NationStates Jolt Archive

Right, I'm a little new at this so I need some advice.

In response to another proposal on the board, to "define" marriage as for procreation and between one man and one woman, I propose that marriage should be made free and accessable to all who want it regardless of race or sexual orientation.

This is only a rough outline as you can tell, and I would appreciate suggestions and, of course, critisisms. Also ideas for what should be included in this proposal.

Please tell me if this has already been done.

I support it in principle though I feel when you write the resolution you ought to include arguments within it. Include arguments that not only are moral but also embody self and national interest.

Best of luck.

I like the idea in itself, am looking forward to a ful idea with arguments.

I propose that marriage should be made free and accessable to all who want it regardless of race or sexual orientation.


Agreed, as far as they are not of the same gender. :D

I propose that marriage should be made free and accessable to all who want it regardless of race or sexual orientation.


Agreed, as far as they are not of the same gender. :D

To agree with that statement and then include that qualifier is oxymoronically in disagreement with the position.

Allowing marital access to anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, would include gay marriage. To impose a qualifier of 'as long as they are not of the same gender' negates the intention of the proposal.

The Federation of Soltak would be willing to support this proposal and allow all member nations to vote and debate the issue.

You have not quite gotten the joke: gays and lesbians may marrie each other, for they are of homosexual orientation, but different gender.

No, I got your 'joke,' I simply chose to ignore it.

'Kay, Respect. 8)

I realize my last comment made me look like an asshole ... Thanks for being cool :lol:

I think that this proposal is something best left to individual nations. Some religious beliefs prohibit same sex marriages, and forcing this proposal on nations could have disastrous consequences.

Totally agreed. This should not be a topic discussed in the UN. About the religions- I'd say, all of them forbid that.

New Ithilien would support this proposal. Ours is only one vote, but every little bit counts.

(By the way, we'd like to encourage all liberally-minded delegates to support our proposal on freedom of the press, currently on page 7)

Right, I'm a little new at this so I need some advice.

In response to another proposal on the board, to "define" marriage as for procreation and between one man and one woman, I propose that marriage should be made free and accessable to all who want it regardless of race or sexual orientation.

This is only a rough outline as you can tell, and I would appreciate suggestions and, of course, critisisms. Also ideas for what should be included in this proposal.

Please tell me if this has already been done.

Why are governments debating marriage at all? Marriage is something that properly belongs in the realm of love, not politics. The government should not grant special legal status to people who are married.

what about polygamy? :)

what about polygamy? :)

For women too, right?

why not just leave Marriage up to the churches, and let the government issue "Civil Unions"... that way everyone is happy.

why not just leave Marriage up to the churches, and let the government issue "Civil Unions"... that way everyone is happy.

If marriages were a sacred thing only, then that would make sense. But as far as I know there is no proof that marriages spawned from religion only, much less any christian religion.

And this would also require all people to get married in a government facility, regardless of whether or not they got married in a church already or not, just like in france.

Frankly, if churches want to make thier own definition of marriage, I don't care, but we shouldnt have to change ours just to fit them.

why not just leave Marriage up to the churches, and let the government issue "Civil Unions"... that way everyone is happy.

If marriages were a sacred thing only, then that would make sense. But as far as I know there is no proof that marriages spawned from religion only, much less any christian religion.

And this would also require all people to get married in a government facility, regardless of whether or not they got married in a church already or not, just like in france.

Frankly, if churches want to make thier own definition of marriage, I don't care, but we shouldnt have to change ours just to fit them.

We shouldn't have civil unions either. A marriage is a free association of individuals, much like my [private] school's debate team. There's no reason we need government charter.

Same-sex marriage is already required in all UN members by existing UN resolutions.

Also, many religions do allow same-sex marriage.

capital punishment for gay ppl

religious ceremony is the choice of the religios establishment, the government has no right to forbid same-sex marriages.

everybody should have the right to be married should they choose to do so. the era of discrimination is long gone. ppl should not be allowed to unfairly discriminate. what other reason is there to not permit same sex marriages but to procreate. that is definitely not a good enough reason. Too many heterosexual couples cannot or choose not to have children. ppl need to wake up to a more liberal world.

