NationStates Jolt Archive

Please support the proposal i currently have put to the UN

Cheers Chris

Ooooh, is this to adopt gays? Can we have Elton John? and that chap out of will and Grace.....and Ann Heche? We reckon they'd earn Bahgum a fortune.......

Gay Adoption
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights Strength: Mild Proposed by: Piriestonia
Description: I propose that gay and lesbian couples should have the same adoption rights as Hetrosexual couples in UN states where Gay partnerships are Recognised.

This will allow children loving homes where they will be supported by the best people, whatever the respective sexual orientaion of the parent couple.

Please back this proposal!

Well, since a past UN resolution mandates that all UN members recognise gay marriage, the "in UN states where Gay partnerships are Recognised" is unnecessary. Plus the plea at the end is not really appropriate for a serious UN resolution. Other than that, this is a good idea, and one that I will back in the face of objections from national sovereignty advocates and homophobes.

If this fails and you resubmit it, could you first go through a period of vetting here on the forum? If you post what you intend to propose, and others can suggest improvements etc, it makes for a better written resolution and increased awareness. For instance, I would put it into the Sophista format of preambulatory and operative clauses (see the stickied thread near the top of the UN forum titled "United Nations Resolution Writing Guide").

Well, since a past UN resolution mandates that all UN members recognise gay marriage, the "in UN states where Gay partnerships are Recognised" is unnecessary.

What? You mean this has already been accepted by the UN? This is an outrage! The Emirate of Ras Al Khaimah will not tolerate sodomy in our most holy of states! Sodomy is punishable by death and that's the way it should be!

We will tender our resignation from the UN effective immediately!

Sheikh Khalifa bin Muhammad Al Nahyan
Former UN Ambassador for the Emirate of Ras Al Khaimah

Well, since a past UN resolution mandates that all UN members recognise gay marriage, the "in UN states where Gay partnerships are Recognised" is unnecessary.

What? You mean this has already been accepted by the UN? This is an outrage! The Emirate of Ras Al Khaimah will not tolerate sodomy in our most holy of states! Sodomy is punishable by death and that's the way it should be!

We will tender our resignation from the UN effective immediately!

Sheikh Khalifa bin Muhammad Al Nahyan
Former UN Ambassador for the Emirate of Ras Al Khaimah


See UN reolutions "Gay Rights" and "Sexual Freedoms"

Consider Our enlighten nation in support of your proposal

I will back in the face of objections from national sovereignty advocates and homophobes.
How is it that national sovereignty advocates and homophobes are still a part of an organization that imposes international regulations on their nations and requires them to recodnize homosexual marriage? :roll:

I will back in the face of objections from national sovereignty advocates and homophobes.
How is it that national sovereignty advocates and homophobes are still a part of an organization that imposes international regulations on their nations and requires them to recodnize homosexual marriage? :roll:

A perfect world it is not :(

I personally support this proposal.

I will back in the face of objections from national sovereignty advocates and homophobes.
How is it that national sovereignty advocates and homophobes are still a part of an organization that imposes international regulations on their nations and requires them to recodnize homosexual marriage? :roll:

Because they are not required to read through all of the passed proposals before joining.

I will back in the face of objections from national sovereignty advocates and homophobes.
How is it that national sovereignty advocates and homophobes are still a part of an organization that imposes international regulations on their nations and requires them to recodnize homosexual marriage? :roll:

Because they are not required to read through all of the passed proposals before joining.Yes, but I have yet to see one quit upon seeing them.

I am against it.

Ooooh, is this to adopt gays? Can we have Elton John? and that chap out of will and Grace.....and Ann Heche? We reckon they'd earn Bahgum a fortune.......

Elton John is yours, but we want the rights to "Good-bye Enlish Rose" and "Crocodile Rock", also, only if we get the guy who played Will in Will and Grace.

:D

Less Important Part :

Also, its interesting to note, under the Gay Rights act, the part about,

United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life.

