NationStates Jolt Archive

Despite having another thread on the issue, I'm making this in order to get a poll on one question.

The question is; in the interest of religious tolerence, would the members of the U.N. be willing to attempt to remove the word "marriage" from U.N. resolutions and replace them with "civil union". These civil unions would be for all, homosexual and heterosexual. The term marriage can be left up to individual states or religions to do with as they wish.

Admittedly this may seem like a small detail to some, but it is of drastic importance to others.

Let the U.N. be an organisation of cooperation, not one that ignores the complaints of a large group of nations and alienates them. Let the U.N. be a beacon of light and understanding. Do not let it be ruled by hateful individuals, who wish to counter bigotry with more bigotry. Do not let it be ruled by bullies, who feel the need to push smaller countries around in order to feel important.

In the spirit of unity, which is after all the aim of the United Nations, let us try to find a realistic solution to this problem.

I know this message will be scoffed at by many. So I appeal to those who are willing to listen, not those who hear in order to try and refute, to those who want to listen and understand and then formulate an opinion. I ask those people to think on this matter.

To most, the term "marriage" has far more meaningful connotations than the rather colder-sounding "civil union". Your proposed idea would mean that many nations would deny "marriage" to homosexuals. Others would deny "marriage" to those not being joined in a specifically religious ceremony.

We are of the belief that marriages are not made more or less meaningful by the genders or the religions of the participants. Therefore, the terminology used should reflect this. To give a pair of athiests or homosexuals a civil union, whilst granting marriages to straight religious couples, is to imply through the wording that the latter's relationship is somehow more meaningful. Therefore, we cannot support legislation that would allow national governments to discriminate by labelling like this.

Agreed with Myopia...

To apply different lables is discrimintory... By applying "marriage" as being religious only, you discriminate upon anyone who is not a part of an institutional religion (which would include other people of religious faiths) and apply credance upon a singal group/institution...

The term marriage is used because it is the correct term, and places equal legal footing, regardless of whether the ceremony was conducted by/in accordance with a particular religion, without/outside of it, or by state personnel...

The DoM makes a definitive definition of what Civil Marriage is to be considered by all member-state governments... And Gay-Rights necessitates that homosexuals/lesbians be provided the same ability towards this union as heterosexuals... How this exactly goes about is left to member states...

Most states simply revamp their existing marrital statutes, if they operate in a civil aspect... Common Law states, lacking statutory marriage laws, have to take no action what-so-ever... Theocratic states who already accept the idea in their faith of said marriages have to take no action as well...

The only problem that arrises is theocratic states where the state religion considers the acts immoral... In which case the problem is still statutory... Chances are the states may require marriages to be performed in the state church... If this is the case, then legislation must be altered to take marriage out of adherance to the state-church... Thus forming a partial Common-Law on this particular aspect of law...

The body of the NSUN may not be able to outlaw governmental forms... We however can pass resolutions which can restrict the capability of member-states governments to perform certain acts... In effect, if a member-state adheres to a state-religion that outlaws homosexuality... We are removing the power from that state to make determinations such as that... And it is impossible for the state to argue violation, without first being demonstratably in violation of enacted religious liberty legislation... Thus, we cannot be violating their religious liberties, without them having already commited violations of their own peoples religious liberties persuant to International Laws...

I would warn Neoconland and associates, at this point on this issue... That they are a hairs-breath away from me forming a coalition on this issue, as persuant to the "Humanitarian Intervention" resolution, and levying official charges against his state...

I would like to please read this carefully. Not look for flaws. Not try to refute it. Just read it first and take it in.

Then think about it.

Then point out the problems you have with it.

I have already said this would be completely equal between heterosexuals and homosexuals. This discriminates against no one. Then I have said that the term "marriage" can be left up to the individual states or (not and) religions.

Whether it sounds "cold" is not the issue. This is politics , it is not about sounding warm, it's about trying to achieve harmony.

I would warn Neoconland and associates, at this point on this issue... That they are a hairs-breath away from me forming a coalition on this issue, as persuant to the "Humanitarian Intervention" resolution, and levying official charges against his state...

We are here to discuss the issue. Discussions are rarely fruitful when warnings are made. It is a very juvenile way to go about it.

