NationStates Jolt Archive

Please support the Sexual Polygamy Resolution. It may sound immediately suspect of pure based on sexual pleasure and not actual love, but that is not the case. Internationally speaking people should have the right to freedom of religion, then why not have the right to freedom of expression. The western practice of monogamy should not be unfairly forced upon all counties, even ones that do not practice polygamy. Besides, increasing the number of parents is sure to be beneficial to children, who even in the case of divorce could be left two parents.

Our people would respecfully ask if monogamy has been forced upon any nation. Certainly the UN hasn't made any such ruling has it?

Procounsol for the people of Kabuverdianu

I think that this proposal is in fact an issue for individual nations. I have had it as an issue, with a possible result being people marrying their cats.

Internationally speaking, when a married couple or polygamous group travels from one place to another, the former is the only one recognized in the visiting country. This means that when the polygamous groups from my country travel to a foreign country, they are not recognized under the new countries laws as being married.

why not just abolish marriage? Or at least stop any special treatment for couples/groups who are married.

I think this is better left as a nations issue. You could try passing it as a resolution, but I doubt you'll succeed.

who are "Internationally speaking people"?

who are "Internationally speaking people"?

Apart from that Stakanovia tends to agree with Wolomy's point.

As the crux of the proposal seems to be the legal recognition of various forms of nuptial arrangements within states and across borders, well, then instead of instituing a whole new range of legally recognised partnerships, why not just scrap the whole notion of marriage as a state recognised construct.

Of course there be some hurdles to leap in relation to human rights and individual freedoms (as per agreed UN resolutions) which some such arrangements may infringe upon.

Can't you just get on with it to a "Best of the Seventies" backing tape instead?

Although this is a pretty good idea, many nations are very moralistic and crap. They would take this as a violation of sovereignty.

P.S. Polygamy is legal in Anhinga.

why not just abolish marriage? Or at least stop any special treatment for couples/groups who are married.

The Representative Council tends to agree. Private individuals, of whatever persuasion or conviction, should not be required to seek permission from the state to form private unions. This is a matter concerning private religous or other institutions. Governments should not take a stance either way as it is none of their business.

------
Representative-Elect, Colony Representative Council
The Commonwealth of Marineris Colonies

We would never adhere to such an incorrect law!

Polyamoury and Polygamy are morally reprehensible. The Nation of Craznovia will never allow such moral degredation.

In Craznovia it falls under the charge of High Treason - if you cannot be faithful to your husband or wife, you cannot be faithful to your nation. The Minimum Sentance for this crime is Immediate Execution.

Although this is a pretty good idea, many nations are very moralistic and crap. They would take this as a violation of sovereignty.

P.S. Polygamy is legal in Anhinga.

Indeed I would. But wouldn't you think the same of me if I passed a resolution saying that only one man may marry one woman in every UN nation? If THAT got passed, I would be labelled an intolerant bigot, trying to oppress not only my own nation, but people of all other nations. Am I correct in this? So why, if you come at it from the opposite angle (polygamy in this case) is it suddenly 'crap' to cry foul about our sovereignty?

Although this is a pretty good idea, many nations are very moralistic and crap. They would take this as a violation of sovereignty.

P.S. Polygamy is legal in Anhinga.

Indeed I would. But wouldn't you think the same of me if I passed a resolution saying that only one man may marry one woman in every UN nation? If THAT got passed, I would be labelled an intolerant bigot, trying to oppress not only my own nation, but people of all other nations. Am I correct in this? So why, if you come at it from the opposite angle (polygamy in this case) is it suddenly 'crap' to cry foul about our sovereignty?

You're proposing a false dillema. This proposal does not FORCE anyone to have multiple partners. It simply gives them the CHOICE of doing so. If you proposed a resolution saying that only one man may marry one woman in every UN nation, you would be FORCING people to have only one partner. Such a proposal would RESTRICT individual freedom. This resolution, on the other hand, WIDENS individual freedom, by allowing you to have any number of spouses you wish, INCLUDING having exactly ONE spouse.

Office of the Governor

Polyamoury and Polygamy are morally reprehensible. The Nation of Craznovia will never allow such moral degredation.

