NationStates Jolt Archive

The great nation of Neoconland has suggested a compromise on the homosexual marriage issue.

Please support this new proposal named Homosexual Marriage, in the interest of religious freedom and tolerance.

Is it all that hard to post your proposals?


Homosexual Marriage
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Neoconland

Description: GIVEN the huge amounts of theists living in the U.N.

UNDERSTANDING their offense over United Nations Resolution #81 "Definition of Marriage"

EMPHAZISING that the word "marriage" has highly religious connotations.

NOTING that religious persecution is not a normal policy of the U.N.

REQUESTING that the definition of marriage be changed to exclude the possibility of homosexual marriages.

SUGGESTING that another term is used to define unions between homosexuals at a later date.


Now to turn bellicose, as Krioval has most eliquently put it before...


Homosexual Marriage
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Already looks bad... Considering their are already several resolutions on the books which have to be repealed first before this can be restricted.


Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Neoconland


Well, at least you have your categories down...


Description: GIVEN the huge amounts of theists living in the U.N.


Wouldn't this be better as "theists living in member-states of the UN" as opposed to living "in" the UN?


UNDERSTANDING their offense over United Nations Resolution #81 "Definition of Marriage"


Being that I am a theist I cannot see how it is offensive...


EMPHAZISING that the word "marriage" has highly religious connotations.


It also has civil connotations outside of religion... Your point?


NOTING that religious persecution is not a normal policy of the U.N.


I have seen nothing in the UN which persecutes any religion in particular...


REQUESTING that the definition of marriage be changed to exclude the possibility of homosexual marriages.

No... Why should it?


SUGGESTING that another term is used to define unions between homosexuals at a later date.


Why should another term be used? Marriage is a contractural familial union between two or more persons... Seems as applicable whether they be homosexual, heterosexal, xenosexual or whatever...

You raise many good points.


Being that I am a theist I cannot see how it is offensive...

Understood, but I don't think you claim to hold the same beliefs as every theist in nation states.

It also has civil connotations outside of religion... Your point?

It also has religious connotation. Religious terms tend to mean far more to people then civil terms.

I have seen nothing in the UN which persecutes any religion in particular...

This is a direct insult to many religions, if you cannot see that you are being ignorant.

The "Definition of Marriage" resolution legitimises homosexual marriage and in effect says that those who are opposed to such a notion are wrong. Being that the U.N. is a body that holds itself as a moral one, to say something is wrong is also to say it's immoral. Calling a deeply held belief immoral is surely insulting

No... Why should it?

Another term may be used just as easily, with no offence to anyone.

Say it loud, say it proud:

Illegal proposal! This is so illegal that it makes snorting coke off an intoxicated chimpanzee while repeatedly striking it with a bullwhip and demanding that it "take it and like it, bitch" on the streets of Torokara looks almost legal by comparison. Not to mention that there's already another thread that deals with this issue that's on the front page of the NSUN.

In closing, further mention of this flagrant display of ignorance in decent company will result in Neoconland being invaded, partitioned however proves most inconvenient for the local populace, and all men will be shipped to Torokara where they will be forced to endure total celibacy until the idea of sleeping with Raijin or one of the Directors becomes a welcome concept, if only to relieve their frustration. We would do this because our religion stipulates its propriety in situations such as these.

High Priest Koro, the Strong
High Paladin Raijin, the Light
Armed Republic of Krioval
----------------
OOC: Don't submit illegal proposals, which are defined in the stickies. Further, don't submit illegal proposals and start yet another thread on a subject still active on the front page. This is a good way to lose credibility very quickly. That said, the above (IC) bit is exactly that - in character. Take it as seriously as you'd like.

A direct insult to our nation!

We shall not stand for this! If it is war you want, then it is war you shall have!

A direct insult to our nation!

We shall not stand for this! If it is war you want, then it is war you shall have!

Calm down, little man. Your population is about a fiftieth of ours, and that's not factoring in our technology. Take a breath. It's not like Krioval is of the habit of invading and conquering people for reasons like this, anyway. But it should show the silliness of pushing something like anti-same-sex marriage here when it's been affirmed many times by resounding mandates.

I just wanted to take the time to show the ridiculous lengths that religious justification can be extended to. Kriovalian polytheistic faith emphasizes the importance of sexual expression, and many of the Gods are known to be involved in same-sex relationships (amongst themselves). So it makes little sense for one nation's faith to be justified over another - the marriage question was resolved solely using secular cases and scientific reasoning in Krioval. Of course, it was never a hot-button issue in our country, but at the same time, scientists decided to address it to put any fears to rest, and they did so. Sexual orientation is what it is, and whatever people do behind closed doors is of no consequence to the government or dominant faith of Krioval.

~ Raijin Dekker

I'm glad you've decided to stand down from your threat of invasion. You may have numbers, but nothing can replace having God on your side.

I just wanted to take the time to show the ridiculous lengths that religious justification can be extended to. Kriovalian polytheistic faith emphasizes the importance of sexual expression, and many of the Gods are known to be involved in same-sex relationships (amongst themselves). So it makes little sense for one nation's faith to be justified over another - the marriage question was resolved solely using secular cases and scientific reasoning in Krioval. Of course, it was never a hot-button issue in our country, but at the same time, scientists decided to address it to put any fears to rest, and they did so. Sexual orientation is what it is, and whatever people do behind closed doors is of no consequence to the government or dominant faith of Krioval.
So instead you suggest submitting your religious ideals onto others.

I am not proposing this, and have even added in a note for the possibility of a different term for homosexual marriage, despite my own disagreements with the idea. It can not be made more fair then that.

Also, your claim that people may do whatever they wish behind closed doors suggests a few things.
1. You are in favour of pedophilia
2. You are in favour of rape
3. You are in favour of bestiality

If you are opposed to these then what right do you claim to say these things are bad but those are not. And to reiterate even though we believe it bad, we are willing to let it continue, just without the offence to religion that is in the use of the term "marriage".

I'm glad you've decided to stand down from your threat of invasion. You may have numbers, but nothing can replace having God on your side.

Stop being an insufferable twit. I could push a button that would annihilate your entire nation. Besides, I have eleven Gods on my side to your one. Neener neener.

So instead you suggest submitting your religious ideals onto others.

Is literacy a foreign concept here? I said that science determined that there were no detrimental effects of any sexual orientation. Since our scientists didn't have a religious axe to grind in the first place, and the data were double-blinded, the results are conclusive that orientation plays little effect on one's ability to function wholly in society. As it turned out, heterosexual men were actually at the highest risk for developmental aberrations when compared to women, or homosexual/bisexual men, at least in Krioval. This leads one to find that it's a society that creates and reinforces ideas that there are massive differences between people of different orientations. Now, did I mention the commentary of religious officials in this paragraph?

I am not proposing this, and have even added in a note for the possibility of a different term for homosexual marriage, despite my own disagreements with the idea. It can not be made more fair then that.

Separate but equal is not equal. Your religious institutions don't have to award religious marriage to anybody they wish to exclude. Your government, however, must allow civil marriage licenses to anybody who applies for them, as per NSUN resolutions (assuming for the moment that you are a UN member). It can't be made more fair than it already is.

You raise many good points.


Understood, but I don't think you claim to hold the same beliefs as every theist in nation states.

Maybe, maybe not... All I can gurantee is that I am not a theonomist.


It also has religious connotation. Religious terms tend to mean far more to people then civil terms.

Religious terms and civil terms have no business mixing with one another... To do so, is in effect lending specific rights to one particular religious viewpoint at the expense of all others...Thus, legal terminolgy is choosen based upon legal operations of the state... Religions may use such terminolgy for their own internal matters all they like...


This is a direct insult to many religions, if you cannot see that you are being ignorant.

No, I see it as a basis of fact. That is persecution is the act whereby people are "oppressed" on the basis of race or religion... To oppress is "to keep down by undue force or violence". In no way has this resolution "oppressed" in the true sense, anyone of religious beliefs.... Appearantly you have some odd exotic definition of "oppression" and "persecution" that includes merely "not getting your way"....


The "Definition of Marriage" resolution legitimises homosexual marriage and in effect says that those who are opposed to such a notion are wrong. Being that the U.N. is a body that holds itself as a moral one, to say something is wrong is also to say it's immoral. Calling a deeply held belief immoral is surely insulting

Right and wrong are such subjective terms... No.. The resolution does not say they are wrong... It merely says that to discriminate based upon that is wrong... And ensures said individuals rights are protected. No where does it require these religious institutions to accept such, nor does it mandate that they perform such... Personally, I'd be much more comfortable if the states had the power of marriage removed from their authority, and have it placed back into the realm of Common Law where it rightly belongs... But since tyranical regimes have insisted over the centuries of controling the institution. It has become our job, in representation, to ensure that the undue exercize of this power is restrained so that people may carry on their lives in equity...


Another term may be used just as easily, with no offence to anyone.

Why use a different "term" if its still the same damn thing? Marriage is marriage is marriage... even if you "labled" it something else, it would be the same damn thing... A MARRIAGE... A CONTRACTURAL FAMILIAL UNION... The legal binding of two or more persons into a single legal entity...