( Focus demographic being people who are homosexual in orientation ).

There-fore, one could simply write a proposal that states it re-affirms and specifies recognition of the present right, ( when you think about it ) already provided in above past passed law.

I am on a roll tonight ... :wink:

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "

Honourable colleagues,


we are rejecting this proposal.

But we are asking the moderators or anybody who is competent to answer whether all past resolution apply to all UN members or only that which were passed after we joined the UN. We have received different comments by different members about that issue. We would be pleased to sort out this issue, because otherwise we are in a legal limbo and don´t know which UN resolutions actually apply to us.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

But we are asking the moderators or anybody who is competent to answer whether all past resolution apply to all UN members or only that which were passed after we joined the UN. We have received different comments by different members about that issue. We would be pleased to sort out this issue, because otherwise we are in a legal limbo and don´t know which UN resolutions actually apply to us.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia
This is a good question, and I jave not been able to find the answer.

I would support the proposal. If we are going to give gays and lesbians equal rights, I see no reason to withold the right of parenthood.

I think the adoption issue should not be looked at the point of the adults and their interests, demands and desires. Their is no right of adoption, in our view.
The issue should be considered from the point of the child: what is best for the child and its development.
And the best thing for a child is a good and stable family with a father and a mother.
We think that this resolution would not allough us to differentiate and look to that issue from the perspective of the welfare and well-being of the child, since we would need to pretend that a gay couple or a lesbian couple would be the same than a father or a mother. The matter of fact is that they are not. They can not give the children a father AND a mother. There would be just two fathers or two mothers.
We therefore prefere to give children to heterosexual couples who can provide the child with a father and a mother. That´s ideal and that the way nature wanted it to be.

I think the adoption issue should not be looked at the point of the adults and their interests, demands and desires. Their is no right of adoption, in our view.
The issue should be considered from the point of the child: what is best for the child and its development.
And the best thing for a child is a good and stable family with a father and a mother.
We think that this resolution would not allough us to differentiate and look to that issue from the perspective of the welfare and well-being of the child, since we would need to pretend that a gay couple or a lesbian couple would be the same than a father or a mother. The matter of fact is that they are not. They can not give the children a father AND a mother. There would be just two fathers or two mothers.
We therefore prefere to give children to heterosexual couples who can provide the child with a father and a mother. That´s ideal and that the way nature wanted it to be.

I disagree. 'Nature' does not 'want' anything.

@distinguish representative of Ecopoeia

"I disagree. 'Nature' does not 'want' anything."
very quick response, honourable colleague.
What we want to say through that is that you need a father and a mother to "make" children. You see it in nature, you see it throughout human histroy that they were raising the children. Mariage, as the bound between a man and a woman, is universal to all cultures. Therefore we would argue that it is not a cultural thing. It comes due nature.

But coming back to the adoption issue. Our main point is that the interests of the child needs to be the POINT to determine who should be able to adopt the child.
A resolution which plainly pretends that homosexual and heterosexual couples are the same makes it impossible to make a decision in a certain against a homosexual couple and in favour of a heterosexual couple without complaints and accusations of "discrimination".
We again clearly point out: Noone has the right to adopt. A person, a couple may offers to the social office to adopt a child, but noone has the right. The pure basis for the decision who may adopt a child is the question what would be the best for the child.
This resolution ignores that because it wants to give an equal right of adoption. Such a right doesn´t make sense. It would shift the focus away from the child and his/her well-being and desieres towards those people who apply for adoption and their well-being and desires. But shouldn´t be the basis for the social office to decide about an adoption. It should only be the well-being and the best interests of the child.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

so you feel that a gay couple as parents will be detramental tot he child, how about an abusive hetro couple, this bill is to help the childrena nd ensure the most suitable couple WHATEVER THEIR GENDER AND ORIANTATION can adopt, if they are fit to do so.

