NationStates Jolt Archive

It is nasty,wrong and weird. Thats not the only reson. Ask yourself would you support your parents being gay or anyone in your family including kids. telegram the empire of sadrin about this. Actually i am him but we are making a region where we all think of what we would do not what is right. :headbang:

It is nasty,wrong and weird.
Err, I'd like to see a proof of that before I act on it.
Then I'd like to see you prove that something being "nasty" or "weird" is a good reason to ban it.
Thats not the only reson. Ask yourself would you support your parents being gay or anyone in your family including kids.
Of course I would.

EDIT:
By the way, do you have a proposal yet, or are you using this thread to formulate ideas for one?

If you even come up with a resolution, i will vote it down.

We must ban all "gay rights". The gays are nice people, but they need to stay in the closet. I dont need to see "Will & Grace" on T.V. I dont need to see "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy". It is absolute trash. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. It is not right. I am a very tolerant person, but when I see 2 guys making out in a Christina Agulera video, I am appalled. When I see 2 chicks making out in a T.A.T.U. video, I am appalled. Keep it away from us! Stay in the closet!

Oh boy. This one again.

Keep it flame-free, folks.

OOC:

I'd at least appreciate an argument based even somewhat off of an RP-able issue, be it national sovereignty, effects on stats, or (preferably) an in-character post.

IC:

The government of Krioval finds nothing "nasty", "wrong", or "weird" about consensual sex between two of its citizens. That such an argument is wielded against law-abiding people expressing their natural sexuality in private speaks far more to the character of those issuing it rather than the argument's intended targets.

Commander Raijin Dekker
Armed Republic of Krioval

We would ask the government of Asgarnieu what they think gays feel when they see two staright people kissing? Nothing that offends them. Why should straight people be allow to go out on a romantic dinner, but gays not? Because you feel it has no place in public? The gender of a couple shouldn't matter, just as the color of their skin shouldn't, or just as who their parents are shouldn't. You wouldn't like it if you were thrown in jail for no other reason than your parents were crimanal masterminds. Why should gays have to hide from society?

Alex Johnson
Assistant to BlueTiger's UN Ambassador

The teachings of Chinesus is all the poor people of Baklavagalooshgaland need to know that "teh Gay" is both bad and wrong! In fact, it's Badong! Please, think of the poor starving orphaned, legless, armless, goatless boy of Baklavagalooshgaland and repeal this afront to Chinesus! Thank you,

-High Epoch of Baklavagalooshgaland and Revered Emissary al Muktar Shazbot

I'd like to point out that the resolution "Gay Rights" does not, in my opinion, protect gays' rights due to a lack of specificism and pragmatics (I've expressed the failures I find with the resolution many times in the past, and will recall them here if there's any question as to how I come to this conclusion).

So, if players really want to give UN nations back the right to determine whether gays can marry and what not, "Definition of Marriage", "Rights of Minorities and Women", and "Discrimination Accord" are likely much more effective repeals.

No way in hell.


Signed,
Dee Marx, Prime Minister of ROADP

In fact, it's Badong!

We applaud you for the first proper Kung Pow reference we have seen in all of Nationstates, but reluctantly must disagree with your application of it. Fatus Maximus supports gay rights in all aspects of life, and firmly believes that someone's sexual orientation is no reason to persecute them.

Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is. There are many who don't even see people making out unless we want to (ah, the joys of selective vision and memory), nevertheless trying to ditate what others should do, how they should feel or define a certain manner in which one should react to any stimuli.

Hey, do what you want...just don't push it on other people is all I ask.

SO no, I won't assist in the voting down of said resolution.

The Commonwealth of Kayros, as with many progressive states, strongly supports the rights of the individual. As such, allowing our citizens to do what they want when they want it is of far more importance than regulating the behavior of the individual.

Even if the delegates allowed such a restrictive and base resolution to go to general vote, we, as with many others, would quickly vote it down.

- Kyle d’Aires- Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs
- Commonwealth of Kayros

It seems to me, that we are all going wild about something that has not been defined. No coherent arguments have been raised on either side, just an appeal to the fuzzy political 'tolerance' and the 'moral good.'

Now, while I don't hesitate to see that there is some logic behind both of these positions, I want to debate it another way. How about, instead of talking about morality (which has many sides, and is a vast subject) - how about we talk about expediency. Expediency is using things to one's own advantage or one's own interest.

Having done this, and assuming that gay marriage is the joining together of two partners of the same sex in a sexual relationship, I will proceed. The question at hand is whether or not gay marriage serves the interests of the individual, and of the state. It was passed not without opposition, this gay rights law.

So, is gay marriage expedient? Does it produce good in the community? Does it have any purpose in modern society? These are today's issues. Not getting off-topic would be beneficial.

I say that gay marriage is inexpedient. Firstly, it produces no additions to the labour force, i.e. children. Secondly, gay marriage is not tolerant of the sexes - it only admits one sex. Should an intolerant institution be allowed? This is, perhaps, a question to be pondered. In many cases, tolerant societies have allowed intolerant mixes into their midst and have been destroyed. Maybe this is such a one. Generally, it is inexpedient for a tolerant country to allow intolerant institutions into their midst. Witness terrorism. Terrorism is generally the product of intolerant Muslim minorities, who seek to destroy Western culture. Prior to 9/11 they were neglected. Now of course, anyone can see that gay marriage has not produced anything like that, yet. But the same fundamental principle underlines gay marriage - the destruction of Western marital culture.
Do you want to abandon 4,000 years of thinking? Do you want to abandon the greatest minds in history? Do you want to abandon the traditions of the universe, and the natural traits which have emerged over time? Gay marriage is a moral destruction of Western culture. While its full fruits have not yet emerged, it is only another aspect of terrorism. It is the destruction of the West threatened in LOTR, and it looms close. Is this expediency at work? Is this progress, to destroy our moral foundations? I have seen progress in an egg, said C.S.Lewis, and in Narnia we call it "going bad". I leave the conclusions to you.
Herein I quote a dialogue which I have read, between John and Freo:
John: Is gay marriage good?
Freo: Certainly.
John: And the good cannot produce bad, any more than carrots can produce potatoes?
Freo: Of course not.
John: But, I suppose if the earth were depopulated, that would be bad?
Freo: Yes.
John: And yet, if gay marriage continues, then the earth will be depopulated.

Are we to conclude from this that gay marriage is good? Surely not.
Oops...got to go...I'll be back...

Hopefully I misread that, but did you just compare gay marriage.. to terrorism? And then go on to say that gay marriage is going to be the destruction of mankind? And that gay marriage is not tolerant because it excludes one of the sexes (even though the same argument could be made of straight marriages - that it only allows a single man or a single woman, rather than two men or two women)?

I don't think that anybody is proposing banning marriage between a man and a woman in favor of same sex marriage, but rather permitting people to choose how they want to live.

- The Commonwealth of Kayros, Ministry of Human Rights

I've taken the liberty of splitting up your post so that I can address your points as the appear, rather than trying to cram them all in together.

It seems to me, that we are all going wild about something that has not been defined. No coherent arguments have been raised on either side, just an appeal to the fuzzy political 'tolerance' and the 'moral good.'

Now, while I don't hesitate to see that there is some logic behind both of these positions, I want to debate it another way. How about, instead of talking about morality (which has many sides, and is a vast subject) - how about we talk about expediency. Expediency is using things to one's own advantage or one's own interest.
This should be interesting.

Having done this, and assuming that gay marriage is the joining together of two partners of the same sex in a sexual relationship, I will proceed. The question at hand is whether or not gay marriage serves the interests of the individual, and of the state. It was passed not without opposition, this gay rights law.
Yet it did pass, then was built upon, particularly with the Definition of Marriage resolution (which, by the way, is the only thing requiring that heterosexual unions be recognised as marriages).

So, is gay marriage expedient? Does it produce good in the community? Does it have any purpose in modern society? These are today's issues. Not getting off-topic would be beneficial.

