NationStates Jolt Archive

Copy of the proposal:

No Marriage Under Age of 15
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency Strength: Significant Proposed by: Roma Islamica

Description: -REALIZING the problems in rural countries in regions of marriages involving young children, it is proposed to ban all marriages involving minors under the age of 15, even if the parents consent.

-IN ADDITION, all persons attempting to arrange or participate in said marriages must be thoroughly investigated either by the sovereign region, state or nation in which said persons abide, or if the governments so desire, by special UN investigators.

-CONSEQUENTLY, all persons engaging in such a marriage illegally, and are over the age of 18, will be charged with "Illegal Marriage to a Minor" and will be punished accordingly, at the discretion of the state.

Votes For: 246

Votes Against: 109

Voting Ends: Mon Sep 27 2004

Opening observations by Ambassador Hirosami Kildarno of The Supremely Democratic States of Hirota.

The Supremely Democratic States of Hirota has long held a relaxed attitude towards marriage, permitting gay marriage and being culturally accepting of marriages which other nations might not consider the norm, including marriages which have a large age difference between the two people involved.

However, this acceptance extends so far. As a whole, Hirotans do frown on underage marriage and marriages are not permitted in Hirota until both parties are over the age of 16, in line with the current national age of sexual consent. We are aware that other nations do not have the same age of consent on these matters, some being lower and others being higher.

It is in this point that this proposal appears to fail. Whilst this resolution may restrict the age of marriage with the best of intentions to protect the young, we could see a situation where 15 year olds will be married, but unable to have sex til they are 18? By the same token (and more disturbingly perhaps), we could see 13, or 14 year olds having sex, getting pregnant, and unable to marry (as would be expected in some nations). Do we want nations to have the potential of hordes of single mothers?

The limits imposed by this resolution appear arbitrary and inflexible, which have the potential to do great harm on some cultures.

The issue this proposal addresses is not what should be addressed first, and no effort appears to have been made to encompass other, more fundamental needs.

It is on this basis that the DSH has to regrettably vote against this proposal, and direct out delegate to vote no.

Agreed. In addition, the clause demanding that anybody participating in marriage 'must' be investigated seems nonsensical. Wouldn't you have huge teams of police chasing after fifteen year old couples? What's the point in that? It's different if it contravenes paedophilia laws, but if both parties are underage then there's not much to be done.

Intrusive nonsense not worthy of the UN's time. For heaven's sake, vote no.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Opening Statements of Ambassador Lord William J. Canterbury, MP of the Dominion of Castingsborough:

"Speaking for the entirety of the Dominion of Castingsborough, I believe that the UN could be crossing boundaries by limiting the powers of the nations in saying that children over the age of fifteen are permitted to be married.

"As Ambassador Kildarno stated, 'The limits imposed by this resolution appear arbitrary and inflexible, which have the potential to do great harm on some cultures.' Whilst the opinions and matters of the Dominion of Castingsborough might not be of any matter to other member states of the United Nations, Castingsborough has adopted the statement of Ambassador Kildarno of Hirota as its position on the resolution.

"It has been known by the Dominion that it is faced with an important issue of the legality of marriages in our country. The nation faces difficulty in permitting same-sex marriages, however it may be passed with an overwhelming majority of Parliament. In line with this debate, the Dominion will hold session in Parliament today over the issue and debate whether or not it should delegate this UN proposal."


Lord William J. Canterbury, MP
Ambassador to the United Nations for the Parliament and the Dominion of Castingsborough

Welcome to the NationStates of Goontopia UN.

This proposal would have never made the stage without the support of the 30 or so Goontopia regions. Roma Islamica has been slapping Moral Decency proposals into the list for as long as I can remember, and they all blissfully disappear with few votes. Suddenly, the Goons start looking for dumbass proposals to back, they find this on the back pages, and whooosh, it's got 40 or 50 names instead of the usual 10.

The bulk of UN Regional Delegates look for popular proposals, not good ones. They see something that already has a bunch of support, so they take a super-quick glance and add their name. Next thing you know it's on the front page and needs only a dozen more approvals to get in queue.

If we, the long-time NS players, don't figure out a counter for this, the UN is lost to the game. We'll be seeing any number of dumbass proposals getting approved. You've already seen what passes for humor and grammar among them. Is this how we want to let this site devolve?

Knootos and Komokom had it right. These people are a threat.

Finally, a resolution Tzorsland can definitely vote against.

Whereas this is a regional issue at best.
Whereas this resolution has no real inforcing teeth to it whatsoever.
Whereas this resolution is exceptionally vague with reguards to 15-17 year olds.
Whereas the notion of UN "investigators" investigating matters of regional sovergnity is abhorant to the people of Tzorsland.

Be it resolved that there is no way I'm ever going to vote for this resolution.

We can try to stop it but it won't do any good. Most UN members just glance at a proposal and vote yes to it if it sounds even remotely good. Very few take the time to think about it. Even less think about looking at the forum to see both sides of the proposal. Sadly, I don't think there can be anything done about this. I urge all to vote no, but I doubt that is what will happen.

-Azarath, Most Holy Emperor of Platymos.

I am once again apalled by the power that the UN thinks that it can create for itself. I won't tollerate UN investigators in my countrysides trying to break up 15 year-old's marriages. This decision should be made soley by each nation, and enforced by each nation.

Do people even read or think about these resolutions before voting yes? HOLY COW

Frustrated--------> :headbang:

This is a good law, I would vote for it... but it's badly written (as the abortion law was) so I voted against...