For theists you certainly spend alot of time screwing other people in the ass.... I guess it is ok as long as it is theoretical screwing instead of actual...

Stop being an insufferable twit. I could push a button that would annihilate your entire nation. Besides, I have eleven Gods on my side to your one. Neener neener.

::laughs::

We fear nothing from false gods. Nor does your threat of button-pushing scare us.

Separate but equal is not equal. Your religious institutions don't have to award religious marriage to anybody they wish to exclude. Your government, however, must allow civil marriage licenses to anybody who applies for them, as per NSUN resolutions (assuming for the moment that you are a UN member). It can't be made more fair than it already is.

I disagree, seperation is sometimes needed for equality.

The rich are taxed more because they have more.
Women are giving allowances from emplyoment for pregnancies that men do not recieve.
Adults may do things children can not, and rightly so.

Painting everything with the same brush is foolish.

Religious terms and civil terms have no business mixing with one another... To do so, is in effect lending specific rights to one particular religious viewpoint at the expense of all others...Thus, legal terminolgy is choosen based upon legal operations of the state... Religions may use such terminolgy for their own internal matters all they like...

We have many nations within the U.N. where the religion is indistinguishable from the state. Neoconland is such a state.
No, I see it as a basis of fact. That is persecution is the act whereby people are "oppressed" on the basis of race or religion... To oppress is "to keep down by undue force or violence". In no way has this resolution "oppressed" in the true sense, anyone of religious beliefs.... Appearantly you have some odd exotic definition of "oppression" and "persecution" that includes merely "not getting your way"....

Let us not get caught up semantics. This opresses the deeply held religious belief of those who feel marriage is a spiritual term which should not be desecrated by the state. This is no worse then forcing chruches to marry homosexuals, as it is the state taking something that belongs to religion and using it in a way that contradicts their beliefs.

What I am trying to offer is a compromise. It is not perfect for either side, but it is bearable.

If many of you opened your minds on issues like this and tried to compromise the U.N. would be far more effective.

::laughs::

We fear nothing from false gods. Nor does your threat of button-pushing scare us.

Too bad... I know Krioval... have seen his race, and his internal operations... A warrior culture... and FFT at that.

We may revise our threat estimate of your relatively primitive civilization once you have developed the capability of reaching our respective realms... Or developed weapon technologies close to ours.... At that, we have several centuries to await such...


We have many nations within the U.N. where the religion is indistinguishable from the state. Neoconland is such a state.

Not our concern.... Ours is with the Freedom of Religion.. and the wedge international law has beset between the state and religious domination of its populace through sucessive resolutions.


Let us not get caught up semantics. This opresses the deeply held religious belief of those who feel marriage is a spiritual term which should not be desecrated by the state. This is no worse then forcing chruches to marry homosexuals, as it is the state taking something that belongs to religion and using it in a way that contradicts their beliefs.

If it is a term not to be "desecrated by the state" then why are states legislating marriage in the first place? Why not leave it in the hands of the people where it originally belonged?

Sorry, but it is you Romanists who handed this power to the state to begin with... And now, in light of it, the state has to make its own decisions on the matter... If that was really an issue... States would not legislate it... Just as the Constitutional Republic does not legislate it... and gives such to the determination of the individuals through contractural common-law.


What I am trying to offer is a compromise. It is not perfect for either side, but it is bearable.


Compromise? What compromise? By giving the term marriage a new synonym to apply to people who do not fit a particular religions definition? I'm sorry, but this institution is not here to defend your particular religious beliefs... And provide your religions protections which are not applied to others...


If many of you opened your minds on issues like this and tried to compromise the U.N. would be far more effective.

This was a compromise... The NSUN decided to ensure everyones rights were protected equally... This resolution ensures that. Religions may do as they please, and the people outside of those religions may continue as they please... Without oppression... The simple fact, pion, is that you cannot force your religious beliefs upon others... If you want to, the resign button is located on the entrance to the NSUN, and you can exercize it to your desire...

Too bad... I know Krioval... have seen his race, and his internal operations... A warrior culture... and FFT at that.

We may revise our threat estimate of your relatively primitive civilization once you have developed the capability of reaching our respective realms... Or developed weapon technologies close to ours.... At that, we have several centuries to await such...

These constant threats are becoming tiring. We have made none, yet you warn us of Krioval's "warrior culture". Is this the nature of the U.N., to inform the weaker nations they should be quiet when being threatened by the stronger ones.

Neoconland will not forget the bullies of the U.N., nor will the Lord.

Not our concern.... Ours is with the Freedom of Religion.. and the wedge international law has beset between the state and religious domination of its populace through sucessive resolutions.

We offer freedom from religion. Homosexuals may still have unions. It makes no difference to them what they are called. But since it makes a difference to religious people, the U.N. should lsiten to their concerns.

Compromise? What compromise? By giving the term marriage a new synonym to apply to people who do not fit a particular religions definition? I'm sorry, but this institution is not here to defend your particular religious beliefs... And provide your religions protections which are not applied to others...

Precisely the point, I believe. You do not believe in defending the religious beliefs of the people. Which is sad, considering how important religious beliefs are to the people.

These constant threats are becoming tiring. We have made none, yet you warn us of Krioval's "warrior culture". Is this the nature of the U.N., to inform the weaker nations they should be quiet when being threatened by the stronger ones.

Neoconland will not forget the bullies of the U.N., nor will the Lord.


I was merely warning of Krioval... I have no interest in invading you tiny nation-state... It is too many lightyears out of the way... And we are presently in the middle of a civil war with one of our constitutent Dominions whose population alone is 5 times your own size...


We offer freedom from religion. Homosexuals may still have unions. It makes no difference to them what they are called. But since it makes a difference to religious people, the U.N. should lsiten to their concerns.[/qupte]


I said freedom of religion... not from.

And we did listen to their concerns... In no way have we mandated religious institution to perform homosexual unions which may be contrary to their beliefs... However, that in no way means we will not allow them marriage outside of said religious institutions. The Institutions are not forced, by any means, by this Body to perform such; however, states are required to protect their rights as such in this matter.... If you like, I'm sure we can outlaw marriage, just call it all civil unions even though its the same damn thing... That will, of course, mean that there will no longer be any marriage everyone will have civil unions.... Seems abit rediculous doesn't it? To be fair, we just call it "marriage" because that is what it is. If the particular religious institution wants no part of it, fine.... however.... they still have the rights as such, and thus the state should ensure its availability.


Precisely the point, I believe. You do not believe in defending the religious beliefs of the people. Which is sad, considering how important religious beliefs are to the people.

I do defend the religious beliefs of the people.... HOW-fucking-EVER...I do not defend one groups religious beliefs at the expense of anothers... Which is precisely what you want to do...

Some religious institutions perform homosexual marriage ceremonies, some do not... some people, regardless of homosexuality/heterosexuality/xenosexuality have their ceremonies performed by institutions, others do it in private...

I see no reason for the NSUN to stoop to your level of pettyness.... Everything is fair and equal as it stands at present...

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; (emphasis ours)

Neoconland's proposal is an illegal disgrace. Also, you bring in religion, which is completely irrelevant to marriage, as it is not a religious institution.

In Fass, it has never been, and your illegal resolution would also try to force upon us to acknowledge religion and allow it within our government. Hence, we will not only not give you support in this in illegal matter, but we will counteract your puny nation in any way necessary.

Is this the nature of the U.N., to inform the weaker nations they should be quiet when being threatened by the stronger ones.

It is the nature of Krioval to deflect idiotic proposals from weak nations who seek to impose their minority opinions grounded in prejudice on stronger nations. That we deflect with threats of force is immaterial, we could, and may at any time, invade and subjugate your entire population simply as an afternoon diversion. This is a simple fact. That you feel threatened by Krioval is indicative more of your own position than of ours.

Homosexuals may still have unions. It makes no difference to them what they are called.

Since when do you speak for all homosexual persons? You certainly don't speak for the Commander of Krioval, several of his Directors, or many Kriovalian citizens, let alone the masses of homosexual persons living in other nations who have disagreed with your position quite vocally. Is lying still a Christian sin?

You do not believe in defending the religious beliefs of the people. Which is sad, considering how important religious beliefs are to the people.

If, to your people, it is more important to embrace religious bigotry than to follow the rules and regulations of the NSUN, please feel free to resign from this organization. Otherwise, learn to accept that your views on this matter will likely never be realized, and deal with that.

I was merely warning of Krioval... I have no interest in invading you tiny nation-state... It is too many lightyears out of the way... And we are presently in the middle of a civil war with one of our constitutent Dominions whose population alone is 5 times your own size...

A warning? A warning to me? You have no interest in invading my tiny nation-state? How kind of you.


And we did listen to their concerns... In no way have we mandated religious institution to perform homosexual unions which may be contrary to their beliefs... However, that in no way means we will not allow them marriage outside of said religious institutions. The Institutions are not forced, by any means, by this Body to perform such; however, states are required to protect their rights as such in this matter.... If you like, I'm sure we can outlaw marriage, just call it all civil unions even though its the same damn thing... That will, of course, mean that there will no longer be any marriage everyone will have civil unions.... Seems abit rediculous doesn't it? To be fair, we just call it "marriage" because that is what it is. If the particular religious institution wants no part of it, fine.... however.... they still have the rights as such, and thus the state should ensure its availability.