I say that gay marriage is inexpedient. Firstly, it produces no additions to the labour force, i.e. children.
So under your reasoning, would you forbid the infertile from marrying? What about post-menopausal women? What about couples who simply do not want to have children? And do we really need more children in the overpopulated planet?
Secondly, gay marriage is not tolerant of the sexes - it only admits one sex.
Huh? I simply don't get this. Gay men can be married, and lesbian women can be married. Straight couples can also be married. But under the laws in most real-world nations, only straight couples can be married. Which is the more intolerant?
Should an intolerant institution be allowed? This is, perhaps, a question to be pondered. In many cases, tolerant societies have allowed intolerant mixes into their midst and have been destroyed. Maybe this is such a one. Generally, it is inexpedient for a tolerant country to allow intolerant institutions into their midst. Witness terrorism. Terrorism is generally the product of intolerant Muslim minorities, who seek to destroy Western culture. Prior to 9/11 they were neglected. Now of course, anyone can see that gay marriage has not produced anything like that, yet. But the same fundamental principle underlines gay marriage - the destruction of Western marital culture.
I don't believe I can comment on this without screaming, so I'm just going to leave it for now and try to calm down.
Do you want to abandon 4,000 years of thinking?
So when the Emperor Nero married not just one, but two men, he was only abandoning 2000 years of thinking? Achilles and Patroclus were only abandoning 1000 years of thinking? Gay marriage has existed throughout much of western civilisation.
Do you want to abandon the greatest minds in history?
What? From where comes this assertion? How is allowing homosexuals to express their love in a legally binding way 'abandoning the greatest minds in history'?
Do you want to abandon the traditions of the universe, and the natural traits which have emerged over time? Gay marriage is a moral destruction of Western culture. While its full fruits have not yet emerged, it is only another aspect of terrorism. It is the destruction of the West threatened in LOTR, and it looms close. Is this expediency at work? Is this progress, to destroy our moral foundations? I have seen progress in an egg, said C.S.Lewis, and in Narnia we call it "going bad". I leave the conclusions to you.
Again, I cannot write anything more than this without going into a full flaming rant.
Herein I quote a dialogue which I have read, between John and Freo:
John: Is gay marriage good?
Freo: Certainly.
John: And the good cannot produce bad, any more than carrots can produce potatoes?
Freo: Of course not.
John: But, I suppose if the earth were depopulated, that would be bad?
Freo: Yes.
John: And yet, if gay marriage continues, then the earth will be depopulated.
This is complete garbage. How is gay marriage going to depopulate the Earth? Just answer me that, even if you don't say anything else in response to this post.

Are we to conclude from this that gay marriage is good? Surely not.
Oops...got to go...I'll be back...
I'll see you when you return.

In case you didn't realise, this post was brought to you by a homosexual man who is strongly in support of equal marriage rights for homosexuals.

Hmm, Kayros, I probably did go a little far. Had I revised that post, I'm sure that I would have found several things wrong, both with my reasoning, and my expression. Indeed, many things wrong. Perhaps, instead of finding reasons to condemn it, I should (at least until I am coherent) take a more moderate view. I think that whether or not you support gay marriage is dependant mainly on your upbringing, as most things are. I have not, I confess, seen any evidence either for or against gay marriage. (By the way, I haven't revised this, either)

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. It is not right.True, but they did have three sons. Not ideal conditions for the continuation of the species. :D

True, but they did have three sons. Not ideal conditions for the continuation of the species. :D
I was all set to follow Enn and unleash my fury, but you've reduced me to hapless giggles. I can't be angry now.

When I see 2 chicks making out in a T.A.T.U. video, I am appalled.Really? I've paid good money to see that sort of thing :p

in seriousness, I think this would be an excellent topic to add to the wiki - if it comes up again just refer them to the link

True, but they did have three sons. Not ideal conditions for the continuation of the species. :D
And then they started killing each other. Even better!

Really? I've paid good money to see that sort of thing :p

Nothing wrong with that!

I dont get it though about this whole 'gay rights' thing, shouldn't anyone be allowed to marry/sleep with anyone if its all ok age wise?

I mean honestly whats the problem (forgetting that weird mixmatch cult called 'Christianity' and those other assorted nut job religions for a sec)?

What people do to each other (as long as everyone is consenting and not positively life threatening) in the privacy of their own homes is their buisness and I sure as hell as leader don't wish to know about it either!
Iam informed by my senior biologists and anthropologists, that when increased homosexuality tolerance occurs in a society there is never any noticible effect on the population figures.
The 'career woman' and 'leisurely youth' have significantly reduced birth rates but not gayness, after all most so called 'gay' people have had in the past and still do have sex with people of the opposite gender, this of course means babies.
Homosexuality is really just a natural (or it wouldnt be in us at all) sexual function between two willing people, some men have sex with other men simply because women are hard to come by for some reason (ie in prison or on a ship or something) no one rational would suggest that was unsurprising or unnatural really, considering monkeys and apes (which we are) are always trying to bum love each other, its very common among primates, its to foster inter clan relationships and determine social heirachies plus its damn good fun too judging by the amount of time that some species devote to mass orgies or communal sex.
We should stop wasting time and resources trying to restrict people from getting something they cannot, at that time, get from one half of humanity.
Who cares?

It is nasty,wrong and weird. Thats not the only reson. Ask yourself would you support your parents being gay or anyone in your family including kids. telegram the empire of sadrin about this. Actually i am him but we are making a region where we all think of what we would do not what is right. :headbang:


There's A LOT of things that are legal and nasty, wrong and weird.


Smoking for example. Smoking is about the WEIRDEST thing a person can do to their lungs. You basically mesquite your lungs.

It's nasty and frankly speaking, it's the cause of 90% of all Lung Cancer...so it's wrong.

And here's the worst part...it affects everyone around them.

Yet it's legal.


So leave the Gays alone...in fact...your reaction seems a bit self-loathing.


Hint Hint.

***OFFICIAL PROCLIMATION***

The Holy Empire of Shazbotdom will reinterate it's position on this matter. We believe that it is Immoral to take away ones personal freedoms due to their religious, sexual, or national beliefs. it is also immoral to dictate that other nations should change their laws based on your personal beliefs. The Resolution that you have so blatantly bashed is one that was passed with a wide majority vote within the membership of the United Nations and thus became a resolution. Unless you can provide proof to your claims, the Holy Empire will vote DOWN any resolution that you attempt to bring before the United Nations Deligates or the Entire Membership of the United Nations.

Emporer Galen Q. Leotardia
The Holy Empire of Shazbotdom
United Nations Member Nation
Regional Deligate to the United Nations

Let's see

I hate horror movies. I find them weird, illogical, disturbing and distasteful. I dislike seeing them on TV and I avoid them whenever possible. Several times, I've been pushed into watching one and been rather frustrated afterwards. I don't understand the people that enjoy watching them. I don't see why they'd like that sort of thing.

However, would I ban them from watching horror movies? Would I be appalled if they started watching horror movies? Would I think they are disgusting and should go and take that into their room, put it on the laptop so that I don't have to see it? Heck no. In today's society, I would be shot for even suggesting such a thing, but regardless, I'm tolerant and understanding enough to understand that they have different tastes than I do. So I let them do what they enjoy and if a horror movie comes on (or Will and Grace - though I dislike that show for a different reason - it's just plain not funny IMO), I go and do something else.

I must state my claim on the matter.

In every society, however be it so ancient or modern, homosexuality has always been it's failing point, that is to say, when it is legal, or allowed, or simply 'tolerated' in a passive aggrement, such society is clearly marked for destruction in short time.
And I speak, not as a religoius nation, now, for no religion supports, or even allows such a vile deed, but as a politician.

For everyone's sake, I beg of you, nay, I PRAY of you, ban these horrid beings from your sight, and from your land.

The official stand on the matter by the Holy Empire of the Orthodox Synod is that any caught in the act are to be publically executed.

Really? I've paid good money to see that sort of thing :p
While i May not always see eye to eye with hack, I'm with him on this one! :p

Long time no see, VL! :D

At the behest of our corporate sponsors, the Federal Republic would point out that it frowns upon discrimination against gay people. After all, gays are customers too. However, we cannot support any U.N. resolution that would instruct sovereign nations how best to enforce human rights within their own borders -- for fear that the United Nations might later seek to infringe upon our corporations' sovereign right to brutalize labor, exploit the lucrative trade pacts the Federal Republic has entered into, bankroll politicians and the government and transform the latter into a virtual wholly owned suibsidiary of the national corporate conglomerate, and, of course, sell high-quality products at bargain prices.

That said, we cannot support any repeal based on pure prejudice. We will not support any repeal lodged by the delegate from Sadrin.

Allow us, if we may, to direct an aside toward the honorable delegate who muttered the line, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve": That phrase is a registered trademark of the Redneck Homophobe Cliché Corporation, and would advise him to cease and desist immediately if he wishes to avoid a damaging international copyright-infringement lawsuit.

BlueTiger']We would ask the government of Asgarnieu what they think gays feel when they see two staright people kissing? Nothing that offends them. Why should straight people be allow to go out on a romantic dinner, but gays not? Because you feel it has no place in public? The gender of a couple shouldn't matter, just as the color of their skin shouldn't, or just as who their parents are shouldn't. You wouldn't like it if you were thrown in jail for no other reason than your parents were crimanal masterminds. Why should gays have to hide from society?

