Gay Marriage

  • Incindus had until this point been happy observing the debacle from the side lines. With the Head Meritocrat already half way back to the capital by now, it was clear that he would have to defend his long time friend, mentor and head of state.

    "I have heard many illogical arguments in my time on this planet, but none as ridiculous as either the comments from the honourable Mr Verrina or the right honourable members from the Soviet Union or Aesop Rocks. From what I can gather, the 'religious argument' seems to focus around homosexuality being a 'life style choice'. Right... So someone would be able to go back to being heterosexual like the flick of a switch? Then it is described as a disease that needs to be 'eliminated'?!? I feel sorry for any country that elects representatives with as little logic as this. Perhaps when there is a more scientific viewpoint to this answer, we in Dim Quai pay more attention."

    Incindus turned to face the members from the Soviet Union and Aesop Rocks.

    "Democracy includes above all else, the right to be heard out. We may not like, appreciate, understand or let alone, agree with what is being said, but we must allow it to be said all the same. When democracy becomes selective, it ceases to be a democracy, but rather a tyranny."

    Incindus Pyraxis sat back down, wondering how much longer the meeting would be going on for...


    Dear colleagues, here is religious extremism at its finest.

    Amen! (pun; laugh, please)


    There are other nations in the world with oppressed citizens, starving people, and disease ridden populations. AIDS and Cancer are killing the world, and you all have the nerve to waste this time that could and should be spent on that, with such a miniscule topic as this?

    I would like to add my outrage to that expressed by the right honourable gentlemen. I would say to my right honourable friend that the oppression of his homosexual community should demand the same attention as other oppressed groups elsewhere. Simply because he doesn't recognise their right to exist, etc., does not mean that they are worthless. I would be careful about throwing Lenin comments around; it hasn't been that long since Italy had Musolini, whose politics are statlingly similar to his. Furthermore, how dare he use the word miniscule. Human rights are not 'miniscule'. Oppression and inequality are not 'miniscule'. Sexual apartheid is not 'miniscule'. I also object to my right honourable friend's admission of stereotyping as fact; it is apparent that he has not met many-if any-homosexuals.

    I must, however, rise in opposition to the motion to bar my right honourable friend from Parliament. I feel that this would be a breach of democracy and the right to free speach. I believe that had we anti-race/hate speech legislation in place and a court also in place that perhaps prosecution and ECoJ injunction against my right honourable friend obtained, but since these do not exist, I believe that any measure to the affect discussed by the right honourable gentleman for the USSR would be equivalent to a bill of attainder, strictly prohibited under the Constitution.

  • QUOTE (Holy Roman Empire @ Jan 11 2007, 12:03 PM)

    Cato rose once more to adress the parliament


    -Yes, but I can still tell them they're wrong. laugh.gif

    Yes, and it lockes us up in a deadlock.

    I must regrett that the rt hon gentleman of Derbyshire and Fife are unabel to cope with my strict philosopical comparsion. I believe that the rt hon gentleman makes a mistake when he exclaimes that such comparsion would be offending since we are talking of political, ideological and philosophical groups rather than real people. I know many homosexual people, and many of them are good friends to. Yet they seems to accept and grasp the logic in a world not being black and white.

    The rt hon gentleman talks of similarities between a man who has the right to kill himself and a man who seeks sexual equality. By doing so he sways away from the point. Namely; the right to your body. That was the question asked, and comparsions are only to visualise and explain. Again I must state that I have NOTHING against homosexuals, I both accept and respect them for their way of life. I find it rather akward that the homosexuals themselves accept and respect me better than people in this parliament whom are not homosexuals themselves, but seems to sway from idealism to political correctness.

    I respons I would claim that the rt hon gentleman of Derbyshire and Fife has no respect for the minds and thoughts of others. I'm most dissatisfied over the narrowminded and simpel rethorics. By fanatically defend a stance which enjoys political correctness protection, many members of this chamber represents an equally restricted ability to cope with reality and humane values, as the homophobians.

    I do not consider either sides rethorics to be suitabel in a tolerant society.

    A fact is that homosexuals are a discriminated group in many countries. This cannot be tolerated, but two faults does not make a right. I agree that homophobians poses the largest threat to stability, freedom and equality on this issue. But I see dogmatism of political correctness as the potential future problem. Idealists turning into the very thing they so eagerly fight. Ironic, yet terrifying.


    My eyes were opened to the truth.

    Now, my rt hon gentleman, what is "truth"? I would be very careful to claim truth as an argument in a debate such as this. Each man should be his own truthwitness, truth ion this case a relative, based upon the preferences and experience held by the man in question.

    It's a disgrace to humankind that such realities exsist. But have the rt hon gentleman of Derbyshire and Fife considered the consequenses of terror the ones outside political correctness endures? I'm not taking them in defence, but nasty stories can be told from both sides and are not judicialy nor ideologically safe to build an opinion solely upon. With the same rethorics I could (and many people unfortuantly do) persuade people that other peoples are dangerous. That immigrants steal jobs, commit crime and are "evil by nature". Many European faces such problems, with governments unabel to cope with the preassure of immigration, creating an enviroment which makes crime an easy way.

    I know hundreds of stories about africans, arabs and people of the former Republic of Jugoslavia which has commited numerous and brutal acts of crime. Yet I do not consider africans, arabs or jugoslavians as evil by nature. Crimes are commited by all nationalities daily.

    I'm aware that I somewhat left the original topic, but should the rt hon gentleman of Derbyshire and Fife agree with me in this statement, his former argument fails as and argument i the primary debate.