The Great Nation of Putergeeks supports this proposal.

Right, I'm a little new at this so I need some advice.

In response to another proposal on the board, to "define" marriage as for procreation and between one man and one woman, I propose that marriage should be made free and accessable to all who want it regardless of race or sexual orientation.

This is only a rough outline as you can tell, and I would appreciate suggestions and, of course, critisisms. Also ideas for what should be included in this proposal.

Please tell me if this has already been done.

Churches would complain.

capital punishment for gay ppl

Anything to satisfy your fetishes right?

People need to wake up to a more liberal world.
What you see liberian, many people see libertian.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

I think that this proposal is something best left to individual nations. Some religious beliefs prohibit same sex marriages, and forcing this proposal on nations could have disastrous consequences.

How could it have disastrous consequences? So a few of the more extreme religious people get angry. Big deal. People should not have to give up their civil rights just because some religions dislike them. The catholic church is against contraception, but that doesn't mean we should ban condoms.

Churches would complain.

Again, so what? They don't even have to offer gay marriages (although some churches do offer gay marriages which are not recognised in law - in effect a blessing for a gay couple so that they can see themselves as married in god's eyes), they just have to tolerate gay couples going to the registry office and getting the government to recognise their relationship.

Anyway, this is all a moot point, since if you belong to the UN, gay marriages are legal in your nation:

Gay Rights

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kundu

Description: WHEREAS it has been clearly witnessed there is an outspoken minority who wish to oppress gays. We, the People's Republic of Kundu and the other peoples of the world wishing for the preservation of freedom and the respect of all hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life. We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.

Votes For: 12705

Votes Against: 7734

Implemented: Sat May 3 2003

capital punishment for gay ppl

Anything to satisfy your fetishes right?

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees!!!!!!!!!!!!

In your home you can do anything but parade on the streets and show everyone that you are gay is way over line. Jail for them. :twisted:

No way! I am against gay and lesbian marriage. It just isn't right. It isn't what we're meant to do. It kinda undermines the sanctity of marriage.

Sanctity of marriage? Berkylvania scoffs at such a notion. Whereas nearly half of marriages today end in divorce and whereas many more marriages are loveless hell-holes, plauged by infidelity, deceit, cruelty and abuse, it occurs to us that to claim marriage is "sacred" is similar to claiming Jenna Jameson isn't a "whore".

However, Berkylvania recognizes that many religious institutions are frequently hypocritical and amount to little more than a means to exercise mass control on the public. Therefore, we accept the UN ruling that same gendered marriages must be protect, yet reserve the individual rights of religious faiths within our nation to ordain or not ordain them as they so choose. While we protect the legal rights of all of our citizens to marry other consenting citizens, with all the benefits and responsibilities therein, we understand that we can not mandate belief and faith. We also can not mandate intelligence, but that's why we have a healthy "Foriegn Fostering" program for our differently gifted citizens.

In your home you can do anything but parade on the streets and show everyone that you are gay is way over line. Jail for them. :twisted:
* I assume you mean that straight couples should also be banned from showing affection in public? There is no difference between the two, if you object to one then you must object to the other

*As a similar bill has already been passed I won't write this up, but thanks for humouring me. Please continue to debate this, it is an interesting topic.

In your home you can do anything but parade on the streets and show everyone that you are gay is way over line. Jail for them. :twisted:

Odd. In the completely dignified and sensually egg-headed nation of Berkylvania, we feel something similar. Only, for us, it's stupid people parading around on the streets is way over line. We don't jail them, though, we deport them...to countries like yours.

Thank you for making a home for our less-than-smart citizens. We'd give you monitary aid, but you'd probably blow it all on cheap booze and cheaper hookers.

In your home you can do anything but parade on the streets and show everyone that you are gay is way over line. Jail for them. :twisted:
* I assume you mean that straight couples should also be banned from showing affection in public? There is no difference between the two, if you object to one then you must object to the other

Well, straight couples are normal people and there is difference between two. If you can see it, sorry.

In your home you can do anything but parade on the streets and show everyone that you are gay is way over line. Jail for them. :twisted:

Odd. In the completely dignified and sensually egg-headed nation of Berkylvania, we feel something similar. Only, for us, it's stupid people parading around on the streets is way over line. We don't jail them, though, we deport them...to countries like yours.

