NationStates Jolt Archive

This resolution aims to provide basic outlines for governments, saying essentially that governments will only recognize unions, whether of homosexual or heterosexual nature, and also that governments will only recognize "marriage" in its religious context.

This aims to be a compromise, I wish to heal these wounds of argument.

Definition of Marriage

Whereas the debate over what constitutes marriage is fruitless argument,

Marriage is hereby defined as the religious union of a man and woman.

In addition, all governments of the world must only recognize marriage in its religious context—it will recognize "unions" legally, this gives a way for homosexual unions to be allowed. The specific rights therein may vary from nation to nation.

Various religions and sects of religions may also recognize gay unions as marriage if they wish, or may choose not to recognize it.

With this resolution there is a compromise to end the fruitless, constant arguing between gay marriage opponents and proponents.

Please do not label your thread "RESOLUTION AT VOTE" when it is only a proposal that has not yet reached quorum. There are presently two proposals that have been promoted to resolution status and will be voted on. Labeling your thread as such is misleading and detracts from the debate over the two resolutions that actually are resolutions at vote.

Please do not label your thread "RESOLUTION AT VOTE" when it is only a proposal that has not yet reached quorum. There are presently two proposals that have been promoted to resolution status and will be voted on. Labeling your thread as such is misleading and detracts from the debate over the two resolutions that actually are resolutions at vote.

Please do not spam my threads with this. I heard you already. It is annoying to repeat things.

In our view.... marriage is a sacred vow. Therefore it has nothing to do with the government. In the Theocracy of Psychotropics, a person may marry their houseplant... if they so desire. We do not give out marrige licenses or tax according to the married status.

However... for an offical church marriage we do have our rules... but again, that is outside the scope of what we feel the role of government is.

Potestas Democraticorum Delenda Est!

Please do not label your thread "RESOLUTION AT VOTE" when it is only a proposal that has not yet reached quorum. There are presently two proposals that have been promoted to resolution status and will be voted on. Labeling your thread as such is misleading and detracts from the debate over the two resolutions that actually are resolutions at vote.

Please do not spam my threads with this. I heard you already. It is annoying to repeat things.
Well, given that you've posted multiple threads with similarly inaccurate titles, SCOS OJ seems to have a point multiple times over.

Whereas the debate over what constitutes marriage is fruitless argument,

Fair enough. So why are you trying to answer the debate?

Marriage is hereby defined as the religious union of a man and woman.

First of all, politics and religon don't mix. Secondly, Marriage is not defined within the DSH as the religous union, mainly because religon is not a big part of Hirotan life.

In addition, all governments of the world must only recognize marriage in its religious context—it will recognize "unions" legally, this gives a way for homosexual unions to be allowed.

And this is where this resolution is shot down into a million pieces. The UN already recognises gay marriage. Not Unions, MARRIAGE. Thus this proposal (inadvertantly) seeks to repeal the previous resolution, thus has to be overturned. In my opinion anyway...

Secondly, what happens if a nation does not have a state religon? What religous context is there to recognise marriage.

With this resolution there is a compromise to end the fruitless, constant arguing between gay marriage opponents and proponents.

Sorry, but while this proposal is a brave attempt to sort out the ongoing rumblings of debate, it fails to address several points, and is restrictive in it's context.
_________________________
http://ubbt.moby.com/userfiles/2312817-hirotaflag.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

Are governments who have laws based solely on religious mandate (such as the Holy Empire of Gethamane) protected in this proposal?

The "religious context" of our marriages are the legal context. We don't have any civil unions which have only legal implications.

And while "various religions and sects of religions" are able to recognize gay unions as marriage, does our government, which is a religion, fall under that protection?

If the answer is "yes," then we request that this be made explicitly clear in the proposal...
If no, then Gethamane will not back this proposal.

:lol:

I like this, two theocracies and one aethist state have expressed their tentative opposition to this proposal. I never thought both sides would be against this. :lol:

We hereby wager that this is one proposal which will not ever, in fact, be "at vote".

We hereby wager that this is one proposal which will not ever, in fact, be "at vote".

I'm not going to take that wager thanks, I know a dead cert when I see it :)

:lol:

I like this, two theocracies and one aethist state have expressed their tentative opposition to this proposal. I never thought both sides would be against this. :lol:

:lol:
I'm surprised that someone managed to submit a proposal which equally offended both sides!

Please do not label your thread "RESOLUTION AT VOTE" when it is only a proposal that has not yet reached quorum. There are presently two proposals that have been promoted to resolution status and will be voted on. Labeling your thread as such is misleading and detracts from the debate over the two resolutions that actually are resolutions at vote.

Please do not spam my threads with this. I heard you already. It is annoying to repeat things.
Well, given that you've posted multiple threads with similarly inaccurate titles, SCOS OJ seems to have a point multiple times over.

Well, Quarka really "quark'ed" up there... :wink:

Ahem, in rebuttle to your proposal, or as I like to call it,

"Why the Rep of Komokom gets sick and tired of these marriage related proposals popping up every three days just wasting his time in rebutles, but hey, its another reason to get out of bed in the morning:"

:wink:

This resolution aims to provide basic outlines for governments, saying essentially that governments will only recognize unions, whether of homosexual or heterosexual nature, and also that governments will only recognize "marriage" in its religious context.