Kampness

ps Thanks to all those nations who have been supportive of my brother nations proposal.

so you feel that a gay couple as parents will be detramental to the child, how about an abusive hetro couple, this bill is to help the childrena nd ensure the most suitable couple WHATEVER THEIR GENDER AND ORIANTATION can adopt, if they are fit to do so.

Kampness

ps Thanks to all those nations who have been supportive of my brother nations proposal.

so you feel that a gay couple as parents will be detramental tot he child, how about an abusive hetro couple, this bill is to help the childrena nd ensure the most suitable couple WHATEVER THEIR GENDER AND ORIANTATION can adopt, if they are fit to do so.

Kampness

ps Thanks to all those nations who have been supportive of my brother nations proposal.

The issue should be considered from the point of the child: what is best for the child and its development.
No dispute there
And the best thing for a child is a good and stable family
Of course.
with a father and a mother.
...and on this point, we must respectfully disagree.

The "it's what's natural" argument doesn't hold up. If we went with what was natural, if you ever married a woman with children from a previous marriage, you'd be obliged to kill all her kids.

Other than that, you haven't provided an argument.

I have heard, as expected, the usual polemic remarks.
I didn´t say the all heterosexual couples would be better to raise children than single persons or couples with a different sexual orientation. As a matter of fact there are cases where the state has to take children away from their parents because they are completly unable, criminal or whatsoever to raise their children.
But the question is: what would be best for the children. We think, and most experts (psycholgists, etc.) would agree that it is a stable and caring family with a father and a mother.
We know: we are not in a perfect world, otherwise everybody would grow up in such an environment. I, myself didn´t have the luck to do so. And that has caused damges and deficits on which I have to work with even now as I´ve grown up and have the honour to represent my country to the UN.
I can´t pretend that two have two fathers and now mother or two mothers and now father would be the same than having a father and a mother.
But this resolution is explicitly asking us to do so: it says EQUAL RIGHT TO ADOPTION.
But you can´t treat something as equal what is different. Two fathers and no mother or two mothers and no father just isn´t the same and isn´t equal than a father and a mother.

The "it's what's natural" argument doesn't hold up. If we went with what was natural, if you ever married a woman with children from a previous marriage, you'd be obliged to kill all her kids.

This viewpoint assumes that what's natural for say a wolf or a bear is also natural for a human. That's evidently not the case, so we find we have to reject this statement.

James Moehlman
Asst. Mgr. ico UN Affairs

"Rehochipe wrote:
The "it's what's natural" argument doesn't hold up. If we went with what was natural, if you ever married a woman with children from a previous marriage, you'd be obliged to kill all her kids.

Greenspoint wrote
This viewpoint assumes that what's natural for say a wolf or a bear is also natural for a human. That's evidently not the case, so we find we have to reject this statement."
I second the statemen of Greenspoint and add: what is natural for a lion isn´t necessarly natural for human. In this case it certainly isn´t

What we have here is a catch 22. Children are better off in what society defines as a normal family. Homosexuals themselves are equal in skill of raising children, it is the society’s reaction that makes the quality of parenting worse than that of a traditional family. So in order to be allowed to raise children, society must see them as normal- but one thing normal entails is the raising of children. Two options emerge; either never allow gay adoption or place children in substandard parental units until society alters its views of gays. Since gay people most likely will continue to raise children regardless of any such law passed to prohibiting it, option two sound best in the long run.

The Gay Rights resolution doesn’t require countries to perform gay marriage, just stating that it be “protected and endorsed by law” — this can be taken to mean only existing marriages. There is a loophole there that should be fixed in the near future.


While I support the idea behind this resolution, as many have pointed out, it isn’t neatly put forward. There are also no specifics — “same adoption rights” could be read as being tested under the same list of considerations, which could include “access to a mother” and “access to a father,” for example.

The proposal should be re-worded to note that all considerations for adopting a child be gender-blind. Specifics as to what “adoption rights” ar under consideration should be added. The form should also be reworked, and the “Please back this proposal!” should be removed.

I like the idea of this proposal, but I’d like any gay adoption resolution to pass without any loopholes, and to be professional.