Separate is not equal. There really is no reason to have differing terminology, especially as marriage is not a religious institution.

Please, stop trying to involve such irrelevant notions as religion into this.

THERE IS NO SEPERATION.

NONE.

CIVIL UNION FOR ALL. HOMOSEXUAL AND HETEROSEXUAL ALIKE.

IT WOULD THEN BE DECIDED BY THE INDIVIDUAL STATE HOW THEY WISH TO USE THE TERM MARRIAGE.

IF RELIGIONS CONTINUE TO USE MARRIAGE AS A TERM IT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE FREE TO NAME THEIR RELIGIOUS UNIONS ANYTHING THEY WISH.

A NON-GOVERNMENT ATHEIST OR HOMOSEXUAL PROMOTING GROUP MAY CHOOSE TO HAVE NON-GOVERNMENTAL UNIONS AND CALL THEM MARRIAGES ASWELL.

The question is; in the interest of religious tolerence, would the members of the U.N. be willing to attempt to remove the word "marriage" from U.N. resolutions and replace them with "civil union". These civil unions would be for all, homosexual and heterosexual. The term marriage can be left up to individual states or religions to do with as they wish.

I don't understand why that's a matter of religious tolerance. And if so, why we can't turn it around: marriage is the word we use in the UN, and if a particular has issues with that, let them use the term "Religious Union".

In my nation, we are very tolerant to religion. However, religions that are preaching hate towards other groups in society (such as calling for the denying of basic rights) can count on very little support from our citizens.

This is like talking to a wall.

This is like talking to a wall.

Welcome to the UN!

Hah. ;)

Separate is not equal. There really is no reason to have differing terminology, especially as marriage is not a religious institution.

Actually, marriage is a religious institution. It is also a civil institution.

At its core, marriage is an agreement between parties that needs no institution to back it, whether civil or religious.

Please, stop trying to involve such irrelevant notions as religion into this.

Why is religion any less relevant than any other belief system...for example...yours?

To most, the term "marriage" has far more meaningful connotations than the rather colder-sounding "civil union". Your proposed idea would mean that many nations would deny "marriage" to homosexuals. Others would deny "marriage" to those not being joined in a specifically religious ceremony.

We are of the belief that marriages are not made more or less meaningful by the genders or the religions of the participants. Therefore, the terminology used should reflect this. To give a pair of athiests or homosexuals a civil union, whilst granting marriages to straight religious couples, is to imply through the wording that the latter's relationship is somehow more meaningful.

I completely agree that to give homosexuals "civil unions" while disallowing homosexuals "marriages" implies that a union of homosexuals is less than that of heterosexuals.

Therefore, we cannot support legislation that would allow national governments to discriminate by labelling like this.

What I am not so concerned with is the discrimination through labelling. Some nations are at a developmental stage wherein homosexual marriage would be a very socially divisive issue that would create ill feelings. I submit that, for those states, a more harmonizing approach that still grants civil liberties would be a good "stepping stone". Not only would homosexuals gain near-equal civil freedom, but rioting and other violence in response to the legislation would be less, and the citizenry would have an "adjustment period" in which they can come to terms with the idea of homosexual unions.

Quite frankly, forcing a liberal, equal-rights policy on a nation that isn't ready for it is a bad idea. Not only do you cause divisiveness and violence in many cases, but you generate bad feelings towards the UN in those people who already feel marginalized by the UN because of its apparent opposition to what they see as a normal and appropriate way of life.

Actually, marriage is a religious institution. It is also a civil institution.

Not according to the DoM.

At its core, marriage is an agreement between parties that needs no institution to back it, whether civil or religious.

Actually, no. Marriage is a clearly defined legal concept.

Why is religion any less relevant than any other belief system...for example...yours?

Because marriage is not a religious institution or entity. Read the DoM, please.

THERE IS NO SEPERATION.

NONE.

CIVIL UNION FOR ALL. HOMOSEXUAL AND HETEROSEXUAL ALIKE.

IT WOULD THEN BE DECIDED BY THE INDIVIDUAL STATE HOW THEY WISH TO USE THE TERM MARRIAGE.

