Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Should i have an Islamic state?; and where?
Topic Started: Jul 24 2006, 06:02 PM (1,091 Views)
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
Catholic Europe
Jul 29 2006, 03:55 AM
Marriages are indeed a religious sacrament, not a secular contract. Thus, I come to a very different conclusion on gay marriages - they can not exist or happen because no Priest will perform a gay marriage and, in my mind, that is the only way to become married.

We are in agreement. However, the contract of a union between two beople granted by the government, which guarentees certain rights and priviledges should be made available to gay couples.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

New Harumf
Jul 29 2006, 08:26 AM
Catholic Europe
Jul 29 2006, 03:55 AM
Marriages are indeed a religious sacrament, not a secular contract. Thus, I come to a very different conclusion on gay marriages - they can not exist or happen because no Priest will perform a gay marriage and, in my mind, that is the only way to become married.

We are in agreement. However, the contract of a union between two beople granted by the government, which guarentees certain rights and priviledges should be made available to gay couples.

Gay priests will perform gay marriages.

NH is just old and set in his ways, and we all know what I think of CE.

Gay marriage by any other name is still marriage.

So it's ok for two athiests to get married (either in a church or regestry office) and so long as they're opposite sex it's "ok" but two Christian gays can't "make a religious sacrament"?

Bull Dookey.

The government shouldn't have any say whatsoever in marriage. Marriage is a voluntary contract between individuals and therefore something that the government has no business defining or regulating. If a particular faith objects to a certain type of union - same sex, polygamous, etc - then that's their perogrative. They're the backwards ones. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed. Doesn't mean that if a minister of a different faith (or branch of faith) is willing to make the union that it's any less of a marriage.

Also... is this my first post in this topic?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
East Anarx
Member Avatar
Anarchitect

Nag Ehgoeg
Jul 29 2006, 10:42 AM
New Harumf
Jul 29 2006, 08:26 AM
Catholic Europe
Jul 29 2006, 03:55 AM
Marriages are indeed a religious sacrament, not a secular contract. Thus, I come to a very different conclusion on gay marriages - they can not exist or happen because no Priest will perform a gay marriage and, in my mind, that is the only way to become married.

We are in agreement. However, the contract of a union between two beople granted by the government, which guarentees certain rights and priviledges should be made available to gay couples.

Gay priests will perform gay marriages.

NH is just old and set in his ways, and we all know what I think of CE.

Gay marriage by any other name is still marriage.

So it's ok for two athiests to get married (either in a church or regestry office) and so long as they're opposite sex it's "ok" but two Christian gays can't "make a religious sacrament"?

Bull Dookey.

The government shouldn't have any say whatsoever in marriage. Marriage is a voluntary contract between individuals and therefore something that the government has no business defining or regulating. If a particular faith objects to a certain type of union - same sex, polygamous, etc - then that's their perogrative. They're the backwards ones. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed. Doesn't mean that if a minister of a different faith (or branch of faith) is willing to make the union that it's any less of a marriage.

Also... is this my first post in this topic?

I just said that... :unsure:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

I've been advocating that position in real life for a couple of years now. It's clearly the best option. Homosexuals would be free to contract with their partners, if they so desire, and have any marriage ceremony in any religion that accepts such. Churches that do not recognize such a possibility would not have to do so, and their members would not be forced to accept it. The government would guarantee equal treatment under the law, and enforce contractual obligations, but would not need to bestow legitimacy on any one definition. There would be no need to divide a country over a definition.

If anyone recalls, some time past, we had a discussion on the subject of our nations' handling of gay marriage on the NationStates Middle East Regional Happenings. The position that is currently being upheld was also the one that I at the time defined as that of my nation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
East Anarx
Member Avatar
Anarchitect

Don't count on it happening in RL. The government doesn't care about whether it's right or not. They only care about more ways in which they can extend their power over people. Whether they define marriage as between a man and a woman or legalize and regulate gay marriage, they'll still be able to control marriage. The only solution is to separate marriage and the state. The state should only treat people as individuals anyways. All organizations should be voluntary. Is this gonna happen? Not if the government can help it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

Esternarx
Jul 29 2006, 10:50 AM
Nag Ehgoeg
Jul 29 2006, 10:42 AM
New Harumf
Jul 29 2006, 08:26 AM
Catholic Europe
Jul 29 2006, 03:55 AM
Marriages are indeed a religious sacrament, not a secular contract. Thus, I come to a very different conclusion on gay marriages - they can not exist or happen because no Priest will perform a gay marriage and, in my mind, that is the only way to become married.

