NationStates Jolt Archive

As a Nation that has married Governemnt with Religion I find it invasive of the UN on certain proposals that disagree with my country's religious belief. Yet I do want to be a member of the Global community to ensure peace. However there are certain resolutions which state that I should be forced to participate in against my country's and my People's will. As a Catholic Nation I believe that Resolutions:
Sexual Freedom
Gay Rights
Freedom of Humor

They oppress the Civil Rights of my people who choose to live in a Religion dominated society. My country can not accept Homosexual Marriage or Homosexual Sex it is a basic belief and and soon to be law that these shall not exist in my Holy Empire. It is trampling upon their rights. They have accepted to live in my nation which has open borders to all. I believe that every nation has the right to be a member of the UN however some resolutions are against unchangable corner stones of the government and society. If The UN sees fit to trample the rights of a legitiment Government that is locked in Religious ferver then the United Nations is nothing better then a dictatorial world government. The True Spirit of the UN is to promote not enforce completely.

Sorry for the typos... Also for the random Capitalization of some words

Grin everybody already has the right to disagree :P

We're not in the UN. We can be religious as we want.
If you do join, well you must abide by it's rulings.

:P

As a Nation that has married Governemnt with Religion I find it invasive of the UN on certain proposals that disagree with my country's religious belief. Yet I do want to be a member of the Global community to ensure peace. However there are certain resolutions which state that I should be forced to participate in against my country's and my People's will. As a Catholic Nation I believe that Resolutions:
Sexual Freedom
Gay Rights
Freedom of Humor

They oppress the Civil Rights of my people who choose to live in a Religion dominated society. My country can not accept Homosexual Marriage or Homosexual Sex it is a basic belief and and soon to be law that these shall not exist in my Holy Empire. It is trampling upon their rights. They have accepted to live in my nation which has open borders to all. I believe that every nation has the right to be a member of the UN however some resolutions are against unchangable corner stones of the government and society. If The UN sees fit to trample the rights of a legitiment Government that is locked in Religious ferver then the United Nations is nothing better then a dictatorial world government. The True Spirit of the UN is to promote not enforce completely.

Sorry (actually not sorry) to break this to you, but homosexuals are treated with equality , including the right to marry, in your country becuase of this:


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

UN resolutions are absolute, and there is no way round them. Otherwise the game would be no fun, because resolutions would be powerless. So you cannot make that law unless you leave the UN.

On a separate note, you say that the UN is trampling on your citizens' rights, but don't you think that you are trampling on the rights of those of your citizens who are homosexuals but afraid to come out of the closet because of fear of persecution? Why should they be forced to leave the country where they were born because their thoughts, feelings and desires contravene an ancient text that claims to be the word of god?

This is a proposal to allow nations of a specific kind to opt out of certain classes of legislation.

It could be seen as prospective in nature and so perhaps not a modification of game mechanics.

Or it could go to Technical as a proposal.

This is a serious issue, when two classes of civil rights come into conflict. In this case the conflict is between freesom of belief and freedom of sexial practice (in the example cited by Myopia).

Let's see more debate on how to handle this; it could actually be instructive if participants can avoid getting too ideological about it.

Homosexuals are not discriminated against in my country. They are supported by others to make the decision to be Homosexual and abstinent. God created them uniquely and (one could say a little unfairly) gave them a hard set of rules to follow. However, if they break this law of abstinence they are subject to the laws of the nation that prohibit sexual encounters between the same sex. This is in clear violation of this resolution. Yes my country is partially based on the text that you marginalize. This text is, always has been, always will be the Word of the Lord. My people choose to live and follow this Word. Yet, Catholicism is not the only religion, Islam, Judaism and the Eastern Orthodox religions thrive here. Despite the rule of a Catholic monarch the people choose to live here because it is also linked to their beliefs as well. Am I really a violator of civil rights or am I rather doing what is best for my People.

This is a serious issue, when two classes of civil rights come into conflict. In this case the conflict is between freesom of belief and freedom of sexial practice (in the example cited by Myopia).

Say A is a devout catholic, who has resolved not to have sex until they're married, and B is a gay atheist who has fairly regular sex.

Under a system where we have freedom of sexual practice, B can do as he wishes, not harming anyone else (assuming he uses protection), and A can do as he wishes, not harming anyone else either.

Under a system without sexual freedom, B's rights are seriously affected but A doesn't benefit at all, except to have the knowledge that everyone else is following what he believes. A has no extra personal religious freedom, because he could practice his beliefs and morals just the same under either system.

They are supported by others to make the decision to be Homosexual and abstinent...However, if they break this law of abstinence they are subject to the laws of the nation that prohibit sexual encounters between the same sex.

First of all, that isn't a matter of you violating the resolution, rather it is a matter of you making stuff up. Whatever you decide to say concerning this, it does not affect the laws in your country. You can say that you would like to impose that law, or that vigilante groups go round and carry it out themselves and the police overlook it, but nothing you say can change the fact that, according to your nation's laws, homosexuals are not discriminated against. Being forced to practice abstinence and not have consensual sex with the people they want to when the rest of the population is free to have sex with the people they are attracted to is severely (and IMO appallingly) discriminatory and therefore does not exist as a law in your nation.

Yes my country is partially based on the text that you marginalize.

You say partially. Do you have any real non-scripture-based arguments for the discriminatory laws you want your country to have? If not, then I cannot accept any of your scriptural arguments until you prove this:

This text is, always has been, always will be the Word of the Lord.

If you can offer no proof, and not even any evidence to support that claim, then your scriptural arguments count for nothing.