Explaining myself: if a boy who is 17 has a girlfriend that is 14, he turns 18 on the following moth, get her pregnant, marry her... he can't because of this law, and even if he does he would suffer consequences, probably jail... is that right? they are in love aren't they, why can't they do what they want if it is their decision with their parents approval???

Statements of Ambassador Albert A. Heraclitus, Supreme Sage of The Republic of Thinklikeme:

"On behalf of my glorious nation, our assembly recommends as our first action as a new member of the UN, to vote against this resolution. We do not believe in constricting the freedoms of any person. To use age discrimination upon the inalienable right of marriage is appalling.

This issue of having parental consent is inherently misguided. In our country all citizens over the age of 12 can make there own decisions, without parental consent. Naturally, most citizens will be cared for and educated by the state, regardless of marriage status.

We now challenge all other nations with the similar interest of freedom for marriage and resistance to age discrimination to vote against this resolution."

The Emissary from Ahsmenistan wishes that his country's position on this resolution be noted:

Ahsmenistan is AGAINST this resolution, and has advised the delegate from the region EP Freedom to vote the same way.

The reasons for this position are as follows:

-This resolution will add an enormous burden on the UN and member nations for investigating marriages
-This resolution does not specify the punishment for violation but rather places the burden of punishment on the nation to which the couple belongs. So the individual nation could impose a penalty of .... NOTHING... thus completely defeating the intent of this resolution.
-The age at which people should be allowed to marry should not be globally mandated, but should be decided at a national level. Factors such as life expectancy will play a big part in this decision. A nation whose life expectancy is 50 years will want to start early with a family, vs a nation with a life expectancy of 80 years.

I'll be AGAINST this.

1.) National Sovereignty

2.) There are various species, some of whom will have very different lifespans from humans. This law would be unfair to such species.

I think I'll vote for this just to spite Frisbeeteria.

sup goons :)

I think I'll vote for this just to spite Frisbeeteria.An hour after I posted my impassioned anti-goon post, [violet] invalidated my primary objection by coding Repeals into the system. Thus, Goonish proposals won't necessarily be permanent additions to the roster.

So you can change your vote to NO now. Won't bother me either way. :p

Still holding the position of Castingsborough, I vote no to the legislation due to this clause in the Resolution: -IN ADDITION, all persons attempting to arrange or participate in said marriages must be thoroughly investigated either by the sovereign region, state or nation in which said persons abide, or if the governments so desire, by special UN investigators.

-CONSEQUENTLY, all persons engaging in such a marriage illegally, and are over the age of 18, will be charged with "Illegal Marriage to a Minor" and will be punished accordingly, at the discretion of the state.

By the Definition of Marriages Act that my State has just passed into legislation, it would be ruled unconstitutional for any member of our State Government or any Ministry of the Government to violate the privileges of marriage within our borders. Not only does it fall under the Ill-Will Jurisdiction that will ultimately effect every sovereign nation in NationStates, but it will also effect our regions drastically. By limiting the marriages in each country, its showing that the UN feels it has the right to control the ages in which persons should be subjected into marriage.

The Act will be repealed in our Parliament if this Resolution is passed. The Government of the Dominion of Castingsborough highly requests that all that may be involved in the voting of this resolution vote "against" it. It concerns and directly conflicts with the abilities of our governments as well as restricts our rights to govern our citizens.

In addition, the Dominion of Castingsborough will resign from the UN if any "special" investigator comes to the provincial territories of our boundaries if it involves this matter. We should not restrict love. The previous "Definition of Marriages Act" from my Parliament was a disgrace to our country until it was revised and approved by the High Court of the Dominion. The State rests on its decision to vote against the resolution, hopefully you will also.


Sincerely,

Lord William J. Canterbury, MP
Ambassador to the United Nations
Dominion of Castingsborough

"REALIZING the problems in rural countries in regions of marriages involving young children"

What problems?

How is this an issue of moral decency?

Why the hell shouldn't 15 year olds get married?

I guess that would be the point ElJefe. If the UN passes this resolution, it won't be pretty for Moral Decency.


Sincerely,

Lord William J. Canterbury, MP
Ambassador to the United Nations
Dominion of Castingsborough

People should be able to marry whoever they want...A happy person will work harder at his job so our own governments can colloect more in taxes. Plus if he has kids at a younger age, he will work even harder to support them. morals/smorals.....life is more fun with no rules.

Azrael
Ambassador to Caacrinolaas

The Federated States of Sophista will refuse to enforce any laws that are enacted upon its people as a result of this resolution. If any of the moralistic hegemons in the United Nations wish to enforce them on our behalf, they're welcome to attempt to deploy troops to the Sophistan Islands. We are more than willing to launch defensive attacks upon any troops not under a UN peacekeeping mission.

The Dominion of Castingsborough will back the Sophistan Islands on this endeavour.

Statement by Entas, Embassador For the Free Lands of Elveshia:

"The High Council of Elvshia has added its voice to the chorus opposing the passage of this law, as it specifically circumvents our governments constitutionally mandated neutrality on issues of marriage. Should the United Nations make the mistake of passing this ill-crafted piece of legislation, the Elveshian Council has mandated that its violation shall be a misdemeanor, and that the punishment for its violation shall not exceed $1 Sindar. We believe the law is without merit, and as it leaves enforcement responsibilities to the individual nations, we will give it a penalty commesurate with that status. It has also been proposed that Elveshian security forces grant enforcement of this law the lowest priority, and that investigators are prohibited from devoting time to its enforcement while other more serious crimes go unresolved. When Elveshia is crime free, we will begin investigating these moral violations and assess our strict $1 fines to those found to be married below the age of 15."

