NationStates Jolt Archive

Please Support my Proposal for a Ban of Gay Marriages, but in doing so support Civil Unions that give the same rights as married couples, but doesn't let them have a title of being married. Keep it for a man and a woman. Currently its on page 13

I very much doubt I'll support this proposal. You'd probably be better off leaving the choice to each nation instead of making it for them in this case (like, rather than banning gay marriage, allowing each member nation to determine independently whether it would allow and/or recognize gay marriages).

As a Christian who respects the free will that God has given us and the essential rights he has invested us with, I abjectly refuse to endorse or support this proposal and declare my outright opposition to its passage. If by some act of mass stupidity it reaches the floor of the U.N. and is passed, I will sacrifice my position as a delegate and leave the U.N. I consider any proposal that restricts human rights- especially the vital human right of free association and contract- an abomination.

I have agreed to this proposal, although terminology is hardly important.

Posting for the sake of convenience.

Link to proposal: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=gay

Note with the link: That was the only keyword I got to work with the search, but it should be easy to see that "gay" could come up in another proposal before the endorsement period is over on this proposal. Just make sure that whichever one you end up looking at is indeed this one.

Text of the resolution follows:
Banning of Gay Marriages

Category: Human Rights; A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Strength: Strong

Proposed by: Sir Leprechaun


Description: I believe the same-sex marriages should be banned. Though I have no problem with Civil Unions and I support Civil Unions. I know we had a support for Gay Rights, but this didn't include having Gay marriages. Marriage is a sacred vow and should be reserved for a man and woman. I believe Civil Unions should have everything a married couple has, but for the cereomnial sake only let the use of the term marriage define a man and a wife.


Voting Ends: Mon Feb 16 2004

In the words of the bard, "What's in a name? That which we would call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet"

Whether you call them civil unions or marriages, they mean the same thing and in many languages they have the same word.

Leave this to each nation to vote upon internally and keep the United Nations out of it.

What On earth do you have against gays? Why do you have to be so high as to want to deny them a title, something that will not affect you in the least, but will decrease the publics opinnion of gays and make them feel lower. Are you such a bigot that you must feel higher then other people except for those exactly like your self. You discust me. You turn your back on members of the human race! What has humanity come to?

If one were to actually examine the laws of the Theocracy of Shirresh, homosexual unions are legal and growing in numbers as there is no oppression based on this issue. The Shirresh internal view does not mean we wish the United Nations to be determining or making laws on this issue for us.

It is not the place of the United Nations to impose laws of this sort upon a nation against its moral views or religious belief. We will just accept refugees from the more restrictive countries.

Please Support my Proposal for a Ban of Gay MarriagesNo. There is nothing wrong with same-sex couples. Furthermore, this is not an issue for the UN, it should be dealt with on a national level.

Yngwie Malmsteen,
Nibbleton UN Ambassador

I see this will not pass so I will no longer be supporting it. I believe we should no support for each indivusal region to choose. Well thanks for atleast giving me your opinion.

If this differentiation between two categories is so unimportant and minor, why do you support it so? If they really do mean the same thing, why do you care? Wouldn't the same debate just take place using different terminology? Unless you're willing to admit that the distinction is important and that they are not the same, I don't see how you can argue in favor of making it.

Distinguishing between "marriage" and "civil union" is, to me, much the same as distinguishing between "white park benches" and "black park benches." Both can easily lead to the official creation of a second class of citizenry based on an untolerably arbitrary measure.

Religion and churches may differentiate between homosexual and heterosexual relationships -- that is their prerogative -- but the government should not be allowed to. Following that ideal, there are two options, either call everything a marriage, or call everything a civil union.

Total bannage!

Please Support my Proposal for a Ban of Gay Marriages, but in doing so support Civil Unions that give the same rights as married couples, but doesn't let them have a title of being married. Keep it for a man and a woman. Currently its on page 13

any particular reason why we should deprive 10% of the US population their rights?

Do you think the founding fathers would support this? No way why are we leaving all of our traditions? Why is liberalism wanting everything to change?

Stupid Christians.
"Improving Civil Rights"? the nerve of that idiot.

Stupid Christians.
"Improving Civil Rights"? the nerve of that idiot.
While I am neither Christian nor interested in this ban, this comment is uncalled for.

Sir Leprechaun is as free to his religion as are you, Saipea. Religious freedom means that you respect their rights to hold beliefs even when they are directly opposed to your own.

Do you think the founding fathers would support this? No way why are we leaving all of our traditions? Why is liberalism wanting everything to change?

Liberalism isn't change for its own sake...Liberalism is change for the betterment of all.
As for The Founding Fathers, while admirable Freethinkers, they also believed fo teh most part that a Black person was 3/5 of a White person, women had no status,and that popular democracy was wrong and dangerous (esp. Hamilton.)
To paraphrase Jefferson,it does not matter to me if gays marry,as it does not pick my pocket or break my leg.
"Leaving all our traditions"--some deserve to be left. The people who tend to be anti-gay-rights today would've been the ones 40 years ago railing against equal protection under the law for Blacks. Do you feel Jim Crow Laws were alright? 50 years ago most Americans did (also 50 years ago is when it all began to change with Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka,Kansas .)
On a side issue of semantics, I find it odious the view that it is granting minorities,women,the handicapped,gays and lesbians,etc., "special rights" when laws are passed having to say that all people have the same rights and that any discrimination based on orientation,gender,creed,race,etc. is wrong.
In this matter, it is wrong to deny a homosexual the exact same marital rights and privledges that a heterosexual gets. Heian-Edo makes no distinction between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual one. We see no big deal if two men or two women wish to marry.
We will not support this type of proposal.

:arrow: Our nation is curently waiting to join the UN and will not approve your proposal :shock: as it violates human rights and will not have any actual effect within the people :!:

If I was delegate, I would not support this proposal. I did try though, to make a similar one, which stated that a nation can decide whether to allow Gay marriages or not, since each nation has a dominant religion, and some religions go against gay marriages. Therefore, if that would pass, each nation can outlaw/legalize gay marriages at will, and not like now, with UN influence to not accept a nation to outlaw gay marriages. However, I do not have the required 2 endorsements to make a proposal.

If you make a proposal like the one I stated, and it goes into voting, I will vote yes.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=123823

I won't support your proposal either.

Simply this: The state cannot dictate what marriage is based on the religious connotation, the original connotation, of the word.

This alone is a violation of church and state in most countries.

[quote="The Logarchy"]As a Christian who respects the free will that God has given us and the essential rights he has invested us with, I abjectly refuse to endorse or support this proposal and declare my outright opposition to its passage. I agree with this statement!

Hi, I'm John Marat, I'm here in the UN because no one in Albion can stand the sight of me. Now here in Albion we give religion no special place in our nation. To define the word marriage as having special religious signficance would be to give some religions special state privalleges. That is something that we will not do. In fact we do the exact opposite: if you wanna get married, you can do it where you like but you need to apply for a licence from the local soviet. You can get married in a billion churches here but if you don't have a piece of paper signed by the soviet, you ain't married!

Now, I'm off to see if any UN members need to get in touch with their feelings okay? You've been great, I've been John Marat, thanks for listening. ^_^

I may be inexperienced, but I think that this is wrong on a few levels...

1. As others have said in this discussion, it's not up to the UN to decide if the world isn't allowed to have that sort of freedom. That topic is WAY too broad.

2. A line has to be drawn between church and state. That's what seperates us from the barbarians of last millenium and now, besides toaster ovens and reality TV. A nation has to realize it's position with a religion, are they going to focus on one religion? Which religion? And if so, morals get involved. That raises a whole new slew of issues.

3. A marriage doesn't have to be based on a religion. It is possible to be undeclared with a religion and get married by the state. No issue with morals there.

Personally, I'm a Catholic, but I think that people have the right to do what they want.

IS THIS CRAZY CRUD GOING TO GO ON?

Fine, thats it, my FINAL ARGUMENT.

* THIS * IS * NOT * A * U.N. * ISSUE *

FORGET RELIGION, FORGET DIVISION OF OPINIONS.

* THIS IS A N.S. INDIVIDUAL NATION ISSUE *

* SO * JUST * DROP * IT *

I mean, freek'in - freek'in'freek!

The Rep of Komokom.

Hi, I'm John Marat, and I'd just like to tell you that I've put Komokom's last speech on a sign and I'll be waving it at delegates all day ^_^

If you want to go around with a religious badge-great, at least everyone of other religions/non religions will know which way your strange mind is wired. But it has very little with who likes who. If you want to marry your gay mate, your dog, a horse, a caterpillar....so what...as long as you are happy, why should anyone else stick their nose in. Marriage officialness should be a piece of paper between yourself and your partner. If you want a strange bloke in a white frcok to turn up and say an invisible chap will be watching you at all times, then that is your extra little thing and should be upto to couples to sort out. It's not a UN probelm.

Why would you want to do a thing like that?

This proposition is in violation of an existing resoloution on Gay Rights. As such, it is an effort to repeal part of the Gay Right's bill, which specifically endorses gay marriages.

Since repeals are considered 'game mechanics', this proposal is likely to be deleted by a moderator.

Is the point of calling it a Civil Union mean that it wouldn't be a recognized in a the eyes of the church/religious doctrine, etc.? According to the Catholic church my hetrosexual parents aren't married! When I get married at court house, isn't that a Civil Union? Argggh, Semantic Games... :::my head hurts:::

For countries that have doctrine that find same sex marriage a sin, fine. Whatever... But, please, do not infringe your religious beliefs on mine --


Susan
Bodhisattva Babes

This is a heinous proposal and if by some freak accident it makes it to the UN for passage, that is when we should worry about the world and the quality of your sanity. Think about it. The proposal is listed as a proposal to increase human and civil liberties, but is taking away a civil liberty from a group of people. How does this help our civil liberties I'm wondering? And why is it that the author supports civil unions which accomplishes the same thing suppoesedly but cannot allow them to have the title of married. What is the big deal about giving them the title?

I want to be consider married wend I joined whit the person that I love. That is just being equal to everyone. Just let me and my people by happy.
8)

R\ President of United Federations of Teracknor

IS THIS CRAZY CRUD GOING TO GO ON?

Fine, thats it, my FINAL ARGUMENT.

* THIS * IS * NOT * A * U.N. * ISSUE *

FORGET RELIGION, FORGET DIVISION OF OPINIONS.

* THIS IS A N.S. INDIVIDUAL NATION ISSUE *

* SO * JUST * DROP * IT *

I mean, freek'in - freek'in'freek!

The Rep of Komokom.

Yes, I AM BACK HERE AGAIN,

AS I SEE THE GOSH DANG DEBATE HAS CONTINUED

SO READ MY POST AGAIN.

Done? Good, read it again, I need to catch my text based breath.

NOW, If I remember correctly there is a N.S. issue that deals with gender recognition and can involve either ignoring those whom are not "the norm" (Rude Noise), Totally accepting them and giving them a massive financial helpers hand, or just accepting them and given'em equal rights... (Yes, equal rights, I too felt the bibel bashers, YES I SAID BIBLE BASHERS, cringe from here) so...

Gee, WOULD THIS ISSUE NOT MAKE THIS DEBATE TOTALLY POINTLESS?

...

* Enodia? Would a U.N. resolution be allowable if a N.S. Issue already covered it generally, e.g. As is?

Oh, yeah, Albion Soviets, I find that thick triple-ish layer card, ya know, with the corrugated sheet in between works real well, with strong craft glue and a bit of stiff ply wood to hold it by. Red or black paint fo the text.

(Electrical or duct tape works okay instead of craft glue too!)

(The Rep of Komokom, offers his only "comrade" a glass of Komokoms best Vodka!)

(Also offers one to the Mods in recognition of their amazing powers of swooping justice and knowledge!)

The Rep of Komokom.

(Sits down, to crack the seal on another bottle and gets completely sozzle'd in his seat while some fool goes on at him about religion, Not that he has anything against it really, just hates having it slapped in his fish like a wet face and a cure general aid band argument ender... Oh no, I'm p*ssed already.)