| This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only". In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060 If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Homosexuality | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Mar 24 2005, 11:20 AM (1,766 Views) | |
| New Harumf | Mar 31 2005, 11:43 AM Post #26 |
|
Unregistered
|
Up until a few years ago, anything other than the missionary position was illegal in about 5 southern states. This was on the books until some over-zealous Georgia prosecutor brought charges against a man that, during his divorce, admitted to having oral sex with his wife. The defense lawyer insisted that in order to try the matter, the judge had to never have broken the sex laws of Georgia. Guess what? Never went to trial. Later, a similar case went all the way to the supreme court, and those laws were finally banned from the books. I don't understand the motives of any politicals that want to go into the bedroom. If it is between two consenting adults, let it be. Personally, I find certain acts disgusting, but that is personal taste (cunnilingus, ugh, what a disgusting thought). Religions can set their own standards, but they should not be allowed to set them for everybody, but I still suspect the motives of even religious types that want to go into the bedroom. |
|
|
| Patrua | Mar 31 2005, 02:53 PM Post #27 |
|
Captain
|
If it happens with full consent of all parties involved and if these parties are at least 16 years of age, then I fail to see what one can have against it. |
![]() |
|
| Catholic Europe | Mar 31 2005, 04:27 PM Post #28 |
|
Spammer
|
What about nations where the sex age may be higher than 16....or indeed lower. |
![]() |
|
| Catholic Europe | Mar 31 2005, 04:28 PM Post #29 |
|
Spammer
|
I disagree, it is a duty of religion, in the form of the Church to ensure that nobody breaks Gods law - people cannot completely resist the devils temptation and so they need external support. |
![]() |
|
| Patrua | Mar 31 2005, 05:29 PM Post #30 |
|
Captain
|
Well, this is my personal view. I'm pretty sure that there are nations where sexual acts are not allowed, regardless of mutual consent. |
![]() |
|
| Catholic Europe | Apr 1 2005, 07:41 PM Post #31 |
|
Spammer
|
Okay, lol, that is what I was getting at. ;) |
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Apr 3 2005, 06:34 PM Post #32 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
So long as everyone is willing (and it's not inherently dangerous [i.e. won't suck tax payers money out of the state]) then I believe consenting adults (age of 16) should be allowed to do whatever the hell they like. As for relgion helping everybody "not sin"... well there's a reason why CE is a Psychotic Dictatorship. You wouldn't want a muslim state running things? In fact what's the point of Hell and free will to choose God's Right Hand Path if you force everyone to be good? Doesn't that defeat the object of Free Will, and in fact the Earth? |
![]() |
|
| Catholic Europe | Apr 4 2005, 06:53 PM Post #33 |
|
Spammer
|
Why wouldn't I like a Muslim state? I was very close to converting to Islam a few years back and, effectively, I want to 'islamify' some aspects of Catholicism. And, it is the Churches duty to ensure that as many peole as possible are prevented from sinning. I know that no matter what people will, but it is their duty to lay down rules and laws in order for as little as possible sin to be committed. |
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Apr 5 2005, 02:21 PM Post #34 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
So you would like a state that stopped you going to church because it is herasy and blasphemas? You would like a state that stopped you from worshipping the way you choose? You would like a state that held you to it's version of morality, not your own? |
![]() |
|
| Catholic Europe | Apr 5 2005, 05:57 PM Post #35 |
|
Spammer
|
Okay, I understand, although Muslims morality is very similar to mine. |
![]() |
|
| Paradise | Apr 5 2005, 07:28 PM Post #36 |
![]()
Resident bureaucrat
![]()
|
NE brings a good point. From what right religious fanatics can impose their moral views on others? Aren't everyone free to choose what's good and what's bad for them? |
![]() |
|
| Catholic Europe | Apr 5 2005, 08:18 PM Post #37 |
|
Spammer
|
No, most certainely not. People will choose the bad things (though not everyone I suppose) and the Church must act to stop that, which is through laws and regulations as well as punishmens. |
![]() |
|
| Paradise | Apr 5 2005, 09:06 PM Post #38 |
![]()
Resident bureaucrat
![]()
|
What right gives the "Church" authority over the choices of everyone? |
![]() |
|
| Patrua | Apr 6 2005, 04:36 AM Post #39 |
|
Captain
|