We are in agreement. However, the contract of a union between two beople granted by the government, which guarentees certain rights and priviledges should be made available to gay couples.

Gay priests will perform gay marriages.

NH is just old and set in his ways, and we all know what I think of CE.

Gay marriage by any other name is still marriage.

So it's ok for two athiests to get married (either in a church or regestry office) and so long as they're opposite sex it's "ok" but two Christian gays can't "make a religious sacrament"?

Bull Dookey.

The government shouldn't have any say whatsoever in marriage. Marriage is a voluntary contract between individuals and therefore something that the government has no business defining or regulating. If a particular faith objects to a certain type of union - same sex, polygamous, etc - then that's their perogrative. They're the backwards ones. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed. Doesn't mean that if a minister of a different faith (or branch of faith) is willing to make the union that it's any less of a marriage.

Also... is this my first post in this topic?

I just said that... :unsure:

Well you're a very smart person. I merely extended it to cover corrupt religious insititutions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Filo
Member Avatar
General
I think to create a Moderate Islamic nation, like Egypt or Libya

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Catholic Europe
Member Avatar
Spammer
No, I'm sorry, gay marriages are not possible or acceptable in my mind. Won't change.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
East Anarx
Member Avatar
Anarchitect

Catholic Europe
Jul 29 2006, 02:06 PM
No, I'm sorry, gay marriages are not possible or acceptable in my mind. Won't change.

LOL
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quaon
Member Avatar
A Prince Amoung Men-Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
Catholic Europe
Jul 29 2006, 02:06 PM
No, I'm sorry, gay marriages are not possible or acceptable in my mind. Won't change.

So you're gay, but don't support gay marriage? WTF?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
Quaon
Jul 29 2006, 03:15 PM
Catholic Europe
Jul 29 2006, 02:06 PM
No, I'm sorry, gay marriages are not possible or acceptable in my mind. Won't change.

So you're gay, but don't support gay marriage? WTF?

I understand CE's point - because he only views marraige as a sacrament of the Catholic Church. I could give a damn about religious marraige (even tho I had one). My problem is - as long as the federal and state governments are going to grant married people (with a liscense from the state) special priviledges such as tax breaks, right of social security survivorship, insurance coverage, hospital visitation, then I want the same rights for same sex couples. Call it civil unions, or whatever, it's OK with me, just give me those same rights, particularly at the federal level.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Syawla
Member Avatar
Pleasuring a cucumber with butter
 *  *  *  *  *  *
The Resplendent Dawn
Jul 29 2006, 07:37 AM
Ok, I'm confused.  I could have sworn I posted on this topic ten to twenty minutes ago, but I don't see it, so I'll post again:

Syawla:  That last post is a great analysis.  I'll concede your point there.

Filo: I think we need to be more vigilant about guarding secularism.  And I think I was being overly one sided in my previous comments: there are parts of Islam that respect.  What kind of Islamic nation will you be making.  
And also, sorry that we side tracked your topic.

Thanks mate. You do make a number of good points yourself. But just from my own knowledge, which is all it is, I could not agree with your central point; that there is within Islam something making incompatible with Western values. What my last post attempted to do was disprove your argument that the situation in the Middle East provides evidence for this, by proving that religion is not the central issue behind current troubles.

You are not alone in having expressed such a view. A number of academics of merit argue that too, it doesn't make them any more correct than I am, which I am happy to concede, I might not be.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Syawla
Jul 29 2006, 07:42 PM
The Resplendent Dawn
Jul 29 2006, 07:37 AM
Ok, I'm confused.  I could have sworn I posted on this topic ten to twenty minutes ago, but I don't see it, so I'll post again:

Syawla:  That last post is a great analysis.  I'll concede your point there.

Filo: I think we need to be more vigilant about guarding secularism.  And I think I was being overly one sided in my previous comments: there are parts of Islam that respect.  What kind of Islamic nation will you be making. 
And also, sorry that we side tracked your topic.

Thanks mate. You do make a number of good points yourself. But just from my own knowledge, which is all it is, I could not agree with your central point; that there is within Islam something making incompatibble with Western values. You are not alone in having expressed such a view. A number of academics of merit argue that too, it doesn't them, any more correct than I am, which I am happy to concede, I might not be.