Thank you for making a home for our less-than-smart citizens. We'd give you monitary aid, but you'd probably blow it all on cheap booze and cheaper hookers.
Good idea about deporting. I will deport all gay people( infected with AIDS) to your country so you can all share something. Good life to you all!

For your information, Kanibals, the majority of AIDS victims are not homosexual. The Kingdom of Schweinfurt supports this proposal.

For your information, Kanibals, the majority of AIDS victims are not homosexual. The Kingdom of Schweinfurt supports this proposal.
I didn`t say that they are

The Rogue Nation of Kodic, votes AGAINST

why not just leave Marriage up to the churches, and let the government issue "Civil Unions"... that way everyone is happy.

If marriages were a sacred thing only, then that would make sense. But as far as I know there is no proof that marriages spawned from religion only, much less any christian religion.

And this would also require all people to get married in a government facility, regardless of whether or not they got married in a church already or not, just like in france.

Frankly, if churches want to make thier own definition of marriage, I don't care, but we shouldnt have to change ours just to fit them.

We shouldn't have civil unions either. A marriage is a free association of individuals, much like my [private] school's debate team. There's no reason we need government charter.

Not quite. A marrage is a method of brining one or more persons into another person or group of peoples kin group and visa versa. This is the main reason governments have to have some form of recognizing marrages. Without the recognition the coulpe would be as strangers under the law and would recieve no special privilages relating to wills, accounts, etc. So unless your govenrment does not give Any privilages to family, or allows strangers to alter other strangers medical records and wills, then marriage must be recognized by the government.

Well, straight couples are normal people and there is difference between two. If you can see it, sorry.
You have got support from the Commonwealth of Poles and Other nations, though you are going a bit to far with the restrictions towards homosexuals. Notice thry are just same human, it's just that nature played them a mean trick.

Catholic Europe does not support this proposal. We believe marriage to be a sacred bond, in the eyes of God, between a man and a woman. Marriage is thus deifned by this.

We, therefore, cannot accept any other definition of marriage but we would accept 'unions' as long as it complies with normal marriage laws.

The terms marriage and union are synonymous and stating that 'unions' as in the context of this discussion are acceptable providing it complies with "normal" marriage laws is a totally circular semantic arguement. Dare I say this whole thing borders on political correctness though it is ironic the religious and secular right which often uses this term is guilty of it as well.

The "normal" marriage between a man and a woman is purely ceremonial with legal recognition and priveledge. That said, and that the founding principle of the Constitution is based on full equality, the Supreme Court of the Federation of Stumblebums long prior to its entry into the UN has granted its homosexual population the right to 'marriage' with complete legal standing as well as let individual churches decide if or if not they wish to perform the marriage ceremony if it involves homosexual couples.

Those churches that continued to seek interfere with the laws and governance of the Federation and the rights of people who do not ascribe to such beliefs, hence forced those beliefs upon others, were substantially fined and denied their income and property tax exempt status given that the separation of church and state is hard coded by clear language into the Constitution. Any attempt by an organisation or individual to violate the Constitution with respect to this matter is thus treated as treason as the rule of law here is the law, not religion nor religious figure nor religious state such as the Vatican or other.

Well, straight couples are normal people and there is difference between two. If you can see it, sorry.

Why is "normal" necessarily better? All it means in this case is either what the majority are, or what is in your eyes "natural" (nevermind the fact that there is evidence to show that homosexuality is natural in some individuals)

Those churches that continued to seek interfere with the laws and governance of the Federation and the rights of people who do not ascribe to such beliefs, hence forced those beliefs upon others, were substantially fined and denied their income and property tax exempt status given that the separation of church and state is hard coded by clear language into the Constitution. Any attempt by an organisation or individual to violate the Constitution with respect to this matter is thus treated as treason as the rule of law here is the law, not religion nor religious figure nor religious state such as the Vatican or other.