IF RELIGIONS CONTINUE TO USE MARRIAGE AS A TERM IT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE FREE TO NAME THEIR RELIGIOUS UNIONS ANYTHING THEY WISH.

A NON-GOVERNMENT ATHEIST OR HOMOSEXUAL PROMOTING GROUP MAY CHOOSE TO HAVE NON-GOVERNMENTAL UNIONS AND CALL THEM MARRIAGES ASWELL.

You are arguing against yourself, as you are giving actual reasons not to have the name changed at all. There is no need, as you say that it is the same thing.

READ

Admittedly this may seem like a small detail to some, but it is of drastic importance to others.

READ READ READ

READ READ READ READ

We have read it, and you have just simply failed to make a case for this unnecessary semantical issue. We already have a perfectly good, democratically established definition of marriage. Quit your irrelevant whining and deal with it.

And so you prove my point. You read, but you do not listen. You come into this matter hard-headed and decided, and thus there is no point in discussing it with you.

If you cannot imagine even why it is more then just a semantical issue, then me telling you over and over again will make no difference.

And in this, I find you are no different then the bigots whom you hate.

There is nothing bigoted in opposing an unnecessary change in terminology so that some religious bigot can feel better or more comfortable. Fighting bigotry is not bigoted.

I didn't say you were bigoted.

See, always trying to refute, never trying to listen.

"Marriage" etymologically is derived from the Old French word "marier"... Originally used as a nautical term through Old French and Middle-English, as the act of weaving the ends of two ropes together to form a single rope... In the sense of imagry it was adopted as a descriptor in Middle-English towards the legal union of two people...

The word in no way has exclusivity to religion... And never has exclusivity... The word is applicable to a civil or common union between two people in contract and binding upon the parties... And is an illusion to an idea (that of two people being joined into a single legal entity)...

That being said, the argument as to alter terminologies for appeasement, is petty.... VERY petty... There is no need to alter it, simply from the fact that the people arguing for its changing based on religious "ideas" are idiots... And likely they will be burning in hell for being more concerned over word usage, than actually practicing their faith...

Further... I hope Neoconland enjoys hell... because that is where he is going by the dictates of his own religion...

Just because you can find the way God brought it into use, does not mean it's not an important holy word.

Further... I hope Neoconland enjoys hell... because that is where he is going by the dictates of his own religion...

So much anger. I wish you the ability to resolve it.

I didn't say you were bigoted.

"I find you are no different then the bigots whom you hate."

So, what, being "no different than" is being different than, all of a sudden? Is this a case of the same bizarroworld usage of language as when you claim that "it is not separate" when it is separate?

Just because you can find the way God brought it into use, does not mean it's not an important holy word.

Again, nobody cares about your deity, who, by the way, had nothing to do with the etymology of the word in the English language.

Just because you can find the way God brought it into use, does not mean it's not an important holy word.

It is a word.... That's it... Just because your religious stole it from the english language, and wishes to insist on using it as what you call a holy word does not give any license to your idea... The civil law has as much right to the word as you do...

You have no right exclusivity...

It's not that we haven't considered your suggestion. It's that we've heard it multiple times, and we still don't like it.

CIVIL UNION FOR ALL. HOMOSEXUAL AND HETEROSEXUAL ALIKE.

IT WOULD THEN BE DECIDED BY THE INDIVIDUAL STATE HOW THEY WISH TO USE THE TERM MARRIAGE.

IF RELIGIONS CONTINUE TO USE MARRIAGE AS A TERM IT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE FREE TO NAME THEIR RELIGIOUS UNIONS ANYTHING THEY WISH.

A NON-GOVERNMENT ATHEIST OR HOMOSEXUAL PROMOTING GROUP MAY CHOOSE TO HAVE NON-GOVERNMENTAL UNIONS AND CALL THEM MARRIAGES ASWELL.

Writing in caps is patronising and harder to read. We understand perfectly that you mean to release the term "marriage" for use as decided by member states. However, we don't like this because we know exactly what many member states would do once given that power - they would use it to discriminate against homosexuals, or against those that did not participate in the state religion.

