Thalmor

J-jee Ashland, w-hen you...put it like that, I-I...don't know what to say...

At first I was like But then I was like

Royal greetings! The Evenstar Empire is a blue, European, independent, simple alliance that seeks to only grow economically; and to establish warm, friendly relations with other alliances. We are neutral in foreign affairs, and only wish to defend ourselves, any protectorates we may have, and our allies. Members of the Evenstar Empire don't pay taxes. Instead, they're simply required to provide a certain tonnage of a specific resource each week. The resource and it's amount are determined by a member's economy. For example, if you're in Europe, you won't be asked to provide uranium. We also don't have a large bureaucracy. If any members need to be heard, they can come to their leader (who logs in multiple times a day for hours at a time) directly. Furthermore, we are an absolute monarchy. All power is invested in the Emperor and, as stated above, we're completely independent. There's no need to worry about the bank being mismanaged or having to receive orders by a complete stranger. Excluding the Emperor, the government is small, and will remain that way. Still, we do have in the planning a representative board that will be democratically elected once established. As the alliance is also an extension of the Emperor's own nation, you don't have to worry about the leader up and leaving all of a sudden - dooming the alliance in most cases. Finally, we are a militant alliance. Members are obligated, upon request, to receive grants to finance recruitment cost of soldiers, the production cost of tanks, aircraft, and ships. They are also able to receive munitions free of charge. We are, as of the posting of this recruitment thread, currently ranked #43 with 25 members. Joining is as easy as becoming an applicant on the alliance's page itself: https://politicsandwar.com/alliance/id=1279 Thank you, and have a pleasant day!

Allocated funds from the treasury, the King of Petra tasks a tenth of the male population to work on the roads of Petravillas. They spend time clearing debris, filling in holes, and setting up basic signs. _____________________________________________________________ The refugees from Iven that didn't move to Petravillas have established the Kingdom of North Iven in the wilderness just west of Outer Petravillas. They number a few hundred, and a cousin from the previous king has taken the throne as the King of North Iven. Also, to the northeast, lies a nomadic tribe calling themselves the Amits. To the south, the battle between the Skullcrushers and the Zombies have ended. The Skullcrushers were forced to retreat back some, and the zombie horde has moved more west of Terras. Both sides have suffered causalities. Map: Status: Food Rating: 75% / A fair amount of variety and a lot of it. Military Rating: 35% / A smaller force of decent strength. Stability: 75% / The people are content. Technology Rating: 25% / Little progress has been made since The Fall. Infrastructure: 50% / Most areas are alright to travel in. Economy: 60% / Trade is decent, and is expanding slowly. Actions: A - Improve the food situation / Make it a general goal to increase the number of livestock and crops. B - Improve the military situation / Attempt to add vehicle support to the army. C - Focus on internal reforms / Try to add structure and organization to the government. D - Put effort into improving technology / (Must wait three turns before using this decision again.) E - Rebuild Infrastructure / Focus on maintaining roads. F - Manage the Economy / Address the current government budget. SPECIAL: I - Attack!: Assault the Skullcrusher position to the east of Outer Petravillas. II - Attack!: Assault Skullcrusher-occupied Apol. III - Diplomacy!: Reach out to the Amits. IV - Diplomacy!: Reach out to the North Ivens.

You know, maybe if you'd actually read the thread instead of having an autistic knee jerk response. you would've seen that Roma had actually managed to be able to convince me that some of my points were questionable to the point where I had recanted and wasn't so opposed to the idea. I actually had some more business in mind for you, so by doing this, you just lost out of millions of dollars worth of future business. Finally, I can have you reported to moderation for your calling of me ''stupid'' - which is name calling, and is against the rules.

Roma, I gotta give you credit, you've done a great job backing up everything you support. I still can't say I'll support gay marriage outright due to my religious convictions, but my cold opposition to it is something I'm going to have to evaluate and review.

In compliance to the rules of the ''Alliance Recruitment'' forum of the ''Politics and War'' section, specifically: I hereby request my first recruitment thread for my alliance, The Evenstar Empire, be locked. The thread in question: http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/6216-the-evenstar-empire/

The basis of my own argument was on that quote, thank you for the additional information. I wasn't trying to be misleading. touche.

Steve Austin has also had 4 wives, so if we think ''jiving'' with Steve Austin is the best compass for marriage, we should also throw out ''death due us part'' within wedding vows.

