UN Delegate support for Nationalisation of Marriage
"Marriage and what it involves should be decided upon by national governments rather than as a collective in the UN.
Therefore, it is proposed that the institution of marriage be left to individual states rather than as a collective in the UN. If a state wants to allows gays to marry or not, then this is their decision, and not the UN's."
Basically we are asking nations to support the proposal "nationalisation of marriage" in the UN and protect the rights of individual nations to decide upon what is in their peoples best interest in regards to marriage.
you simply can not allow fags to marry other fags
If there already is one proposal in existence, the last thing we need is another.
you simply can not allow fags to marry other fags
Why? Afraid of freedom and equality?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<html><body>
<b>Free your mind!</b>
<i>You can fight back.</i>
</body></html>
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
The Confederacy of Caligatio fails to see the use of this resolution. Moral issues, like euthanasia, prostitution, the death penalty, and marriage should be left up to each individual nation, yes, but to create a resolution for such makes no sense. It's been done before, and hasn't garnered much support.
Oh, and...
Why? Afraid of freedom and equality?
Just to give anyone who's interested (which probably is very few), this is Caligatio's position on gay marriage:
The sanctity of marriage, which involves a man and a woman, must be preserved. However, Caligatio fully supports equal rights, and thus, would support civil unions which give homosexual couples all the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples. The country of Caligatio was founded upon the principles of Judeo-Christian philosophy, and thus, we wish to preserve the sanctity of marriage as defined by those principles. However, as such, we do not wish the U.N. to interfere with our right as a sovereign nation to decided upon moral issues.
Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio
Nathaniistan
08-02-2004, 04:46
This piece of legislation unduly targets homosexuals. If you ever even want to entertain the notion of this piece of legislation passed, you need to be more encompassing, i.e. using the rhetoric of "any sexual preference". Secondly, I seriously question the underlying logic that ties civil-union legislation, and marriage legislation specifically, to nationalism. Why would it ever be an issue in the UN? Why should it be an issue in the UN? Why should the global community dictate what goes on in a relationship? Until someone even thinks of advocating something other than the status quo, you shouldn't start a pre-emptive debate.