What I am not so concerned with is the discrimination through labelling. Some nations are at a developmental stage wherein homosexual marriage would be a very socially divisive issue that would create ill feelings. I submit that, for those states, a more harmonizing approach that still grants civil liberties would be a good "stepping stone". Not only would homosexuals gain near-equal civil freedom, but rioting and other violence in response to the legislation would be less, and the citizenry would have an "adjustment period" in which they can come to terms with the idea of homosexual unions.

Quite frankly, forcing a liberal, equal-rights policy on a nation that isn't ready for it is a bad idea. Not only do you cause divisiveness and violence in many cases, but you generate bad feelings towards the UN in those people who already feel marginalized by the UN because of its apparent opposition to what they see as a normal and appropriate way of life.

Actually, the UN has defined marriage as applying to homosexuals for the majority of the time since the rise of civilisation (as defined by the UN page). Gay Rights has been in force longer than a lot of nations have existed. It's not like this is a new development that many nations have had little time to get used to.

If you cannot imagine even why it is more then just a semantical issue

How come you can see that religious types have a problem with the terminology, but you can't recognise the potential for offence to be caused to those directly affected - the participants in the marriage?

I choose to prioritise the rights of all couples to be equally valued over the rights of bigots to force a devaluing on relationships they have nothing to do with.

What's next, a proposal from religion A that other religions can't use the name "God" to refer to their deties, because it's offensive to members of religion A to hear "their" word used for something they don't believe in?

There is nothing bigoted in opposing an unnecessary change in terminology so that some religious bigot can feel better or more comfortable.

Couldn't have said it better.

Writing in caps is patronising and harder to read. We understand perfectly that you mean to release the term "marriage" for use as decided by member states. However, we don't like this because we know exactly what many member states would do once given that power - they would use it to discriminate against homosexuals, or against those that did not participate in the state religion.

Very well, then let us make it that a state can not use the term "marriage" under any circumstances. Instead it is only for private use.

How come you can see that religious types have a problem with the terminology, but you can't recognise the potential for offence to be caused to those directly affected - the participants in the marriage?

Because religious types have a deep spiritual link with the word. So I invert the question on to you.

What's next, a proposal from religion A that other religions can't use the name "God" to refer to their deties, because it's offensive to members of religion A to hear "their" word used for something they don't believe in?


I would be quite offended if the word God was taken and applied to someone who is simply some kind of leader.

That's what we are dealing with here. Religious people don't believe what is taking place between homosexuals to be real marriage. So to use the word to describe it as that is offensive to them.

That's what we are dealing with here. Religious people don't believe what is taking place between homosexuals to be real marriage. So to use the word to describe it as that is offensive to them.

A lot of non-religious people are offended that religious bigots are trying to steal the word "marriage". Should we ban religious people from using the term?

No, religious people don't believe that homosexual marriage is wrong at all and don't find it offensive, either. Religious bigots, on the other hand, do. And, to them I say, tough noogies. You have no right to not be offended, and even if you did, that is in no way reason enough to violate the rights of others.

"I find you are no different then the bigots whom you hate."

So, what, being "no different than" is being different than, all of a sudden? Is this a case of the same bizarroworld usage of language as when you claim that "it is not separate" when it is separate?

Very clever, but you did not quote my entire sentence. Go back and read it again.

Again, nobody cares about your deity, who, by the way, had nothing to do with the etymology of the word in the English language.

God has everything to do with everything.

A lot of non-religious people are offended that religious bigots are trying to steal the word "marriage". Should we ban religious people from using the term?

Then allow another group to start up and "marry" homosexuals. We can do nothing to stop its private use, we are advocating for it merely not be a political matter.

No, religious people don't believe that homosexual marriage is wrong at all and don't find it offensive, either.

If someone comes from a religion that does not believe homosexuality is evil, then fair enough. But if someone does then they are merely following the change in society rather then the teachings of the church, which are far more important.

Religious bigots, on the other hand, do. And, to them I say, tough noogies. You have no right to not be offended, and even if you did, that is in no way reason enough to violate the rights of others

You fail to understand that just because we percieve things good and bad in today's society doesn't make them so. Take a philosophy class and learn that. Just because we believe homosexuality to be sinful does not mean we are bigots. We may be right, who are you to say we aren't? Do you have all the answers?