Why have you gone on a rant against the Church, and specifically Catholicism? Obviously, in your secular nation religion plays no part in the law - therefore, why have you mentionned it? To show your intolerance of religious opinion, perhaps? :roll:

The Neilian Federal State has long since passed legislation moving the government out of marriage altogether. It has been replaced by Civil Unions - which can exist between any two people (regardless of gender). Marriage, generally thought of as a religious procedure and ritual, has no place in a secular democracy. This is left to religous institutions, with the Civil Unions dealing with formal aspects (such as ownership of material goods).

However, my country is in support of equality for all, so this resolution has my support.

Those churches that continued to seek interfere with the laws and governance of the Federation and the rights of people who do not ascribe to such beliefs, hence forced those beliefs upon others, were substantially fined and denied their income and property tax exempt status given that the separation of church and state is hard coded by clear language into the Constitution. Any attempt by an organisation or individual to violate the Constitution with respect to this matter is thus treated as treason as the rule of law here is the law, not religion nor religious figure nor religious state such as the Vatican or other.

Why have you gone on a rant against the Church, and specifically Catholicism? Obviously, in your secular nation religion plays no part in the law - therefore, why have you mentionned it? To show your intolerance of religious opinion, perhaps? :roll:

It (treason law) applies to anyone or anything attempting to subvert the Constitution in place of a foreign entity or non-egalitarian philosophy. Citing the Vatican as an example was simply AN example. The law of the land as I said is the Constitution, not archaic superstition, and although it does contain strong protection for religious expression providing, with respect to homosexuals or any other minority sector of the population, it is done in good taste, it falls short of allowing it to subvert or influence governance. Tolerating religion, be it Islam, Judaism, or Christianity or others, does not include permission to colour the law governing the entire population when such religious beliefs are widely varied and not practised by the populaton as a whole. Religious culture is an intrinsic part of our society though not our Government.

However, citing the recent "ranting" statements from the Pope calling for Catholics to oppose same sex unions and legal recognition thereof as their 'moral' duty , the Government has issued a warning to the Vatican and the various diocese within the Federation to respect our sovereignty and law or face sanctions as we will not 'tolerate' the interference of any foreign entity or religion that was, in this case, directly responsible or an active participant in some of the darkest, most intolerant periods in the history of human civilization. :wink:

We hope this clarifies our position and addresses your concern.


Signed, Scott Williams, Prime Minister.
Co-signed, Daniel Lindroos, Attorney General

Treason laws. :roll: Designed to keep the state in power.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Better than some guy wearing a ridiculous hat who thinks he's next in line to Deity.

Better than some guy wearing a ridiculous hat who thinks he's next in line to Deity.

:evil:

You are entitled to your opinion but I do not appreciate offensive comments like that. Please do not do it again.

When He and or others of cut of the same cloth lay off and quit falsely and offensively talking about morality and moral duty, or worse, with respect to gays, all is fair in love and war although I will respect your religious sensitivity as an indivdual.

The Theocracy of Bensum2 is AGAINST said proposal. Do you realize that this would mean people could marry their pets, cars and houses. That is insane. We can allow same-sex marriages and polygamy but we can't allow this. You need to marry a person at least. Therefore Bensum2 is against the proposal.

The Theocracy of Bensum2 is AGAINST said proposal. Do you realize that this would mean people could marry their pets, cars and houses. That is insane. We can allow same-sex marriages and polygamy but we can't allow this. You need to marry a person at least. Therefore Bensum2 is against the proposal.

The proposal says "regardless of race or sexual orientation" - not regardless of species or status as a living being.

Of course, whether it would actually force nations to accept gay marriages is another question (homophobic nations could say "we will allow marriages to all, whether they are gay or straight, but only to those of the opposite gender" i.e. gay men could marry, but only to women)

Of course, whether it would actually force nations to accept gay marriages is another question (homophobic nations could say "we will allow marriages to all, whether they are gay or straight, but only to those of the opposite gender" i.e. gay men could marry, but only to women)
Homophobic, or sane?
And finally, someone got it!

Of course, whether it would actually force nations to accept gay marriages is another question (homophobic nations could say "we will allow marriages to all, whether they are gay or straight, but only to those of the opposite gender" i.e. gay men could marry, but only to women)
Homophobic, or sane?
And finally, someone got it!

Homophobia is not a mental disorder, so you can be both.