Sounds good, you have my support.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

I too would support the proposal

Though I will probably be bombarded with pointing fingers and shouts of "homophobe!" I will post this anyways. Due to the lack of information available for the US, I went searching for stats on divorce rates. While in most of the world the hetero divorce rate is about 50% (½ of couples separating at some point in time), the divorce rates for homosexual couples was shockingly higher. I don't recall the exact numbers, as I was doing this for a school project which is on another computer, but I do recall that Lesbian marriages had a 168% (give or take 4%) higher chance of ending in divorce than hetero couples, with gay (male) marriages being some where in the 70-90% range higher (like I said, I don't recall exact numbers and I'm trying to find the stats).

There is no right to adoption as has been stated, if there is a lesbian or gay couple that can provide better care then a hetero couple, so be it, and many studies by instutes such as Johns Hopkins have shown that many of the stories of "screwed up" kids from gay families aren't true. On the same hand, these higher divorce rates would obviously have to be taken into account, as one of the shrinks involved in the research on the "screwed up" kids said (and I'm paraphrasing), "Divorce can be more traumatizing and hurtful to a developing child than even the death of one of the parents."

OOC: keep the US out of NS, and besides how do you get 'gay divorce' when 'gay marriage' was only put in a few weeks ago.

IC:
What do divorce rates have to do with anything? I've known divorce to both screw up kids and make there life better. It all depends on the situation.

Why must the gay couple be 'better' then the heterosexual couple? Shouldn't the same criteria be upheld for both? Isn't that the purpose of this proposal?

If people are judged not to be suitable parents they won't just get kids because they are gay.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Mariage, as the bound between a man and a woman, is universal to all cultures.

This is an incorrect statement. Be very carful about saying the words: cultural and universal. There are many cases of other cultures who have same sex pairing in marriage. Some Native Americans, for instance, have men who wear women's clothes and marry a man. They have a higher status than the normal person, actaully and are considered holy. The name of them escapes me at the moment, it's been awhile since anthropology. I'm sure there are many other examples.

Mariage, as the bound between a man and a woman, is universal to all cultures.
And if those cultures are members of the UN they get gay marriage as well.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

I am against it, as is my nation, where gay marriages are banned
and sodomy is a punishable sin. 8) I would also like to note that
it is against my nation's religion and having gay marriages would
severely damage the spirituallity of my good citizens.

[edit] Furthermore, about the issue of homosexuals adopting children,
I am against that also. I believe homosexuals are not capable of
correctly raising a child with correct views, the child would be born
into a life of ridicule and the crime rate in the nation would rise,
causing taxes to rise also to help pay the police force.

Kloris
President
Rogue Nation of Ehglarp

I am against it, as is my nation, where gay marriages are banned
and sodomy is a punishable sin. 8) I would also like to note that
it is against my nation's religion and having gay marriages would
severely damage the spirituallity of my good citizens.

Kloris
President
Rogue Nation of Ehglarp

Err, then ya might want to rethink your theocracy's UN member status. :idea:

Err, then ya might want to rethink your theocracy's UN member status. :idea:

I don't understand what you mean... o.o
I'm a new member, I have only been around for like
8 or 9 days... I don't know what you mean by theocracy
status. :oops:

As a UN member you must obey past resolutions such as the ones about gay marriage and sexual freedoms.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Err, then ya might want to rethink your theocracy's UN member status. :idea:

I don't understand what you mean... o.o
I'm a new member, I have only been around for like
8 or 9 days... I don't know what you mean by theocracy
status. :oops:

Covering what BNW did not is this:

the·oc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-kr-s)
n. pl. the·oc·ra·cies
A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
A state so governed.

Covering what BNW did not is this:


I prefer TBlack but it's not really important :P

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Covering what BNW did not is this:


I prefer TBlack but it's not really important :P

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Sounds too gangsta-rapper-esque. *shudder* :x

Say it out loud :wink:

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

I believe homosexuals are not capable of
correctly raising a child with correct views, the child would be born
into a life of ridicule and the crime rate in the nation would rise

Ah, logic. :roll:

Seriously, how the hell is homosexual adoption going to lead to crime?