Very well, then let us make it that a state can not use the term "marriage" under any circumstances. Instead it is only for private use.

I hardly see how that resolves your objections. Gay couples are still going to call themselves married.

Because religious types have a deep spiritual link with the word. So I invert the question on to you.

Frankly, that's bull. Religious loving couples have no more link to the word than irreligious loving couples.

I already pre-empted this by answering the question from my point of view:

I choose to prioritise the rights of all couples to be equally valued over the rights of bigots to force a devaluing on relationships they have nothing to do with.

I would be quite offended if the word God was taken and applied to someone who is simply some kind of leader.

That's what we are dealing with here. Religious people don't believe what is taking place between homosexuals to be real marriage. So to use the word to describe it as that is offensive to them.

I'd imagine that Catholics don't view the Hindu deities as real gods either (not saying anything specific about those religions, just pulled two out of the air for an example). That doesn't mean they get to dictate what words are used.

God has everything to do with everything.

Not to many of us. Arguments based on religious doctrines are going to have no impact whatsoever on those of us who choose not to follow the relevant religion.

Now you appear to be changing tack again, and saying that marriage should simply be a private term for use by anyone, however they like, it's place in law to be taken by "civil union" or something similar. Again, I fail to see what this achieves.

Ah, but the Christian Bible does NOT say Homosexuality is evil. What it does say is to love others as you love yourself, and that all sinners will be forgiven if they ask for forgiveness. It doesn't matter if they don't know all their sins, or think that a sin they commit isn't a sin. GOD WILL FORGIVE THEM. I'm etting really ticked off at people hijacking the Christian religion as a basis for bigotry.

Very clever, but you did not quote my entire sentence. Go back and read it again.

"And in this, I find you are no different then the bigots whom you hate."

Again, the meaning is not changed. I ask the question again, "no different than" is all of a sudden different than?


God has everything to do with everything.

Prove it. What, you can't because it's some story you believe? Why are you wasting our time with it then?

Then allow another group to start up and "marry" homosexuals. We can do nothing to stop its private use, we are advocating for it merely not be a political matter.

It's not a political matter, it's a judicial matter. A quite clear judicial matter, at that. Your silly, little, confused semantical non-argument is trying to make it political, on the other hand.

If someone comes from a religion that does not believe homosexuality is evil, then fair enough. But if someone does then they are merely following the change in society rather then the teachings of the church, which are far more important.

No, they are not. "My religions told me to do it" will not give you immunity from following the laws of the nation, or the UN. Rule of law - not religion!

You fail to understand that just because we percieve things good and bad in today's society doesn't make them so. Take a philosophy class and learn that.

You are trying to violate the equal rights of people under the guise of deranged semantics and irrelevant religion. Philosophy is irrelevant to your sinister motives.

Just because we believe homosexuality to be sinful does not mean we are bigots.

Umm, yes it does, if you try to let your religious mumbo-jumbo dictate the lives and rights of other people.

We may be right, who are you to say we aren't? Do you have all the answers?

You are the one who is failing to argue for your cause. You have no case.

I hardly see how that resolves your objections. Gay couples are still going to call themselves married.

They may call themselves whatever they like, and religious people will be opposed to the groups who marry gays just as they are to the U.N. at the moment. The point is it takes the focus of hatred away from the U.N. A body which should remain neutral in these matters.

Frankly, that's bull. Religious loving couples have no more link to the word than irreligious loving couples.

Frankly that's bull, and shows your complete lack of theologic understanding.

I'd imagine that Catholics don't view the Hindu deities as real gods either (not saying anything specific about those religions, just pulled two out of the air for an example). That doesn't mean they get to dictate what words are used.

Hindu deities are not called the one and only God. Which is what is implied by the capital G in God, so your point is irrelevant.

Not to many of us. Arguments based on religious doctrines are going to have no impact whatsoever on those of us who choose not to follow the relevant religion.

No, but have the humbleness to not assume you know everything, please. Understand that relgious doctrine may be of greater importance then you believe it to be.

Now you appear to be changing tack again, and saying that marriage should simply be a private term for use by anyone, however they like, it's place in law to be taken by "civil union" or something similar. Again, I fail to see what this achieves.