We urge our fellow UN members to strike down this farce of a resolution today.

Reviewing the past thread, we can see that not one person supports this resolution (except for that one guy who was doing it out of spite). So the question we pose is, Who in the world is voting for this?

Are there any U.N. resolutions that protect autonomy in this day? For if there were, surely Signamarchiex would vote an "Aye." This however, is not the case and here is yet another resolution proving the point. We have always, and WILL always remain in the U.N. as an opposition member. We remain because so many nations fed up with the U.N. and its false sense of approval have left without trying to reform it. The U.N. is out of control, and if there is no voice opposing it from within, it will never be changed. Vote no for all resolutions and make nations realize that reform is needed. Freedom is power.

Signamarcheix

Observations of Ambassador Katherine Smith, of the Queendom of Hibana:

The Queendom of Hibana is very open minded when confronted with the subject of marrage. However I believe that this in itself is a good law, but for the nation itself to decide.

Passing this Resolution will be a waste of time and resources for the United Nations, and while I think that a person is not of mature enough mind to marry at the age of 15, once again, it should be up to the nation.

Hibana will be voting against this resolution.

Reviewing the past thread, we can see that not one person supports this resolution (except for that one guy who was doing it out of spite). So the question we pose is, Who in the world is voting for this?

People who don't read the forums.

Welcome to the NationStates of Goontopia UN.

Knootos and Komokom had it right. These people are a threat.

First, repeals exist, and if the proposals cross the line, we can take care of that. I'm working right now to build a *category* based list of delegates who would not be offended by telegrams in an attempt to throw balance back into the UN scales.

I've also revised the UN Resolution Category cheat sheet and will start posting to relevant threads (mostly Technical forum) that will help us write *good* proposals.

Third, if you want to put the power of "thought" behind arguments against the current proposal, my suggestion (I've talked with Ecopoeia about this) would be to:

1. Draft a better version of the resolution
2. Post it and explain why it is better
3. Submit it in the proposal queue
4. Telegram nations you think support the 'idea' (and I have a hint or two where you can find a LONG list of UN delegates doing this) but point them to your better idea and the discussion here.
5. Point out that in order for your proposal to become a resolution, the other one can't be around ... and there are two ways to do that: abstaining or repealing at a later date.

The vote is close on this one. Don't spend too much time here on the forums, instead contact your allies. :)

For the record, my government considers this a domestic issue. Until such a time that international standing can be demostrated (which it currently is not in the resolution), this resolution does not have my government's support.

[ooc: I seriously have to figure out a way to log on via puppet on Jolt. In the meantime, pretend this is posted by Bawlmer.]

Mr. Secretary, I oppose this resolution as a pointless incursion into regional sovereignty.

Lord Michael Evif
UN Ambassador from Bawlmer

This isn't international in scope and is therefore unworthy of UN consideration.

DB strongly opposes age limits of all types as arbitrary and illogical. We realise that this is an extreme position to hold in some societies but we tend to think that the young and the elderly should be judged on their abilities as citizens rather than their age. Children of all ages are allowed to vote in Dutch B, so we certainly will not be depriving them of the right to consensual marriage if they should so want. Having said that Dutch B citizens very rarely get married, viewing the institution as an outdated, heterosexist and patriarchal involvement of the state in what is essentially a personal matter. We will be voting (and lobbying) against this proposed resolution. However, should it pass, we will speed up our plans to phase out state involvement in marriage along with a phase out of all references to marriage, and married couples in existing legislation.

For that majority of nations who do support age limits however, we pose the following question, is – why is the marriage of two fourteen years olds less morally decent than the marriage of a fifteen year old to a seventy four year old?

"REALIZING the problems in rural countries... "

You mean 'rural countries' as in the ones full of poor people who work hard to raise crops or export natural resources to developed nations? Those pesky nations full of strange people of different colors and religions then yours? The ones who don't speak your language? Those 'rural countries"? They certainly are a PROBLEM aren't they?

Thank goodness they have righteous nations like you there to lead the poor dumb savages down the proper path...,now if you could just change their religion, their language and their skin color...

Give people more freedom, if they want to marry, let them, OR let them give their reasons for marrage to a board or a group of people that will specialize in deciding these types of marriages. GIVE THE FREEDOM!

I fail to see the difference between a marriage of 14 year olds and of 20 year olds. i cannot believe that someone would pass a law outlawing the expression of love, due to age. If the UN is going to send enforcers of this law into Witland, they will not be granted entry. and I seriously doubt the UN will take military action over something as petty as this.

Sir Adam Cliffe-Perkins, UN Ambassador from Witland

I would happily support this, if it were to be re-written as "the age of majority" (not the age of consent - that is a different age in most laws) so that no one who is not considered an adult would be permitted to marry. Since - at it's heart - a marriage is a contract in law, no one who can not sign such a contract should be permitted to marry - to enter in to a contract. The arbitrary age of 15 is not acceptable as a watershed for deciding who may marry and who may not.