Also, you might like to know that the general consensus among the pyschological community is that the important thing is for the child to be raised in a stable, loving environment, and the genders of the parents are actually far less relevant than you might believe.

@Myopia_,

"the general consensus among the pyschological community is that the important thing is for the child to be raised in a stable, loving environment, and the genders of the parents are actually far less relevant than you might believe."
This is simply untrue: children who are lacking one parent have it often much more difficult in life. We, ourself, have made this experience in our own life and know that from many others. Our psychologist almost unanimously agree that the best thing for a child is a loving and careing family with a mother and a father.

We also want to state that when this gay marriage resolution,or whatever it was called, was passed, we weren´t member of the UN. Therefore it doesn´t apply to us in our view. However we are willing to accept civil unions between consenting adults of the same sex. However: this civil unions don´t have the same rights than a marriage. Marriage is by definition a contractual agreement made by a man and a woman,which is made before the state and which is made for lifetime.
By this defintion a marriage between two persons of the same sex is impossible.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

However we are willing to accept civil unions between consenting adults of the same sex. However: this civil unions don´t have the same rights than a marriage. Marriage is by definition a contractual agreement made by a man and a woman,which is made before the state and which is made for lifetime.
You're in The UN now. Welcome to a world of gay rights (including marriage) and sexual freedoms.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

@TBlack

"You're in The UN now. Welcome to a world of gay rights (including marriage) and sexual freedoms."

We are are calling it Civil union. POINT.


"Do you know what ‘gay science’ is"
a spelling mistake by a distinguish collegue who said:

"Are you gay, science this issue is so important to you?"
correct:
Are you gay since this is so important to you? - a question we could ask you as well.
We want an inclusive UN that should also have room for captialist countries, christian, jewish, muslim countries and countries of other believes.
With such resolutions the UN is alionating more and more countries. We and many others were outraged by the 40 hour-work resolution. It crippled our economy and that of many others.
We are not that outraged about this resolution since it is not costing any money and not harming our economy. But we understand that it is completly outrageous for christian and muslim, jewish and muslim countries and others who see this as a sin. They shouldn´t be forced to apply such laws by the UN which are completly violating their believes.
The UN can´t afford to alionate more countries by ignoring their believes.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

Wow, I agree completely. When I joined NationStates
I didn't know it was going to be so similar to the real world!
It's amazing!

About theaocratic whatevers earlier, did you guys mean that
I could not object to a rule that had already been passed by
the UN? :oops:

Kloris
Confused
Rogue Nation of Ehglarp

@TBlack

"You're in The UN now. Welcome to a world of gay rights (including marriage) and sexual freedoms."

We are are calling it Civil union. POINT.

You are in The UN you must follow the previous resolutions, it's not really an option it's a game mechanics thing.


"Do you know what ‘gay science’ is"
a spelling mistake by a distinguish collegue who said:

"Are you gay, science this issue is so important to you?"
correct:
Are you gay since this is so important to you? - a question we could ask you as well.
No I'm not. I'm married to a man.

We want an inclusive UN that should also have room for captialist countries, christian, jewish, muslim countries and countries of other believes.
With such resolutions the UN is alionating more and more countries. We and many others were outraged by the 40 hour-work resolution. It crippled our economy and that of many others.
We are not that outraged about this resolution since it is not costing any money and not harming our economy. But we understand that it is completly outrageous for christian and muslim, jewish and muslim countries and others who see this as a sin.
They shouldn´t be forced to apply such laws by the UN which are completly violating their believes.
The UN can´t afford to alionate more countries by ignoring their believes.
Religious people are allowed to follow their beliefs up until the point when it restricts the rights of others. Just because gay marriage is legal doesn’t mean that every Christian, Jew, and Muslim has to go marry someone of the same sex. If they are offended, well I hate to be so blunt, but so what? Everything will offend at least one person, it would be silly to make laws on just because something may cause offence.



Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

@The Black New World

"You're in The UN now. Welcome to a world of gay rights (including marriage) and sexual freedoms."
We are are calling it Civil union. POINT.
You are in The UN you must follow the previous resolutions, it's not really an option it's a game mechanics thing."
We have heard different statements about this issues

The representativ of Rehochipe wrote us

"Thackeray Sung turns to the Kybernetican.

"Once you've joined the UN, all its past resolutions become law in your country. However, the only ones that have a stats effect are the ones that passed while you were a member.
"That's why some members duck out of the UN when a resolution's about to pass, then rejoin afterwards - keeps their stats nice and clean. Doesn't make a shred of difference to the actual laws of the country, though."
We understand that as following: there are no real effect on us.


"Religious people are allowed to follow their beliefs up until the point when it restricts the rights of others"
Your are simply avoiding to ask the right questions. At this question is what rights should be granted. Would you allow polgyamy??????? Would you allow pedophilia it child and adult are consenting?????
The question is not about denying rights. It is about what rights people have. And by imposing such issue to other nations you are violating their sovereignity and brushing aside their believes and imposing yours.
We reject that.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

@The Black New World

"You're in The UN now. Welcome to a world of gay rights (including marriage) and sexual freedoms."
We are are calling it Civil union. POINT.
You are in The UN you must follow the previous resolutions, it's not really an option it's a game mechanics thing."
We have heard different statements about this issues

The representativ of Rehochipe wrote us

"Thackeray Sung turns to the Kybernetican.

"Once you've joined the UN, all its past resolutions become law in your country. However, the only ones that have a stats effect are the ones that passed while you were a member.
"That's why some members duck out of the UN when a resolution's about to pass, then rejoin afterwards - keeps their stats nice and clean. Doesn't make a shred of difference to the actual laws of the country, though."
We understand that as following: there are no real effect on us.

My understanding was that although it has no effect of your stats you still have to follow it (that's why we don't get asked about gay marriage after we join) but I suppose we should ask the opinion of a mod to settle this.


"Religious people are allowed to follow their beliefs up until the point when it restricts the rights of others"
Your are simply avoiding to ask the right questions. At this question is what rights should be granted. Would you allow polgyamy???????
Yes

Would you allow pedophilia it child and adult are consenting?????
It depends how you view 'child' and 'adult' but probably not because in a situation like that the harm would outweigh the good.

The question is not about denying rights. It is about what rights people have.
…

And by imposing such issue to other nations you are violating their sovereignity and brushing aside their believes and imposing yours.
Welcome to The UN

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)


Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

This is simply untrue: children who are lacking one parent have it often much more difficult in life.

Sorry, what I should have said was a loving, stable, environment with 2 parents. But you cannot dispute the fact that the experts mostly agree that the parents' genders don't matter much, just the fact that they're both there, committed and loving.

it is completly outrageous for christian and muslim, jewish and muslim countries and others who see this as a sin. They shouldn´t be forced to apply such laws by the UN which are completly violating their believes.

Religion should never, ever, ever, ever be allowed to dictate law. Ever. It is not justifiable to ban something just because it offends religious beliefs - you need real evidence (and that means no Scripture, unless you can prove that said writing is actually the word of god) that said thing should be banned. It's none of Christians', or Jews', or Muslims' business if their religious beliefs say that gay marriage is wrong. They can still do what they believe to be right.

In fact, their beliefs do not say that gay marriage should be banned, they say that homosexuality is wrong. In the same way, I think racism is morally wrong, but that doesn't mean that I should advocate the adoption of laws to ban racist ideas and political parties.

Would you allow polgyamy???????

Why not? If everyone concerned is a consenting adult, why shouldn't they be able to marry several people?

Would you allow pedophilia it child and adult are consenting?????