In Craznovia it falls under the charge of High Treason - if you cannot be faithful to your husband or wife, you cannot be faithful to your nation. The Minimum Sentance for this crime is Immediate Execution.

Well that makes perfect sense. I mean hey lets jam all the people and their feelings into a tiny little narrow definition of morality and kill the ones who dont agree. Brilliant plan. So, just to clarify, if you cant be faithful to many people in a polyamourus group, you cant be faithful to the many people in your nation? Hmmm. Seems logical enough.

Polyamoury and Polygamy are morally reprehensible. The Nation of Craznovia will never allow such moral degredation.

In Craznovia it falls under the charge of High Treason - if you cannot be faithful to your husband or wife, you cannot be faithful to your nation. The Minimum Sentance for this crime is Immediate Execution.

Well that makes perfect sense. I mean hey lets jam all the people and their feelings into a tiny little narrow definition of morality and kill the ones who dont agree. Brilliant plan. So, just to clarify, if you cant be faithful to many people in a polyamourus group, you cant be faithful to the many people in your nation? Hmmm. Seems logical enough.

If you cant be faithful to one person, then you cant be faithful to your nation. Polyamoury is a lack of faithfulness. Polyamoury is a mental disease, a cancer of the soul. If only I could institute a penalty more harsh than Death.

Polyamoury and Polygamy are morally reprehensible. The Nation of Craznovia will never allow such moral degredation.

In Craznovia it falls under the charge of High Treason - if you cannot be faithful to your husband or wife, you cannot be faithful to your nation. The Minimum Sentance for this crime is Immediate Execution.

What about in Islam? In Islam, polygamy is legal as long as each wife is treated with equal respect and care. Illegality of polygamy is therefore religious discrimination, and violates previous UN human rights acts. Therefore, to accord with those acts, polygamy HAS to be legal. As in NS, you cannot disobey the UN, it is legal in your country. QED, bet thta that's annoyed you.

Polyamoury and Polygamy are morally reprehensible. The Nation of Craznovia will never allow such moral degredation.

In Craznovia it falls under the charge of High Treason - if you cannot be faithful to your husband or wife, you cannot be faithful to your nation. The Minimum Sentance for this crime is Immediate Execution.

What about in Islam? In Islam, polygamy is legal as long as each wife is treated with equal respect and care. Illegality of polygamy is therefore religious discrimination, and violates previous UN human rights acts. Therefore, to accord with those acts, polygamy HAS to be legal. As in NS, you cannot disobey the UN, it is legal in your country. QED, bet thta that's annoyed you.

Craznovia is not a member of the UN - and as such does not have to follow UN mandates. I thank god every morning that I didnt make the mistake of joining the UN.

Although this is a pretty good idea, many nations are very moralistic and crap. They would take this as a violation of sovereignty.

P.S. Polygamy is legal in Anhinga.

Indeed I would. But wouldn't you think the same of me if I passed a resolution saying that only one man may marry one woman in every UN nation? If THAT got passed, I would be labelled an intolerant bigot, trying to oppress not only my own nation, but people of all other nations. Am I correct in this? So why, if you come at it from the opposite angle (polygamy in this case) is it suddenly 'crap' to cry foul about our sovereignty?

You're proposing a false dillema. This proposal does not FORCE anyone to have multiple partners. It simply gives them the CHOICE of doing so. If you proposed a resolution saying that only one man may marry one woman in every UN nation, you would be FORCING people to have only one partner. Such a proposal would RESTRICT individual freedom. This resolution, on the other hand, WIDENS individual freedom, by allowing you to have any number of spouses you wish, INCLUDING having exactly ONE spouse.

Office of the Governor

The issue isn't restriction or widening freedom of the people. The issue is the enforcing of a very strong idealogical and moral issue from one nation onto all other nations. If this passed, or my theoretical issue passed, it is forcing the principles of one nation onto everyone else. This is an issue on whether the UN has grounds to subject the world to morality monitors.

If my people can not live with monogomy, we have a very open emigration policy, they can leave if they want.

Hmm. Nah, I don't think so. This is not reflected by my country however. I clicked yes on polygamy issue so I could try and boost my abmyssal civil rights.