No, they don't. People and certain animals have an inbedded morale. Call it instinct if you like but thing is that without it, human evolution would have stopped at the stage of australopethicus. If people had been the narrow-minded, opportunistic (well, more than they are anyway I mean) simpletons thinking only about survival, they would never have developed into today's complex society. Why else would Neanderthal groups have cared for their disabled? Why would Homo Ergaster have cared for his dead? Hell, why would people even bother to learn how to speak? Surely not because they chose the bad things only? Why do elephants mourn their dead and do gorilla moms care for a human baby child? Similarly, the roughly ten thousand years that humankind spend civilised without the Church, they did pretty all right, no? Especially seeing that the most horrible acts of persecution, human loss and suffering happened after the arrival of the Church. And to come back to Paradises remark above this post. The Canuck has a point there. What if I had seen God appear before me and tell me that I must proceed my life the way I have been running it so far, adding that the Catholic Church itself is heretic. Why would that make my religion any less valid than yours? |
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Apr 6 2005, 09:04 AM Post #40 |
|
Unregistered
|
Patrua is right on. If so many things we think of as human choice are really forced by natural instinct, then why not how we pursue sexuality? u |
|
|
| Catholic Europe | Apr 6 2005, 03:16 PM Post #41 |
|
Spammer
|
I really don't think that we are going to come to anykind of agreement on this. It basically boils down to our view of human nature and I, personally, am more negative about it (which is why we need the Church to 'police' us). Although, I suppose, any kind of religion is better than no religion at all. |
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Apr 8 2005, 06:53 AM Post #42 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
One word - Humanism. Secondly Patrua, I know I like to think I'm much smarter than I am, but even I had to look up "australopethicus" stop using big words without explaining what you mean. It doesn't make you look good! :P ... But then again it does make you think, I learned a new word today! :D |
![]() |
|
| Catholic Europe | Apr 8 2005, 06:54 AM Post #43 |
|
Spammer
|
I spit on that....unless it's Catholic humanism (such as Erasmus). |
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Apr 8 2005, 07:08 AM Post #44 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
You spit on Humanism? You spit on what is effectively the mainstream version of my belief system? ... Fair enough. I've shouted "Hail Satan" in 3 Cathedrals (Rochester, Canturburry and a big one in London, wassit called? My parents got married in that one so I really should remember the name) to date so... yeah I guess I can't talk. |
![]() |
|
| Catholic Europe | Apr 8 2005, 07:10 AM Post #45 |
|
Spammer
|
Well, I think we have always know that we have completely the opposite belief system. And, that's quite rude to shout Hail Satan in 3 Cathedrals (although I guess they are all Protestant ones!) ;) |
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Apr 8 2005, 09:05 AM Post #46 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
Meh I could do it in a Catholic Church... but they're so schmall and wennie. :P Cathedrals are much better. :rolleyes: |
![]() |
|
| Catholic Europe | Apr 8 2005, 09:23 AM Post #47 |
|
Spammer
|
Ever heard of Westminster Cathedral? How about Our Lady of some place in Africa (can't remember the exact name). Largest Cathedral in the world and Catholic. |
![]() |
|
| Wadj | Apr 8 2005, 04:54 PM Post #48 |
![]()
The Very Model of a Modern Major General
|
Catholic Europe Posted on Apr 8 2005, 09:23 AM :
I like it. It reminds me of the church of St. Whats-his-name in Chicago. |
![]() |
|
| Great New France | Apr 8 2005, 05:30 PM Post #49 |
![]()
Major
|
I agree fully with my friend Dictatorship n Strife: as a matter of fact, I voted for the 5th option, "Yes - 100% equal, if not better." My Government has enacted laws to protect gays an lesbians from discrimination, and our Nation has become very tolerant of them, they work and enjoy equal rights in all spheres of our society. We also enacted laws that grant them civil unions, and possibly same-sex marriages, for those who want it. I don't buy in the argument of right-wingers: it is solely based on an old religious feeling that homosexuality is a sin. It is not: it has been proven by scientists. Finally, I would like to say that everyone in our societies deserve equal rights, and I don't see why we shouldn't grant same rights to gays or lesbians, or other communities. I believe that equal rights for everyone is the best recipe for enhancing tolerance and solidarity between human beings. |
![]() |
|
| Catholic Europe | Apr 8 2005, 07:38 PM Post #50 |
|
Spammer
|
Just to let you know, because you haven't made it very clear, this is an OOC forum where you discuss your own personal views not that of your nation. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic » |









9:10 AM Jul 11