You fail to grasp that you are deciding what is an offense to religious people, when I am telling you what it is. This is not some fringe ideology, the fact that this issue comes up so often is proof of that. There would be the added benifit of the U.N. no longer being cluttered by these proposals.

I think outlawing marriage as a civil term is excellent, and replacing it with civil union. Then marriages can be left up to the chuches, and everything will be settled. See? COMPROMISE.

It is the nature of Krioval to deflect idiotic proposals from weak nations who seek to impose their minority opinions grounded in prejudice on stronger nations. That we deflect with threats of force is immaterial, we could, and may at any time, invade and subjugate your entire population simply as an afternoon diversion. This is a simple fact. That you feel threatened by Krioval is indicative more of your own position than of ours.

We have told you before that we do not fear your threats. The fact that you are forced to resort to them in a political discussion when you do not agree with what you are hearing is indicative of your character.

"I do not agree with what yo say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Since when do you speak for all homosexual persons? You certainly don't speak for the Commander of Krioval, several of his Directors, or many Kriovalian citizens, let alone the masses of homosexual persons living in other nations who have disagreed with your position quite vocally. Is lying still a Christian sin?

I know that the term marriage simply doesn't have as strong an importance to homosexuals as it does to religious people.

If, to your people, it is more important to embrace religious bigotry than to follow the rules and regulations of the NSUN, please feel free to resign from this organization. Otherwise, learn to accept that your views on this matter will likely never be realized, and deal with that.

Religious bigotry? Ridiculous.

Despite whatever our beliefs are, we are still offering that homosexuals have all the same freedoms. We are far more moderate then many of the people on our side of the discussion. And we have even agreed for there to be no seperation, to name everything a civil union.

But that can only happen if we truely believe in protection of religious beliefs. We must all work together to repeal the ridiculous legislation which offends many religious people, and to bring in this new term.

The difference may seem slight to you, but you are dealing with people who believe their immortal souls lie on this fact. Surely for them we can agree to a change.

I, Blue Kipper oppose gay marriages. people may talk all they want about how this is discrimination against homosexual couples wanting to announce their happiness to the world. However, one must state the following.

If God created man and women to be together in holy matrimony, then why should gay couples exist? Is it what God wants? No. In the Bible, it clearly states that sexual relations with any member of the same sex is a sin and will be condemned by God, in fact any sexual relations outside of a marriage, technically is a sin.

Marriage is an outward sign of a couple's love for one another, and in my opinion, it should stay as men and women in holy marriage, just as the Creator of this Earth wanted it to be.

I, Blue Kipper oppose gay marriages. people may talk all they want about how this is discrimination against homosexual couples wanting to announce their happiness to the world. However, one must state the following.

If God created man and women to be together in holy matrimony, then why should gay couples exist? Is it what God wants? No. In the Bible, it clearly states that sexual relations with any member of the same sex is a sin and will be condemned by God, in fact any sexual relations outside of a marriage, technically is a sin.

Marriage is an outward sign of a couple's love for one another, and in my opinion, it should stay as men and women in holy marriage, just as the Creator of this Earth wanted it to be.

Nobody cares about your deity.

Must we deal with these immature responses towards religion? On top of this, afterwards we are the ones called bigots.

Sorry. I didn't mean to sound overly-religious, it is just that this matter is sensitive to me, and I feel as part of the UN I have the freedom to speak on the matter. If no-one wants to hear it, fine. That's your choice. I'm just speaking my mind.

Sorry. I didn't mean to sound overly-religious, it is just that this matter is sensitive to me, and I feel as part of the UN I have the freedom to speak on the matter. If no-one wants to hear it, fine. That's your choice. I'm just speaking my mind.

Please make what you say relevant. Religion isn't.

A warning? A warning to me? You have no interest in invading my tiny nation-state? How kind of you.

You're welcomed....


You fail to grasp that you are deciding what is an offense to religious people, when I am telling you what it is. This is not some fringe ideology, the fact that this issue comes up so often is proof of that. There would be the added benifit of the U.N. no longer being cluttered by these proposals.

One persons rights end where anothers begin.... Once you have recognized that point, there can be dialogue...

I am deciding what is fair to all parties... I am not saying that they can not take offense, or disagree with what said persons are doing... Or that others can violate the liberties of those who are a party of said religious institutions to their personal morality... However... they cannot impose said morality on another party...


I think outlawing marriage as a civil term is excellent, and replacing it with civil union. Then marriages can be left up to the chuches, and everything will be settled. See? COMPROMISE.

I said outlawing marriage period... You form a synonym to it, which is the same thing... The point is... no ones rights are violated in this...


But that can only happen if we truely believe in protection of religious beliefs. We must all work together to repeal the ridiculous legislation which offends many religious people, and to bring in this new term.

The difference may seem slight to you, but you are dealing with people who believe their immortal souls lie on this fact. Surely for them we can agree to a change.

Protection of religious beliefs has no basis what-so-ever on whether the decision offends anyone in particular. This is what can't seem to make it through the several trillion metric tons of solid granite you call your skull...

No ones "immortal soul" lies on the fact of whether or not two homosexuals get married, except the homosexuals getting married... Someone elses immortal soul is not effected what-so-ever by what enactments the state does or does not do. Regardless of whether it is legal or illegal... If a homosexual is a sinner, they will answer to God.... To God...not to you, or your private religious institution....

Their beliefs are protected, they are allowed to consider homosexuality a sin if they like.... However, they are not allowed to impose this belief upon others... There is it imposition... Altering of the term has no bearing on this... Homosexuals are allowed marriage because it is FAIR AND EQUAL TREATMENT... Get that through your head... It is no way preventing your own personal morality... It is not oppressive... It is fair...

At this point the Constitutional Republic of Tekania is thru with this.... The NSUN resolution stands... And I'm sure we can open dialogue again with the Theonomist heretics of Neoconland once they have pulled their collective heads out of their ass....

How is religion not relevant? How do you explain the creation of the entire Earth, and the development of mankind? Religion is everything these days. It is people like yourself that have caused the modern-day decline of the Church and religion in general. And if religion is irrelevant, how come 2 billion people worldwide worship the same God?

I'm sorry if I sound angry, and I should probably calm down. But that statement really does get me wound up.

Religion is highly relevant to many people.

You're abusive attitude towards it shows you have been brainwashed by the media. You see religion represented only by the fanatics, and the reasoned religious people are tainted by this view in your eyes.

You fail to realise all the good that comes from religion.

Religion is highly relevant to many people.

You're abusive attitude towards it shows you have been brainwashed by the media. You see religion represented only by the fanatics, and the reasoned religious people are tainted by this view in your eyes.

You fail to realise all the good that comes from religion.

Nicely put. It seems that religious types these days seem brainwashed by the media's interpretation of religion. If one wants to remain secular, that's his choice. But he has to respect the decision of others. Something that often does not happen in this world we live in today.

How is religion not relevant? How do you explain the creation of the entire Earth, and the development of mankind?

With science, and not fairytales.

Religion is everything these days. It is people like yourself that have caused the modern-day decline of the Church and religion in general. And if religion is irrelevant, how come 2 billion people worldwide worship the same God?

I wish they were that few. You fail to realise that Fass has a population of 1.2-1.3 billion. There are nations with populations in the 4-5 billion range. 2 billion people fails to impress me. And none the less, just because 2 billion believe in a particular deity does not make that deity in any way relevant to this discussion.

I'm sorry if I sound angry, and I should probably calm down. But that statement really does get me wound up.

Religion is irrelevant. Marriage, as per the "definition of marriage" resolution is a civil union. Religion has nothing to do with the legal contract between two people that is marriage.

Religion is highly relevant to many people.

That doesn't make it relevant to this discussion.

You're abusive attitude towards it shows you have been brainwashed by the media. You see religion represented only by the fanatics, and the reasoned religious people are tainted by this view in your eyes.

Fassian media do not portray religion very often.

You fail to realise all the good that comes from religion.

You are irrelevantly trying to use it to cause badness, and thus I am left unconvinced of its pertinence.

With science, and not fairytales.



I wish they were that few. You fail to realise that Fass has a population of 1.2-1.3 billion. There are nations with populations in the 4-5 billion range. 2 billion people fails to impress me. And none the less, just because 2 billion believe in a particular deity does not make that deity in any way relevant to this discussion.



Religion is irrelevant. Marriage, as per the "definition of marriage" resolution is a civil union. Religion has nothing to do with the legal contract between two people that is marriage.

So the church ceremony has nothing to do with it hm?

It is obvious we're never going to agree at all on this subject. I'd best just leave you to your own opinion and me to my own. JUst ask yourself when your country is so morally declined just why it is that way.

So the church ceremony has nothing to do with it hm?

These "churches" have something to do with religion, I presume. Oh, and nope. Your religion can bless you how many time it wishes. You will not be married until you sign a contract. Oh, and in Fass, only Government appointed personnel can perform the legally binding ceremony.

It is obvious we're never going to agree at all on this subject. I'd best just leave you to your own opinion and me to my own. JUst ask yourself when your country is so morally declined just why it is that way.