Alex Johnson
Assistant to BlueTiger's UN Ambassador


BECAUSE GAYS ARE NOT RIGHT IN THE HEAD. GOD DIDN'T DESIGN GAYS. ADAM AND EVE, NOT ADAM AND STEVE!!! GAYS AREN'T NORMAL, THAT IS WHY THEY SHOULD HIDE FORM SOCIETY.

BECAUSE GAYS ARE NOT RIGHT IN THE HEAD. GOD DIDN'T DESIGN GAYS. ADAM AND EVE, NOT ADAM AND STEVE!!! GAYS AREN'T NORMAL, THAT IS WHY THEY SHOULD HIDE FORM SOCIETY.
CAPS LOCK IS FUN AND EDUCATIONAL.

BECAUSE GAYS ARE NOT RIGHT IN THE HEAD. GOD DIDN'T DESIGN GAYS. ADAM AND EVE, NOT ADAM AND STEVE!!! GAYS AREN'T NORMAL, THAT IS WHY THEY SHOULD HIDE FORM SOCIETY.

"LOOK AT ME! EVERYTHING I SAY IS AUTOMATICALLY INVALIDATED BY MY HOMOPHOBIA AND INABILITY TO WORK A KEYBOARD!111!!!eleven" :rolleyes:

Ok, it's time for an infinite Forgottenlands post:

It is nasty,wrong and weird.

To you. So?

Thats not the only reson. Ask yourself would you support your parents being gay or anyone in your family including kids.

Actually, yes. The only thing that amazes me is that I don't know anyone who's gay. However, I know a lot of people (a LOT of people) who are friends with someone who's gay - and I still feel....meh.

telegram the empire of sadrin about this. Actually i am him but we are making a region where we all think of what we would do not what is right. :headbang:

Ah, but you see, I believe in what is right

Err, I'd like to see a proof of that before I act on it.
Then I'd like to see you prove that something being "nasty" or "weird" is a good reason to ban it.

Well put

We must ban all "gay rights".

I love it when they put the conclusion first

The gays are nice people,

Oh good, so what's your problem?

but they need to stay in the closet. I dont need to see "Will & Grace" on T.V. I dont need to see "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy".

And I don't need Trading Spaces or any Horror movies or chic flicks (thank god my gf is even less of a fan of those than I am) or..... Your point?

It is absolute trash.

Agreed, but it's not because there are gay people on it. It's trash for the same reason Seinfeld was trash - it's plain BORING and NOT FUNNY.

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Yet we all know that Adam loved Eve so much that he would never consider screwing Steve....oh wait, he didn't have that option.

It is not right.

You have yet to prove this to me

I am a very tolerant person, but when I see 2 guys making out in a Christina Agulera video, I am appalled.

Nice of you to contradict yourself. If you were tolerant of them, I might welcome your belief that you're tolerant. Guess what, I have problems watching that stuff too, but guess what - I LET IT HAPPEN because I'm tolerant of other people's preferences.

When I see 2 chicks making out in a T.A.T.U. video, I am appalled. Keep it away from us! Stay in the closet!

Alright, you put your religion back in the closet so I don't have to be appalled by people using "God" or "the bible" as their justification and I'll send the gays back to the closet. Why should your opinions and beliefs get precedence over theirs?

Keep it flame-free, folks.

Am I succeeding so far?

I'd at least appreciate an argument based even somewhat off of an RP-able issue, be it national sovereignty, effects on stats, or (preferably) an in-character post.

Bah - any argument would actually probably work. If they want to push god, they are trying to create a more theological society....

I'd like to point out that the resolution "Gay Rights" does not, in my opinion, protect gays' rights due to a lack of specificism and pragmatics (I've expressed the failures I find with the resolution many times in the past, and will recall them here if there's any question as to how I come to this conclusion).

So, if players really want to give UN nations back the right to determine whether gays can marry and what not, "Definition of Marriage", "Rights of Minorities and Women", and "Discrimination Accord" are likely much more effective repeals.

Well aware of that, but I'd rather repeal it with a repeal saying that rather than one spewing either religion or anti-gay sentiments. The effect and the message I feel are equally important

It seems to me, that we are all going wild about something that has not been defined. No coherent arguments have been raised on either side, just an appeal to the fuzzy political 'tolerance' and the 'moral good.'

True, but it is on those grounds more than any other that I affirm my position. I just use other grounds to deflect opposition on those grounds (sometimes)

Now, while I don't hesitate to see that there is some logic behind both of these positions, I want to debate it another way. How about, instead of talking about morality (which has many sides, and is a vast subject) - how about we talk about expediency. Expediency is using things to one's own advantage or one's own interest.

Alright, I'll play your game

Having done this, and assuming that gay marriage is the joining together of two partners of the same sex in a sexual relationship, I will proceed. The question at hand is whether or not gay marriage serves the interests of the individual, and of the state. It was passed not without opposition, this gay rights law.

So, is gay marriage expedient? Does it produce good in the community? Does it have any purpose in modern society? These are today's issues. Not getting off-topic would be beneficial.

I'll disagree that they are today's issues, but they are issues regarding this section. For the most part, it is acceptance that is welcoming such situations

I say that gay marriage is inexpedient. Firstly, it produces no additions to the labour force, i.e. children.

I'll concede that, BUT I do have a friend (straight) who knocked up a girl a few weeks before graduation. The same week he found out (and they had broken up by then), well, he got himself sterilized. Should he not be allowed to marry? Should he only be allowed to marry her? Should he not be allowed to marry her as there will be no ADDITIONAL children? Should we require ALL married couples to have children? What about if they're senior citizens - should they not be allowed to marry? What if a few days after a couple of 40-somethings got married, she enterred Menopause - should their marriage be annulled?

Secondly, gay marriage is not tolerant of the sexes - it only admits one sex. Should an intolerant institution be allowed? This is, perhaps, a question to be pondered. In many cases, tolerant societies have allowed intolerant mixes into their midst and have been destroyed. Maybe this is such a one. Generally, it is inexpedient for a tolerant country to allow intolerant institutions into their midst.

Are you therefore suggesting that a union between a white man and a white woman should be made illegal. That seems rather intolerant towards what race each are from. Quite frankly, IMO, it is one thing to be intolerant to your friends, it's another thing to be intolerant to the one you are...well... attracted to. I may choose people of different races, but there are many who have difficulty seeing beauty outside their race. It is the same issue with gays vs straights. By the same argument, by marrying a man and a woman, you are forcing the man to be intolerant to loving a man and the woman to be intolerant to the woman.

Witness terrorism. Terrorism is generally the product of intolerant Muslim minorities, who seek to destroy Western culture.

No - you're thinking of extremist islam. I'd like to point out Timothy McVeih (sp?) who blew up a building in Oklahoma in '94. He was retaliating to a raid made by the police against a (I believe) Christian "religious" figure. The entire building was destroyed including all the woman and children and there were (IIRC) two survivors. The Clinton administration lied through its teeth at the Senate hearings. Other terrorist groups and people include Nelson Mandella, Chechnyan Rebels (who are, by and large, Chechnyans), IRA (almost solely Irish people.....and they are hardly Islamic - though I can't remember if they're Christian or Prodestant), etc. Also, a fair bit of State sponsored Terrorism is conducted by...Jewish Isreal.

Further, it's only partially intolerance towards western culture, it's also rebellion against what I call western oppression and American Imperialism - what the accurate term is someone else can bring up. It's just like the South was not interested in bowing down to Washington and rebelled 140 years ago.

Prior to 9/11 they were neglected. Now of course, anyone can see that gay marriage has not produced anything like that, yet. But the same fundamental principle underlines gay marriage - the destruction of Western marital culture.

"Western marital culture"? "Destruction"? How did we get there?

Do you want to abandon 4,000 years of thinking?

100 years ago we started abandoning 10000 + years of thinking by giving women rights. Your point?

Do you want to abandon the greatest minds in history?

Ever noticed how the bible treats women like crap?

Do you want to abandon the traditions of the universe,

I'd love to drop capital punishment as a response to treason. Oh wait, for the most part, we have dropped it.

and the natural traits which have emerged over time?

Yet they've found an actual "homosexual gene". I think that's a fairly natural trait.

Gay marriage is a moral destruction of Western culture.

How?

While its full fruits have not yet emerged, it is only another aspect of terrorism. It is the destruction of the West threatened in LOTR, and it looms close. Is this expediency at work? Is this progress, to destroy our moral foundations?

Did you know that in 1976 (do I have the date right), the US made it legal in all states to have inter-racial marriages?

