wanna stop gay marriage in Waldesia? Quit the UN. Until and unless you manage to get those FOUR extremely popular resolutions repealed, you're just going to have to suffer the failure of "Natural Law" to prevent it.

Tekania

23-04-2005, 21:31

They are deviating from the Natural Law which has been written in the hearts of men in every age. Regardless, the Emperor has spoken and given his vote.

Hail Waldesia!

Deviation and deviant are different terms... Homosexuals are not "deviants"... Regardless of whether they are "deviating" from this "Natural Law" you speak of.

That being said, and regardless of personal moral viewpoints on this issue...

The Emporer has no power over this resolution short of deciding to resign from the UN... The Emporer must, and does follow this resolution... And he can do so either willingly, or through clenched teeth, as the UN gnomes come in and rewrite anything he tries to do which deviates from this particular law (Resolution)...

Also, having said that, this is not the only resolution which protects said homosexuals... There are four others which do so either directly, or indirectly. All 4 would have to be repealed for the Emporer to do as he wishes in this matter.

Without "Gay Rights"... The "Definition of Marriage" still protects said homosexuals rights to marry anyone they want to (including other men/women of the same sex)... Even without either of those, consenual sexual acts between persons of the same sex are protected under the "Sexual Freedom" resolution... Even without those, their rights to their own person are protected under the "Universal Freedom of Choice", "Universal Bill of Rights", "Discrimination Accord" and "Rights of Minorities and Women" resolutions...

Bub, you've got alot of repealing to do, to get what you want...

Claverton

23-04-2005, 21:45

OOC: From my personal viewpoint as a Christian, homosexuality is no better or worse than theft, lying, mass murder, laziness, or any other 'sin', as defined by the first 5 books of the Bible. The precedent set by Jesus is tolerance, to accept people for (or despite) who they are, and let God personally remould them as He sees fit. For that reason I dismiss the religious case against homosexuality.

Additionally, a homosexual partnership is equally as wrong as a heterosexual sexual relationship out of marriage, and it is illogical to tolerate unmarried sexual relationships while campaigning against homosexual relationships.
[/OOC]

Tekania

23-04-2005, 22:15

How many of you Liberals who support gays live in France? (No offence :-)) :sniper: :sniper: <--- ??? idk lol im bored

France? where is that? I am in the Constitutional Republic of Tekania....

Claverton

23-04-2005, 22:34

The Duchy of Claverton is a libertarian state, founded on the principle of 'small government', only passing regulations when it has a direct and necessary practical impact, and with biannual reviews to scrap obsolescent regulation. The policy is to attach no legal significance to marriage, partnerships, civil unions, etc., except to outlaw sexual relations below a certain age, and to guarantee a citizen's right to keep details of his/her personal life from his/her employer in the interests of eliminating bias in recruitment/promotion. The requirement to officially endorse certain relationships runs counter to the desires and interests of the Duchy of Claverton.

This is UN Resolution 12 as it currently stands:
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.

The Grand Duchy of Claverton would seek to amend the Resolution 12 to read as follows:

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 as equivalent to heterosexual marriage in the member nations."

The Office of the Duchy of Claverton does not see marriage as being within it's concern, and regrets that membership of the UN is forcing it's hand by insisting on legislation regarding homosexual marriage.

Nergra Rome

24-04-2005, 04:33

Krioval

24-04-2005, 05:29

How utterly ridiculous. If we were to allow these far-rightists the ability to ban same-sex marriage, we'll start down the slippery slope to total state control over every person's life. I mean, next it'll be bans on abortion, gambling, and dancing. Any mindful nation knows that the true intent of these fanatics is to eventually bring all sexual activity under the auspices of the state while simultaneously subjugating all women and relegating them to the status accorded property. Speaking of property, they also want to bring back slavery. Don't let them.

Remember, personal sovereignty is at least as important as national sovereignty. The latter shouldn't be used as a bludgeon against the former.

Director Koro Vartek
Diplomacy and Trade
Armed Republic of Krioval

Vastiva

24-04-2005, 07:19

i support the repeal, but note, it is not that Nergra Rome wishes to see gay marriage banned, we simply wish to makes sure the UN doesn't become corupt[it is our opinion that this decision be left to the nations.] Remember the lessons of Animal Farm.

