NationStates Jolt Archive

A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Piedmont57769

Description: homosexuality is an atrocity, making it acceptable is a suicide attempt for all human kind. if we allow our people to believe that partnership among these heretics is okay children will cease to be born and STD statistics will soar to uncontrollable levels. what i am proposing ladies and gentlemen is that we strip homosexual individuals of their rights and punish them in public to show that we are not weak and that our only wish is the continuation of humankind.

Approvals: 3 (Something orOther, Peso_lover, WZ Forum

Greetings! I am Com Truise. Elected leader of the Republic of Godless Gays.

Can someone explain to me how this proposal was even allowed to the floor of the UN for a quorum? I am a newer member and I not pretend to understand the rules completely. However as a member of the UN I find this proposal highly offensive and a public declaration of hostility towards my nations peaceful people not to mention the entire gay region.

Please explain this to me if you can.

It was probably submitted under the proper rules for a proposal. As far as I know, there's no rule stating that a UN Proposal can't be offensive. The solution is to let it fade away into obscurity with the three sad little approvals that will likely be all it gets.

But are there not rules regarding proposals that would inflict harm on a person or people? I have read the rules for proposals and they seem to have used a loop hole in proposing this under "decency" however they are using hate speech and lies to propose publicly punishing gays.

This is hate speech on the floor of the UN which conveys an endorsement in it's own way.

Is there a way other than the UN forums to combat this kind of proposal?

OOC: I think it would fall under "Grossly Offensive".
Grossly Offensive

If you want to execute left-handed men named "Earl" in your country, that's fine. Don't go yammering about it in a Proposal. Yes, this includes screwing with a 'majority' group. Killing all whites is just as bad as killing all jews. Or blacks. Or poor people. Things such as eliminating "all rights for $group", forced deportation of said group and the like fall under this too.

It's unfortunate but this kind of bile isn't unexpected. Even though many people are much more enlightened on these issues, the fact is that for the majority of people (I'm speaking in global terms, not just of the developed world), homosexuality still carries an ick factor, at best. Seeing as this is the internet, I'd ignore these obviously fringe and grossly hateful outbursts and treat them with the contempt they deserve. Which is not to say that we should tolerate it, but I don't see the point in getting too worked up about this.

Can someone explain to me how this proposal was even allowed to the floor of the UN for a quorum?Gee, I dunno. Maybe it's because I don't spend every second of every day refreshing the Proposal list to be sure your delicate sensibilities aren't offended.

I'll delete it when I have the time.

You know it’s a sad state when people have nothing better to do in life than to bring down others to justify their own petty existence. It is also sad that in 2008 that anyone would want to destroy freedoms for a group of people when it really doesn’t affect their lives at all but then decide that they themselves should affect the live of thousands of people. So what is next? A resolution to allow for the sport killing of any minority group because our lives aren’t as valuable as the majority’s? Just remember those that think that stripping the rights of the few leads to the stripping of the rights of others. “First they outlawed homosexuality I said nothing because I was not gay, Next they outlawed biracial marriage but I said nothing because I was not in love, Next they outlawed people with moles because it was a birth defect in their eyes, however this time it affected me but since I did not stand up for those around me when they needed me because it did not affect me, now when I needed them there was nobody left to stand up for me” Just something to think about nobody is perfect to everybody however that is why we have a constitution to protect the rights of all, however to repeal rights to a select few or to add hate to it depreciates it’s value.

What a ridicolous idea for a proposal...
So perhaps next let's ban T-shirts because they show of too much nudity on arms and we feel offended by that!

...

[QUOTE=The Most Glorious Hack;13224997]Gee, I dunno. Maybe it's because I don't spend every second of every day refreshing the Proposal list to be sure your delicate sensibilities aren't offended.

I'll delete it when I have the time.[/QUOTE

:headbang:Gee yourself Mr. Hack. My post last evening on the Forum regarding this issue had to be reviewed by a moderator but this hate filled bile that does fall outside of the proposal guidelines goes through without a single person reviewing it????

This is not about sensibilities. This is about REAL decency and not the so called decency this proposal doesn't even come close too.

Your ignorant comment has not offended my sensibilities either. The fact that you are a moderator does.

Good day sir.

Wow, let's all take a chill pill here. Stop pointing the fingers and take a step back.

Yes, an offensive proposal made it through. Yes, it is illegal. No, it's not going to get to vote. No, it's not somthing that's condoned by the mods or the UN regulars.

It's a sad piece of legislation that is filled with ignorance and hate, and will get taken care of. That's all. Let's just calm down now.

I'm certain that if it had a hope in hell of reaching quorum it would be deleted.

I think there are 20,000 UN members, most of who can submit whatever crap they want. There are only a few mods who have lives of their own. Sometimes, an offensive proposal will get submitted but all we can do is bring them to the mods attention and they will delete them asap.

To claim that homosexuality is an atrocity, in all fairness, is an opinion which that individual is entitled to have. However, I am also entitled to have the opinion that it is an unfounded belief and that the rest of the proposal is completely spurious.