Well, what its worth, I hope that your view is correct.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Syawla
Member Avatar
Pleasuring a cucumber with butter
 *  *  *  *  *  *
New Harumf
Jul 29 2006, 08:26 AM
Catholic Europe
Jul 29 2006, 03:55 AM
Marriages are indeed a religious sacrament, not a secular contract. Thus, I come to a very different conclusion on gay marriages - they can not exist or happen because no Priest will perform a gay marriage and, in my mind, that is the only way to become married.

We are in agreement. However, the contract of a union between two beople granted by the government, which guarentees certain rights and priviledges should be made available to gay couples.

So long as certain civil rights are attached to marriage (adoption is easier, tax breaks) then government intervention in marriage is essential.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Filo
Member Avatar
General
I have created my islamic state: as Sultanate of Hamama Oceania.
Tommorrow evening i'll post history and description
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quaon
Member Avatar
A Prince Amoung Men-Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
Filo
Jul 30 2006, 05:52 AM
I have created my islamic state: as Sultanate of Hamama Oceania.
Tommorrow evening i'll post history and description

You can only have one nation per region except in the Americas, mate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

Syawla
Jul 29 2006, 06:46 PM
New Harumf
Jul 29 2006, 08:26 AM
Catholic Europe
Jul 29 2006, 03:55 AM
Marriages are indeed a religious sacrament, not a secular contract. Thus, I come to a very different conclusion on gay marriages - they can not exist or happen because no Priest will perform a gay marriage and, in my mind, that is the only way to become married.

We are in agreement. However, the contract of a union between two beople granted by the government, which guarentees certain rights and priviledges should be made available to gay couples.

So long as certain civil rights are attached to marriage (adoption is easier, tax breaks) then government intervention in marriage is essential.

Why? Or more accurately, to what extent?

You get a tax break for having dependent children. Yet you don't need a "government liscence" or have to pass a test to have children. The law (in the UK at least) is "you have children who depend on you, you get a tax break".

Now granted, here in the UK we have Civil Partnerships (which are marriages in all but name) that grant marriage taxation status to gay couples, but if we didn't (which wasn't too long ago) would it be right to give a tax break to a man and a woman who swore to be together but not two men or two women?

Yes, the government must have a say in what a marriage is - I can't say "I'm married to Ms Make Believe, give me a tax break" for example but intervention saying who I can or cannot marry on the grounds of sex, race, IQ, etc is rediculas.

Marriage is a contract between consenting adults. Period. Married couples live in a certain way that it is thus deemed fair to grant them certain rights - such as determining inheritence etc. All that matters, in my opinion, is that consenting adults agree to the contract and all the conditions (mostly benifical) attached to it.

I couldn't care less if 50 men (between the ages of 18 and 118, from 50 different religions and ethnic groups) all get "married" - so long as they accept all that marriage means on paper and live to it.

The government should back off.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Syawla
Member Avatar
Pleasuring a cucumber with butter
 *  *  *  *  *  *
Nag Ehgoeg
Jul 30 2006, 10:43 AM
Syawla
Jul 29 2006, 06:46 PM
New Harumf
Jul 29 2006, 08:26 AM
Catholic Europe
Jul 29 2006, 03:55 AM
Marriages are indeed a religious sacrament, not a secular contract. Thus, I come to a very different conclusion on gay marriages - they can not exist or happen because no Priest will perform a gay marriage and, in my mind, that is the only way to become married.

We are in agreement. However, the contract of a union between two beople granted by the government, which guarentees certain rights and priviledges should be made available to gay couples.

So long as certain civil rights are attached to marriage (adoption is easier, tax breaks) then government intervention in marriage is essential.

Why? Or more accurately, to what extent?

You get a tax break for having dependent children. Yet you don't need a "government liscence" or have to pass a test to have children. The law (in the UK at least) is "you have children who depend on you, you get a tax break".

Now granted, here in the UK we have Civil Partnerships (which are marriages in all but name) that grant marriage taxation status to gay couples, but if we didn't (which wasn't too long ago) would it be right to give a tax break to a man and a woman who swore to be together but not two men or two women?

Yes, the government must have a say in what a marriage is - I can't say "I'm married to Ms Make Believe, give me a tax break" for example but intervention saying who I can or cannot marry on the grounds of sex, race, IQ, etc is rediculas.