[QUPTE]I have seen progress in an egg, said C.S.Lewis, and in Narnia we call it "going bad". I leave the conclusions to you.[/QUOTE]

I think I've made mine. BTW - I find it rather humorous that you ended up arguing morals in the end :P

Herein I quote a dialogue which I have read, between John and Freo:
John: Is gay marriage good?
Freo: Certainly.
John: And the good cannot produce bad, any more than carrots can produce potatoes?
Freo: Of course not.
John: But, I suppose if the earth were depopulated, that would be bad?
Freo: Yes.
John: And yet, if gay marriage continues, then the earth will be depopulated.

You assume too much. Regardless, we could use a few billion less souls on this planet thankyouverymuch (though personally, I suspect that we'll shrink faster from expense of raising a child than anything else)

Are we to conclude from this that gay marriage is good? Surely not.
Oops...got to go...I'll be back...

Anyways - back to expediency - since we weren't supposed to get off topic - I'd like to bring your attention to two points of marriage that are not available in the normal "Civil Union" that we find.
1) The possession of property, etc, upon death of the partner. Makes the courts time much easier.
2) The ability to make medical decisions for the partner if the partner is otherwise incapable of making them. Saves Doctors a lot of time.

Basically - it makes next of kin the partner - something that is NOT true of Civil Unions. I consider that quite expedient

Hmm, Kayros, I probably did go a little far. Had I revised that post, I'm sure that I would have found several things wrong, both with my reasoning, and my expression. Indeed, many things wrong. Perhaps, instead of finding reasons to condemn it, I should (at least until I am coherent) take a more moderate view.

Sounds good

I think that whether or not you support gay marriage is dependant mainly on your upbringing, as most things are.

You'd be amazed by how many supporters of gay marriage had parents that vehemetly opposed them - my gf and her sister for one.

I have not, I confess, seen any evidence either for or against gay marriage. (By the way, I haven't revised this, either)

Which is actually why I take a moral "tolerance" stance than anything. But the arguments that are good IMO are the ones that point out the "special" meaning of marriage (as opposed to Civil Unions) and the one I brought up about how, currently, Civil Unions do not have the rights of married couples.

True, but they did have three sons. Not ideal conditions for the continuation of the species.

Y'know what I love, we talk about the collapse of morality - but those three sons MUST have been doing it with their sisters - something that isn't just frowned upon but OUTLAWED in this day and age.

Really? I've paid good money to see that sort of thing

You pay money for that?

Nothing wrong with that!

I dont get it though about this whole 'gay rights' thing, shouldn't anyone be allowed to marry/sleep with anyone if its all ok age wise?

I mean honestly whats the problem (forgetting that weird mixmatch cult called 'Christianity' and those other assorted nut job religions for a sec)?

What people do to each other (as long as everyone is consenting and not positively life threatening) in the privacy of their own homes is their buisness and I sure as hell as leader don't wish to know about it either!

I do believe that's why we passed resolution 7 - Sexual freedom.

Iam informed by my senior biologists and anthropologists, that when increased homosexuality tolerance occurs in a society there is never any noticible effect on the population figures.
The 'career woman' and 'leisurely youth' have significantly reduced birth rates but not gayness, after all most so called 'gay' people have had in the past and still do have sex with people of the opposite gender, this of course means babies.

Agreed

Homosexuality is really just a natural (or it wouldnt be in us at all) sexual function between two willing people, some men have sex with other men simply because women are hard to come by for some reason (ie in prison or on a ship or something) no one rational would suggest that was unsurprising or unnatural really, considering monkeys and apes (which we are) are always trying to bum love each other, its very common among primates, its to foster inter clan relationships and determine social heirachies plus its damn good fun too judging by the amount of time that some species devote to mass orgies or communal sex.

Good to know. Another argument to chalk down

We should stop wasting time and resources trying to restrict people from getting something they cannot, at that time, get from one half of humanity.
Who cares?

Exactly

I must state my claim on the matter.

In every society, however be it so ancient or modern, homosexuality has always been it's failing point, that is to say, when it is legal, or allowed, or simply 'tolerated' in a passive aggrement, such society is clearly marked for destruction in short time.

Dare I ask how you come across this? And considering only the Chinese have lasted from the year 0 as a society - though under IIRC 5 different regimes - I doubt that you can truly claim that all societies like this are the only ones that are doomed or that it is the kiss of death or whatever - but I'd love to see your actual proof.

And I speak, not as a religoius nation, now, for no religion supports, or even allows such a vile deed, but as a politician.

For everyone's sake, I beg of you, nay, I PRAY of you, ban these horrid beings from your sight, and from your land.

Give me a reason and proof, one that I can see and believe, and I might consider it. I seriously doubt it, though

The official stand on the matter by the Holy Empire of the Orthodox Synod is that any caught in the act are to be publically executed.

Heh - so most inmates get executed. Nice to know. Considering I oppose capital punishment.....

----------------------------------

*pants*

BECAUSE GAYS ARE NOT RIGHT IN THE HEAD. GOD DIDN'T DESIGN GAYS. ADAM AND EVE, NOT ADAM AND STEVE!!! GAYS AREN'T NORMAL, THAT IS WHY THEY SHOULD HIDE FORM SOCIETY.

Please note, I'm not trying to be inflamatory, but it might be perceived as such:

You think gays aren't right in the head because they practice an act you consider unnatural an against your religion
I think you aren't right in the head because you think that just because you don't do it or want to do it yourself, that means that they shouldn't be able to think that way and therefore shouldn't be allowed to do such a thing.

But the funny thing is, I don't try to get you banned.

BTW, Caps Lock being locked on for an entire post is frowned upon...unless it's a one word post.

How does one hide "form society"? Is there something about being intolerant that diminishes one's ability to properly spell and convey information? I'd have to guess that there should be a strong correlation, now that I think about it, since lack of education and intolerance do seem to go hand-in-hand. I'll leave those better versed in the causal pathways involved to explain which is the cause and which is the effect.

EDIT: Is "form society" the new "gay science"?

Well aware of that, but I'd rather repeal it with a repeal saying that rather than one spewing either religion or anti-gay sentiments. The effect and the message I feel are equally important

I feel generally the same. I do support the general repeal of "Gay Rights" in the same way I supported repeals of "Education for All" and "Required Basic Healthcare": because of their failures as pieces of legislation, rather than drastic ideological disparities.

I personally wish new proposal authors would look more at old resolutions and replacing them. I've heard of possibly dozens of better drafts of scientific freedom legislation than is currently on the books with "Scientific Freedom" (though I understand many are holding off on this particular resolution's repeal for new proposal categories). That's the case with many old resolutions, in my opinion: they need to be improved upon. Ideally, I would like to see "Gay Rights", "Rights of Minorities and Women" and "Discrimination Accord" repealed and replaced either with one or several resolutions (which, of course, would address sovereigntists worries). But, it seems most new proposal authors either lack the ambition to do so, or just don't understand the situation regarding some of these past resolutions. Ohime.

Krioval.....I think that would be classified as flaming.....

The government of Agnostic Deeishpeople would like to mention the fact that many animals practise homosexuality, it is as natural as it gets. The creator is definately responsible for homosexuality and bisexuality.

Carm Woodlock, Envrionment Minister.

"LOOK AT ME! EVERYTHING I SAY IS AUTOMATICALLY INVALIDATED BY MY HOMOPHOBIA AND INABILITY TO WORK A KEYBOARD!111!!!eleven" :rolleyes:

I am in no way "homophobic". I have several gay friends, and they also believe that gay rights should be banned! And they are gay. I have nothing against gays. I just believe that they shouldn't be able to get married and have the benefits of a heterosexual couple.

I am in no way "homophobic". I have several gay friends, and they also believe that gay rights should be banned! And they are gay. I have nothing against gays. I just believe that they shouldn't be able to get married and have the benefits of a heterosexual couple.

My government has no problem with gay people who happen to be maschostic and self hating, but we do not believe that they should speak for the gay and lesbian population. This government would also like to comment that the "I am not a biggot, but my best friend is (insert minority name) but..."argument is void and banned.

Sincerely yours,
Madonna, U.N ambassador.

Please note, I'm not trying to be inflamatory, but it might be perceived as such:

You think gays aren't right in the head because they practice an act you consider unnatural an against your religion
I think you aren't right in the head because you think that just because you don't do it or want to do it yourself, that means that they shouldn't be able to think that way and therefore shouldn't be allowed to do such a thing.

But the funny thing is, I don't try to get you banned.

BTW, Caps Lock being locked on for an entire post is frowned upon...unless it's a one word post.


No, The funny thing is I really don't give a flying f*** what you or anybody else thinks. What I beleive is what I believe. What you believe is what you believe. You shouldn't care what I think. I don't care what you think. Buzz off.

AND I DON'T CARE IF CAPS LOCK IS "FROWNED UPON". BITE ME!

The government of Agnostic Deeishpeople would like to mention the fact that many animals practise homosexuality, it is as natural as it gets. The creator is definately responsible for homosexuality and bisexuality.

Carm Woodlock, Envrionment Minister.

IC: "Kind, Mr Woodlock." Dan began, not yet looking up from his papers, "While I appreciate your candor about your beliefs of who or what is responsible for homosexuality and bisexuality, I hardly find it the issue here, and would prefer if you would not use this as a venue to profess your personal beliefs"

Dan came to a stopping point in his reading and punctuated, looking up, "There's another forum for that. It's down the hall, marked 'General' and consists of one giant ideological orgy." Dan returned to the campaign texts. He knew he would have a corpulence of work tomorrow, if he were to live up to his predecessors in proposal telegramming.

And not measuring up was something he found himself entirely unwilling to do.

Ideally, I would like to see "Gay Rights", "Rights of Minorities and Women" and "Discrimination Accord" repealed and replaced either with one or several resolutions (which, of course, would address sovereigntists worries).

Of course, there is always the possibility that any replacement resolution would not pass, thus setting back the civil rights movements by decades, if not centuries. Could we not instead draft a resolution that superseded these three, a sort of Rights of All Humanity resolution to encompass and improve upon the three that you mentioned?

- Kyle d’Aires- Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs
- The Commonwealth of Kayros

Edit: Just realized that the resolutions would have to be repealed in order to be amended. We have fired our Deputy Minister for not paying attention to the rules.

No, The funny thing is I really don't give a flying f*** what you or anybody else thinks. What I beleive is what I believe. What you believe is what you believe. You shouldn't care what I think. I don't care what you think. Buzz off.

AND I DON'T CARE IF CAPS LOCK IS "FROWNED UPON". BITE ME!

Anyways - you posted your opinion - you either have to be prepared to take criticism and hear people counter their opinion to your opinion or you should withdraw from the argument. The fact that you continue to push your opinion on this board further proves that, despite your claim otherwise, you do want people to care what you believe in - and perhaps agree with you. The fact that you responded so harshly also suggest you were insulted by my response and therefore did care about what I actually said - but that's just my analysis.

Now, why don't you take a cool shower and calm down, come back, and try to argue this without biting heads off. I am not and was not trying to flame you as I tried to explain in the starting of my post, there is no reason to get mad about it (well, ok, maybe there is, but I'd like to suggest that you might not want to)

Of course, there is always the possibility that any replacement resolution would not pass, thus setting back the civil rights movements by decades, if not centuries. Could we not instead draft a resolution that superseded these three, a sort of Rights of All Humanity resolution to encompass and improve upon the three that you mentioned?

- Kyle d’Aires- Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs
- The Commonwealth of Kayros

I'd suggest we do draft it here, and then start the process of replacing them all. However, the replacement MUST come AFTER the repeals. Mod rules.

IC: "Kind, Mr Woodlock." Dan began, not yet looking up from his papers, "While I appreciate your candor about your beliefs of who or what is responsible for homosexuality and bisexuality, I hardly find it the issue here, and would prefer if you would not use this as a venue to profess your personal beliefs"

Dan came to a stopping point in his reading and punctuated, looking up, "There's another forum for that. It's down the hall, marked 'General' and consists of one giant ideological orgy." Dan returned to the campaign texts. He knew he would have a corpulence of work tomorrow, if he were to live up to his predecessors in proposal telegramming.

And not measuring up was something he found himself entirely unwilling to do.

Actually, considering the majority of the turns taken by one poster in particular, I think it is a fair response.

Of course, there is always the possibility that any replacement resolution would not pass, thus setting back the civil rights movements by decades, if not centuries. Could we not instead draft a resolution that superseded these three, a sort of Rights of All Humanity resolution to encompass and improve upon the three that you mentioned?

- Kyle d’Aires- Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs
- The Commonwealth of Kayros
EDIT:I see your edit now, Kayros. Sorry I wasn't in a position to catch it before I responded :)

I'm afraid not. It's against NationStates rules. In order to alter a previous resolution in the Nationstates UN, one must repeal the proposal and re-submit a proposal to replace it. It's all there in the Hackian Rules which are stickied to the top of the page.

And I disagree that the "civil rights movement" would be "[set] back...decades, if not centuries" by the absence of these resolutions or their replacements. As pointed out already, "Gay Rights" has no real effect, "Rights and Minorities of Women" is good in sentiment, but also fairly simple to get around (and could a whole lot more good, if properly designed), and "Discrimination Accord" is almost doing more harm than good being on the books, in my opinion.

Anyway, having seen the overall use of repeals, I can assure you that there has not been a case yet where a replacement proposal has failed to be passed. I just don't think it's a large risk.

Anyways - you posted your opinion - you either have to be prepared to take criticism and hear people counter their opinion to your opinion or you should withdraw from the argument. The fact that you continue to push your opinion on this board further proves that, despite your claim otherwise, you do want people to care what you believe in - and perhaps agree with you. The fact that you responded so harshly also suggest you were insulted by my response and therefore did care about what I actually said - but that's just my analysis.

Now, why don't you take a cool shower and calm down, come back, and try to argue this without biting heads off. I am not and was not trying to flame you as I tried to explain in the starting of my post, there is no reason to get mad about it (well, ok, maybe there is, but I'd like to suggest that you might not want to)


Thank You. I appreciate your "kind" remarks. But, I do have something to say. I am not here to bash anyone elses opinion, merely to post mine so people can discuss it like kind human beings, and I am here to listen to other kind human being's posts. Is it a crime to post what I believe? I am not spreading hate messages. I am not initiating a criminal act. Please stop bashing my opinions for no reason. I am not bashing your opinions. Thank You.


P.S.: I am not mad, merely frustrated at people's rudeness.

I am in no way "homophobic".

Yes, you are.
(http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=homophobia)

I have several gay friends,

From your writing, I doubt you are a friend to them.

and they also believe that gay rights should be banned!

*cough*bullshit*cough*

And they are gay. I have nothing against gays.

Yes, you do: "GAYS ARE NOT RIGHT IN THE HEAD. GOD DIDN'T DESIGN GAYS. ADAM AND EVE, NOT ADAM AND STEVE!!! GAYS AREN'T NORMAL, THAT IS WHY THEY SHOULD HIDE FORM SOCIETY."

So, any more lies from your side?

I just believe that they shouldn't be able to get married and have the benefits of a heterosexual couple.

Unsurprisingly, you are incapable of supporting your view with anything pertinent.

Yes, you are.
(http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=homophobia)



From your writing, I doubt you are a friend to them.



*cough*bullshit*cough*



Yes, you do: "GAYS ARE NOT RIGHT IN THE HEAD. GOD DIDN'T DESIGN GAYS. ADAM AND EVE, NOT ADAM AND STEVE!!! GAYS AREN'T NORMAL, THAT IS WHY THEY SHOULD HIDE FORM SOCIETY."

So, any more lies from your side?



Unsurprisingly, you are incapable of supporting your view with anything pertinent.


Dude,
I think you need to cool your jets.

Thank You. I appreciate your "kind" remarks. But, I do have something to say. I am not here to bash anyone elses opinion, merely to post mine so people can discuss it like kind human beings, and I am here to listen to other kind human being's posts. Is it a crime to post what I believe? I am not spreading hate messages. I am not initiating a criminal act. Please stop bashing my opinions for no reason. I am not bashing your opinions. Thank You.


P.S.: I am not mad, merely frustrated at people's rudeness.

I didn't bash your opinion. Initially, I critiqued it, then I made a comparitive gesture (which I think you took as a bash - nor can I blame you - but it was not intended as such. I truly cannot fathom your opinion - it just seems so frustratingly illogical from my perspective)

If you post an argument, you should be prepared to argue it. If you say that everyone who posts an argument disagreeing with you - either taking your opinion and breaking it down (either by pointing out flaws or pointing out places where they disagree with you) or by just stating their own - is bashing you, why post the argument in the first place? I would expect my opinion to be looked at critically and if there is a flaw with my argument, I'm actually HAPPY when that flaw is found. There are times where I've backed off for a while before returning with an argument because I had to reconsider my own position. That is the essence of debate.

That said, you are taking a lot of flak - I can see at least 2 posts that are borderline flaming - I think 3. I'm actually ashamed of those who choose responses to your posts using insults and flames. They hurt the arguments I push more than they hurt you. The Caps lock was out of line, but they didn't have to resort to mocking you. When they feel that they have an obviously superior stance that they can make such a disgraceful post, I wonder why they don't make a post proving what they believe rather than just firing off an insult. It's about as infathomable to me as your own position - in fact, its infathomable for the same reason that your own is: Why is your opinion so much greater than theirs that they are seen as a lesser being for holding it?

