NationStates

TITLE:

Gay Men Held By Police


VALIDITY:

Homosexuality, foreign trade and foreign travel all legal
ADULT


DESCRIPTION:

@@DEMONYM@@ tourists @@randommalename(1)@@ and @@randommalename(2)@@ were recently on a romantic city break in the capital of South Bigtopia, and like many other couples made a point of kissing by moonlight on the world-famous Lovers' Bridge. Unfortunately for them, homosexuality is a crime in South Bigtopia and they were arrested.


OPTION ONE

"@@firstname(1)@@ and @@firstname(2)@@ perhaps could have been more circumspect, but they're @@DEMONYM@@ citizens who have committed no crime under our laws," phones in @@DEMONYM@@ Consulate Officer Les Beecalm. "We have a moral obligation to negotiate their release. I suggest we could make a couple of trade concessions, favouring South Bigtopian woolen goods with selective tariffs on competitor nations, for example. In return, our out-of-the-closet citizens can be gotten out of hot water. I'm also confident we can establish procedures to send home any @@DEMONYM@@ arrested there in future. Everybody wins."

Outcome: when their backs are against the walls @@PLURALDEMONYM@@ look out for gay men


OPTION TWO

Reverend Devyn Offor is both a priest and a general in the South Bigtopian Holy Army, and he has a counter-proposal. "Gayness is against the will of the Lord our God. We will give you back these transgressors, but you must recognise the holy truth that homosexuality is a grave sin. Ban batty-boy loving in @@NAME@@, and we'll extradite these criminals to your jurisdiction. Let us move forward together, in faith." He gazes up adoringly at a semi-naked statuary depiction of his deity.

Outcome: man-love is banned in the name of His love


OPTION THREE

"We have to be balanced about this, I'm afraid," offers Foreign Office diplomat Don S. Dunne. "Out of respect for judicial sovereignty we must leave the couple to the mercy of the South Bigtopian justice system, but in future we can set up a bureau to issue guidance and travel advice for gay holiday-makers."

Outcome: the government offers gay men mildly offensive tips on how to "pass" as straight


OPTION FOUR

"RAAAAAAAAAARGH!" bellows perpetually angry gay activist Neil Foreman, tipping your desk over in a rage. "I am Gay Man! Hear me roar! My leader, we cannot negotiate with filthy homophobes and bigoted scum! Send the army in, and rescue my proud brethren, then bomb South Bigtopia till they agree to repeal their homophobic laws. We'll give these blighters cold hard steel... cause they don't like it up 'em you know!"

Outcome: war is made in the name of love

Australian rePublic wrote:South Bigtopia's faith is Abrahamic?

Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:South Bigtopia's faith is Abrahamic?

It need not be. Not only the fundamentalist followers of Abrahamic religions frown upon homosexuality.

Even China, with its rampant state atheism, disapproves of homosexuality.

Australian rePublic wrote:

Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:It need not be. Not only the fundamentalist followers of Abrahamic religions frown upon homosexuality.

Even China, with its rampant state atheism, disapproves of homosexuality.

Oh sorry, I mispoke. What I meant to say was:
Option 2 implies that South Bigtopia is Abrahamic

Australian rePublic wrote:

Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:It need not be. Not only the fundamentalist followers of Abrahamic religions frown upon homosexuality.

Even China, with its rampant state atheism, disapproves of homosexuality.

Oh sorry, I mispoke. What I meant to say was:
Option 2 implies that South Bigtopia is Abrahamic

Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:I think I just witnessed one of the quickest title changes in the GI forum.

Are you in need of a title? How about "When A Kiss Goes Amiss"?

Also I see that your description says that these guys were "kissing each other." But wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that they were "kissing?" (I'm being a pedantic grammarian here.) Reciprocal verbs such as "hug," "kiss," etc. are thought to be "symmetrical predicates" so "X and Y hugged" or "X and Y kissed" already imply reciprocity. "Kissing each other" and "hugging each other", however, are not exactly the same, and do not necessarily imply simultaneity. I mean, one of these guys could kiss the other guy on the cheek, and then the other guy could do so likewise: this would be "kissing each other." Just "kissing" however, implies simultaneity.

The Free Joy State wrote:Love #2. But... could you make it more suggestive?

Maybe:

"He gazes up lovingly at a semi-naked statuary depiction of his deity's son, and falls to his knees, mouth agape in adoration."

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:"@@firstname(1)@@ and @@firstname(2)@@ perhaps could have been more circumspect, but ___ @@DEMONYM@@ citizens who have committed no crime under our laws," phones in @@DEMONYM@@ Consulate Officer Les Beecalm.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:"selective tariffs on competitior nations, for example"

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Reverend Yuman Adesina

Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:Also I see that your description says that these guys were "kissing each other." But wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that they were "kissing?" (I'm being a pedantic grammarian here.) Reciprocal verbs such as "hug," "kiss," etc. are thought to be "symmetrical predicates" so "X and Y hugged" or "X and Y kissed" already imply reciprocity. "Kissing each other" and "hugging each other", however, are not exactly the same, and do not necessarily imply simultaneity. I mean, one of these guys could kiss the other guy on the cheek, and then the other guy could do so likewise: this would be "kissing each other." Just "kissing" however, implies simultaneity.