I am Queen Sunshine of the queendom of spirited horses. I agree with the proposal to an extent, but some things stated in it made me think twice. For one I think if parents/gardians agree and you have the agreement of both parties involved (the couple to be married), or if the girl is pregnant, this law should not hold true for them. I also believe that all nations should have the same punishment instead of leaving the disapline up to the nation, in the part about anyone over 18 trying to marry someone under 15. Some relgious beliefs also do get their followers to marry young, I do not want to be responable for giving these reglious people more to think about, I fear they may end up retailating against the UN. Plus, there was one spot in this proposal about investiaging marriages, does this mean all marriages? Or only people who are under the age of 18? It is not very clear to me. If these things were changed I will change my vote to yes, but for now it is a no go.
Queen Sunshine, UN Delagete for Life Saver

I am Queen Sunshine of the queendom of spirited horses. I agree with the proposal to an extent, but some things stated in it made me think twice. For one I think if parents/gardians agree and you have the agreement of both parties involved (the couple to be married), or if the girl is pregnant, this law should not hold true for them. I also believe that all nations should have the same punishment instead of leaving the disapline up to the nation, in the part about anyone over 18 trying to marry someone under 15. Some relgious beliefs also do get their followers to marry young, I do not want to be responable for giving these reglious people more to think about, I fear they may end up retailating against the UN. Plus, there was one spot in this proposal about investiaging marriages, does this mean all marriages? Or only people who are under the age of 18? It is not very clear to me. If these things were changed I will change my vote to yes, but for now it is a no go.
Queen Sunshine, UN Delagete for Life Saver

I agree with most of what you are saying, except the part about the pregnant thing. Because pregnancy should not be acceptable as a reason to be above the law that everyone else must abide by.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites, like most of the people who have posted here, Will be voting NO on this resolution, because it is an intrusive, unecessary law on an issue that should be dealt with on national level.

So, on the off chance that this does pass, who's going to submit the repeal? :D

An hour after I posted my impassioned anti-goon post, [violet] invalidated my primary objection by coding Repeals into the system. Thus, Goonish proposals won't necessarily be permanent additions to the roster.

So you can change your vote to NO now. Won't bother me either way. :p

That door swings both ways. The Path is Grey.

In response to the U.N.'s proposition on the ban of marriages involving participants under the age of 15, and the investigation and prosecution of such marriages, the population of Toletia voted an overwhelming 98% against, and not a single voice within the Grand Chamber of Democracy was raised in protest. The issue has therefore been passed, and with the approval of all 3 Triumvirs. Triumvir Suth had the following to say on the issue. "Marriage is a sacred and personal contract between two or more individuals. Nobody outside of the marriage has any right to the marriage, neither in it's creation or destruction. It matters not how old someone is, how intelligent someone is, or how experienced someone is. Every person has a right to do with their life as they please, and should two people decide to spend their lives in each others company, that is their decission and nobody elses."
Triumvir Netung seemed to agree with her following statement, "Parents and government officials best serve their purpose as guides and teachers, not as domineering dictators forcing a course of action upon those in their care."
Of course Triumvir Fersugo was a little more empathic towards the issue, saying "I agree young people are too rash and impulsive, and don't have a dang clue how to run their lives. The whole lot of them need more discipline. However, it is their lives they are throwing away, not mine, and some lessons have to be learned first hand. I also want to make it clear, Toletia joined the U.N. in the hope of spreading liberty and freedom to other nations in the world, and the moment the U.N. starts doing the opposite, restricting personal choice and freedom, is the moment we leave said organizations. I believe few Toletians would stand for such actions on the U.N.'s part."

While the member states of Civilization Phaze III agree with the spirit of this proposal, we must vote against as it stands. The clause stipulating punishment comes across as totalitarian and can only lead to suffering in those nations where underage marriages have been the norm for generations. It will take time for such peoples to adjust their attitudes. Instead of resorting to the threat of punishment in this area, what is needed is information and education.

In Doctus Imperium's opinion, marriage is a religious bonding ceremony. Therefore, if this resolution is passed it will eliminate any seperation of state and religion member nations have put in place.

I implore you all to vote against this foolish proposal.

Anarchocollectivist U.N. Ambassador, Karl Kropotkin:
It would appear that The Free Land of Anarchist Collectivity has something of a unique view regarding this issue.

ANARCHISM DOES NOT GIVE SUPPORT to this proposal, as a means for the denigration of the sanctity of marriage in many cultures, based on a loving relationship between two or more parties.
Psychological research has concluded that in the mental development of children reaches a point at age eight or nine where the child is able to tell the difference between morally right and wrong. Such distinction is a far sight more complex than being able to feel love for a partner, which is, as other research has found, simply a chemical connection within the brain which makes the person attempt to mate with the said partner, for the continuation of the species. Such 'human' traditions such as dating, gift-giving and other such methods of 'wooing' a partner are seen in the animal world, such as in birds, other mammals, even spiders. Therefore love is as simple an emotion as fear, and is able to be maturely felt by adolescents under fifteen years of age.
The institution of marriage had its origins in religion, as a way to please a vengeful pantheon by taking away the sexual freedom of a person. Over centuries, marriage was used as a political tool to further dynastical wealth and power. The temporal power of religion grew to be an oppressive despot, which in many cases instilled fear in adherents in order to keep them as believers; those seen as heretics were punished as traitors, as they believed something different to the establishment. It is for this reason, and for the lack of hard evidence that comes with any religion, that Anarchism does not recognise the existence of a Divine that has given love to the people, so that they may marry one another. The widely accepted truth among Anarchists is that there is no place in society for a morally oppressive and ultimately false religion, which places restrictions on the freedoms of people through marriage.
Thus, the concept of marriage is not one that is widely propagated and supported by the Anarchist population. The Plebiscital Government of Anarchism is against all forms of marriage, be it between adults or minors of both or the same sex. Anarchism is against the proposal of underage marriage, because it is against marriage in general.
However, because it is highly likely that the idea of is repugnant to many,
ANARCHISM PROPOSES:

That marriage is seen as a legal and/or religious contract between two or more parties that sexually; financially; and socially binds the said parties to each other for the length of mutual happiness between the parties, or until death, as the individual terms of the contract would have it;
That because adolescents are able to feel love at an age younger than fifteen, the proposal will extinguish the social rights of people to commit to a relationship on their own terms, and therefore is an infringement on basic human rights; and
That if minors wish to marry, then it is their own business and not that of any governing body.