A child isn't usually mentally developed enough to give proper consent to such things, so this is a different situation entirely.

by imposing such issue to other nations you are violating their sovereignity and brushing aside their believes and imposing yours.

Quite frankly, why should I care? Their beliefs are, for the most part, based on little more than unproven scripture and dodgy "scientific" studies (they can therefore follow them themselves by all means, but cannot justifiably force them upon other citizens, even a minority), whereas mine are based on reasoned concepts such as individual liberty - a minority is being oppressed and denied the fundamental right for their love to be seen as equal in the eyes of the law to "conventional" love, and even democratic governments should not be allowed to do this.

But we understand that it is completly outrageous for christian and muslim, jewish and muslim countries and others who see this as a sin. They shouldn´t be forced to apply such laws by the UN which are completly violating their believes.

This would be solved if Church and State were seperate, so approve the Separation of Church and State resolution by Libreia. And for you theocracies out there, you cause nothing but trouble. A theocracy in my view is just like a dictatorship only in this case the dictator is hiding behind a deity.

@_Myopia_

"Sorry, what I should have said was a loving, stable, environment with 2 parents. But you cannot dispute the fact that the experts mostly agree that the parents' genders don't matter much, just the fact that they're both there, committed and loving."
We strongly disagree with you: mother and father can give more and different things than two fathers or two mothers. Our scientist are very far in the research about differences between the way and concepts men an women think. They have discovered that they are differences and that it is the best thing for a child to learn the two sides and not just one. Therefore: having a mother and a father is the best thing for a child. Having two fathers or two mothers is NOT the same thing. We can´t treat as equal what is different.

"In fact, their beliefs do not say that gay marriage should be banned, they say that homosexuality is wrong. In the same way, I think racism is morally wrong, but that doesn't mean that I should advocate the adoption of laws to ban racist ideas and political parties."
That is an issue which you can settle in your country: your choice. It lays in your national sovereignity to do either way. We would like this right of choice remaining for the nations also on the adoption issue.
By the way: my country has banned Nazi sympathizer rallies.

"by imposing such issue to other nations you are violating their sovereignity and brushing aside their believes and imposing yours.
Quite frankly, why should I care?"
Do you want a UN which only consist of left-leaning college states and socialists and communists?????? Do you only want a UN which consists of countries who share your views??? Wouldn´t that be boring???
I want an inclusive UN: but in order to have such a UN it must accept national sovereignity and the belief of others. If to many resolutions are passed who impose socialist policies on capitalist countries or to many resolutions who offend religious countries they are going to withdraw from the UN. The UN would become irrelevant.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

"by imposing such issue to other nations you are violating their sovereignity and brushing aside their believes and imposing yours.
Quite frankly, why should I care?"
Do you want a UN which only consist of left-leaning college states and socialists and communists?????? Do you only want a UN which consists of countries who share your views??? Wouldn´t that be boring???
I want an inclusive UN: but in order to have such a UN it must accept national sovereignity and the belief of others. If to many resolutions are passed who impose socialist policies on capitalist countries or to many resolutions who offend religious countries they are going to withdraw from the UN. The UN would become irrelevant.


The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

"Sorry, what I should have said was a loving, stable, environment with 2 parents. But you cannot dispute the fact that the experts mostly agree that the parents' genders don't matter much, just the fact that they're both there, committed and loving."
We strongly disagree with you

Then you're not just disagreeing with me personally, you're also disagreeing with the expert psychological community.

Our scientist are very far in the research about differences between the way and concepts men an women think. They have discovered that they are differences and that it is the best thing for a child to learn the two sides and not just one. Therefore: having a mother and a father is the best thing for a child. Having two fathers or two mothers is NOT the same thing. We can´t treat as equal what is different.

Whilst there may be some benefit to be gained by having both genders as parents, (and let me repeat) the REAL LIFE experts say that the advantage is at most minor, and that kids are definitely far better off with loving homosexual foster parents than in orphanages (which is where they will stay without homosexual adoption, because there simply aren'tt enough heterosexual couples who want to adopt).