Apparently you're blind because right below those two Wikipedia links, there's a reference to a page in the book ''!@#$ Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality'' by Simon LeVay. Let me post the specific source again: Levay, Simon (1996). !@#$ Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. p. 207. Can you provide some sources for this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word Okay, which ones?

Well, it should be noted that there's evidence to suggest that even though homosexual behavior has been observed, that animals never pick a homosexual relationship over a heterosexual one. "Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity." Source: (In order of relevance) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#cite_note-8 Levay, Simon (1996). !@#$ Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. p. 207. So I don't know if you can use animals as a point of reference into determining what's normal and what's not normal for marriage within humans. In terms of some aquatic life and insects, there are creatures that are capable of both fertilizing eggs and laying theme. Plus, a lot of mammals will go from one partner to the next, while in modern human sexuality, cheating is frowned upon.

Well, in your scenario, let's assume that the Presidential election is not a part of it, and that Congress declares a national vote in early September that President Obama allows. In this case, I wouldn't vote. This is because I can't actively support - and give credit to - something that I view as sin. But, as stated earlier, I can't force people to live a specific way.

I'm going to assume you're speaking to me because I've been the most vocal on this thread in terms of opposition. As said earlier, the biggest reason why I do not believe homosexuals - you - should not get married is because I believe that it would bring more sexual perversion as people call for more ''liberties'' in regards to sexual rights. These, in theory, would include bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy, etc, and other things. Examples: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469.html#.VZB2kkZhPMq http://truthuncensored.net/university-academics-say-pedophilia-is-natural-for-males-aroused-by-children/#sthash.2fk2Uow5.Jv8Ut95w.dpbs http://truthuncensored.net/university-academics-say-pedophilia-is-natural-for-males-aroused-by-children/#sthash.2fk2Uow5.Jv8Ut95w.dpbs http://www.thelocal.no/20150625/norway-to-let-7-yr-old-change-gender http://www.vice.com/read/after-gay-marriage-why-not-polygamy Furthermore, the religious freedom of some institutions are being stepped on: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/20/idaho-citys-ordinance-tells-pastors-to-marry-gays-/ http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/millionaire-gay-couple-suing-force-church-hold-wedding/ http://www.charismanews.com/us/50277-government-charges-farmers-with-discrimination-fines-for-refusing-to-host-gay-wedding Now, Roma did make a good case against what I just said. Scandinavia, as a whole, does indeed have no particular increase in pedophilia or polygamy. As a result of this, I did take a step back and reconsider where I stand on the issue coming from that aspect The only other reason why I would oppose gay marriage comes from the fact that God hates gay sex. Note that I said gay sex and not homosexuality in general. This is because each time homosexuality is brought up in the Bible, it always speaks of gay sex, and does not ever mention the attraction of males to males, or females to females. It is only brought up as in referring to perversion. However, even then, it's up to each person to decide rather or not they'll following the commandments of God, and so I'm not in a position to judge or persecute anybody for their decision. It is a Christian's job to love people unconditionally. So, in that case, do whatever you desire. After all, God gives you the freedom to choose, so why shouldn't I?

Oh come on, the preservation of the Union is more important than any one social issue. Besides, even if they did secede, it's not like they would be able to keep their independence.

Deciding that the recent tragedy at the power plant was a good enough of an excuse to try to make a case to the general population that he himself, the King of Petravillas, was a legitimate ruler, he prepared a speech. Using the recent inventions, the established military, and the effort that was made into getting the power plant online, he made a case to the people. The speech was well received, and the people were convinced. The people that were skeptical had (most) of their concerns satisfied, and were willing to give the King a fair chance. The Iven refugees are content with the matter. _____________________________________________________________ There have been no changes in the map. Status: Food Rating: 70% / A fair amount of variety and a lot of it. Military Rating: 35% / A smaller force of decent strength. Stability: 70% / The people are content. Technology Rating: 25% / Little progress has been made since The Fall. Infrastructure: 40% / Some areas are dangerous to travel; main roads are well maintained. Economy: 55% / Trade is alright, but could be better. Actions: A - Improve the food situation / Make it a general goal to increase the number of livestock and crops. B - Improve the military situation / (Must wait one more turn before using this decision again.) C - Focus on internal reforms / Try to add structure and organization to the government. D - Put effort into improving technology / (Must wait four turns before using this decision again.) E - Rebuild Infrastructure / Focus on maintaining roads. F - Manage the Economy / Address the current government budget. SPECIAL: I - Attack!: Assault the Skullcrusher position to the east of Outer Petravillas. II - Attack!: Assault Skullcrusher-occupied Apol.