ANARCHISM OBSERVES:

That in the event of minor marriage, where the minor is consenting, parents/guardians should only have an advisory role not a consensual role, however that is not an issue for the U.N. but for the family body; and
That any punishment for the marriage of any parties is overtly and excessively authoritarian on behalf of the government or U.N. as an infringement of citizens rights.


ANARCHISM SUGGESTS:

That any laws prohibiting marriage of any consenting parties be repealed by all member governments; and
That on the grounds that it is an infringement on the rights of citizens of a nation and of basic human rights to marry in a temporal and/or religious sense, this proposal be extinguished, not to be made into international law.

The Republic of Uginin thinks that this law is not needed at this time, and will not endorse this brutal attempt of authoritarianism over the masses. It is a breach of personal freedoms and is therefore unacceptable to the region.

This proposal reduces the freedom to love and discriminates against ehtnic diversity, customs and religion. EVERYONE should have the free dom to LOVE & MARRY. Of course...an old man/woman marrying an underage is objectionable on the account that the minor is not compatible/at the same level of maturity as the older partner, thus leading to marital/relationship problems etc., but consenting marriages between 2 people of the SAME age group is perfectly legal....moral or otherwise. I believe teens at the age of 13 & 14 are perfectly able to make this decision & with the parents consent, makes it even more legit. Remember, the age at which one reaches maturity differs from place to place & background. (a 12 year old from a poor family may be more mature than a pampered child of the city)

Alternative:No Marriage Under The Age of 11

This proposal reduces the freedom to love and discriminates against ethnic diversity, customs and religion. EVERYONE should have the free dom to LOVE & MARRY. Of course...an old man/woman marrying an underage is objectionable on the account that the minor is not compatible/at the same level of maturity as the older partner, thus leading to marital/relationship problems etc., but consenting marriages between 2 people of the SAME age group is perfectly legal....moral or otherwise. I believe teens at the age of 13 & 14 are perfectly able to make this decision & with the parents consent, makes it even more legit. Remember, the age at which one reaches maturity differs from place to place & background. (a 12 year old from a poor family may be more mature than a pampered child of the city)

Alternative:No Marriage Under The Age of 11

Weighing in my opinion on this, I don't believe that 15 is "too young" to love. I do, however, believe it is far too young to accept the kind of responsibility that marriage imposes on one. Also, I'd like to note that marriages happen to kids under 15 primarily because their parents force them to get married in exchange for some kind of concession or grant, and the children have no say over it. This absolutely disgusts me, and although it's not true that there are no marriages forced on 16-year-olds ;), my UN nation will be voting for this.

Weighing in my opinion on this, I don't believe that 15 is "too young" to love. I do, however, believe it is far too young to accept the kind of responsibility that marriage imposes on one. Also, I'd like to note that marriages happen to kids under 15 primarily because their parents force them to get married in exchange for some kind of concession or grant, and the children have no say over it. This absolutely disgusts me, and although it's not true that there are no marriages forced on 16-year-olds ;), my UN nation will be voting for this.

To play the devil's advocate ... or rather in some situations the advocate to the devil ...

The situation you've described sounds as if it is protecting the "right" to marriage of a younger person from their adult's desires. That type of argument runs a fine line between being a "Moral Decency" (i.e. takes away civil rights of the parents to set up arranged marriages) and "Human Rights" (i.e. establishing that only adults capable of making decisions should be given the right to make up their own mind) issue.

None of this disputes what you've said of course, but I did want to illustrate that the proposal categories are not entirely black and white.

That said, in either case, I've not heard any nation arguing that children should not be protected from that time of cultural pressure or that marrying young is a good thing. Instead I've heard many complaints here and on off-site regional forums (I've been in several of them tonight while researching for a news article and working on a Delegate Contact List) are based on this simple opinion:

The idea to protect the rights of children from culture is a domestic issue. A one-size fits all solution is inappropriate where cultural biases come into play. This resolution implies (by the fact that it mentions a specific name for a crime) that there is in fact only "one" solution and that this law should be standardized by all nations.

A much better approach, which was recommended by Ecopoeia would be to proposal a *new* Moral Decency resolution which would "Condemn" the practice of forced and arranged marriages of people whom have not yet reached adulthood and to "Encourage" that nations adopt laws consistent with their legal practices to discourage this behavior.

Basically this resolution (I almost called it a proposal) actually has its basis in both human rights and moral decancy. I think it is worthy of debate, but for it to have international focus my government feels the langauge of the proposal needs to be toned down and needs to be culturally sensitive.

Before tonight my government thought it might be alone in this opinion, but I can honestly assure you that I've seen many more nations echoing my governments view than the other. And the voting on this resolution is very close. I'm inclined to think that this will be one of the closer outcomes and that the Pacifics may yet turn the tide on this debate.

Naturally my government has been observing the various Pacifics debates on this resolution and I would encourage many of your nations to witness democracy in practice and do the same. :)

Democracy, what democracy? I'm going to go make Unlimited vote for it, bwa ha ha!!

;)


OK, on a more serious note, I accept your point about the "Moral Decency" category and would fully support such a proposal as you mention. Marriage rights are a particularly sensitive subject to me (dunno why, it's not like I've had any personal experience with it, heh), and seeing as I believe this resolution to be more protecting the right AGAINST being made to marry, than violating the right TO marry... I maintain my position.