Ping! , yes, they can only recognise (civil) unions.

For heterosexual couples.

Becase gay marriage is protected in U.N. law in all member nations.

Ergo, it may as well be "set in stone".

So you'll be limiting all heterosexual couples to (civil) unions.

This aims to be a compromise, I wish to heal these wounds of argument.

Uusaly I found it to be reasonably enlightened debate. Until people start saying homosexuality is evil, then it all kind of goes to hell (Ironically... :wink: )

Definition of Marriage

Whoa whoa whoa, don't go there girl-friend ! :wink:

Whereas the debate over what constitutes marriage is fruitless argument,

Indeed, ergo how could you define it if no one can agree to what it is?

Marriage is hereby defined as the religious union of a man and woman.

Look, thats one, "one" definition! Yeah! ,

Now how about the rest of the member demographic?

No?

Didn't think so.

In addition, all governments of the world must only recognize marriage in its religious context—it will recognize "unions" legally, this gives a way for homosexual unions to be allowed. The specific rights therein may vary from nation to nation.

Hoorah, marriage to be recognised only in its religious context. Yet still allowing unions to be recognised too judging by the wording...

So now homosexual couples and heterosexual couples can marry and live happily ever after. And athiests can get civil unions. Hey, I like it. I am atheist. :wink:

Various religions and sects of religions may also recognize gay unions as marriage if they wish, or may choose not to recognize it.

Not that it matters, they already recognised gar marriage. And that cannot be changed.

With this resolution there is a compromise to end the fruitless, constant arguing between gay marriage opponents and proponents.

How? Gay marriage is protected already by U.N. law, which is "god" of all laws in member nations. Meanwhile, your just pizzing off those who like the idea of gay marriage any-way, which means you'll just be starting more debate, because all this could do is mean marriage has no government induced benefits, only civil unions, and even then only effects hetero couples, oh dear, same old same old.

Still, points to you for trying I suppose, at least this was seemingly rational...

- The Rep of Komokom.

This was a failed compromise.

Still, I will not stop trying. Next one will be similar but tweaked, so that perhaps it does not so offend the Christians.

For better or for worse, gay marriage is explicitly protected by the UN. You cannot repeal past resolutions, and you can't define your way out of this one.

merrage is a corporate entity of two or more adult persons and their minor offspring
shairing living arraingements
and committed to the mutual support of doing so

adult being defined herein as sentient persons of an age permissible (in the jurisdictions in which they reside) to be principals
in binding lawful documents and the arraingements and aggreements they create

neither the gender nor number of participants are of any pertinance
to any governing body

and while some beliefs may define merrage more specificly and/or
arbitrarily, if subscription to those beliefs is to be deemed
voluntary, they have no place in the forumlating of statutes
who'se sphere and scope is beyond the boundries of their own constituents

=^^=
.../\...

For better or for worse, gay marriage is explicitly protected by the UN. You cannot repeal past resolutions, and you can't define your way out of this one.

Actually, I think that you can repeal past UN resolutions. Unless I'm mistaken, the UN mandate becomes more of a UN suggestion and stays on record as having once been a UN resolution. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that any resolution can be repealed with the proper parliamentary procedure.

On a side note, I'm not sure of the legality of this particular resolution (the required recognition of Homosexual Marriage) as there is no pre-existing mandate requiring a seperation of Church and State in all member nations. Thus, if the governmental authority of my nation resides in a religious doctrine which happens to be at odds with homosexual marriage (as is the case in Islamic, Judaistic, and many Christian theocracies) then it is fundamentally wrong to require my nation to recognize an act which is seen as heretical or even sinful according to the religious views of my citizenry. My personal beliefs aside (I happen to think homosexuals should be afforded comparable rights in my nation), I think this particular requirement to recognize homosexual unions is based on an illegal usurpation by the UN of the right of my nation to incorporate religion into my government or to disassociate it from my government as I and my citizenry see fit.

Welcome to the UN, Alberthoctor.

Your comments are perceptive and intelligent. However, they display a lack of understanding of the NS UN (you wouldn't be alone here, it takes a while to get used to). Here, due to issues concerning 'game mechanics', it is impossible to repeal a resolution. You can amend or clarify (as long as you word your proposal carefully) but repeals are unwelcome. It's a shame.

As for homosexual marriage... sadly, a resolution was passed some time ago legalising this. I say 'sadly' as I believe you are right in suggesting that this issue should not be in the UN's remit. Any nation that joined the UN prior to the passing of this resolution is stuck with it.

Of course, none of this seems to stop nations from trying to devise loopholes they can exploit in order to deny their citizens the right to marry whomever they please.

I hope your fair nation perseveres with our flawed but precious UN and contributes to its improvement as an institution.