Marriage is a contract between consenting adults. Period. Married couples live in a certain way that it is thus deemed fair to grant them certain rights - such as determining inheritence etc. All that matters, in my opinion, is that consenting adults agree to the contract and all the conditions (mostly benifical) attached to it.

I couldn't care less if 50 men (between the ages of 18 and 118, from 50 different religions and ethnic groups) all get "married" - so long as they accept all that marriage means on paper and live to it.

The government should back off.

Ethically I wish the government would back off and leave people to do it with whoever they wish mate. But it is totally unpractical. And with, as at present, their being certain privileges attached to marriage, I find it preferable to have marriage (therefore the precursor to these privileges) defined by the government than by religious denominations, as the lesser of two evils.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paradise
Member Avatar
Resident bureaucrat

Quaon
Jul 30 2006, 08:23 AM
Filo
Jul 30 2006, 05:52 AM
I have created my islamic state: as Sultanate of Hamama Oceania.
Tommorrow evening i'll post history and description

You can only have one nation per region except in the Americas, mate.

He can have as many nations per region as he wants. However, he can only have one nation per regional map, except for American Continent where he can have two (one in NA and one in SA).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quaon
Member Avatar
A Prince Amoung Men-Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
Paradise
Jul 30 2006, 03:30 PM
Quaon
Jul 30 2006, 08:23 AM
Filo
Jul 30 2006, 05:52 AM
I have created my islamic state: as Sultanate of Hamama Oceania.
Tommorrow evening i'll post history and description

You can only have one nation per region except in the Americas, mate.

He can have as many nations per region as he wants. However, he can only have one nation per regional map, except for American Continent where he can have two (one in NA and one in SA).

Can he roleplay with bot nations?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paradise
Member Avatar
Resident bureaucrat

Quaon
Jul 30 2006, 04:32 PM
Paradise
Jul 30 2006, 03:30 PM
Quaon
Jul 30 2006, 08:23 AM
Filo
Jul 30 2006, 05:52 AM
I have created my islamic state: as Sultanate of Hamama Oceania.
Tommorrow evening i'll post history and description

You can only have one nation per region except in the Americas, mate.

He can have as many nations per region as he wants. However, he can only have one nation per regional map, except for American Continent where he can have two (one in NA and one in SA).

Can he roleplay with bot nations?

No. It's a little hard to roleplay with a "unlocated" nation :D

EDIT: "Unlocated" is an existing term right?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quaon
Member Avatar
A Prince Amoung Men-Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
Paradise
Jul 30 2006, 03:34 PM
Quaon
Jul 30 2006, 04:32 PM
Paradise
Jul 30 2006, 03:30 PM
Quaon
Jul 30 2006, 08:23 AM
Filo
Jul 30 2006, 05:52 AM
I have created my islamic state: as Sultanate of Hamama Oceania.
Tommorrow evening i'll post history and description

You can only have one nation per region except in the Americas, mate.

He can have as many nations per region as he wants. However, he can only have one nation per regional map, except for American Continent where he can have two (one in NA and one in SA).

Can he roleplay with bot nations?

No. It's a little hard to roleplay with a unlocated nation :D

Ok, but I've got a question. After the Global War, I'm going to have two nations: one of which is going to be a rebellious city and is located within the other nation. They will not be able to fight anyone besides the other nation. Is that ok?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paradise
Member Avatar
Resident bureaucrat

As long as this rebellious city doesn't ask to be put on the map, implying also that it doesn't roleplay with the other players except yourself, yes that is ok.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quaon
Member Avatar
A Prince Amoung Men-Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
Paradise
Jul 30 2006, 03:52 PM
As long as this rebellious city doesn't ask to be put on the map, implying also that it doesn't roleplay with the other players except yourself, yes that is ok.

My RP is going to be: Quaon Beta falls, Reborn Babylon takes place, leader of Quaon Beta sedes his city and makes it Islamic, and asks for Islamic aid against Reborn Babylon. If Paradise or another power gets involved, RB falls.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Filo
Member Avatar
General
I have think that Oceania was a splitted map as for North and south Amnerica.
I'm sorry if i'm wrog :shy: :shy:

I'll think i must relocate it in suche places as Middle east or Africa(south America is not good for me for an islmaic country)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply