NationStates Jolt Archive

As it is now, Civil Unions are only applicable to non-related, same-sex couples. The way I see it, if the government should not concern itself with the sexual orientation of its citizens, why not make Civil Unions open to anyone? For example, an elderly woman taken care of by her daughter could get a civil union, thus getting the government benefits of living together.

Discuss, and sign my proposal!

A civil union should be the state's alternative to a religious ceremony indicating marriage or the wish to create a family unit. A civil union between a woman and her daughter would be incestuous and fail for lack of the proper intention to form a family.
Civil unions should be extended to same sex cohabiting couples, but not as far as the respected ambassador proposed.
Tax allowances and financial support should be available for those who act as carers, especially where they live with their charge. There are ways around the poverty experienced by these people other than allowing them to become a legal 'union'.

A civil union should be the state's alternative to a religious ceremony indicating marriage or the wish to create a family unit. A civil union between a woman and her daughter would be incestuous and fail for lack of the proper intention to form a family.
Civil unions should be extended to same sex cohabiting couples, but not as far as the respected ambassador proposed.
Tax allowances and financial support should be available for those who act as carers, especially where they live with their charge. There are ways around the poverty experienced by these people other than allowing them to become a legal 'union'.

Here's an idea. Read the list of passed UN resolutions, then shut up. Enough about the gay marriage issue, for the love of everything holy!

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Firstly, this is a National Sovereignty issue as not all UN Member-States even have Civil Unions (the Holy Empire of Gethamane, for instance, only has marriage, which applies to all couples), and I doubt many actually have this problem in the first place. For those of you who would like to actually read the proposal before flaming the author, search for "civil union" in the UN Proposal Search.

We recommend that Rep. Sophista go read the passed UN Resolutions, cease flapping his own lips, and then realize that this is a question regarding heterosexual civil unions... not gay marriage. I suggest you beware of attempting to fill the metaphorical gene-pool with "generic, yet pretentious, bottled water."

Froke, in the future, beware of anything that even mentions gay marriage or same-sex couples, because we see proposals about that every day (literally). Some Representatives stop reading a post when they see "gay" or "same-sex" and simply react. And if you haven't, make sure you're familiar with the UN Resolutions that have already passed.

Also, for future reference: Post a draft of your proposal here before submitting it so the other Representatives can suggest changes while the proposal can still be changed... and when it is submitted, provide us with a link to it or a search-string which you know works.

Firstly, this is a National Sovereignty issue as not all UN Member-States even have Civil Unions (the Holy Empire of Gethamane, for instance, only has marriage, which applies to all couples), and I doubt many actually have this problem in the first place. For those of you who would like to actually read the proposal before flaming the author, search for "civil union" in the UN Proposal Search.

Do we have too? :wink:

We recommend that Rep. Sophista go read the passed UN Resolutions, cease flapping his own lips, and then realize that this is a question regarding heterosexual civil unions... not gay marriage. I suggest you beware of attempting to fill the metaphorical gene-pool with "generic, yet pretentious, bottled water."

And we respectfully, as always, request that the Rep. Gethamane follow their own advice :wink: . My point here being, all U.N. nations have gay marriage, which is usually an extension of the fact that most U.N. nations already have heterosexual marriage. And failing that they have something else or nothing. So why are we worrying about it, I've seen no evidence yet I agree with as being such, which defines the problem, once I see that I may redecided my set opinion current.

Froke, in the future, beware of anything that even mentions gay marriage or same-sex couples, because we see proposals about that every day (literally). Some Representatives stop reading a post when they see "gay" or "same-sex" and simply react. And if you haven't, make sure you're familiar with the UN Resolutions that have already passed.

1) True, it is literally every day recently.

2) Agreed beware homosexuality, or heterosexuality, related proposals, more nations have ben struck down becuase of such issues then any other I feel.

3) I don't stop reading, I just react, then read further, then react, then read further, then react, with a liberal amount of tear apart post sprinkled in-between. :wink:

4) And we cannot stress the read the past proposals well bit enough.

Also, for future reference: Post a draft of your proposal here before submitting it so the other Representatives can suggest changes while the proposal can still be changed... and when it is submitted, provide us with a link to it or a search-string which you know works.

Ping, and that ladies and gent's, is a excellent point.

- The Rep of Komokom.