Morality is not dependant on fairytales. Fassians are fully capable of acting ethically without being threatened with some boogeyman in the sky, or earth, or water, or nothingness, or what have you.

Separate but equal has never been a policy of ours.


The concept seems strange to us.

We have told you before that we do not fear your threats. The fact that you are forced to resort to them in a political discussion when you do not agree with what you are hearing is indicative of your character.

It absolutely is. My character is one that brooks no bullshit. I've never pretended to be some altruistic being consumed by benevolent grace; that'd take all the fun away from 'SMACK! I'm bigger than you', now wouldn't it? Part of diplomacy is learning when you're completely outclassed. I've managed to disagree civilly with nations larger than myself and thus avoid being smacked down. Learn it - love it.

"I do not agree with what yo say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

And this is relevant to me how? Krioval's motto is "Valiyos, be Strong!" Since 'valiyos' refers to an equal, and 'strong' refers to, well, strength, it's not the same thing, now is it. How about "You do not agree with what I say, but I'll defend to your death my right to say it"?

I know that the term marriage simply doesn't have as strong an importance to homosexuals as it does to religious people.

This is too funny. I introduce, for the benefit of all sane nations, the following examples of how my 'colleague' is completely full of shit:

Commander Raijin Dekker, High Paladin of Krioval - exclusively homosexual
Director Koro Vartek, High Priest of Krioval - exclusively homosexual

In other words, the two people occupying the highest religious offices in Krioval, and representing a faith encompassing approximately 480 million Kriovalians, are gay. Gay and religious. I submit that your claims are devoid of truth and your false dichotomy between gays and religious people is centered on your faith, not mine.

Religious bigotry? Ridiculous.

I agree. Your religious bigotry is ridiculous.

We are far more moderate then many of the people on our side of the discussion.

Irrelevant.

And we have even agreed for there to be no seperation, to name everything a civil union.

You can already do so. Krioval calls the government license a "civil marriage".

But that can only happen if we truely believe in protection of religious beliefs.

Religious beliefs are already protected. What is not expressly protected is categorizing others as 'second-class' citizens due to those beliefs. The NSUN does not allow that.

Homosexual relations occur in animals, therefore in nature. Is nature wrong? Is science wrong? All because you beleive that it is? I'm sorry, but I'm sick and tired of fellow Christians clogging up everyones veiws of us. I am a Christian. I belive Gay Marriages should be allowed. Whoops! There goes your assumption that ALL Christians think homosexuals shouldn't marry. The Commonwealth of UberPenguinLand will withdraw from the NSUN if this IS passed, as it is an obvious violation of Civil Rights. 'EVERYONE is equal.', not 'Everyone is equal, except for that guy over there, because he doesn't act like everyone else.'
A majority of UN members decided that homosexuals should be allowed to marry.
Your religion doesn't give your vote any more importance than the others.

OOC: Sorry if that was confusing. I'm not 100% awake right now.

OOC:

As an aside, I would have probably given this a far weaker opening salvo if the proposal weren't blatantly illegal. Just FEI*.

* For Everybody's Information

The Queendom of Teithril refuses to accept the definition of marriage as only that of a man and a woman. Marriages in our nation are not legal in our state until a civil marriage license is obtained. Even if the couple (hetero or homo) have a religious ceremony (our state church allows gay marriage for our Goddess loves all her children) the marriage is not legal without the license.

As Queen and High Priestess, I see no reason why religion should be mixed with govermental policy, both my coexist with no conflict. However, if you goverment does not keep that separation and you are unhappy with the UN's "definition of marriage", what is keeping you in the UN? Obviously, many Nations realize that there is a need for this resolution. If you do not like it then you should leave the UN and run your country the way you see fit.

Also, applying religion to an agruement against a civil matter really is irrelavent.

Say it loud, say it proud:

Illegal proposal! This is so illegal that it makes snorting coke off an intoxicated chimpanzee while repeatedly striking it with a bullwhip and demanding that it "take it and like it, bitch" on the streets of Torokara looks almost legal by comparison. Not to mention that there's already another thread that deals with this issue that's on the front page of the NSUN.

In closing, further mention of this flagrant display of ignorance in decent company will result in Neoconland being invaded, partitioned however proves most inconvenient for the local populace, and all men will be shipped to Torokara where they will be forced to endure total celibacy until the idea of sleeping with Raijin or one of the Directors becomes a welcome concept, if only to relieve their frustration. We would do this because our religion stipulates its propriety in situations such as these.

High Priest Koro, the Strong
High Paladin Raijin, the Light
Armed Republic of Krioval
----------------
OOC: Don't submit illegal proposals, which are defined in the stickies. Further, don't submit illegal proposals and start yet another thread on a subject still active on the front page. This is a good way to lose credibility very quickly. That said, the above (IC) bit is exactly that - in character. Take it as seriously as you'd like.

OOC: Man, I love harping on these!

IC:
While it may be an illegal proposal, I applaud Neoconland's dedication, and I can only pity the attempt at humor made by the one who calls himself "High Paladin Raijin, the Light." May I remind you all that nothing is more criminal than codifying deviant sexual behavior before the eyes of our Lord and Savior.

--Welsh

Welsh, while I can empathize with the difficulty that is inherent in being a self-loathing closet homosexual, as evidenced by your constant applications to lead a 'diplomatic delegation' to Torokara, I cannot forsake honor and truth by allowing myself to be manipulated into such a relationship with you. I already have enough men who would willingly give themselves to me at a moment's notice as it is. And please stop calling. The time difference between Sidestreamer and Krioval is eight hours, and I cannot keep taking time out of my busy day to listen to you cry yourself to sleep every night. Just admit that you like guys, and get on with life.

Lord Raijin Dekker, the Light
Commander and High Paladin of Krioval
-----------------
"Oops," Raijin said, looking down at the communications console. "Looks like I hit 'send to all'. Well, the media should be getting this in about twenty seconds. For the best, probably." Considering his options, the Commander then brought up a file, hit 'attach', and sent a big-head caricature of Welsh with a speech bubble containing a rather explicit 'love letter' to the Kriovalian.

"Hey, Raijin, what's going on up here?"

"Ah, High Priest Koro. I just committed an evil act." The Commander showed his handiwork to the younger man.

"All can be forgiven," Koro said in mock-seriousness before dissolving into a fit of giggles.

Some excellent points have been made by both sides in this discussion. While the Holy Republic of Saint Uriel strongly supports Neoconland's proposal, our support is not primarily due to our status as a Roman Catholic nation subjecting itself to the rule of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. Our support mainly stems from our conviction that UN resolutions which limit a nation's sovereignity in fundamental ways are a slippery slope. You see some of the proposals currently being considered? A one-world army, DMV reform act, gun rights freedoms revoked - whether you agree or disagree on the individual issues, the point is that these proposal encroach on a nation's right to rule itself without undue outside interference.

The UN has proved, in the past, to be an excellent vehicle to improve life for all our citizens. Many altruistic and benevolent resolutions, such as improving health care, protecting children, and safeguarding our environment. Forcing nations to recognise homosexual marriage, however, is not one of these. Marriage, as has been debated above, is not strictly a legal or religious state, but in most NationStates, it is both. This is certainly the case in Saint Uriel. We would ask that all NationStates please consider this repeal carefully and prayfully. Even if homosexuality is perfectly acceptable in your nation, or if your nation is completely atheistic, please do not make us sacrifice our national sovereignty in order to remain a part of the UN. Thank you.

OCC: Saint Uriel was a UN member, but thanks to the 20hr reset, I'm now back in the applying for membership status.

Our support mainly stems from our conviction that UN resolutions which limit a nation's sovereignity in fundamental ways are a slippery slope. You see some of the proposals currently being considered?

The delegation from Krioval would like to remind its counterpart from Saint Uriel that the NSUN exists specifically to limit national sovereignty in a variety of issues. Quite frankly, that's why we're all here. I would ask your delegation to take a look at the resolutions passed and ask, honestly, which do not restrict national sovereignty in some way. Mind, that doesn't mean that every restriction on national sovereignty is positive, but that national sovereignty is not by itself a compelling reason to oppose an otherwise strong proposal. The 'slippery slope' has already been traveled.

A one-world army

Illegal proposal - it will never come to pass.

DMV reform act

Unlikely to garner sufficient support due to narrowness of focus.

gun rights freedoms revoked

Won't see the light of day.

The UN has proved, in the past, to be an excellent vehicle to improve life for all our citizens. Many altruistic and benevolent resolutions, such as improving health care, protecting children, and safeguarding our environment.

All of these resolutions interfere with a nation's 'right to rule as it wishes', however. So essentially, what Krioval hears from its counterpart from Saint Uriel is that some infringements on national sovereignty are acceptable while others are not, yet at the same time, we hear that any breach of national sovereignty is unpalatable to Saint Uriel. Please pick a single side from which to argue. Fence straddling and hypocrisy are not endearing to our delegation, and while we may not espouse such lofty moral qualities as some would like, we are internally consistent.

Forcing nations to recognise homosexual marriage, however, is not one of these. Marriage, as has been debated above, is not strictly a legal or religious state, but in most NationStates, it is both. This is certainly the case in Saint Uriel.