Kind regards
Frank Chalmers
Speaker for International Relations

Thank you for the welcome Mr. Chalmers,

Fortunately, my nation has joined the UN after the passage of several questionable resolutions that I apparently am not required to comply with. Perhaps we need a new resolution to prevent the further passage of questionably legal resolutions by the General Assembly of Nations in the UN.
As is the case in many representative bodies, I think that a separation of powers is necessary for the proper functioning of government, with a judicial branch of government presiding over the legality of the acts of the legislative branches of the government body. As I see it, there is currently no counterbalance to the acts of the UN's legislative branch. There should be some mechanism in place to prevent the passage of resolutions that conflict with a nation's sovereignty, or with the current UN charter. It appears that this lack has resulted in several infringements on nations' rights by the UN, as well as the implication of certain rights and responsibilities that have not previously been established by legislative process or popular consent.

Respectfully,
Fredrick Alberthoctor
Secretary of Righteous Indignation

This was a failed compromise.

Still, I will not stop trying. Next one will be similar but tweaked, so that perhaps it does not so offend the Christians.

Therein lies your problem. You are trying to cater to a specific group with a specific viewpoint, rather than create a resolution with the best interest of all the UN member nations.

For better or for worse, gay marriage is explicitly protected by the UN. You cannot repeal past resolutions, and you can't define your way out of this one.

Actually, I think that you can repeal past UN resolutions. Unless I'm mistaken, the UN mandate becomes more of a UN suggestion and stays on record as having once been a UN resolution. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that any resolution can be repealed with the proper parliamentary procedure.
This is not the real-world UN. In this UN, no repeals are allowed.

Thus, if the governmental authority of my nation resides in a religious doctrine which happens to be at odds with homosexual marriage (as is the case in Islamic, Judaistic, and many Christian theocracies) then it is fundamentally wrong to require my nation to recognize an act which is seen as heretical or even sinful according to the religious views of my citizenry.

Not so. A certain level of moral relativism (exercised via sovereignty) is permissible due to uncertainity, but when an issue becomes sufficiently clear-cut the UN is more than able to step in.
An extreme example: in some nations, a majority of the populace believe it to be a religious and social necessity to cut off the clitoris, labia minora and labia majora of all their female children before they reach puberty, generally without anaesthetic or sterile conditions. Nobody but the most cold-hearted rationalist could claim that moral relativism justifies this. In such cases, it's only right that the UN should do all it can to prevent this.

Homosexuality is a similar case. We can allow governments to run their nations along religious lines. We can allow them, for instance, to illegalise abortions (because this is an issue over which the debate is not clear-cut) or to ban working on Sundays (because this harms nobody). But we can't allow them to persecute those we know to be innocent, even if their faith says they're guilty. Otherwise we'd have to allow a theocracy that held (as a matter of dogma) that all left-handers deserved to die horribly to do whatever they damn well pleased in the name of religious tolerance and national sovereignty. No deal.

We agree that the marriage resolution goes too far - prohibition of marriage hardly counts as an egregious human rights abuse (though compare how appalling we'd consider a state that forbid, for instance, interracial marriages) but your reasons remain fallacious.

This was a failed compromise.

Still, I will not stop trying. Next one will be similar but tweaked, so that perhaps it does not so offend the Christians.

Wonderful, we would hate to offend christians. To hell with everybody else.

Here in lies the problem with this proposal and all others like it. You are attempting to legislate morality. Worse, you are attempting to pass a law mandating a particular brand of morality. It this case - christian morality.

Sure, you have a clause in your proposal allowing for a homosexual union. but why go through the somantics of changing the name of the institution?

What is it that makes a homosexual "union" less important than one between hetreosexuals? Do they care less for their partner? How do you quantify an abstract concept like love? Most people think they understand what love is. But how do you truly define it? (I know more homosexual couples that fit Webster's definition than heterosexual ones.)

If you don't base marriage on love, what standard do you use? Commitment? We have words in our language like affair, adultry, unfaithful. Obviously, these words would not need to exist if even marriage was a commitment etched in stone. And, to my knowledge, there are far more heterosexual couples filing for divorce in the world than their homosexual counterparts.

So love and commitment have been ruled out as a viable option to deciding who should be able to get married. Now what?

I support gay marriage in whatever form it takes. The sheer number of people who utilize religious argument evidently don't believe in the essential seperation of church and state -- if marriage is such a religously defined and managed institution, shouldn't the government withdraw its involvement entirely?

...to my knowledge, there are far more heterosexual couples filing for divorce in the world than their homosexual counterparts.

Nor are there, to my knowledge, reliable statistics on the behavior of homosexual marriages around the globe because such relations are still considered illegal in a good many countries. Even places that have legalized such marriages usually haven't had them legal for very long -- ergo, the statistics aren't as stable. We must also remember that gay relationships, justified or not, have historically been in the minority -- ergo, the statistics are not as stable.

The Dominion of Kierasthan is a highly religious state, but we are advocates of human rights as well. It is our policy that marriage is a religious bonding recognized by the government. Having said that, our religion does not prohibit homosexual marriage. We realize that sexual orientation is not a choice and that they are not hurting anyone with their love. On the contrary, all love is encouraged, and we would sooner have homosexual marriage than short-lived celebrity marriage. Homosexuality is not a choice; it is not a sin. It is simply a term to describe whom one loves.
-High Draconis Saza D'Marr