You call it chaning tack, I call it compromise. When someone makes a valid point, I adapt my position.

You call it chaning tack, I call it compromise. When someone makes a valid point, I adapt my position.

Your side getting everything you want and the other side getting nothing is not a compromise.

"And in this, I find you are no different then the bigots whom you hate."

Again, the meaning is not changed. I ask the question again, "no different than" is all of a sudden different than?

Now read the "And in this" part. Look at the sentence above. You'll get it.

Prove it. What, you can't because it's some story you believe? Why are you wasting our time with it then?

It's a matter of Faith. Something you don't understand for sure, but that doesn't make it wrong or non-existant.
It's not a political matter, it's a judicial matter. A quite clear judicial matter, at that. Your silly, little, confused semantical non-argument is trying to make it political, on the other hand.

I am getting caught up with semantics? What an ironic accusation.

No, they are not. "My religions told me to do it" will not give you immunity from following the laws of the nation, or the UN. Rule of law - not religion!

Nor is anyone claiming it should. I am hear to try and allow people to follow both their religion and the law of the U.N.

You are trying to violate the equal rights of people under the guise of deranged semantics and irrelevant religion. Philosophy is irrelevant to your sinister motives.

I have shown you how it is not inequal. I have changed my stance based on the accusations, to try and reinforce equality, yet still you call my motives sinister. You need to see past you own bias against religion. And yes, believing homosexuality is evil is part of religion. As is "hate the sin love the sinner" which is why I am trying to make it equal.

Umm, yes it does, if you try to let your religious mumbo-jumbo dictate the lives and rights of other people.

I'm afraid thinking something is not bad. Someone cannot be blamed for how they think, It is how they act that determines whether they are a bigot or not.

Your side getting everything you want and the other side getting nothing is not a compromise.

I'm afriad it's the otherway around, and you're a fool if you think I'm wrong there.

Have you never talked to anyone else from my side? Then you know I'm hardly trying to get everything "I" want.

They may call themselves whatever they like, and religious people will be opposed to the groups who marry gays just as they are to the U.N. at the moment. The point is it takes the focus of hatred away from the U.N. A body which should remain neutral in these matters.

Why should the UN remain neutral on this particular issue? I'm all for the UN standing up and saying "Whatever your personal opinions of homosexuals, atheists, and other groups, which you're perfectly entitled to, their loving relationships are going to get full recognition as marriages - because that's what they are - under law."

Frankly that's bull, and shows your complete lack of theologic understanding.

To claim that the term marriage means more to religious than non-religious people is to suggest that loving relationships between religious people are more meaningful that those between non-religious people. At which point you have personally insulted a very, very large number of citizens of this and many other nations.

Hindu deities are not called the one and only God. Which is what is implied by the capital G in God, so your point is irrelevant.

Ok fine - to take another, perhaps more applicable example, Muslims don't recognise Jesus as God. That doesn't mean that we should consider stopping Christians from referring to Jesus as their God, to protect Muslims from offence.

No, but have the humbleness to not assume you know everything, please. Understand that relgious doctrine may be of greater importance then you believe it to be.

I personally am not religious. That does not mean that I do not realise the importance of religion to many, and it doesn't mean that I don't respect them. What it does mean is that using religious doctrine as a premise in your argument means that your argument has zero chance of persuading me, because I don't share the premise on which it is founded.

You call it chaning tack, I call it compromise. When someone makes a valid point, I adapt my position.

I wasn't trying to imply anything about the adaptation - I'm very tired, and so my meaning may not be totally clear, for which I apologise.

I'm afraid thinking something is not bad. Someone cannot be blamed for how they think, It is how they act that determines whether they are a bigot or not.

Sorry, but changing the law to satisfy your prejudices constitutes action - and therefore, on your own terms, bigotry.

Now read the "And in this" part. Look at the sentence above. You'll get it.

No. You said I was "no different than" a bigot, and than you said you didn't say I was a bigot. Really, your inability to stand up for what you said is getting pathetic.

It's a matter of Faith. Something you don't understand for sure, but that doesn't make it wrong or non-existant.