Funny, it's usually like that in Krioval as well, though it's not mandated as such, to protect the rights of our populace to enjoy the right to combine property without having to spring for a temple wedding.

We would ask that all NationStates please consider this repeal carefully and prayfully. (emphasis mine)

How to alienate entire groups of nations in one sentence. Well done, considering that in the next sentence, you ask that atheistic nations respect you. Krioval is polytheist; some proponents of allowing same-sex marriage are predominantly Christian, for that matter. Not everybody pushing for civil liberties of this type are 'atheistic'. Your argument has failed.

The delegation from Krioval would like to remind its counterpart from Saint Uriel that the NSUN exists specifically to limit national sovereignty in a variety of issues. Quite frankly, that's why we're all here. .

We never recalled seeing that the purpose of the NSUN was specifically to limit national sovereignty in a variety of issues. We were under the impression that it existed to serve as a mechanism for nations to pass mutually beneficial international legislation and guard their interests in the world arena. Perhaps we were being naive. Our mistake?


I would ask your delegation to take a look at the resolutions passed and ask, honestly, which do not restrict national sovereignty in some way.

The Saint Urielian delegation sees most of the NSUN resolutions as altruistic and benevolent, not restrictive. There are some notable exceptions - the forced acceptance of homosexual marriages being one of these.

Mind, that doesn't mean that every restriction on national sovereignty is positive, but that national sovereignty is not by itself a compelling reason to oppose an otherwise strong proposal. The 'slippery slope' has already been traveled.

Perhaps it has. That would be lamentable indeed.

So essentially, what Krioval hears from its counterpart from Saint Uriel is that some infringements on national sovereignty are acceptable while others are not, yet at the same time, we hear that any breach of national sovereignty is unpalatable to Saint Uriel. Please pick a single side from which to argue. Fence straddling and hypocrisy are not endearing to our delegation, and while we may not espouse such lofty moral qualities as some would like, we are internally consistent.

We fail to see how universally beneficial resolutions are so easily compared to what amounts to sheer attacks on a nation's sovereignty, state religion, and founding charter.


How to alienate entire groups of nations in one sentence. Well done, considering that in the next sentence, you ask that atheistic nations respect you. Krioval is polytheist; some proponents of allowing same-sex marriage are predominantly Christian, for that matter. Not everybody pushing for civil liberties of this type are 'atheistic'. Your argument has failed.

You speak of alienation, yet Krioval has accomplished it so well with its arrogant and dismissive tone. Saint Uriel seeks only peace, sovereignty, and mutually beneficial coexistence. How would you expect what amounts to a Roman Catholic theocracy to request other nations to consider the issues? We will allow, perhaps meditatively would have been a better word than prayerfully. Still, Krioval takes offense when none was intended or implied. Saint Uriel also never stated that those who support this particular resolution are atheists.

We never recalled seeing that the purpose of the NSUN was specifically to limit national sovereignty in a variety of issues. We were under the impression that it existed to serve as a mechanism for nations to pass mutually beneficial international legislation and guard their interests in the world arena. Perhaps we were being naive. Our mistake?

'Passing mutually beneficial international legislation' restricts national sovereignty in some form. So does 'guarding one's interests in the world arena'. It's a matter of perspective. Far too many nations only worry about national sovereignty when it's being challenged directly. Technically, Krioval's national sovereignty was reduced when the same-sex marriage resolutions passed, but we didn't feel an impact from that loss as it reflected societal trends in our nation toward same-sex marriage.

The Saint Urielian delegation sees most of the NSUN resolutions as altruistic and benevolent, not restrictive. There are some notable exceptions - the forced acceptance of homosexual marriages being one of these.

Krioval finds environmental restrictions to be restrictive - our economy suffers as a direct result, and we are stuck funding several initiatives that don't apply to us directly. What you see as 'altruistic and benevolent' may very well be 'restrictive' to another nation. I could argue that some of the environmental resolutions have actually brought tangible harm to Kriovalian citizens. Can you argue that your citizens suffer tangible harm at same-sex couples being allowed to marry?

We fail to see how universally beneficial resolutions are so easily compared to what amounts to sheer attacks on a nation's sovereignty, state religion, and founding charter.

Repeat after me. There is no such thing as a 'universally beneficial' resolution. All resolutions have people or places that will be harmed in some way, and some of the 'targets' are otherwise-decent and lawful beings/states. That's the nature of the game of politics. One tries to determine what the majority will benefit from. Same-sex marriage is one of those issues so decided four times in favor of being furthered, and not by narrow margins, either.

You speak of alienation, yet Krioval has accomplished it so well with its arrogant and dismissive tone. Saint Uriel seeks only peace, sovereignty, and mutually beneficial coexistence. How would you expect what amounts to a Roman Catholic theocracy to request other nations to consider the issues? We will allow, perhaps meditatively would have been a better word than prayerfully. Still, Krioval takes offense when none was intended or implied. Saint Uriel also never stated that those who support this particular resolution are atheists.

Krioval is allowed to be arrogant and dismissive toward a minority of smaller nations who feel that they should have the right to be part of an international organization and yet agitate against something that's been repeatedly decided against their view. Frankly, any nation that arbitrarily restricts its citizens' rights, or would desire to do so, is automatically disdained by Krioval. As it turns out, the word 'carefully' was sufficient. 'Carefully' can include prayer, meditation, or actually reading up on the issue and forming a scientifically valid basis for opinion. I'm hardly offended by the use of a single word when compared to the mentality that is apparent behind its usage, that being that Saint Uriel appears to view the universe through a 'Christian vs. all others' lens that lends itself further to earning the scorn of more advanced nations.

:eek:

It's the Topic That Wouldn't Die!

I'm adding "SSM debates on UN forum" to my list of topics that personally annoy me, some of which also include, but are not limited to:

Civil wars from out of nowhere ("The sun was shining when a bullet ripped through the President's head and the government collapsed.")

Drawn-out NPC wars

*wanking (* = stat, pop, ally, tech, and most definitely puppet)

Any mention of the word 'Shooban'. [/hijack]

Oh brother not again :rolleyes::).

After reading this thread, and the umpteen others on the same and similar subjects, the Wateranan government has just passed legislation banning all forms of organised religion. Our people can pray to whatever myth they like privately within their own homes but their practices will recieve no form of government recognition. All private religious schools will be taken over by the state and run under the same curriculum as existing state schools. Property owned by religious organisations (not individuals) will be resumed by the state and used for various purposes to benefit the whole population. The government of this nation has always been avowedly athiest, and its about time the nation followed suit. The existing marriage laws in this nation, which proudly includes homosexual marriage, will not change in any way.

We hope this will finally end any hope religious organisations have of imposing their will and "morals" on the entire society. We will also fight any attempts by other nations to impose their own religious views on our secular nation. The civil rights of our nations people, including the homosexuals, are a lot more important to us than a few book bashers screaming about how homosexual marriage angers their diety.

OOC
Is it just me or has the word "moral" become the new buzz word. It and its varients have been popping up a lot over the last year or two and people everywhere seem to be using it to justify their own personal view on a paticular subject. Its becoming about as boring as the word "terrorist" did when it finally became so overused as to be meaningless.

Just to prove the knife can cut both ways:

the Wateranan government has just passed legislation banning all forms of organised religion. Our people can pray to whatever myth they like privately within their own homes but their practices will recieve no form of government recognition. All private religious schools will be taken over by the state and run under the same curriculum as existing state schools. Property owned by religious organisations (not individuals) will be resumed by the state and used for various purposes to benefit the whole population. The government of this nation has always been avowedly athiest, and its about time the nation followed suit.

I'm not convinced that this is legal.

Just to prove the knife can cut both ways:



I'm not convinced that this is legal.

The people still have religious freedom and can worship whatever they want, just not in an organised setting. You could call the new legislation religous freedom for those of us who don't want it. We are now free from it :D.

The people still have religious freedom and can worship whatever they want, just not in an organised setting. You could call the new legislation religous freedom for those of us who don't want it. We are now free from it :D.

Well, unless you're seizing property universally from all private owners, you're technically violating the "Discrimination Accord" by targeting people based on religion. To even determine whether religious worship was going on in such a setting, you'd be violating "Stop Privacy Intrusion". Other relevant resolutions include "Religious Tolerance", "The Universal Bill of Rights", and "Universal Freedom of Choice".

Well, unless you're seizing property universally from all private owners, you're technically violating the "Discrimination Accord" by targeting people based on religion. To even determine whether religious worship was going on in such a setting, you'd be violating "Stop Privacy Intrusion". Other relevant resolutions include "Religious Tolerance", "The Universal Bill of Rights", and "Universal Freedom of Choice".

We're not seizing property from any individual, thats why I was careful to put that in brackets in the original post. Only church (which we consider a business) owned property. I checked the religious tolerance resolution and believe we're not in violation of it. Will check the others you've listed now.

This was aimed at organisations and only organisations. No individuals home or other private property, papers, records etc will be touched. Only property owned by the religious body as a whole.

We're not seizing property from any individual, thats why I was careful to put that in brackets in the original post. Only church (which we consider a business) owned property. I checked the religious tolerance resolution and believe we're not in violation of it. Will check the others you've listed now.