In the sense that we're fallible, mortal creatures that are flawed, yes. The biggest difference between man and animals, however, is that we're the only living creatures God made that's in his own image: Genesis 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Of course, that's religious. But I believe a secular case could be made by stating that our ability to comprehend morality and our intelligence puts us above animals. Plus, we control them (As in, breed them en mass and specifically so that we can eat them) and have driven many different species to extinction. I mean, who eats who 99% of the time in modern society?

At least the Thalmor were better than those inbred stormcloaks. >Implying a war-torn, newly independent Skyrim could take on the Thalmor.

Against the wishes of some advisers, the King of Petravillas is determined to get the power plant back online. Just like last time, excessive labor on the part of the more educated citizens is executed. However, stress brought upon by constant experimental and questionable maintenance (due to poor understanding) results in an explosion, killing eleven people and badly damaging important parts of the power plant. Despite the damage, the causalities can be made up, and the damage can be repaired; it would take a small while though. The result is a drop in confidence in the government, although generally, life goes on. The King of Petravillas decides to leave the power plant alone for now. _____________________________________________________________ Skullcrushes are sending in commando teams to flank and assault the zombie horde down south, with varying levels of success. Cultural clashes between Iven refugees and the native citizens of Petravillas in causing unrest. Crime has went up. There have been no changes in the map. Status: Food Rating: 70% / A fair amount of variety and a lot of it. Military Rating: 35% / A smaller force of decent strength. Stability: 40% / A lot of frustration over current affairs. Technology Rating: 25% / Little progress has been made since The Fall. Infrastructure: 40% / Some areas are dangerous to travel; main roads are well maintained. Economy: 50% / Trade is alright, but could be better. Actions: A - Improve the food situation / Make it a general goal to increase the number of livestock and crops. B - Improve the military situation / (Must wait two turns before using this decision again.) C - Focus on internal reforms / Address the concerns of more liberal citizens. D - Put effort into improving technology / (Must wait five turns before using this decision again.) E - Rebuild Infrastructure / Focus on maintaining roads. F - Manage the Economy / Address the current government budget. SPECIAL: I - Attack!: Assault the Skullcrusher position to the east of Outer Petravillas. II - Attack!: Assault Skullcrusher-occupied Apol.

It's not even about two gay people getting married! Good Lord, if that's all it's about, I probably wouldn't even care! No, the problem is that once homosexuality becomes widely accepted (and the recent hearing as already guaranteed that) then other forms of moral degeneracy follows. Another thing is that religious freedom is about to get stepped on hard because homosexual couples will start suing churches en mass for not allowing them to marry. It's done happened a few times, and after the recent hearing, it's going to happen more. http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/millionaire-gay-couple-suing-force-church-hold-wedding/ Furthermore, there's already pushes for polygamy and pedophilia to become widely accepted. Example: http://patdollard.com/2013/07/it-begins-pedophiles-call-for-same-rights-as-homosexuals/ http://www.vice.com/read/after-gay-marriage-why-not-polygamy ''But those are from 2013!'' Okay, have some from yesterday/today: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469.html#.VY8eGkZhPMp http://truthuncensored.net/university-academics-say-pedophilia-is-natural-for-males-aroused-by-children/#sthash.2fk2Uow5.pDyEYeiq.dpbs This is why gay marriage is wrong. It's not about two guys/women getting married, it's about the resulting moral decline that comes from further progression into the backwards ''sexual revolution'' ''...all because they're afraid of the reaction from people such as yourself.'' You know, how dare you accuse me of being hostile to homosexuals in person, and that I don't have any form of compassion for them. This is part of the reason why I unsubscribed from the pro-LGBT agenda, the hostility of those that are pro-LGBT to are anti-LGBT is astounding. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot?s=t The definition of a bigot, according to the above link, is ''a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.'' In my first post to this thread, I clearly said at the bottom that I was open to all arguments. Many people who are pro-LGBT seem not to be. As I said (and showed) in the first paragraph in this specific post, there's a lot of other moral degeneracy that follows the acceptance of gay marriage. The right of the state - not just the right, but the responsibility - is to protect it's citizens. Of course, the line where personal freedom and government privilege meet is blurry, very much so in fact. So, I'm very reluctant to support ideas which grant the government more power. Homosexuality, specifically gay marriage, is where the government should intervene to stop it's people from falling into a moral trap. Of course, gay people have the right to be gay, they can't really change that and shouldn't have any bodily harm brought upon them for being who they are. They can enjoy those feelings behind closed doors, then. I think I already made clear why that is.