Democracy, what democracy? I'm going to go make Unlimited vote for it, bwa ha ha!!

;)


OK, on a more serious note, I accept your point about the "Moral Decency" category and would fully support such a proposal as you mention. Marriage rights are a particularly sensitive subject to me (dunno why, it's not like I've had any personal experience with it, heh), and seeing as I believe this resolution to be more protecting the right AGAINST being made to marry, than violating the right TO marry... I maintain my position.


We've not had many chances to just debate "Moral Decency" issues, so this is actually a welcomed resolution ... our governments just happen to have differing opinions on the particular language of this resolution.

I think it should be pointed out that moral decency works by protecting the rights of "some" by taking away the rights of "others". Is this a bad thing? No. Is it a moral issue? Without a doubt.

But at some point moral decency also overlaps with both "human rights" and "social justice". And this is what makes it interesting.

As for the resolution at hand, if my government were to provide language for the proposal I've outlined above but Friday late PM PDT, would your government consider *abstaining* on this proposal and then submitting or endorsing the proposal I've hinted at?

If you say yes, not only will you effectively distract my government, because I will see to it that a "well written" sovereignty friendly proposal is brought to the floor, but I'd also offer to entertain any amendements that are in the spirit of both this proposal but still acknolwedge the importance of local solutions to local problems.

Basically though this is not a pressing issue to my government, I am offering my staff's writing skills in coming up with a quick and dirty "cleaner" version that may be less contraversial.

As an incentive, with the new repeal process, my government's analysists fear that this resolution will need a strong majority to not face possible repeal processes in the future. I think a "milder" resolution might actually protect the rights of more children, and that is something my government is committeed to! :) Children most certainly do have rights, but finding a way to protect them is always difficult.

The Kytro government cannot support such a resolution as it inteferes with religious freedoms.

The Kytro government does not recogonise marriage, but allows civil unions for legal partnerships. Marriage is purely religious, and this resolution could potentially make a religious ceremony into a criminal offense.

My government will actually do what its region directs it to regarding this proposal, as it is a delegate for that region, but my opinion of course weighs heavily in its decision.

I like the idea of submitting another resolution that is more "culturally aware" regarding this subject, and I would gladly weigh in on any proposal you put forth, or failing that, welcome your comments on a draft of my own. (Never seriously worked for a resolution before, it could be fun.) That is... if this one fails, wouldn't want to make a duplicate proposal.

As an incentive, with the new repeal process, my government's analysists fear that this resolution will need a strong majority to not face possible repeal processes in the future. I think a "milder" resolution might actually protect the rights of more children, and that is something my government is committeed to! :) Children most certainly do have rights, but finding a way to protect them is always difficult.This is a very good point, the author of this resolution doesn't seem to have considered everything relating to this topic. While I still support the resolution on idealogical grounds, I agree that it could be much better worded.

This resolution not only intrudes upon regional sovereignty, but it is also condescending in that it attempts to force First World norms and morals upon all nations. In many of our member nations, especially those with agrarian based economies, marriage at a young age is not only culturally acceptable, but it is often an economic neccessity.

Instead of a blanket resolution banning such practices, we should be seeking to recognize and address the inequities that lead to such practices.

Gesing
Ambassador to the United Nations
Renegade Islands Alliance

Fellow NSUN members, I urge you not to fall for this. While it sounds good in principle, the resolution is poorly worded. Vote No and wait for it to come back when it actually makes sense.

Foreign Minister Thorontir Eardor.

OOC: Seriously, I don't know this made it past the proposal stage.

In the Eyes of the Government of BadDudes, Marriage stands as a social institution which should not be allowed to minors, especially minors under the age of 15 years old. At the age of 15, both male and female minors are going through both very strong Biological and Social change.

The Body which is going through the stage of puberty, a growth from pubescent stages to an adult brings about great hormonal changes in the body. In return this causes very irrational thought as it will heavily influenced by the influx of the hormones. How can we expect kids to make a proper choice that will bind them with another for the rest of their life? We can't.

Socially as well, due to their hormonal influx, they are just introduced to the world of dating and sex. As seen in my country, they are enjoying the superfluous and immediate gratification of their sexual ego. They are not thinking about love, stability, long term planning and so on. Marriage must not be based on such basic levels yet rather on the love which will mature between two individuals.

While people may preach religious freedom and such and not to take our rights, yet we are protecting marriage by upholding the sanctity of the union of two people by not allowing kids rush into such a decision.

Therefore, I must approve the resolution on the basis that 1.) Kids do not have the maturity to make such a monumental decision nor is it advantageous for them to do so during puberty. 2.) Children of that age do not have the ability or scope to think of the long term which marriage absolutely depends on.

OK, I've argued that the current proposal is poorly worded. It took me only a few minutes to create the following. It is not perfect, but I think there are good alternatives that we can *quickly* agree upon here.

I'd like to suggest that anybody who is voting yes on the current proposal to consider abstaining and providing me feedback on the following. I'd like to suggest that together we amendment my proposal here and then give my proposal the Roma and allow Roma to be the author of this "group" proposal should the current resolution fail:


Forced and Arranged Marriages
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: [Insert Nation Name]

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

AWARE that arranged and forced marriages are common in some societies;

CONCERNED that in some cases that marriages, including non-arranged marriages, are agreed upon by families and / or couples prior to one or two of the individuals being married is considered a legal adult;

MAKES NOTE that since minors are not financially or legally independent, they can be influenced by their families or other adults into making a decision that they are not yet read for;

1. AFFIRMS that it is a fundamental right of a person who is not yet an adult to be free to make up his / her own mind on when to be married and who to marry;

2. CONDEMNS all forced marriages;

3. REQUESTS that nations enact domestic laws to discourage the practices of forced marriages; and

4. ENCOURAGES that nations enact domestic laws to protect the rights of minors by allowing them to choose, once they become a legal adult, who they would like to marry.