This was aimed at organisations and only organisations. No individuals home or other private property, papers, records etc will be touched. Only property owned by the religious body as a whole.

I guess my main concern is how one can justify the seizure of property one has acquired legally, even if one is an organization rather than an individual. Even if it is legal, it's certainly pretty dodgy a thing to do in the first place. Besides, if the primary concern is that their propaganda will outweigh that of the government, raise taxes and set state-sponsored media loose on them. This is perfectly acceptable a thing to do under a democracy if you've got the votes, and it avoids a lot of the political backlash that property seizure can cause.

I guess my main concern is how one can justify the seizure of property one has acquired legally, even if one is an organization rather than an individual. Even if it is legal, it's certainly pretty dodgy a thing to do in the first place. Besides, if the primary concern is that their propaganda will outweigh that of the government, raise taxes and set state-sponsored media loose on them. This is perfectly acceptable a thing to do under a democracy if you've got the votes, and it avoids a lot of the political backlash that property seizure can cause.

I've checked the other resolutions you mentioned, and can't see that what we're doing is in violation of any of them, though I may have missed or misread something.

The measures we are taking to stop the intrusions into the private lives of our non religious citizens, especially on the subject of gay marriage, by religious organisations were not decided lightly and our government is ready to weather any storm this causes. We don't expect much opposition from the people, a high percentage of whom approved of this measure in various opinion polls taken during the discussion phases of the legislation.

I've checked the other resolutions you mentioned, and can't see that what we're doing is in violation of any of them, though I may have missed or misread something.

The measures we are taking to stop the intrusions into the private lives of our non religious citizens, especially on the subject of gay marriage, by religious organisations were not decided lightly and our government is ready to weather any storm this causes. We don't expect much opposition from the people, a high percentage of whom approved of this measure in various opinion polls taken during the discussion phases of the legislation.

Approval rating is irrelevant - if 99% of Kriovalians wanted Raijin to execute the other 1%, it wouldn't happen. How churches being allowed to exist intrudes on people's rights to be nonreligious is specious at best as well. Certainly, it's possible that you can seize all church property while staying within the exact letter of those resolutions, but you've effectively encouraged opponents of same-sex marriage to find creative loopholes in resolutions they don't like. I mean, how does a building interfere with another person's private life if that person isn't forced to enter said building? Anyway, I guess Krioval's opinion of you, which has been quite high thus far, doesn't matter to you. Meh.

Certainly, it's possible that you can seize all church property while staying within the exact letter of those resolutions, but you've effectively encouraged opponents of same-sex marriage to find creative loopholes in resolutions they don't like.

I don't see a problem with trying to find creative ways around resolutions one doesn't like. It's the fun of being a UN member. I mean, if other UN nations are going to exercise the power of the UN to make my nation arbitrarily more like theirs, I'm going to exercise any means I can--including any legal loopholes--to resist that effort.

(Ironically, the ease of "getting around" poorly-worded resolutions is a reason why "Gay Rights" should be repealed.)

Approval rating is irrelevant - if 99% of Kriovalians wanted Raijin to execute the other 1%, it wouldn't happen. How churches being allowed to exist intrudes on people's rights to be nonreligious is specious at best as well. Certainly, it's possible that you can seize all church property while staying within the exact letter of those resolutions, but you've effectively encouraged opponents of same-sex marriage to find creative loopholes in resolutions they don't like. I mean, how does a building interfere with another person's private life if that person isn't forced to enter said building? Anyway, I guess Krioval's opinion of you, which has been quite high thus far, doesn't matter to you. Meh.

You raise some very good points and the opinion other nations have of us is important to this nation. We will review this course of action. No promises the new legislation will be completly squashed, however we may temper it down considerable to exclude the seizure of property as that seems to be the sore point. We will however stand by our convictions to completly separate religion and state so no religious body can or will have any influence whatsoever over the governmet, government departments, or any government decisions.

You raise some very good points and the opinion other nations have of us is important to this nation. We will review this course of action. No promises the new legislation will be completly squashed, however we may temper it down considerable to exclude the seizure of property as that seems to be the sore point. We will however stand by our convictions to completly separate religion and state so no religious body can or will have any influence whatsoever over the governmet, government departments, or any government decisions.

That sounds like an admirable course of action. Thank you for looking into it.

Oh brother not again :rolleyes::).

After reading this thread, and the umpteen others on the same and similar subjects, the Wateranan government has just passed legislation banning all forms of organised religion. Our people can pray to whatever myth they like privately within their own homes but their practices will recieve no form of government recognition. All private religious schools will be taken over by the state and run under the same curriculum as existing state schools. Property owned by religious organisations (not individuals) will be resumed by the state and used for various purposes to benefit the whole population. The government of this nation has always been avowedly athiest, and its about time the nation followed suit. The existing marriage laws in this nation, which proudly includes homosexual marriage, will not change in any way.

We hope this will finally end any hope religious organisations have of imposing their will and "morals" on the entire society. We will also fight any attempts by other nations to impose their own religious views on our secular nation. The civil rights of our nations people, including the homosexuals, are a lot more important to us than a few book bashers screaming about how homosexual marriage angers their diety.

OOC
Is it just me or has the word "moral" become the new buzz word. It and its varients have been popping up a lot over the last year or two and people everywhere seem to be using it to justify their own personal view on a paticular subject. Its becoming about as boring as the word "terrorist" did when it finally became so overused as to be meaningless.

Anothe immoral (yes, I will use the M-bomb for as much as it applies to this discussion), deviant worshipper of the false God of secularism. Why do you deny your creater, your Father, your Christ? Why do you dismiss God in favor of empty Tolerance and fear morality? What good is civil rights when you refuse to plant a seed and spring new Life as God intended?

Anothe immoral (yes, I will use the M-bomb for as much as it applies to this discussion), deviant worshipper of the false God of secularism. Why do you deny your creater, your Father, your Christ? Why do you dismiss God in favor of empty Tolerance and fear morality? What good is civil rights when you refuse to plant a seed and spring new Life as God intended?

*Yawn* You're ceasing to amuse us. Please change into some other costume - maybe something with big shoes, a water-squirting flower in the lapel, and a nose that honks?

Crap is crap, it doesn't matter which mouth it spews out of.

Some interesting points being raised here (aside from the unhelpful flaming that our fellow nations appear to have lapsed into). I hope it would be beneficial if I can provide some input onto some of the varied points raised. I hope I don't contribute to the negativity of this topic thus far.

Please allow me to start at the beginning. The proposal itself is in itself well written and argued, it is currently highly illegal as it would contradict existing UN resolutions. Moreover, it is possible to argue many of the assertions made in the draft.EMPHAZISING that the word "marriage" has highly religious connotationsIt also has highly social connotations (as you can see if you define marriage in google). The question is over the supremacy of state over religon or vice versa. I'd argue that in terms of marriage, it is the state that overrides the influence of religon. In the Democratic States of Hirota we see people getting marriaged in civil cermonies, and we (rarely) see people getting married in chruches and places of faith. But it is the legal recognition of marriage that is important, which is held by the state. The only difference is that the people responsible for performing marriages work either in religon or the state, and are ultimately licenced by the state. If the state decided no religous representative held the authority to perform a legal marriage, then they would have no authority to do so, and any marriage they performed would be false and not legal.