"In fact, their beliefs do not say that gay marriage should be banned, they say that homosexuality is wrong. In the same way, I think racism is morally wrong, but that doesn't mean that I should advocate the adoption of laws to ban racist ideas and political parties."
That is an issue which you can settle in your country: your choice. It lays in your national sovereignity to do either way. We would like this right of choice remaining for the nations also on the adoption issue.

I don't think that governments should be allowed to deny minorities their rights, and so IMO, the national sovereignty argument can go screw itself in this case.

Do you want a UN which only consist of left-leaning college states and socialists and communists?????? Do you only want a UN which consists of countries who share your views??? Wouldn´t that be boring???
I want an inclusive UN: but in order to have such a UN it must accept national sovereignity and the belief of others. If to many resolutions are passed who impose socialist policies on capitalist countries or to many resolutions who offend religious countries they are going to withdraw from the UN. The UN would become irrelevant.

Wouldn't it be boring if we weren't having this debate? This is a game, and it's far more fun when we deal with controversial issues. A sizeable number of conservative nations always remain in the UN, no matter what we pass, so I'm not really worried about losing people to argue with.

@Myopia,

we a strongly disagreeing with you. Our experts almoust unanimously say that it is a very big advantage two have both parents (mother and father - being of a different gender).

"and that kids are definitely far better off with loving homosexual foster parents than in orphanages (which is where they will stay without homosexual adoption, because there simply aren'tt enough heterosexual couples who want to adopt)."
We didn´t demand that homosexuals should be in principal banned from adoption. We would like to leave this issue to the sovereign nation states.
Our own opinion is as following: in a perfect world we would be able that all children could be given to foster parents, who are caring and can provide father and mother to the child.
We know that this is not always possible. Therefore we accept as a second preference offers by single person if they are capable of raising kids.
This resolution is not asking us to allow homosexual couples to adopt children. It is demanding us to consider homosexual couples as the same as heterosexual couples. That means in fact: we would be forced to give children to those although they would still be qualified heterosexual couples left because it DOESN´T ALLOW US TO DIFFERENTIATE. Due to the fact that heterosexuals couples can provide father and mother we would see them as better qualified than a homosexual (who is otherwise qualified in the same way).
This resolution is actually demanding the opposite: we would be forced to prefer homosexual couples in order to avoid massive charges before our courts and they UN about "discrimination".

The resolution DOESN`T ALLOW US to take into account that homosexuals can´t provide father and mother, which makes a difference as you yourself admitt, although we differ about how much difference it makes. But it is OUTRAGEOUS that this resolution doesn´t alough us to take this fact even into account when we are deciding on an adoption.

"I don't think that governments should be allowed to deny minorities their rights, and so IMO, the national sovereignty argument can go screw itself in this case."
You miss the point. It is not about denying rights: it is the question what rights the people have. You and your nation have just denied people to work as long as they want. You have decided for the time which should be considered the maximum usual work time (40 hours), violating not only the right of nations but also of individuals how long they want to work and how long their usual work should be. YOU ARE DENYING NATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS THE RIGHT TO WORK AS LONG AS THEY WANT. YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS ARE SUPPORTING SUCH RESOLUTION. SO DON´T TELL ME SOMETHING ABOUT DENYING RIGHTS. WHILE YOU ARE POINTING A FINGER AT UNDERS ALL OTHER FINGERS ARE POINTING BACK TO YOU.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

this discussion is becoming so heatrd and drawn out that Bahgum is sure that their (somewhat wrong end of the stick) idea of adopting gay famous folks would be easier. lawyers, big contracts and all!

i believe that gay marriages/adoption should be the choice of the country, if any proposal should pass it be that, that gay rights groups have the right to ask the government for a change in the law. Not the UN forcing the country to change the law for this issue which would not comply with a proportion of nations in the UNited Nations who base themselves on right wing plans. This is not a human rights issue.