This is an idea I can get behind. I know the Libertarians (I would know, I use to be one) would often say that the government has no place in marriage.

Thank you for the civil response back, along with the recognition! A big issue is that people let their ideas become greater than themselves due to a lack of their own knowledge, and so they become violent and may lash out (in a way) against their ideas. For example, I may have been completely different and say ''KILL DE !@#$S LULZ'' and then if you responded the same way, just tastelessly say that I had intercourse with your mother and call you names - and that's certainly no way to change another person's mind. Again, thank you for your own civility. In return, I hope you continue on yourself, and may realize that what you may believe may be different from reality. To be honest, I was once pro-LGBT myself; there's a reason why I'm not now. Of course, maybe I am indeed wrong.

Of course not, but to use the argument ''I doubt you wouldn't think that if X'' is to say that ''I have nothing to say, so I'm going to throw the argument back at you.'' ''We should ban guns!'' ''I doubt you'd be saying that if you manufactured/own guns!'' ''We should promote B over A!'' ''I doubt you say that if you are sponsored by A!'' ''We should go after corrupt teachers at the high school!'' ''I don't think you would say that if you were a teacher at that high school!'' Furthermore, what both of you said is directly an appeal to emotions. Emotions can askew rational decision making, so I don't really care much for them.

Upon further research, you are correct on the first sentence. I retract my statements regarding that line. Straight couples want to get married because it's a sign of love, it's the ultimate statement of ''we are a couple.'' There are, however, government-granted benefits to being married that some people may disagree with actually even existing in the first place. I didn't say that children who are artificially conceived suffer from shorter lifespans. I meant that it was homosexuals themselves. Upon review, I see why my sentence structure would lead people to believe I said that; my apologies. Except that some people who practice bestiality wish to push for it at some point: http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/news/those-who-practice-bestiality-say-theyre-part-of-the-next-sexual-rights-movement-6334747 Homosexual behavior has been observed in a lot of animals, yes, but ''Simon LeVau introduced the further caveat that ''although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.'' Source: Levay, Simon (1996). !@#$ Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. p. 207. No, they do not suffer from the same disease. I think it's a testament to human intelligence that they're not victims to instinct. Not to say humans don't have instinct, of course. Haha, alright, you got me. With your first few sentences, are you implying that the U.S. would be akin to Sudan or Afghanistan if the U.S. didn't recognize gay marriage? You can't take one issue and go ''Yeah, despite our modern justice systems, grand educational institutions, common law, and vast wealth, we'd just be like people in Africa/The Middle East if we didn't (insert specific social issue here)'' Yeah, you will more than likely see more 3rd world nations become more tolerate and stop killing homosexuals in the coming decades. I can't criticize that. Again, this my fault, I didn't make myself clear enough. I meant that the symbolic meaning of it was lost with the fact that it's corrupt. To put it into perspective, what if President Joe took a lot of bribes, and for the bribes, supported gun rights and for a specific lesson in schools to be taught. Along the way, he's bribed to support voting rights for ethnic Yuri's. I mean, it's a good thing practically that the ethnic Yuri's have voting rights, but symbolically, is it? It's good that it happened, but it happened artificially. _______________________________________________________ By the way, Cody K, I wanted to say that I appreciate how you listed your sources, that's pretty cool.

Your argument boils down into a logical fallacy, specifically the ''bandwagon'' fallacy. Just because the rest of the ''developed world'' is doing something, doesn't mean the U.S. should. If the Eurozone suddenly increased their minimum wage to 25 euros an hour, gave each woman a 3-year paid maternity leave, and required employers to employees give 1-month paid vacations, does that mean the U.S. should?

There's a small Dioist population here in The Evenstar, but they're to small of a minority to be able to tell rather or not they're violent. They immigrated over here because of the Great VE War.