This is for all here.

Question:
When I say "Marriage", what do you think of?


Answer:

For 97% of the U.S. Population surveyed, they said:

"A man and a woman engaging in holy matrimony."




Don't shoot my opinion down. I don't shoot yours down.


Thank You.

I didn't bash your opinion. Initially, I critiqued it, then I made a comparitive gesture (which I think you took as a bash - nor can I blame you - but it was not intended as such. I truly cannot fathom your opinion - it just seems so frustratingly illogical from my perspective)

If you post an argument, you should be prepared to argue it. If you say that everyone who posts an argument disagreeing with you - either taking your opinion and breaking it down (either by pointing out flaws or pointing out places where they disagree with you) or by just stating their own - is bashing you, why post the argument in the first place? I would expect my opinion to be looked at critically and if there is a flaw with my argument, I'm actually HAPPY when that flaw is found. There are times where I've backed off for a while before returning with an argument because I had to reconsider my own position. That is the essence of debate.

That said, you are taking a lot of flak - I can see at least 2 posts that are borderline flaming - I think 3. I'm actually ashamed of those who choose responses to your posts using insults and flames. They hurt the arguments I push more than they hurt you. The Caps lock was out of line, but they didn't have to resort to mocking you. When they feel that they have an obviously superior stance that they can make such a disgraceful post, I wonder why they don't make a post proving what they believe rather than just firing off an insult. It's about as infathomable to me as your own position - in fact, its infathomable for the same reason that your own is: Why is your opinion so much greater than theirs that they are seen as a lesser being for holding it?


Dear sir,
Thank you for seeing it the way I mean it to be said. I appreciate your kindness in saying in so many words: "Your opinion may be right to you, but not to me."

That, everyone is the essense of debate.

You all should take a lesson from Forgottenlands.

This is for all here.

Question:
When I say "Marriage", what do you think of?


Answer:

For 97% of the U.S. Population surveyed, they said:

"A man and a woman engaging in holy matrimony."




Don't shoot my opinion down. I don't shoot yours down.


Thank You.


My government believes most marriages are between a man and a woman. The question is "So what?" Even if theres only one person who is gay in this entire world, he still deserves right. Granted, he might not be allowed same sex marriage since he cant marry himself. Lets say theres 2 gay men in this entire world and eveyone else is straight, these 2 men STILL should be allowed to marry each other. Thank you.


Madonna, U.N Ambassador.

I certainly believe that we should always have a civil dialogue, but lets be honest here.

Shall we?

Most gay people still live in countries that dont recognize their same sex relationships. Most gay people have already heard why they are evil and dont deserve rights for the 1000000th time. They are suffering discrimination everyday, they are not recognized although they pay taxes, they are not treated equally. And you expect them to be cool about hearing this bullshit argument everytime?

No, I am sorry.

I support the right for people to be fed up, gay people especailly who actually has to suffer the indignities of being treated as a second class citizen. If you are offended by same sex marriages, DONT MARRY PERSON OF THE SAME SEX. I am offended at people being offended.

I like the way you put that.

I believe that PEOPLE IN GENERAL dererve to have rights.
Gays shouldn't be married, because that goes against all teachings most people have ever heard.

Instead, Gays should have the right to a Civil Union, giving them the right to Insurace policies, Job benefits, Social Security, Tax deductions, etc.

However, I personally believe that the Union should not carried out in a faith-based setting.

I like the way you put that.

I believe that PEOPLE IN GENERAL dererve to have rights.
Gays shouldn't be married, because that goes against all teachings most people have ever heard.

Instead, Gays should have the right to a Civil Union, giving them the right to Insurace policies, Job benefits, Social Security, Tax deductions, etc.

I dont care about what people used to teach other people. People used to be taught that the earth was flat, women shouldnt be allowed to work, gays or witches should be hanged.

It doesnt mean that these "teachings" should be accepted.

I would be happy to change my opinon if anyone can give me at least one legitmate reaosn why gays shouldnt be allowed to marry.

I fully understand, and agree, but back then those opinions were forced upon you. If you didn't agree, you were braded as a gay or a witch, and killed.

I think you are not a bad person. I think you are almost there, you are at least better than those who think gays should no right at all. But honestly...why do you think that the opinon that gay shouldnt be allowed to married should be forced upon gay people. People have different concepts of what marriage is supposed to be, the government should not discriminate. Its up to the churches to decide. Thats why civil marriages and religious marriages should not be considered as the same thing. (although some churches also support same sex marriages)

And I can understand why people are uncomfortable with the idea , but just because you are uncomfortable at something, it doesnt mean you have the right to take away another's right inorder to feel more "comfortable."

Dude,
I think you need to cool your jets.

And I think you need to stop insulting people. There are many gay people in this forum, including myself, who take great offence at being called "NOT RIGHT IN THE HEAD" and "NOT NORMAL," and who don't give a flying fuck what your little deity thinks.

I think you are not a bad person. I think you are almost there, you are at least better than those who think gays should no right at all. But honestly...why do you think that the opinon that gay shouldnt be allowed to married should be forced upon gay people. People have different concepts of what marriage is supposed to be, the government should not discriminate. Its up to the churches to decide. Thats why civil marriages and religious marriages should not be considered as the same thing. (although some churches also support same sex marriages)

And I can understand why people are uncomfortable with the idea , but just because you are uncomfortable at something, it doesnt mean you have the right to take away another's right inorder to feel more "comfortable."


I understand where you are coming from. I do agree with your marriage concept statement, but thet means there would 1000 different types of marriages. That would be hard for the government to keep track of and verify.

That is why I believe there should be a Civil Union for homosexuals around the world. It would be easier to track, and it would give the gays almost all of the benefits of a regular married heterosexual couple.

I like the way you put that.

I believe that PEOPLE IN GENERAL dererve to have rights.
Gays shouldn't be married, because that goes against all teachings most people have ever heard.

*frowns*

If you're talking religious teachings, that's debatable - because if nothing else, you're assuming most people follow one religion or another. There's a lot of places where it's starting to get to the point where the non-religious outnumber the religious.

Instead, Gays should have the right to a Civil Union, giving them the right to Insurace policies, Job benefits, Social Security, Tax deductions, etc.

Civil Unions don't give the same rights as marriage. Not even close

However, I personally believe that the Union should not carried out in a faith-based setting.

My parents are married, but it wasn't in a faith-based setting (considering they are, well, Aethiest). The concept of marriage in church is a romanticized version of reality. More and more people are not getting married in a church - with more and more inter-religion marriages and more and more people who are no religious all together. Those that fall under these two categories are often not married by church, just in a church (and therefore, not recognized by their deity). Marriage, when we discuss it, is not about marriage in church. That's for the church to decide who will and who will not get married within their halls. We are discussing the rights of the citizen that's married. My parents were married in a court room by obtaining a marriage license. All it did was grant them the rights of a married couple. I want to give those rights to every single gay couple - and I want them to be able to call it marriage.

That's why I see no logic to the "deity arguments"

I understand where you are coming from. I do agree with your marriage concept statement, but thet means there would 1000 different types of marriages. That would be hard for the government to keep track of and verify.

That is why I believe there should be a Civil Union for homosexuals around the world. It would be easier to track, and it would give the gays almost all of the benefits of a regular married heterosexual couple.

Marriage by state (civil marriage) is kept track of in public records. Everyone married by church gets married by state (provided the state will recognize the constraints of that marriage). The reverse is not true.

As you would likely say,

Thank you for finding flaws in my statements.

P.S.: I didn't exactly mean "rights", I ment BENEFITS.
Sorry for misleading some of you.

Theres gay couples who get married in churches here in Canada.


But when i said that theres so many concepts of what marriage is supposed to be, i meant that some people think marriages is supposed to produce children, some think that divorce should not be allowed and people who get remarried are not "LEGITMATELY" married, some think that marriages should be between two persons who have the same religious faith, some think that heterosexual couples who are infertile should not get married..

but all of these marriages ARE LEGAL, regardless of the fact that some people privately disagree with it.

Why wouldnt it be okay to legalise same sex marriages than?

same sex couples are just as capable to love as any infertile heterosexual couples. If you want to discriminate these marriages based on the same sex factor, you have to provide a legitimate reason.

WOW. I find your statements highly interesting. Very well put.

Asgarnieu: would you be willing to allow a state to recognize a homosexual marriage as a civil marriage under the condition that the state protects a church's right to refuse to marry any couple it does not feel should be married?

Asgarnieu: would you be willing to allow a state to recognize a homosexual marriage as a civil marriage under the condition that the state protects a church's right to refuse to marry any couple it does not feel should be married?


Absolutly.

Absolutly.


Dude..why were we "arguing" than. :mad: :p

Sir or Madam,
I HAVE NO CLUE!

My government believes most marriages are between a man and a woman. The question is "So what?" Even if theres only one person who is gay in this entire world, he still deserves right. Granted, he might not be allowed same sex marriage since he cant marry himself. Lets say theres 2 gay men in this entire world and eveyone else is straight, these 2 men STILL should be allowed to marry each other. Thank you.


Madonna, U.N Ambassador.

Very nicely put, Ambassador.

Unfortunately, your enlightened view of the rights of humans is lost upon many here, who seem to insist on clinging to conservative values and not open their minds to the fact that the world is changing around them.

People are becoming more tolerant all over the world - for the most part, anyways.

So what if we can't marry in churches? As mentioned above, marriage in a church and by the church is becoming a less-common (although certainly still *common*) occurrence - many in Kayros choose to marry in non-religious cerimonies presided over by officials of one of several government organizations.

The world is evolving - perhaps our mindsets need to evolve, as well.

- President E. V. Ross
- The Commonwealth of Kayros

Very nicely put, Ambassador.

Unfortunately, your enlightened view of the rights of humans is lost upon many here, who seem to insist on clinging to conservative values and not open their minds to the fact that the world is changing around them.

People are becoming more tolerant all over the world - for the most part, anyways.

So what if we can't marry in churches? As mentioned above, marriage in a church and by the church is becoming a less-common (although certainly still *common*) occurrence - many in Kayros choose to marry in non-religious cerimonies presided over by officials of one of several government organizations.

The world is evolving - perhaps our mindsets need to evolve, as well.

- President E. V. Ross
- The Commonwealth of Kayros


Sir, I commend you for saying that so well.

Absolutly.

Excellent, I think the majority of us are now on the same page and in agreement so I shall take this opportunity to disappear under the covers of my bed and fall asleep.

Excellent, I think the majority of us are now on the same page and in agreement so I shall take this opportunity to disappear under the covers of my bed and fall asleep.


Good night, sir.

:shakes head:

I've seen a lot of crazy things in the NS boards... but two opposing parties engaging a rational debate and SEEING EYE TO EYE?!? :eek:

:waits for the sky to fall and crush everyone:

Sadrin's suggestion is deplorable. Gays are as entitled to human rights as anyone and Compadria will oppose any move to restrict their rights.

Long live homo-friendly Compadria!

Begins sipping on a Cherry-Vanilla Dr. Pepper...

It is nasty,wrong and....

Manama-na

Do-dooooo-do-do-doot

Manama-na

Do-doooo-do-doot

Manama-na

Do-dooo-do-do-doot
Do-doo-doot
Do-doo-doot
Do-do-do-doot-doot-dooo

LMFAO :rolleyes:

I love you Tekania! :p

Gay people deserve equal rights and if you don't believe that then you have a prejudice, not against races, not against religons, but of people with a certain orientation in the Sexual area.

From the confederacy of Phenixica i will do whatever it takes as a christian nation to turn down a gay rights resolution if it even came to pass and if it did a would retire from the un straight away

And any christian that support this i will read this from the bible

"do not be deceived:neither the
sexually immoral nor idolaters
nor HOMOSEXUAL OFFENDERS...
will inherit the kingdom of god"

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Wasnt Emperor Nero the person who ordered THE BURNING OF ROME and blamed it on christians which was at the time a defenceless cult
that wasnt exactly a great person to pick

From the confederacy of Phenixica i will do whatever it takes as a christian nation to turn down a gay rights resolution if it even came to pass and if it did a would retire from the un straight away

And any christian that support this i will read this from the bible

"do not be deceived:neither the
sexually immoral nor idolaters
nor HOMOSEXUAL OFFENDERS...
will inherit the kingdom of god"

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Gay Rights (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029602&postcount=13)

Sorry to tell you this but we do have a Gay Rights resolution. Many people oppose it for various reasons, but I must tell you that religious objections to resolutions/proposals are usually ignored by most of the regulars of the UN forum. Gay rights and gay marriage are covered under a number of other resolutions as well. You may want to take a look at the "Passed NSUN Resolutions" thread.

Instead of leaving the UN over this, why not put your energies into challenging and trying to repeal the resolution. I won't support such a repeal, but there are quite a few who will.

From the confederacy of Phenixica i will do whatever it takes as a christian nation to turn down a gay rights resolution if it even came to pass and if it did a would retire from the un straight away

Um, you're about 3 resolutions too late I'm afraide

And any christian that support this i will read this from the bible

"do not be deceived:neither the
sexually immoral nor idolaters
nor HOMOSEXUAL OFFENDERS...
will inherit the kingdom of god"

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Ok, so you've proven that there are instances in the bible that oppose same sex marriage. That's wonderful. We already know that the church is against same sex marriage and we have no qualms should the church decide not to perform a marriage for a same-sex couple, but so what?

Why does your religion, your church which is not necessarily the majority view have the right to decide whether or not the STATE should recognize (and therefore, grant the rights of) marriage between a same-sex couple? What gives you or any other religion the right to decide who should or should not have rights?

And any christian that support this i will read this from the bible

"do not be deceived:neither the
sexually immoral nor idolaters
nor HOMOSEXUAL OFFENDERS...
will inherit the kingdom of god"

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

You mean 'read it from the NIV.' That's not in any other Bible.

"do not be deceived:neither the
sexually immoral nor idolaters
nor HOMOSEXUAL OFFENDERS...
will inherit the kingdom of god"

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

When was the last time you took moldy clothing to a priest?
47 "If any clothing is contaminated with mildew—any woolen or linen clothing, 48 any woven or knitted material of linen or wool, any leather or anything made of leather- 49 and if the contamination in the clothing, or leather, or woven or knitted material, or any leather article, is greenish or reddish, it is a spreading mildew and must be shown to the priest. 50 The priest is to examine the mildew and isolate the affected article for seven days. 51 On the seventh day he is to examine it, and if the mildew has spread in the clothing, or the woven or knitted material, or the leather, whatever its use, it is a destructive mildew; the article is unclean. 52 He must burn up the clothing, or the woven or knitted material of wool or linen, or any leather article that has the contamination in it, because the mildew is destructive; the article must be burned up.

Hope your steak is Well Done:
10 " 'Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood—I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.

Better not shave:
27 " 'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

No more poly-cotton blends:
" 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

Don't kill my dog:
18 Anyone who takes the life of someone's animal must make restitution—life for life.

Better not go to Red Lobster, either:
10 But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to detest.

Now that it has been established that the Bible bans all sorts of things that people happily do anyway, can we keep things on topic for the UN forum? If you want to talk about the "evils" of homosexuality, take it to the General forum.

In my opinion being gay is a sort of insanity. So allowing gay marriages would just be the beginning of destruction of the western society. The next step would be to discuss whether it is o.k. to allow people to marry animals or subjects!! I´m sure there are a lot of insane people out there who would argue that prohibiting those things is also discrimination!
Furthermore being gay is a crazy adjustment which is promoted by the western publicity. In times where populations of postindustrial countries are dramatically decreasing we have to protect the rights of families and not insane people!!!
:fluffle:

In my opinion being gay is a sort of insanity. So allowing gay marriages would just be the beginning of destruction of the western society. The next step would be to discuss whether it is o.k. to allow people to marry animals or subjects!! I´m sure there are a lot of insane people out there who would argue that prohibiting those things is also discrimination!

Why this "slippery slope" argument will not work:

A marriage is a consentual agreement between two people/being/etc. You can't argue a subject because it can't decide it wants to marry you. Same argument for a dog. If a dog was intelligent enough to talk and let its opinions be known, I would actually welcome it to have the right to marry. However, we don't have this in today's society so I have no qualms with this.

Furthermore being gay is a crazy adjustment which is promoted by the western publicity.

Aside from the fact that they've found the "gay" gene (and therefore it is a genetic issue, not an actual mental insanity that one chooses), how is it promoted by western publicity?

In times where populations of postindustrial countries are dramatically decreasing we have to protect the rights of families and not insane people!!!

*blinks* You think the populations of SOME post industrial (because most are still growing) countries are decreasing because people are gay? WRONG. They're decreasing because of the number of people that have one or no kids - and the vast majority of them are NOT GAY. Japan is expected to shrink by a massive rate in the near future - but that's because it is so over populated that most families don't have more than one child.