Fass has already pointed this out, but I thought I would anyway :)Religious terms tend to mean far more to people then civil terms.Thats really a matter of opinion. I would not agree with that assertion (see above)GIVEN the huge amounts of theists living in the U.NI'd argue (based upon previous observations) that most UN states are broadly agnostic in their faith. It's fair to assume that their population is similarly so.Also, your claim that people may do whatever they wish behind closed doors suggests a few things.
1. You are in favour of pedophilia
2. You are in favour of rape
3. You are in favour of bestialityI'm wary of speaking for Krioval, but as a Libertarian (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=2&oi=define&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian) who supports people doing what they want behind closed doors, BUT not when it harms others I would point out that 2 of those 3 listed would be against my principles - Clearly pedophilia and rape harm others. The third is more difficult to argue under a libertarian philosophy, but Hirota would certainly vote for any legislation that banned the act. Is this the nature of the U.N., to inform the weaker nations they should be quiet when being threatened by the stronger ones.Sadly it is amongst some members. But I've lost count of the number of times newly joined member states have waded in and thought they could change the world overnight. Perhaps understandably, I would not be suprised if you've been associated with the numerous other nations who have joined in the past, tried to change things without a clear understanding or a strong arguement that appeals to the majority of the UN, and then left when they have been disappointed by their failure. If you think about it from our perspective, you might understand.Homosexuals may still have unions. It makes no difference to them what they are called.and I know that the term marriage simply doesn't have as strong an importance to homosexuals as it does to religious people.How do you know? Are you homosexual? In the democratic states of Hirota, homosexuals want to be consider married, not another label which segregates (RL Example: the recent spate of gay marriages within the US - it was in huge demand at the time). Clearly there is a desire for homosexual unions to be recognised in law as marriage.Which is sad, considering how important religious beliefs are to the people.Which people exactly? Are we talking about ALL people? Hirota has only a minority who actively practice religon, with the majority being either Aethist, Agnostic or Buddist, but we cannot say these beliefs are important to the people as a whole. Indeed it is possible to extend that to other member states - like I said earlier it would appear to me that most UN states are broadly agnostic.is not some fringe ideology, the fact that this issue comes up so often is proof of that.I'd disagree with that - considering the number of nations which have vocally expressed their objections to homosexual marriage compared to the number of nations within the UN, I'd argue that there is only a small vocal minority with any huge objections to the proposal. The fact that no repeal has reached the voting stage would further suggest it is not a widespread mainstream ideology.And we have even agreed for there to be no seperation, to name everything a civil union.Hmmmm...if everything is called a civil union, religous or otherwise, then that would be fine. But if one is called marriage and the other is not, then even if it is a difference of name, there is segregation.If God created man and women to be together in holy matrimony, then why should gay couples exist? Is it what God wants? No. In the Bible, it clearly states that sexual relations with any member of the same sex is a sin and will be condemned by God, in fact any sexual relations outside of a marriage, technically is a sin.Actually I can argue strongly against that assumption, have done so in the past, and will continue to do so. There is a very strong arguement that can be made that suggests the bible makes NO substantive commentary on the issue of homosexuality, and indeed contains suggestions of committed loving homosexual relationships. Sorry. I didn't mean to sound overly-religious, it is just that this matter is sensitive to me, and I feel as part of the UN I have the freedom to speak on the matter. You do have the right (and it is disappointing to see other nations being so negative). I'd like to think most issues can be discussed with a minimum of hostilities!It is people like yourself that have caused the modern-day decline of the Church and religion in general. It's more likely it is the churchs failure to change with the times. I personally consider most organised faiths to be moral and ethical dinosaurs of a bygone era which have failed to move with the times - but I respect your right to think otherwise.And if religion is irrelevant, how come 2 billion people worldwide worship the same God?2 Billion people is hardly a majority. There is ~6520000000 people out there in the RL world.You're abusive attitude towards it shows you have been brainwashed by the media.The reverse could also be argued to be true as well - that religon works to brainwash the masses by attempting to answer the questions which are not properly answered. For example, Christianity asserted earth was the center of the universe. We know that's not true now. What else will we learn given time?While it may be an illegal proposal, I applaud Neoconland's dedication,As do I. Kudos for trying so hard. Especially in the face of such rudeness and hostility from member states. I am almost ashamed to hold a similar secular perspective to some of the other nations on here who have failed to act with any sort of dignity or respect. In particular, Krioval who has consistently flamed, sweared and tried to bait other member states. I intend to bring this to the attention of the powers that be.

So the church ceremony has nothing to do with it hm?

It is obvious we're never going to agree at all on this subject. I'd best just leave you to your own opinion and me to my own. JUst ask yourself when your country is so morally declined just why it is that way.

Correct, Church ceremony has no bearing whatsoever on the Definition of Marriage resolution. DoM is applicable to the civil operations, not church procedures.

While it may be an illegal proposal, I applaud Neoconland's dedication, and I can only pity the attempt at humor made by the one who calls himself "High Paladin Raijin, the Light." May I remind you all that nothing is more criminal than codifying deviant sexual behavior before the eyes of our Lord and Savior.

--Welsh

You are of course assuming "High Paladin Raijin, the Light" is operating under Christian religious doctrines.... There was no implication as such.

I've checked the other resolutions you mentioned, and can't see that what we're doing is in violation of any of them, though I may have missed or misread something.

The measures we are taking to stop the intrusions into the private lives of our non religious citizens, especially on the subject of gay marriage, by religious organisations were not decided lightly and our government is ready to weather any storm this causes. We don't expect much opposition from the people, a high percentage of whom approved of this measure in various opinion polls taken during the discussion phases of the legislation.

It is impossible for you to have done this, without applying it equally to all not-for-profit and citizen created organizations. If you have applied it to "religious institutions" or "organizations" alone, then it is dicrimination upon the populace, since you place restrictions upon one group that you do not upon another. This places it as a violation of the "Discrimination Accord" and that of the "Universal Bill of Rights" as a 'Human Rights Violation'.... Upon this, then, in enforcement, UN member-nations may, under the powers outlined under "Humanitarian Intervention" to enter into war with your state to free the people of this violation.... And also, under the dictates of the self-same resolution, no other member-state may aid your nation.

Thus, if Krioval concurs, I move that The Armed Republic of Krioval and The Constitutional Republic of Tekania move to form coalition on this issue against Waterana, and apply rights as thus outlined under 'Humanitarian Intervention' to make such known to the body of these United Nations. And move that Assessment be made by the Pretenama Panel, and seek Approval by the general body of these United Nations to engage Waterana to seek re-compliance of their Human Rights abuses as outlined in International Law...

Wait - is Tekania making a serious request for the Pretenama Panel to investigate Waterana? Just want to check before we go hunting down newbies for mistakes of judegment.

Wait - is Tekania making a serious request for the Pretenama Panel to investigate Waterana? Just want to check before we go hunting down newbies for mistakes of judegment.

I'd preffer that Waterana review their own implimented procedures before it comes to that... But I am making initial moves towards that if necessary at this stage...

Given a limit of resources due to the civil war which has fallen upon the Thompsonian Planetary Dominion of this Constitutional Republic, due to actions by Theonomist sects (which are religious zealots and severe xenophobes) in responds to Amendment sixteen of our Constitution; it is unknown at this time, when we may send resources for such an act, nor how much in resources to that effect; should it come into play.

I'd preffer that Waterana review their own implimented procedures before it comes to that... But I am making initial moves towards that if necessary at this stage...

Given a limit of resources due to the civil war which has fallen upon the Thompsonian Planetary Dominion of this Constitutional Republic, due to actions by Theonomist sects (which are religious zealots and severe xenophobes) in responds to Amendment sixteen of our Constitution; it is unknown at this time, when we may send resources for such an act, nor how much in resources to that effect; should it come into play.

(entirely out of character)

I'm sorry for my posts in this thread. I was trying to RP but should have known better. I couldn't RP my way out of a wet paper bag with a hole in it. Then things went too far, and now I don't want to take it any further because I simply don't know how.

If the rest of you want to RP blowing my nation up or taking it through that panel (can't spell the first word and don't want to try) please feel free to do so. I won't be participating however. I think the forum has heard more than enough from me on this subject :).

PS I must confess that I am not a newbie. I've been playing this game off and on for nearly 2 years under various nations and trying to get UN involved for over 8 months under 2 of them so can't use that as an excuse.

*Yawn* You're ceasing to amuse us. Please change into some other costume - maybe something with big shoes, a water-squirting flower in the lapel, and a nose that honks?

Crap is crap, it doesn't matter which mouth it spews out of.

Yup, that's why Hitler's little revolution in the 1930s failed so miserably.

Gee, that stupid Hitler-guy, thinking that falsely blaming the depression on the Jews would work. Hogswallop!

I am almost ashamed to hold a similar secular perspective to some of the other nations on here who have failed to act with any sort of dignity or respect. In particular, Krioval who has consistently flamed, sweared and tried to bait other member states. I intend to bring this to the attention of the powers that be.

OOC: Kindly stop mixing IC and OOC comments - that's OOC-rude, and I have thus far refrained from similar ambiguity, even going to lengths to indicate that my 'flames' (extraordinarily mild, BTW, if they even qualify) are IC. I'm allowed to be as IC-snarky as I'd like, so long as it's relevant to the main topic. And given the prevalence of this debate - hell, we've beaten this particular dead horse so long it's become fossilized - I feel I have even more right to test my IC limits than normal.

IC:

Krioval's society is founded on both secular and religious concepts. We ardently resist being categorized as one or another to further the agendas of other nations, and we frankly don't care that we sound 'offensive' to nations whose ambassadors claim to know the minds of other nations' citizens better than those people do. In fact, that those nations are throwing fits at our response means that Krioval is doing its job as a vanguard of truth and liberty. Krioval wonders if Hirota is suffering from the collective guilt so common on our arm of the political spectrum that seeks to look tolerant of everything. Krioval does not pretend to tolerate everything, and we have always reserved the right to use force to get our way, especially when threatened first.

Switching tracks now, we come to:

Thus, if Krioval concurs, I move that The Armed Republic of Krioval and The Constitutional Republic of Tekania move to form coalition on this issue against Waterana, and apply rights as thus outlined under 'Humanitarian Intervention' to make such known to the body of these United Nations. And move that Assessment be made by the Pretenama Panel, and seek Approval by the general body of these United Nations to engage Waterana to seek re-compliance of their Human Rights abuses as outlined in International Law...

At present, Waterana claims to be reconsidering its stance on property seizure, and Krioval would assume that if private property rights are held intact, one's right to enter said property for the purposes of worship would be maintained by default. Pending the outcome of the Wateranan government's deliberations on reversing that provision of their new legislation, Krioval will watch the situation with great interest, but will allow sufficient time for voluntary compliance. We prefer to avoid unnecessary diplomatic fallout from this situation, which we believe can be solved without a formal investigation.