Australian rePublic wrote:Option 2 implies that South Bigtopia is Abrahamic

I'm seeing some similarities to #237, although this is a little better than that issue because #237 is vague about whether the tourists actually committed the act they are accused of (even regardless of whether or not you agree that the act should be illegal or that the crime deserves the death penalty) or were arrested on false charges by a corrupt government.

I think you're missing a "they are" here?

Spelling error.

I think I'm missing half the pun here?

"Each other" is largely redundant, but I don't think it's actually wrong, if you want to place a little more emphasis on it.

And far more specifically Christianity. Other Abrahamic religions don't acknowledge a Son of God. (Islam does recognize the existence of Jesus, but downplays his importance as "merely a prophet" and not someone you're supposed to worship.)

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Additional question:

Do you chaps and chapesses think we need an option that says "You have to respect the laws of nations you are visiting, leave them to face the consequences?"

It sounds to me like a functional dismiss button, but could be tied to a drop in niceness and crime.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Additional question:

Do you chaps and chapesses think we need an option that says "You have to respect the laws of nations you are visiting, leave them to face the consequences?"

It sounds to me like a functional dismiss button, but could be tied to a drop in niceness and crime.

More pertinently, not sure how to make an option of that sort funny.

What do you think?

The interesting thing is homosexuality is a crime in South Bigtopia (according to your narrative), not necessarily public display of affection. So I am wondering what would happen if these two guys went there, but did not kiss in public. By the way, we don't know whether these two guys were married, but suppose they were. If homosexuality is a crime, I am guessing that the border patrol in South Bigtopia would not allow them to enter the country? Because you know, the actual "crime" here would be gay marriage itself. (How they would know whether they were married or not would be another question, of course.)

Ugh, anyway. Maybe gay @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ citizens could travel to Bigtopia with their same-sex partners dressed as the opposite sex, so as not to attract attention or something like that?

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:

The interesting thing is homosexuality is a crime in South Bigtopia (according to your narrative), not necessarily public display of affection. So I am wondering what would happen if these two guys went there, but did not kiss in public. By the way, we don't know whether these two guys were married, but suppose they were. If homosexuality is a crime, I am guessing that the border patrol in South Bigtopia would not allow them to enter the country? Because you know, the actual "crime" here would be gay marriage itself. (How they would know whether they were married or not would be another question, of course.)

Well, RL places that ban or persecute homosexuality tend to go with the attitude of "if you don't show, we won't ask" when it comes to foreigners. I figure for this issue, if they hadn't shown affection, no-one would have known they were gay.

Ugh, anyway. Maybe gay @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ citizens could travel to Bigtopia with their same-sex partners dressed as the opposite sex, so as not to attract attention or something like that?

Interesting. I hesitate to use transvestitism as a source of humour though, especially in the context of homosexuality. I know I'm executing a double standard here, in being happy to satirise Christianity but not being happy to satirise transgender, but I guess it's a punching up / punching down thing.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:I thought about that and considered it too, and intentionally made this issue avoid mentioning the death penalty, so that the underlying question is different despite narrative framing similarities.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:

Trotterdam wrote:I think I'm missing half the pun here?

Yuman is pronounced You Man.
Adesina is pronounced Are de Sinner.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Additional question:

Do you chaps and chapesses think we need an option that says "You have to respect the laws of nations you are visiting, leave them to face the consequences?"

It sounds to me like a functional dismiss button, but could be tied to a drop in niceness and crime.

Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:Speaking of which, Iran is an interesting case. They actually do not allow homosexuality, but they are more lenient when it comes to transgenderism, and they will actually allow gay couples to get married if one of them has gender re-assignment surgery - because after that, their marriage counts as heterosexual, of course. I've heard that some cisgender gay people in Iran have had to undergo sex-change operations because of this. Now I am thinking about whether I could write a similar issue for NS nations that banned homosexuality, but not transgenderism. Hmm...

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:OPTION ONE

"@@firstname(1)@@ and @@firstname(2)@@ perhaps could have been more circumspect, but they're @@DEMONYM@@ citizens who have committed no crime under our laws," phones in @@DEMONYM@@ Consulate Officer Les Beecalm. "We have a moral obligation to negotiate their release. I suggest we could make a couple of trade concessions, favouring South Bigtopian woolen goods with selective tariffs on competitor nations, for example. In return, our out-of-the-closet citizens can be gotten out of hot water. I'm also confident we can establish procedures to send home any @@DEMONYM@@ arrested there in future. Everybody wins."

Chan Island wrote:Interesting idea.

Option 2 is just a little bit on the nose about Christianity to be frank. The character is a priest, looks up to a semi-naked son of god and talks about his deity being a Lord. Any one or 2 of these things in isolation would be plausible deniability but all of them together.... I'd expect a bit of backlash because of it if this. It satirises the faith very well though so I don't mind too much

Option 4 is a masterpiece.

The Free Joy State wrote:Though, it still doesn't have to be God with Jesus as the deity's son. As FuF said, it could be Zeus and Apollo. Or Jupiter and Mars.

The Free Joy State wrote:And there is evidence that "Priest" and "Priestess" were titles used in pre-Christian countries by those who served the gods.

Trotterdam wrote:Something that occurs to me on second reading - has the South Bigtopian ambassador actually said that they would accept this deal? I mean, if they're really theocratic they could just claim that taking a firm stance against the heretical abomination of homosexuality is more important than a little bit of trade.

He gazes up adoringly at a semi-naked statuary depiction of his deity.