Why should you abstain?

I think the above proposal captures the spirit of the resolution on the floor, and although it too can be improved, I think the resolution we are debating is not as good as the above. I think that if enough nations abstain that this resolution can be handed to the original author nation and they can try again. It seems fair that the idea is theirs, but I honestly wish we could "clean" the resolution up.

Most importantly I wanted to demostrate that although my nation is voting no on the current proposal that the idea and pro arguments have some perfectly valid points ... children can be influenced and sometimes marriage at such a young age (even with their agreement) may not be the best thing for a child. Minors certainly should be protected by both their immediate family and their larger community.

I just think we need to be very careful when drafting laws that sound like they aren't recognizing some degree of self rule (aka sovereignty).

ITD agrees with this resolution. In ITD the legal age for marriage is 16 with parental permission and 18 without.

As an incentive, with the new repeal process, my government's analysists fear that this resolution will need a strong majority to not face possible repeal processes in the future. I think a "milder" resolution might actually protect the rights of more children, and that is something my government is committeed to! :) Children most certainly do have rights, but finding a way to protect them is always difficult.

A general children's protection act could be better. The proposal as it is now is a domestic issue that the UN shouldn't judge about.In fact, there already isa child protection act in the past passed resolutions which is more flexible about this issue and leaves states more freedom to deal with this issue.

Our advice: vote NO on this proposal.

4. ENCOURAGES that nations enact domestic laws to protect the rights of minors by allowing them to choose when they become a legal adult who they would like to marry.


I realise this has very little substantive impact on your proposal, but by missing out two commas in this clause you would give the UN the power to say that any child can decide when they become an adult, over-riding the age of majority set down by the nation.

If it was rewritten as

"4. ENCOURAGES that nations enact domestic laws to protect the rights of minors by allowing them, once they become adults, to choose who they would like to marry"

then it would not provide that loophole.

Just so as I understand - if this proposal is not passed that doesn't mean Nations are required to let 15 year olds marry, does it?

Supposedly. I'd like to see how many actually comply with the regulation.

This proposal reduces the freedom to love and discriminates against ethnic diversity, customs and religion. EVERYONE should have the free dom to LOVE & MARRY. Of course...an old man/woman marrying an underage is objectionable on the account that the minor is not compatible/at the same level of maturity as the older partner, thus leading to marital/relationship problems etc., but consenting marriages between 2 people of the SAME age group is perfectly legal....moral or otherwise. I believe teens at the age of 13 & 14 are perfectly able to make this decision & with the parents consent, makes it even more legit. Remember, the age at which one reaches maturity differs from place to place & background. (a 12 year old from a poor family may be more mature than a pampered child of the city)

Alternative:No Marriage Under The Age of 11

But by this arguement a person who is sixteen should be forbidden from marrying someone who is 96. Because they would have radically different levels of maturity.

This isn't international in scope and is therefore unworthy of UN consideration.


I don't get it... why UN moderators didn't repeal this law as not worth of being unworthy of UN consideration... I totally agree with ya

then it would not provide that loophole.

Good catch. That is exactly why we post drafts!

I've edited the original post. :)

I don't get it... why UN moderators didn't repeal this law as not worth of being unworthy of UN consideration... I totally agree with ya

Well, technically a moral decency resolution that would outlaw sex would technically be within the rules ... international standing is a double edged sword. Basically it is a criteria that *we* should use to decide when to vote yes and when to vote no, based on the severity of the consequences of failing to act to our nations. The UN mods were right to allow this law to hit the floor ...

Think of it the way my people do. The Mods are an elder race, that love to test and try us. Oh they are sadistic, mean, and completely EVIL. But as NationStaters we must rise to meet the challeges thrown to us by both the Mods and other nations of the world. ;)


Or to borrow from :wumpscut:'s Crown of Thorns the elder nations might best be described as being "Brutal, and Cruel, and Dark. Brutal, and Cruel, and Dark ... Dark ... dark.".

This is a sad resolution. Most of you have alread brought up the various ethnic, religious, and cultural ethos that have been completely ignored in this resolution.

One would think, from this resolution, that everyone who plays nationstates is either American, British, or from Australia. Given that those people make up about a fifth of the worlds population, it would be sad for the world to have to bow to these ideals.

How this has come to a vote is beyond me...

It is simple fact that children as young as 10 and 11 are regularly bartered to other families by their parents. This proposal will help eliminate this child-sex slavery that masquerades as "marriage"

We need to pass this law to protect the children.

Come on people this is common sense.
The U.N. should have no say wat so ever in this issue.
The nation that the persons live in should be responsible for makin this decison. Simply because in many nations across the world it is part of either their tradition or religion. The U.N. must not be allowed to restrict peoples religion. I think that would be against the law now wouldnt it.

people are getting confused with arranged marriages and marriages under 16. if both partners are consenting, i do not have a problem. This should definatly be left on a national scale, as in Witland, if they realise they have made a mistake they can have a divorce without much trouble.

Alternative: Condemn and educate about the injustice that is forced marriage

This is a poorly written, badly thought out proposal that should not have come to the floor. It is not that we are against providing protection for minors, but it is clear to us that this has been written in about 5 minutes. Therefore, the Experimental Democracy of Grand Teton has no choice to but to vote against this on principle.