OOC: All I want is the retcon on the private property seizure (IC). Krioval doesn't typically invade other nations, despite our often-vocalized desire to do so. :D

You are very foolish with your words. I am humored by your foolish attempts to make a point. Neoconland's proposal is infact not illegal; and merriage is absolutly joined with religion in some form or another. Do not make trivial discussions on matters that you cannot contemplate. Believe it or not, through the statment that the resolution would force you to accept religion, you did acknowledge religion.


(emphasis ours)

Neoconland's proposal is an illegal disgrace. Also, you bring in religion, which is completely irrelevant to marriage, as it is not a religious institution.

In Fass, it has never been, and your illegal resolution would also try to force upon us to acknowledge religion and allow it within our government. Hence, we will not only not give you support in this in illegal matter, but we will counteract your puny nation in any way necessary.

Anothe immoral (yes, I will use the M-bomb for as much as it applies to this discussion), deviant worshipper of the false God of secularism. Why do you deny your creater, your Father, your Christ? Why do you dismiss God in favor of empty Tolerance and fear morality? What good is civil rights when you refuse to plant a seed and spring new Life as God intended?

Morality? Here's a "traditional moral" punishment in Krioval we still use against traitors - blood sacrifice. And before you hop on your high moral horse about how "evil" and "demonic" it is that we still kill humans in a Pagan sacrifice (quickly and without physical pain, anyway), remember that your God liked a good bloodletting every now and again, and the combined number of people killed in that one's name is more than ten times that of all the deaths done in the name of all Krioval's Gods. I'm sorry that we can't match the bloodthirst of your God, but then, we're the "immoral" ones, after all.

You are very foolish with your words. I am humored by your foolish attempts to make a point. Neoconland's proposal is infact not illegal; and merriage is absolutly joined with religion in some form or another. Do not make trivial discussions on matters that you cannot contemplate. Believe it or not, through the statment that the resolution would force you to accept religion, you did acknowledge religion.

The proposal is illegal because it contravenes an existing resolution. Please read the rules on legal versus illegal proposals before inserting one's foot into one's mouth. That said, spend a few hours looking over how these forums run, and I'm sure you'll fit in fine. Welcome.

Morality? Here's a "traditional moral" punishment in Krioval we still use against traitors - blood sacrifice. And before you hop on your high moral horse about how "evil" and "demonic" it is that we still kill humans in a Pagan sacrifice (quickly and without physical pain, anyway), remember that your God liked a good bloodletting every now and again, and the combined number of people killed in that one's name is more than ten times that of all the deaths done in the name of all Krioval's Gods. I'm sorry that we can't match the bloodthirst of your God, but then, we're the "immoral" ones, after all.

God does not condone death. He teaches us to love our fellow man. It is PEOPLE who stride away from this message who kill in God's name.

So yes, you, and your religion, are immoral for sacrificing humans. It is deeply disgusting, and this is another issue I will try and fight against.

[QUOTE=Krioval]Morality? Here's a "traditional moral" punishment in Krioval we still use against traitors - blood sacrifice. And before you hop on your high moral horse about how "evil" and "demonic" it is that we still kill humans in a Pagan sacrifice (quickly and without physical pain, anyway), remember that your God liked a good bloodletting every now and again, and the combined number of people killed in that one's name is more than ten times that of all the deaths done in the name of all Krioval's Gods. I'm sorry that we can't match the bloodthirst of your God, but then, we're the "immoral" ones, after all.[QUOTE]

In the Old Testiment God was givin sacrifices as away to parden sin, but it was never a human sacrifice. In the New Testiment it is seen that sacrifices will no longer be required to parden sin because Jesus Christ was the ultimate sacrifice. He came and sacrificed himself so that we could be pardened from all sin we have done or the sins that we will commit; so that we may be allowed to enter heaven.

God does not condone death. He teaches us to love our fellow man. It is PEOPLE who stride away from this message who kill in God's name.

So yes, you, and your religion, are immoral for sacrificing humans. It is deeply disgusting, and this is another issue I will try and fight against.

Does Neoconland have the death penalty? I daresay that Krioval has executed fewer criminals than nearly any country with capital punishment. Our total, under the Commandership, has been three executions. Only one was done in a ritualistic manner. Feel free to ban it, though. It'll come to bite nations other than Krioval on the butt quite nicely, especially when it sets a precedent that capital punishment is immoral.

In the Old Testiment God was givin sacrifices as away to parden sin, but it was never a human sacrifice. In the New Testiment it is seen that sacrifices will no longer be required to parden sin because Jesus Christ was the ultimate sacrifice. He came and sacrificed himself so that we could be pardened from all sin we have done or the sins that we will commit; so that we may be allowed to enter heaven.

Any war in which the name of your God was invoked to justify the slaughter of millions of innocent people was a human sacrifice, and unjustifiable at that. Krioval will not be lectured on our policies by governments who seek to suppress their own people and subjugate or even kill their neighbors.

What you have said is not true. Although, I will admit that the Crusades were a noble attempt to free the holy land, they were done through foolishness as well.

Your words are full of foolishness and ignorance. It sickens me to no end how you can speak of things in which you have know superior knowledge, or authority. God is a loving God, forgiving God, and Wise God. No one can understand the magnificance of God, not I, and certaintly not you. God is amazing in many ways, but mostly in the since that He can see every single possibility, that stems from each decision we will make in our lives. He knows all things from the beginning to the end. He even knew that you would say the things you do, Knows your dreams, your thoughts, and He knew you before you were even born. You can push Him away all you like, but He will never leave your side.

You are very foolish with your words. I am humored by your foolish attempts to make a point.

"Foolish this, foolish that." Funny how it really isn't made so by you claiming it.

Neoconland's proposal is infact not illegal;

Yes, it is. Read the resolution on the Definition of Marriage. This proposal violates it, hence it is illegal.

and merriage is absolutly joined with religion in some form or another.

Really, if you were to stop calling other people's arguments "foolish", maybe you would realise what a fool you are making of yourself. Again, read the "Definition of Marriage" resolution. Marriage is defined as civil. Thus religions are completely irrelevant to it.

Really, now, do not waste our time with your ignorence. Read the previously passed resolutions before you disgrace yourself further.

Do not make trivial discussions on matters that you cannot contemplate.

Oh, dear, another demonstration of your ignorence, and hypocrisy.

Believe it or not, through the statment that the resolution would force you to accept religion, you did acknowledge religion.

Read that sentence again. Realise the erroneous circular logic of it. Try again, or, even better, stop testing our patience and educate yourself before you run your mouth next time.

Ok, everyone is full of a bit too much hot air.

How about we deflate ourselves a bit, hmm?

Not counting Neoconland's intents....

Not counting the argument in here over religious dominance by one group or the other....

The single issue that is not debatable, is that under present proposal rules, given present international laws in place... Neoconland's proposal is in fact ILLEGAL... There is no debate on that point...

Neoconland's original proposal....


Homosexual Marriage
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Neoconland

Description: GIVEN the huge amounts of theists living in the U.N.

UNDERSTANDING their offense over United Nations Resolution #81 "Definition of Marriage"

EMPHAZISING that the word "marriage" has highly religious connotations.

NOTING that religious persecution is not a normal policy of the U.N.

REQUESTING that the definition of marriage be changed to exclude the possibility of homosexual marriages.

SUGGESTING that another term is used to define unions between homosexuals at a later date.
*Rule Violation in Bold....

Rule #7 for proposal submissions....

7. Amendments
You may not submit a proposal that 'changes' the wording or effect of a passed resolution. You can make a repeal proposal if you really want to see the back of one, but that's it.


For this proposal to *have been legal, the Definition of Marriage Resolution, and the Gay Rights Resolution would first need to be repealed. (* - "have" because the moderators in fact deleted the proposal for violating the submission rules)

Oh, hell. I'm in a snarky mood (surprise, surprise), so let me go through the legal parts of the proposal:

GIVEN the huge amounts of theists living in the U.N.

Like, for example, Tekania and Krioval. Tekania is predominantly Christian (monotheistic) and Krioval is polytheistic. Notice the bold parts. Both countries, however, allow civil marriage between any two citizens of adult age. Krioval allows religious ceremonies as well for same-sex couples; I cannot speak for Tekania on this matter. So already, you are lumping in nations who are either neutral or for same-sex marriage in your perambulatory clause. Not all theists oppose same-sex marriage. Not all Christians do either, as I've pointed out. A good revision might be:

"GIVEN the vocal minority of bigoted religionists who voluntarily joined the UN"

UNDERSTANDING their offense over United Nations Resolution #81 "Definition of Marriage"

How about:

"UNDERSTANDING their inability to differentiate between civil and religious law, despite the fact that even a theocracy can do so"

EMPHAZISING that the word "marriage" has highly religious connotations.

Add on "...in some societies"

NOTING that religious persecution is not a normal policy of the U.N.

Add on "...though the proposing nation would like it to be"

SUGGESTING that another term is used to define unions between homosexuals at a later date.

"SUGGESTING that nations start banning same-sex marriage at their earliest convenience."

There. That should make things a bit clearer. As always, I exist to serve. Now can we please keep these debates to one thread?

Now can we please keep these debates to one thread?
Agreed. As this is an illegal proposal under the rules of the UN,

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/padlock.gif