Universal Declaration of Human Rights



  • QUOTE

    While some of the Bible is a giant metaphor, some of it, like the condemnation of homosexuals, applies to today and all of history, and can be taken literally.

    Really? Please tell me where.



  • QUOTE (Nazione Italiana @ Dec 28 2006, 05:21 AM)

    1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

    _Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." _

    Here... again



  • dry.gif You were supposed to use the scripture from Romans. Then, I could have exploded and reigned down upon you in a million little flaming bits; as it stands, I shall have to do some work.

    Interesting quotation from 1 Corinthians; my Bible doesn't exactly agree, so I leave that one for now and perhaps return later.

    Ahh, yes, Leviticus: the great double-edged sword of the Christians. Lewis Black but it the best I ever heard it. He said, "They were wondering into camp with camels saying, "I think I'm in love!"" (a little paraphrased). I would charge you though, that if you keep this part of Levitical law, you must keep all of it, and not randomly choose parts to uphold. God, apparently, did not tell you specifically which laws still apply. Also, since you believe in the verity of every little titbit in the Bible, do you agree with...drat, I've lost it. Don't worry: I'll be back with the scripture (it's a whole New Testament book; only 2 or 3 chapters) with which to challenge you.



  • We care little for the observations of the Bible or the New Testament, the judicial branch is dedicated to enforcing Shariah Law, and even were the Caliph to wish to impose this mad European legislation on them, which he does not, he would not be able to, so strongly opposed are the Council of Imams to this law which also offers license to women to break apart families and raise their children without the guiding hand of a man.
    These laws threaten the integrity and strength of our society at every level, and must be opposed strenously.


  • Admin

    These proposed laws do not infringe on your beliefs, rather it protects your chosen beliefs. It is your beliefs rather, that infringes upon individual liberty and the right of all mankind to practice their religion of choice.



  • QUOTE (Derbyshire @ Dec 30 2006, 11:43 PM)

    I would charge you though, that if you keep this part of Levitical law, you must keep all of it, and not randomly choose parts to uphold. God, apparently, did not tell you specifically which laws still apply. Also, since you believe in the verity of every little titbit in the Bible, do you agree with...drat, I've lost it.

    Hmm. huh.gif

    I bore of other nations telling me that my national government, the majority of my people, and my church are wrong in ideology. The faithful of Nazione Italiana turn to the Vatican and to the Pope for the answers to questions the bible doesn't answer. Nazione Italiana has the strongest bonds with the Holy See, since, of course, it located in Roma itself. This matter has been discussed in parliament, voted on, and completely outlawed in Nazione Italiana, and I refuse to let something go into effect to over ride that. We aren't asking that you all ban gay marriage in your respective nations, but you MUST give us the right to.



  • In the Holy Roman Empire civil partnership are granted to all humans and citizens of the Empire, with full legal protection, the very same marriaged couples gain. This regardless to sex, etnicity etc.

    But holy marriage can only be granted by religious communities with the approval of those. The largest religious group, the lutherans, represented in the Senate by the Pontifex Maximus, our lutheran counterpart to the Catholic Pope, the lutherans and a vast majority of the population does, like Nazione Italiana believe that the holy marriage are something between a man and a woman. That's their interpretation of the bible, any government with sense for religious freedom accepts that, as long as it's not in conflict with national laws.

    If members of the lutheran church does not approve of the Pontifex Maximus and his priests decision on the matter, they are free to leave the lutheran community. But members outside the lutheran community can never tell them what to do and not to do, and how to interprent the holy bible.

    So in a way I'm supporting Nazione Italiana when I do not believe that the right to marriage within the church should be a matter of national legislation. But I urge Nazione Italiana to improve the situation for the homosexuals within their national borders. It doesn't matter if homosexuality is a matter of free choise or by natural causes, either way their rights must be defended, and whom are not better suited to do so but the government and the society?


  • Admin

    How's this for a compromise:

    The State can grant civil unions to both gay and straight couples, and the Church (any religion) can marry any two individuals as long as it corresponds to their beliefs, but it would be a strictly religious ceremony and would not count as a civil union in the eyes of the State.



  • QUOTE (Belarum @ Dec 31 2006, 04:46 PM)

    How's this for a compromise:

    The State can grant civil unions to both gay and straight couples, and the Church (any religion) can marry any two individuals as long as it corresponds to their beliefs, but it would be a strictly religious ceremony and would not count as a civil union in the eyes of the State.

    No deal, nothing goes before the power of the Church.



  • The Federation will not stand for any law which violates National Soverignty such as this one does. This bill shall receive no endorsement nor support from The Trinity Republics.



  • QUOTE

    but it would be a strictly religious ceremony and would not count as a civil union in the eyes of the State.

    I object to the fact that we should remove the right for religious communities to grant civil union in their religious cermony. In the Holy Roman Empire the church has always been abel to grant civil union along with thier blessing of holy marriage in the eyes of God.

    But as always, I'm willing to discuss this matter further, should it call for it.



  • I believe this is a dead issue, seeing as how the liberals can't keep agree to what we believe human rights ought to be.



  • 'If people feel this has hit a dead end we should by all means put it to a vote. Then after that if a majority vote is not reached we can discuss it all more and have some more all round fun.' replied Eva Straus as she casually took a sip from her cup of fresh Insomnia (1) coffee.

    OOC: (1) Plug to Estonea's international chain of Coffee Cafe and Bars. haha

    user posted image
    Eva Straus MEP, Party Leader,
    [European Green Party] - Real Progress



  • With reasons from ongoing discussion within the EPP-ED party, I come before this parliament with some unsolved issues.

    I must say that I'm rather amused over the fact that the Soviet representatives are still angered over the words in parliament by my rt hon friend from Nazione Italiana as well as the president of this sacred union. But not on the Holy Roman Empire.

    Much that has been said and done in the parliament by both Nazione Italiana and Belarum had firm support by the Holy Roman Empire. I recall a slightly more tempered debate in parliament first took place between myself and the former MEP Sergej from the Soviet Union.

    The Holy Roman Empire still firmely believes in what has been said on the parliament floor. And are of this date still curious on answer from the Soviet Union from both occasions when the Soviet Union decided to leave the parliament rather then face the issues at hand. Firstly the issues on the declaration on human rights, and the necessary discussion defining parliamentary powers and definitions, as well as political and ideological conclusions. Secondly the unprovoced mobilization of Soviet amed forces without any declaration or motivation but simply a note from the govermental newspaper stating that the mobilization indeed took place.

    It would be natural to consider these two questions to be asked on good grounds. I do not consider neither of them as an outrage either by my rt hon friend from Nazione Italiana, the president of this sacred Union or myself. Or anyone else for that matter, should anyone think different, the it's my sincer hope that we can sort it out, verbaly.

    The European Union was founded with the good interest of preventing wars between member states. This parliament are a forum for discussion rather than violent actions. Therefore I urge the Soviet Union to return to the debate and stop this Superpower nonsens. No nation has what so ever unaware or deliberately posed any threat to the Soviet Union as of know. The Soviet representatives has again and again stated how formidabel the Soviet revolutionary army are, how well prepared and well oiled the military machine of yours. Hence there are no need for Soviet mobilization, and no need for Soviet withdrawal form the debate.

    I must remind both the Soviet Union and other members of parliament that with the first and second withdrawals the Soviet Union evaded several issues on the European Union parliamentary agenda. Issues whom are not of less importance today than they were then.

    I have nothing against soldiers, on the contrary I hold them in the highest regard. But I do question the Soviet move to send a uniformed high ranked military officer to represent them in parliament after their actions both in parliament and outside it.