Newsflash! This is not a church or coven or temple or teepee with a totempole. We don't care what your "faith" says. We deal in ethics, facts and arguments. Your faith is neither.

I am getting caught up with semantics? What an ironic accusation.

You're the one fighting to get a perfectly good word discarded from signifying what it signifies, and what it is defined as. Your whole argument is "waaah, but you're using a word I don't want you to use because of my religious bigotry".


Nor is anyone claiming it should. I am hear to try and allow people to follow both their religion and the law of the U.N.

The law and UN resolutions stand above your religion at every instance. Your religion is no excuse for breaking them, and your religion is not reason for them to be rewritten.

I have shown you how it is not inequal.

No, you've failed miserably at that.

I have changed my stance based on the accusations, to try and reinforce equality, yet still you call my motives sinister. You need to see past you own bias against religion. And yes, believing homosexuality is evil is part of religion. As is "hate the sin love the sinner" which is why I am trying to make it equal.

That's just gibberish. Once again: your religion is irrelevant.

I'm afraid thinking something is not bad. Someone cannot be blamed for how they think, It is how they act that determines whether they are a bigot or not.

You are acting.

But what I am suggesting is not targetting any group. I was made aware that it could be used to target homosexuals so I offered a change. It is not bigotry.

I'm afriad it's the otherway around, and you're a fool if you think I'm wrong there.

Oh, dear, what an unconvicing thing to write.

Have you never talked to anyone else from my side? Then you know I'm hardly trying to get everything "I" want.

Oh, we know what you really want. It is one of the reasons we will not yield a centimeter.

The current definition is a democratically chosen, equal and fair one, without any sort of religious claptrap. You want to change it. We don't want to. Letting you change it is giving you what you want, while we get nothing in return. Hardly a compromise.

Did anyone even SEE my post?

This is the only point I'm bothering to deal with Fass, as the rest all are jsut you telling me my religion is irrelevant, which it isn't.

If you cannot imagine even why it is more then just a semantical issue, then me telling you over and over again will make no difference.

And in this, I find you are no different then the bigots whom you hate.

Here is what I said. Note: "me telling you over and over again will make no difference part" meaning you are not willing to listen. Note: "And in this" part, meaing that in that respect, you are no different then the bigots you hate.

So what I was saying is, you share a similarity with bigots in that you are not willing to listen.

I do hope I get an apology for having to deal with this for so long, I really di think it was a very simple matter.

Oh, we know what you really want. It is one of the reasons we will not yield a centimeter.

You make me laugh. What do you think I will do when I can get a well reasoned agreement between everyone? Quickly sneak in some extra clause saying "GAYS ARE EVIL! DEATH TO GAYS!" hoping you won't notice?

This is the only point I'm bothering to deal with Fass, as the rest all are jsut you telling me my religion is irrelevant, which it isn't.

Where in DoM is religion mentioned? Nowhere. Thus, religion, and yours in particular, is irrelevant. Marriage simply is not a religious matter, never mind how much you wish it were.

Here is what I said. Note: "me telling you over and over again will make no difference part" meaning you are not willing to listen. Note: "And in this" part, meaing that in that respect, you are no different then the bigots you hate.

Of course I will not listen to irrelevant fairytales. I have made that perfectly clear. You called me a bigot for it. Stop this pathetic backtracking.

So what I was saying is, you share a similarity with bigots in that you are not willing to listen.

Bigots don't want to listen to reason. Religion simply is not reason.

I do hope I get an apology for having to deal with this for so long, I really di think it was a very simple matter.

Keep dreaming.

OOC: I don't know if this will make anyone chill out at all, but I'm actually a total Liberal, and not tremendously religious. I think the best way to solidify your opinions is to argue from the otherside.

Of course I will not listen to irrelevant fairytales. I have made that perfectly clear. You called me a bigot for it. Stop this pathetic backtracking.

It is your inability to read that is causing this problem. I did not call you a bigot, but think whatever you wish.

You make me laugh. What do you think I will do when I can get a well reasoned agreement between everyone? Quickly sneak in some extra clause saying "GAYS ARE EVIL! DEATH TO GAYS!" hoping you won't notice?