    As a liberal and a conservative I hold individuals as the most important factor in society. Individuals are the starting point of all political decisions, I agree on with the rt hon gentleman on this point in the debate. Therefore I'm also concernd with the intolerance shown by both sides.

    As for interprent Gods words, I've already stated my point of view. All religious text can be interprinted for a personal or political cause as well as love and understanding. We could sit and interprint Gods words til we die to decide what's "right" and "wrong". I believe it's up to each man, woman and child to figure that out for himself. For me religion are not a purpous in itself to achive acceptans or higher social status. It is a matter of belief, either you do or you don't. What you interprint are your own responsibility, you are your own truthwitness, based on your preferences and your experience. Either God accepts me for what I am, or he don't.

    What the rt hon gentleman of Derbyshire and Fife describes are various interprentations of the Bible. Some may be true, some may be lies, but there is no denying that some of them are used to gain power rather than belief in God. Some parts tell you to kill the unfaithful, some proclaims that you should "turn the other cheek". Some words speak of love, some of hate. I believe God loves all his children, because if he don't I wouldn't believe in him.

    I believe God loves you, regardless of wheter you are homosexual or hetrosexual. I believe that every man can come before God to get forgivness. All men should have equal judical rights, but you cannot force the church to bless something that the church believe is a sin, it's their religious right.

    And I do not understand what the rt hon gentleman of Derbyshire and Fife does not understand in this stance. I'm also surprised that so few other nations seems to have religious rights in their countries who protect the religious practise. I am also curious in what way I have not "stood up for" what i believe in.

    On this topic as well as the previous one, I do not believe that violating (religious) rights will bring a peaceful end to this issue.


    What then, you say, is the real question? I will tell you. The real question is whether or not homosexuals are entitled by their humanity to human rights. I will not insult the inteligence of the honourable and right honourable members present by giving them the answer.

    I have answered this question on several accounts. And I shall return in kind not to insult the inteligence of the rt hon gentleman as I'm confident that he can read.

    As for "leaving the church at home", as the rt hon gentleman stated in the beginning of his speech:


    -Yes, but I can still tell them they're wrong. laugh.gif

    Are the rt hon gentleman denying devoted christians to tell the rt hon gentleman that he is wrong? It seems so, and if it is indeed true, than a person of no provocative nature could call the rt hon gentleman of Derbyshire and Fife for a hypocrit.

    After finishing his speech he sat down, hoping that some of it got through the thick and foul air in the room.

    I would still like the delegation from Derbyshire and Fife to respond to my former adress. I have it here from the protocol for the rt hon gentleman to read, should his memory fail him.

  • I concur with the opinion of my colleagues from Dim Quai, HRE, Derbyshire and Fife. Although I and my people dislike the discriminating stance of the Italian government toward homosexuals, banning Mr. Verrina from the Parliament is very undemocratic. We have to learn to respect the differences of others, either that is the difference in sexual orientation or political view.

    I would also like to inform to our friends in the Parliament that the resolution which attempts to distinguish between marriages for heterosexuals and marriages for homosexuals has been defeated in our national referendum. The people of Aleutia have decided not to embrace any discrimination or differentiation between the two groups of people.

  • I thank my honourable friend for being so thrifty in his materials. I am, and will always be, happy to answer his questions. I hope he can understand that when I said I could still tell people they were wrong, it was a joke (hence the laugh) to poke fun at the statement to which it refers, which is, in itself, become a clich?.

    What my honourable friend seems unable to comprehend is that I find intolerance intolerable in a tolerant society. Where is the tolerance if an entire group of people is discriminated against simply because of a fact that cannot be altered? My honourable friend speaks of comprehending a world that is not black and white. I am not entirely certain of his meaning, but if he is insinuating that prejudice or discrimination may be appropriate in some fora, then I certainly do not understand.

    When my honourable friend speaks of my objection to comparing homosexuality to drugs abuse, my objection stems from the implication that there is some sort of similarity betwixt the twain. What do I believe about the right to the body? I believe that the government has no place in the bedroom. Second, I believe that drugs abuse harms not only the user but those in contact therewith. For that reason, drugs are controlled. Third, homosexuality does not harm anybody or anything, and I will contest anybody who wishes to oppose that.

    I do, indeed, have respect for the thoughts and opinions of others. Provided, of course, that they are not bigotted or founded on pure prejudice. Perhaps, just perhaps, political correctness is not a bad thing. Yes, my position enjoy protection therefrom, but I believe for a good reason. I do believe that the Americans did get something right; that was the statement: 'all men are created equal'. I believe that all people are equal and should be treated equally. Therefore, when somebody dares to attack somebody in a prejudiced manner, I will be right there to defend them, for insulting the nature of any part of the human race equates to an insult against myself. When I think of how they should be treated, I think of how I would like to be treated.

    I cannot accept any defence for inequality; that is why I am so stubborn on this matter. Be it the difference between civil unions and marriage, if it is not called the same thing, then it is not the same thing and any such situation, I feel, is intolerable.

    When I point out things using scripture, I have tried to demonstrate that the Bible should not be used as material for debate. I will repeat what I said; if we cannot bring our politics to church, then why should we be expected to tolerate church in politics? My entire opinion stems from the believe that individuals are the most important factor in society. There is no need to preach to the quire. I sincerely believe that such circumstances, as they exist in Nazione Italiana, are human rights violations. I do not think that my honourable friend would take kindly to warm, fuzzy stories about Saddam Hussein. I hope I have answered some of my honourable friends inquiries and hope they may be of some assistance.