To claim that homosexuality is 'a suicide attempt for mankind' is extremely far from being factual. In fact, it is based on such ill thought out argument that it is laughable.
True, homosexuals do not reproduce. However, for it truly to be an end to the production of offspring then it would have to also mean that every heterosexual would be willing to deny their reproductive instincts and become gay.

As for the spreading of STD/STI claim, then maybe their should be some research into statistics over which sexual orientation is more commonly treated for such ailments. I have seen many statistics on the issue and they seem to imply that heterosexuals are more commonly afflicted with STD/STI's. However, I hasten to add that these statistics did not take the proportional ratio of hetero/homosexuals into account, and nor did they even consider the bisexuals or the people who lied about their sexual orientation.

Furthermore, to the moderator who made a response implying that anyone remotely offended by this proposal has 'delicate sensibilities', may I remark about your bad choice of wording and explain why it is such a bad choice?
The forum is open to people from all walks of life, and to single out a minority and claim they are an 'atrocity' is a direct insult to that group of people. Wheras I am accustomed to hearing remarks such as that, I can assure you that I do not have delicate sensibilities. However, when people are offended by a direct insult to their 'natural' state of existence (and by natural, I mean a state of existence which was not made by choice, whether it be their skin pigmentation, sexual orientation, physical appearance etc), it is their right to enquire how the insult was allowed into such a public area where it can insult many more.
For a moderator to apparantly dismiss the fact that people may be offended by an obvious and blatant insult, despite it falling under the grossly offensive description of the UN proposals, and further alledge that it is the offended partys fault for having delicate sensibilities.... this is what I would consider a bad choice of response.
With that said, it is appreciated that you have confirmed that you will delete the proposal when you have the time. I sincerely hope you find the time before many more people are exposed to the insult. (and I also hope you find the time to do the decent thing and word your response a little better, so as not to offend anyones delicate sensibilities further)

Gee, I dunno. Maybe it's because I don't spend every second of every day refreshing the Proposal list to be sure your delicate sensibilities aren't offended.

I'll delete it when I have the time.

:headbang:Gee yourself Mr. Hack. My post last evening on the Forum regarding this issue had to be reviewed by a moderator but this hate filled bile that does fall outside of the proposal guidelines goes through without a single person reviewing it????

This is not about sensibilities. This is about REAL decency and not the so called decency this proposal doesn't even come close too.

Your ignorant comment has not offended my sensibilities either. The fact that you are a moderator does.

Good day sir.

Just FYI, the fact that posts get have to be reviewed by Moderators is a result of Jolt's spam filter, not NationStates policy. And because it doubles the amount of time I spend Moderating, I'm not happy with it either.

Also, we don't spend every hour of the day on NationStates, so it's hardly unknown for illegal proposals to sneak through. It just happened to be one you found personally offensive this time. A spot of bad luck for you, certainly, and I sympathize, but it's hardly a failure on Hack's part to not be the omnipresent proposal-list janitor.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

Just FYI, the fact that posts get have to be reviewed by Moderators is a result of Jolt's spam filter, not NationStates policy. And because it doubles the amount of time I spend Moderating, I'm not happy with it either.

Also, we don't spend every hour of the day on NationStates, so it's hardly unknown for illegal proposals to sneak through. It just happened to be one you found personally offensive this time. A spot of bad luck for you, certainly, and I sympathize, but it's hardly a failure on Hack's part to not be the omnipresent proposal-list janitor.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia


My original post was a question on the rules. For some reason the moderazzi have turned this into a forum on their "jobs" and the perception that I was asking for perfection from them.


I applaud your volunteer efforts to moderate these forums and the UN proposals.

My question did seem to hit a nerve within a certain moderator. Perhaps it is time for a vacation:confused:

My original post was a question on the rules. For some reason the moderazzi have turned this into a forum on their "jobs" and the perception that I was asking for perfection from them.


I applaud your volunteer efforts to moderate these forums and the UN proposals.

My question did seem to hit a nerve within a certain moderator. Perhaps it is time for a vacation:confused:

Well, your question was thus:

Can someone explain to me how this proposal was even allowed to the floor of the UN for a quorum? I am a newer member and I not pretend to understand the rules completely. However as a member of the UN I find this proposal highly offensive and a public declaration of hostility towards my nations peaceful people not to mention the entire gay region.

Which is a question that has little to do with the rules, and more with the practical realities of Moderation. Granted, you wouldn't have known that, being a newer member.

I can't speak to Hack's feelings, and I won't try. I'm just trying to convey the facts of the matter.

Thank you for the appreciation of our efforts, and for your relative civility.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

My question did seem to hit a nerve within a certain moderator. Perhaps it is time for a vacation:confused:

Hack was being sarcastic.

It would be best to just let things rest now. Rest assured that bile like that is not accepted, you just happened to see it before a moderator did.

Proposals in the queue don't have to go through a moderator before being displayed. There's no question of "allowing" anything into the queue, any old tripe can (and does) get there. Pointing out crassly stupid proposals like this one in the illegal proposals thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=397276) so that the mods have an easier time of going and whacking them is a source of amusement for some of us.