No, you will use a redefinition to exclude gays from marriage, treating gays as second-class citizens. And that just will not do.

It is your inability to read that is causing this problem. I did not call you a bigot, but think whatever you wish.

As I said, pathetic inability to stand for what you wrote, and you are still trying to claim that "no different than a bigot" is "different than a bigot". Tsk, tsk.

I have already gone over how that can be avoided.

Neoconland and Fass (and anyone else that's doing it), knock it off. This bickering is pointless (and not in-character).

The UN has voted, on at least two and perhaps as many as five different occasions, to make "Gay Marriage" legal. From a UN perspective (which should be the only thing that matters in this forum), you can't change the name to Civil Union without first repealing the existing resolutions.

Neoconland, you can't propose an amendment, as they are illegal. Repeal and replace, and take your chances with the electorate. Frankly, the past voting record of the UN does not support your position. Either lobby successfully to get your way, or take it to General to argue.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

Thank you Frisbeeteria! It was annoying having other people points and comments completely ignored while they bicker.

This is the only point I'm bothering to deal with Fass, as the rest all are jsut you telling me my religion is irrelevant, which it isn't.seeing that any religion for the UN is just as good and right as any other. I would think that what your religion thinks shouldnt be important for the UN. As there will be other religions that will go against your own and as all religions are just as good and right as any other than a decision is impossible. Unless all religions are irrelevant for UN decisions, atleast thats my view on it.

Questions for Neoconland:

We don't call it marriage in this Republic, not speaking english in our own internal operations.... it is 'gamos', is 'gamos' a holy word?

What about 'unione'? Or 'huwelijk'?... They all mean the same thing... "Union"... Marriage also means "Union"...

gamos, Greek for union... unione in Italian, huwelijk in Dutch... marriage in english.... What makes this particular english word holy? It appearantly isn't the "idea the word expresses" since you have no beef with 'civil union' (which = marriage, anyway) but only with this particular English word... Do you consider the English language as some sort of Holy toungue?

You want to rephrase gay marriage into a gay "civil union," I hear?

Neoconland, enough sissy-footing on this issue and let's be correct. It isn't marriage, it is sacriledge! It is sin! It is spitting in the face of god! It is deviance! It is genocide! It is sodomy and it is pedophilia!

--Welsh

Not according to the DoM.

The DoM is precisely what's under question here. Neoconland is essentially proposing a repeal of DoM and non-intervention by the UN in the issue of "marriage".

Actually, no. Marriage is a clearly defined legal concept.

Again, that is precisely what's under question here. What would you do in a debate if the definition of one of your opponent's terms was under question and that other person just kept repeating their definition ad nauseum?

Because marriage is not a religious institution or entity. Read the DoM, please.

I'm going to try to make this very clear. Pay attention, please.

No single institution in the world of NationStates has the exclusive power to define a social construct. The UN does not have that power. Automagfreek does not have that power. The Pacific does not have that power. Those entities (and all others) can only define a social construct within the sphere of their power, which is limited. In the case of the UN, the DoM only applies to the legal code of the state, which means that (for example) in the case of a state that has a "separation of church and state", the DoM means diddly squat to people who only get "married" in a religious setting. Individual persons and religious bodies can define and enforce "marriage" contracts on themselves in any way they wish in those states that simply do not perform any marriages. In nations that have chosen to cleverly move around DoM by limiting all civil "marriages" by setting an age limit that is higher than the life expectancy of the citizenry, "marriage" may be solely a religious institution.

Hell, they could agree to feed their dog every day and call it a marriage in my nation because (despite the fact that the DoM is written on some piece of paper somewhere in the bowels of the Records Agency headquarters where every legal document is stored) the state is simply uninvolved in marriage in any form, and the DoM is simply not relevant to non-civil agreements.

As much as I'd like to see the UN stop meddling in a nation's marriage laws, or lack thereof (heck, I've approved every legal repeal attempt on both the DoM and the "Gay rights" resolutions). I've come to realize that the odds of one of these repeal attempts reaching quorum falls somewhere between slim and none, and the odds of one actually passing are so infitessimal as to be uncalculable.

Having said that I will continue to tilt at this particular windmill, and thereby give this proposal my support.