Besides - says who that a gay person who isn't having sex with ANYONE with the opposite sex will have any more kids because he isn't allowed to get married with someone of the same sex?

When was the last time you took moldy clothing to a priest?


Hope your steak is Well Done:


Better not shave:


No more poly-cotton blends:


Don't kill my dog:


Better not go to Red Lobster, either:


Now that it has been established that the Bible bans all sorts of things that people happily do anyway, can we keep things on topic for the UN forum? If you want to talk about the "evils" of homosexuality, take it to the General forum.


Very poor twisted use of the scriptures. If u had actually read the bible you would know that all those scriptures apply to the Old covenent that god formed with moses and the isrealites, Which was abolished when Jesus died for all our sins. Get your facts straight before u go missquoting the bible.

I will support a resolution to repeal gay rights, being gay is very discusting and the resolution supporting it should be banned and burned.

Nothing quite like seeing the compassion of Christ instilled in his followers firsthand, is there? :p

I will support a resolution to repeal gay rights, being gay is very discusting

No, it isn't, it's actually quite delicious. At least, that's what I think it is like when fellating another man.

and the resolution supporting it should be banned and burned.

What is it with you people and burning written things? You'd think the Nazi's would have taught you not to do that... :rolleyes:

From the confederacy of Phenixica i will do whatever it takes as a christian nation to turn down a gay rights resolution if it even came to pass and if it did a would retire from the un straight away

And any christian that support this i will read this from the bible

"do not be deceived:neither the
sexually immoral nor idolaters
nor HOMOSEXUAL OFFENDERS...
will inherit the kingdom of god"

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

DON'T YOU DARE FORCE THAT CHRISTIAN BABBLE ON ME, OR ANYONE WITH A SANE MIND IN HERE. THEY ARE HUMAN BEINGS, JUST LIKE YOU. GO TO A CHRISTIAN FORUM, BUT LEAVE THIS FORUM ALONE.

"Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons. For I was hungry and you wouldn't feed me; thirsty, and you wouldn't give me anything to drink; a stranger, and you refused me hospitality; naked, and you wouldn't clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn't visit me; gay, and you wouldn't marry me."

DON'T YOU DARE FORCE THAT CHRISTIAN BABBLE ON ME, OR ANYONE WITH A SANE MIND IN HERE. THEY ARE HUMAN BEINGS, JUST LIKE YOU. GO TO A CHRISTIAN FORUM, BUT LEAVE THIS FORUM ALONE.

Calm down please.

Very poor twisted use of the scriptures. If u had actually read the bible you would know that all those scriptures apply to the Old covenent that god formed with moses and the isrealites, Which was abolished when Jesus died for all our sins. Get your facts straight before u go missquoting the bible.

Yet the old testimate is still taught to Christians. How odd.... But hey, that was just one section - anyone got some phrases from the new testimate?

By the way - that is hardly misquoting it. He did not remove context, he referenced it accordingly, he copied it word for word.

I will support a resolution to repeal gay rights, being gay is very discusting and the resolution supporting it should be banned and burned.

Ok - you find it disgusting, I find horror movies disgusting. Should that mean that horror movies should be banned? If not, why?

i think gay people are so awsome. :)

The problem with quoting any religious text is that it can be interpreted pretty much anyway you like. In addition most religious texts have had to be translated from an original much older text. The Bible for example has been translated again and again, are we really sure what we read today is even remotely what was written originally? Furthermore with the subtle differences in different languages there are instances where direct translation becomes next to impossible and the translator has to use an inference on what they want to convey from the original text.

For example the state of Phenixica quoted the following and I find it quite interesting.

"do not be deceived:neither the
sexually immoral nor idolaters
nor HOMOSEXUAL OFFENDERS...
will inherit the kingdom of god"

1 Corinthians 6:9-10


I’m sure this a direct quote and yet I see the word homosexual. Now I may stand corrected but this word I’m convinced will be a recent addition to the English vocabulary, how then does it appear in this text? Can we really be sure that this addition/translation is what the originally text referred to, particularly since the word never existed? Furthermore considering the Bible is amongst other things an historical text also, one must by definition review the political and social landscape it, in which it was both written and subsequently translated over time.

For example let say a factitious religious sect of a society frowned upon drinking too much and their original specific ‘holy’ text said that drinking too much was bad for your liver. Then as this society became more and more intolerant of drinking alcohol and the text is retranslated it would seem abhorrent to them that their religious text does not condemn it and as such the ‘for your liver’ part is removed. Partly because the new authors can’t bring themselves not to or because the ruling powers force them to and in fear of loosing their lives, they do so.

This little change has now completely changed the tone of the sentence from saying something could affect your health, it has now changed to simply it is bad and with it a serious amount of interpretation comes along. After all what is bad? Bad for your health, bad for your soul, so bad you can’t get in to the heaven if do have a pint? This society now reaches an interesting point where because the text is readily accepted as gospel, the written word must be true and thus all alcohol must be banned and any of those who seek to drink must immediately be purified in front of our great and wonderful god and burnt at the stake. Wanting to or indeed consuming a glass of your favourite Chablis with your evening meal has now been turned into heresy.

My point with this very simplified social study is that the bible and all other religious texts have endured only because they have been rewritten and written to fit within the societies in which they exist. If they did not evolve they would have been discarded in favour of something that suited society at that point better. To assume that the texts we have today are anything like what was written in my humble opinion is clearly a mistake because we are reading the wants and ills of ancestors. It is by no means a guide for our future and as we have already seen the translation continues and when someone else reads our version of a religious text a 100 or even 300 years from now, it will be marred by our wants, our ills and no doubt our intolerances.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Calm down please.
DON'T TELL ME TO CALM DOWN.

We must ban all "gay rights". The gays are nice people, but they need to stay in the closet. I dont need to see "Will & Grace" on T.V. I dont need to see "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy". It is absolute trash. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. It is not right. I am a very tolerant person, but when I see 2 guys making out in a Christina Agulera video, I am appalled. When I see 2 chicks making out in a T.A.T.U. video, I am appalled. Keep it away from us! Stay in the closet!

The Holy Empire of Evil Maniac From Mars agrees 100% with your statement.

EDIT: The Holy Roman Empire of Evil Maniac From Mars only agrees with the ban gay marriage and shows part of the statement.

DON'T TELL ME TO CALM DOWN.

I was asking you, and I believe we've been over bashing our opposition with denouncing them or what not....when it was directed at you.


The Holy Empire of Evil Maniac From Mars agrees 100% with your statement.

EDIT: The Holy Roman Empire of Evil Maniac From Mars only agrees with the ban gay marriage and shows part of the statement.

I would like to request that the representative of the Evil Maniac From Mars read more thoroughly the various posts and exchanges made by and between Asgarnieu and those that, at the time, disagreed with him. Specifically, I would like to note that at a later point (I believe page 5), Asgarnieu consented to legalizing same sex marriage at a civil level under the condition that no church be required to marry any couple they did not approve of.

I'm sorry.

Very poor twisted use of the scriptures. If u had actually read the bible you would know that all those scriptures apply to the Old covenent that god formed with moses and the isrealites, Which was abolished when Jesus died for all our sins.Much like the original poster did. And perhaps you should pay a little more attention to the Bible as well:

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.Jesus seems to disagree with you.

:snaps his fingers:

I was JUST going to post that verse! I Googled it and everything!

Very poor twisted use of the scriptures. If u had actually read the bible you would know that all those scriptures apply to the Old covenent that god formed with moses and the isrealites, Which was abolished when Jesus died for all our sins. Get your facts straight before u go missquoting the bible.

I will support a resolution to repeal gay rights, being gay is very discusting and the resolution supporting it should be banned and burned.

Turn to your Bibles, The Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 5, beginning at verse 17....


"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven....

You antinomians have much to learn about.

"One day, when he was naughty, Mr Bunnsy looked over the hedge into Farmer Fred's field, and saw that it was full of fresh green lettuces. Mr Bunnsy, however, was not full of lettuces. This did not seem fair."
-From Mr Bunnsy Has An Adventure

Look! I can quote books too! Marvel at my glorious, undeniable arguments!

My nation is pleased that this incredibly hateful proposal named "repeal gay act" has failed.

Sincerely
Minister of LGBT affair , Susan Goodale

No, it isn't, it's actually quite delicious. At least, that's what I think it is like when fellating another man.
*comes over all Hugh Grant* fnarr and, indeed, fnarr.

Well, gosh, um, I don't know what to, ah, say, really. Gosh! That's awfully, um, well, that is to say, I mean, not to suggest that, ah, well, um... no, you're right, shouldn't have, ah, spoken, truth be, ah, told. Gosh.