NationStates Jolt Archive

I'd like to draw the attention of UN members to a new proposal legalizing polygamy/polyandry among member nations (it's currently on page 18 on the list of proposals). If members agree with it, I respectfully request their endorsements to bring it to vote.

Sultan Omer
Keeper of the Gate of Felicity

If the U.N. ever legalizes polygamy I am outta here.

Sounds like an issue for individual nations to decide for themselves.

Silly marriages. These are things for the people to decide, not their government. Lassiez-faire in marriage! We of the Avanteria Parliament have agreed to allow any sort of union between (or in this case among) consenting adults. There is no financial advantage to being single, married to a single person or married to several people. It is just not a governmental issue, purely one of personal choice.

I can see where some governments may take a stance on either side of the fence of this matter, so I am afraid I would most likely have to vote against such a proposal. I do not believe interpersonal relationships should be dictated by any governing body, national or international.

Once again, we in Avanteria have nothing against consentual relationships, but we do oppose the enforcement of one viewpoint upon unwilling people.

From the desk of:
Jeorges Guardine
Prime Minister of Avanteria

Sounds like an issue for individual nations to decide for themselves.

Silly marriages. These are things for the people to decide, not their government. Lassiez-faire in marriage! We of the Avanteria Parliament have agreed to allow any sort of union between (or in this case among) consenting adults. There is no financial advantage to being single, married to a single person or married to several people. It is just not a governmental issue, purely one of personal choice.

I can see where some governments may take a stance on either side of the fence of this matter, so I am afraid I would most likely have to vote against such a proposal. I do not believe interpersonal relationships should be dictated by any governing body, national or international.

Once again, we in Avanteria have nothing against consentual relationships, but we do oppose the enforcement of one viewpoint upon unwilling people.

From the desk of:
Jeorges Guardine
Prime Minister of Avanteria

By legalising it you're not imposing it, you're merely legalising it. What you are imposing is countries that ban these practices from banning them further. That actually stops them from nosing in people's bedsheets while you remain true to your ideal.

Although,as i am all for increased civil rights, i personaly support this proposal i respect the fact that some nations may object to it on religious/moral grounds.

As this is already covered in the issues, i am not sure if the UN should be involved.

If the free voting citizens of a nation have moral standars that contrdict polygamy than that nation should be entitled to dissagree. It's a nation issue.


Besides a vast majority of people in the western world still frown on polygamy.

The measure would only legalize polygamy and polyandry, not make it mandatory. Couples who would like to include an additional partner will have the option to do so, in conformity with the guidelines laid out in the proposal. Religious groups that do not recognize polygamy and polyandry would not be required to recognize such marriages; only the state would.

The measure would only legalize polygamy and polyandry, not make it mandatory. Couples who would like to include an additional partner will have the option to do so, in conformity with the guidelines laid out in the proposal. Religious groups that do not recognize polygamy and polyandry would not be required to recognize such marriages; only the state would.

--> That's a good point.

Marriage between a man and a woman is supposed to be religious. The government shouldn't even be in teh business of dealing with marriage at all. If people want to have same-sex or polygamous marriages, they can do so with a civil union, your religion doesn't have to recognize it.

but you are enforcing it :roll: your taking the right to ban it away from the government, if thats not imposing what is it?

but you are enforcing it :roll: your taking the right to ban it away from the government, if thats not imposing what is it?

making a law that everyone must have more then one wife or husband is enforcing it

but you are enforcing it :roll: your taking the right to ban it away from the government, if thats not imposing what is it?

Now that assumes that governments are sovereign in and of themselves, which isn't true. Only individuals are sovereign in and of themselves. Governments only have what sovereignity individuals choose to give it.

but you are enforcing it :roll: your taking the right to ban it away from the government, if thats not imposing what is it?

I am i right in thinking that if a proposal legalizing something is passed it applies to all UN member nations. If this is the case then if something is legalized a UN member cannot ban it because they as a UN member have accepted that it is legal.

Also, what if something is legalized and a UN member nation has already banned it (by an issue) does it then become unbanned?

EDIT: oops. slow browser made a double post.

yeah, if you've legalized homosexual marriages, why limit the number? group marriages now? sure! well, if you're not going to limit the number, why limit age? pedophiliac marriage? why limit it to race or species? you can finally marry your dog. go to hell.

While the Nation of Naginah would be in favor of such a law in our land, we see no reason for the United Nations to pass such a law. The purpose of the UN is to help resolve international conflict and prevent crimes against humanity, it is not it's place or job to determine the moral structure of any one nation outside those simple guidlines. It is for reasons like this that the 3 Kings of Naginah have refused to become a member nation, we see to many people using the UN as a way to enforce THEIR values on other nations.

making a law that everyone must have more then one wife or husband is enforcing it

If you read the proposal, it doesn't "enforce" polygamy, it only legalizes it. If you're a married couple and you don't want another partner, then you wouldn't have to take one.

yeah, if you've legalized homosexual marriages, why limit the number? group marriages now? sure! well, if you're not going to limit the number, why limit age? pedophiliac marriage? why limit it to race or species? you can finally marry your dog. go to hell.

They're talking about grown, consenting adults living in a way that makes them happy without forcing you to do it yourself. Nuff said.

The proposed legalization of polygamy is proposterous. Marriage is between a man and woman only, not a man and 5 women! Polygamy is the legalization of adultery and only it, quite happily and wilfully, to occur.

I, therefore, urge all people not vote for this proposal.

why legalize polygamy unless you're legalizing polygamous marriages... c'mon, they can have team sex on their own time. leave our governments alone.

The proposed legalization of polygamy is proposterous. Marriage is between a man and woman only, not a man and 5 women! Polygamy is the legalization of adultery and only it, quite happily and wilfully, to occur.

I, therefore, urge all people not vote for this proposal.

but of course, you are after all, catholic

personally, I think it should be legalized...if for nothing else than to give people their own choice in the matter...and you wouldn't have so many adultery cases

The Great Nation of Putergeeks does not support this proposal. We believe that the decision is up to the individual nation.