NationStates Jolt Archive


My Idea

04-02-2004, 01:46
I think that gays + interracial people + gay interracial people should have the right to marry,just like every other people and in this game.What do you think of this issue?
04-02-2004, 12:11
We of Illaria think that the world as a whole will need to come a whole lot further before the UN can make sweeping gestures on morality like this.
Hirota
04-02-2004, 12:34
We thank the representative of Centristica for their proposal. However, ideally a policy that should be down to individual member states, the Democratic States of Hirota does permit gay marriages, and there simply is no racial issues present for our government to legislate on such matters. We do accept that most nations are not ready to take such a position, and are not prepared to adopt such a progressive policy...

Moreover, a resolution was already passed regarding Gay Rights, and included legislation that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)
Pinthazar
04-02-2004, 13:57
That gays should be allowed the same rights as married, although any sort of religious recognizition should be decided by the individual communities.

We feel that interracial marriages should be allowed and that any state that recognizes intra-racial marriages should be obliged to recognize inter-racial marriages.

Mostly, we STRONGLY feel that the two issues are unrelated and should not be lumped together in a single poll or resolution!!!
04-02-2004, 13:59
They already can. Look at the previous proposals.
04-02-2004, 14:03
True, the UN passed resolutions on these things in previous times... interestingly
Borito
04-02-2004, 14:04
interracial: people are people, all the same

marriage: this is a religious thing, the leadership of Borito doesnt care
Emperor Matthuis
04-02-2004, 18:45
No this goes against my religion, :)
04-02-2004, 18:51
True, the UN passed resolutions on these things in previous times... interestingly

*nods in agreement* It has, which we found intensely consternating, because it ran under the assumption that our family structure was identical to the rest of the world.
04-02-2004, 21:06
In our nation, and in many of the nations from the region we represent, the sentiment is shared that this proposition is ridiculous. If you want to submit resolutions like this, they should be distinct resolutions. It is thoroughly acceptable and permissable for interracial marriages to occur in our nation and many of the nations of our region, but on the same token, homosexual marriages are illegal. We hope this helps with your decision-making process.
Sozo
05-02-2004, 08:55
how many times do we have to go over this!
Hirota
05-02-2004, 09:56
True, the UN passed resolutions on these things in previous times... interestingly
wow, this room has an awful echo....
Moreover, a resolution was already passed regarding Gay Rights, and included legislation that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.
:D
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)
Gigglealia
05-02-2004, 10:36
Just... why?

Look newbie, just because your nation is full of racist homophobic laws doesn't mean that the rest of us are living in a barse ackwards dark age of freedom.

Instead of assuming that we're as poorly off as your 8 million person country, why don't you go and read a FAQ or do something useful with your time?

Making it an international law that the rights that most people already have are rights that they should have is useless. One of my citizens has a comment to make:

Laura Gildroy of Bloxville says: "Idiot"

I think that more or less sums it up. Run along now.
05-02-2004, 10:54
Illaria was taking Hirota's comment and adding it to their own previous statement.
05-02-2004, 11:03
On the grounds that:

(1)There is no convincing argument that such things are inherently wrong yet.

(2)That even if it was wrong, then it would be the government's responsibility to educate the general public in the logical reasons why it is wrong so that they will naturally avoid it, instead of adding one more law to repress the people's freedoms.

The Commonwealth of Rational Humans rejects this proposal. Again.