It is the UN's opinion the UN decide. If you have another opinion, you are free to attempt repeals or leave the UN. Otherwise, you are in compliance with all former resolutions.

Krioval

24-04-2005, 09:04

Very, very OOC:

Honestly, after reading this dreck for what feels like the hundredth time, it's no wonder more committed (pun not completely intended) members of the UN feel the need to take a breather. I'm certainly burnt out on this issue after years of having to defend who I am outside of these types of forums, but more pressing still is the total irrelevance to the game that these sorts of debates almost always have.

There is zero reason, from my OOC perspective, that a nation in the UN is going to have a strong antipathy IC to same-sex marriage if it's been going on for any period of time. The reasoning is simple. The sky hasn't fallen since the licenses were granted, and immorality hasn't suddenly toppled the government and instituted a Reign of Terror. Thus, the societal impetus to reverse the mandatory granting of these licenses has to wane over time. A real-life example of this would be miscegenation (race mixing) laws in the United States. Once interracial marriage was forcibly legalized (Loving v. Virginia, 1963), public opposition began to decline. While approval among a populace may or may not be forthcoming, there is no real effort to undo this change, simply due to society's acceptance that these unions are not causing a "moral collapse". It makes absolutely no sense to claim in one breath that one's nation is morally superior to all others and then claim that same-sex marriage is responsible for a "morals drain" in said country. Krioval doesn't see itself as having a moral crisis, and on issues in which is feels morality is weaker than it should be, Kriovalian governmental officials don't look to issues irrelevant to the cause and effect of the failing. Instead, proactive methods to correct it are examined. I mean, one doesn't typically hear American government officials complaining that racial integration is responsible for current problems in the U.S. (I hope!).

Also, as others have pointed out, there are four resolutions that protect one's right to marry or have sex with another, regardless of biological sex. Obviously, this is an issue that the UN has set an enormous mandate in favor of protecting. Thus, I don't buy the sovereigntists' arguments that the UN shouldn't interfere. Apparently, the UN has been asked four friggin' times whether this should be advanced or not, and four friggin' times the answer has come up in the affirmative. Yet another compelling reason to leave this issue alone, at least for a month or two at a time.

Kriovalian Obnoxiousness Rating (KOR): 10/10
Dear Gods, This Again?! (DGTA): 17/10

Venerable libertarians

24-04-2005, 10:01

OOC.
Kriovalian Obnoxiousness Rating (KOR): 10/10
Dear Gods, This Again?! (DGTA): 17/10

Nice Rating system.

IC. This thread has been Rated

DLEBR = 10

Thank you.

Powerhungry Chipmunks

25-04-2005, 13:47

OOC.

Nice Rating system.

IC. This thread has been Rated

DLEBR = 10

Thank you.

I'm pretty sure you've already rated this thread.

Hirota

25-04-2005, 15:16

just for fun, here is an example I used in an ancient debate on the bible and it's varied stance on homosexuality

Samuel 20:41"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." (NIV)

Other translations have a different ending to the verse:
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded." (King James Version)
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself." (Amplified Bible)
"and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more." (Living Bible)
"They kissed each other and wept together until David got control of himself." (Modern Language)
"They kissed each other and wept aloud together." (New American Bible)
"Then David and Jonathan kissed each other. They cried together, but David cried the most." (New Century Version)
"Then the kissed one another and shed tears together, until David's grief was even greater than Jonathan's." (Revised English Bible)
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David recovered himself." (Revised Standard Version)

The translators of the Living Bible apparently could not handle the thought of two adult men kissing, so they mistranslated the passage by saying that the two men shook hands! This is somewhat less than honest.

Note: The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became great. The word which means "great" in this passage is "gadal" in the original Hebrew. The same word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to King Solomon being greater than all other kings. Some theologians interpret "gadal" in this verse as indicating that David had an erection. However, the thoughts of David becoming sexually aroused after kissing Jonathan is too threatening for Bible translators, so they either deleted the ending entirely or created one of their own.

Alright, I clearly have a distorted sense of fun.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal 'Gay Rights' for the sake of democracy