Having said that, even this one is better than much of the junk that reaches the proposals section. [sigh]

The Experimental Democracy of Grand Teton

I am against this resolution for several reasons....

First, I am not comfortable with the idea that the dictatorship of the majority will dictate what is "morally decent".... what happens when the majority decides that PG13 movies (an example) are morally indecent and forces the rest of us to change to their views?


As to the proposal, now child marriage is some cases is pseudo slavery, but in many cultures (real world India comes to mind, most of European history prior to the Industrial Revolution) it was simply not that way at all... Historically, marriage in many (essentially most) places and in even in the West (prior to the 20th Century) was primarily a system of binding families together for property and power reasons, not about love....but cultures change over time and so they will in all societies... child marriage dies out on its own

as far as slavery is concerned, there are current UN resolutions that forbid that practice... so enforce them (which is factored into the game already)

This resolution most concerns me though because of the "in addition" clause .. I would prefer that the UN not have any excuse to have enforcement mechanisms inside my nation not subject to my free exercise of soveriegnity... those observers that are there to deal with underage marriage today are simply a foot in the door to infringing further national self determination and soveriegnity...

I urge all to vote no on this resolution as it is currently worded.

The Grand Duchy of Jith is tired of having morons with double-digit IQs from nations with triple-digit GDPs proposing resolutions that infringe on the sovereignty of the Duchy. Archduke Jith has instructed his delegation to vote against this resolution, and proclaims his willingness to throw his nation's significant economic and military might behind any who choose to denounce this resolution, as the Grand Duchy will.

Western arrogance......again
One would think, from this resolution, that everyone who plays nationstates is either American, British, or from Australia. Given that those people make up about a fifth of the worlds population, it would be sad for the world to have to bow to these ideals.
Punk Daddy, please note that the author of this resolution is The Most Holy Islamic Empire of Roma Islamica (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_nation/nation=roma_islamica), UN Delegate to 0000000000Islamic Countries. Even the most casual viewing of that region would indicate that this is a non-western, Islamic themed region. Prior Roma Islamica proposals that failed to make Quorum were almost always about the moral imperatives of what they considered Islamic Code. I have no idea if the player is Western, but it would not appear to be so based on observed activity.
How this has come to a vote is beyond me...There we are in complete agreement.

The government of the Democratic Republic of Southerness strongly opposes this resolution on the following grounds:

1. Underage marriage isn't the real problem. Underage marriages are mostly the result of teen pregnancies. So, to diminish underage marriages, sexual education is the key.

2. Banning underage marriages in poor or uneducated countries will force lots of teen mothers to raise their children by themselves.

3. Enforcing such a resolution would not be cost efficient. The problem isn't important enough as to use up so much resources to enforce this law.

4. Southerness strongly believes in the autonomy of each nation and of each individual to make and take personal decisions like this one.

5. Southerness is against moral impositions that will affect absolutely every country and it's inhabitants.

The government of Southerness is absolutely open to listen to arguments contradicting it's statement.

1. I hereby declare I am against this resolution.

2. Draft of NJ act 23 "Definition of Marriage, Civil Union, and Divorce act":

24 September 2004

NJ 23
Central Eastern New Jersyian Act 23

Definition of Marriage, Civil Union, and Divorce Act

A Resolution to secure the definitions of Marriage, Civil Union, and Divorce in CENJ

Let it hereby be known, the Allied States of Central Eastern New Jersey declares a pre-emptive state of non-compliance with UN Resolution #75 “No Marriage Under the Age of 15”

Also let it be known, that upon the age of 14 marriage and civil union (and subsequent divorce) shall be legal with parental consent.

Marriage shall hereby be known as the union between a man and a woman in state and church approved matrimony.

Civil Union shall hereby be known as the union between any two persons (man and man, woman and woman, or man and woman in atheist/agnostic couples) in a state approved matrimony. Besides this all tax rates and legal fees shall be the same for married and civil unioned couples.

Divorce shall hereby be known as the termination of any civil union or marriage. Divorce, for married and civil unioned couples, shall be legal with no interruption from the state. The church may grant annulments for married couples.

The Holy Word strongly supports this motion. We believe that it is entirely within the UNs remit to protect those members of society who are least able to protect themselves. We also find the attempts of nations who have consistently supported motions which restrict national industries to play the "national soverignty" card laughable.

The United Socialist States of Southern Caladan not only logs its vote AGAINST this resolution, but requests that it be stricken entirely: The UN General Assembly CANNOT demand that another nation do anything. Thusly, they can't abn marriage for those under fifteen, and they can NEVER use terms such as "MUST BE" or "DEMANDS". Only the Security Council can do that.

Also, this is not written in the proper format for a UN resolution. It should be preamblatory clauses first ("Realizing that", "Noting the", and so on) and THEN the active clauses ("Requests that", "Implores", etc.). This particular working paper does not differentiate between the two.

The Dominion of the God King Eru-sama does not support this resolution as it attempts to override the marriage laws already in place in our nation.

We also scoff at the idea of some magical maturity fairy that descends upon people at the age of eighteen or whatever the artribrary age du jour is and note it not only restricts the rights of our citizens but voids the marriage of a potentially happy and loving couple!

The UN needs to butt out of people's personal lives.

The Armed Republic of Burn infidels is whole-heartedly AGAINST this proposal. If this foolish law is passed THIS "sovereign region, state or nation in which said persons abide" will do absolutly no investigations and any special UN investigators attempting to do so will meet the "Armed" portion of my Armed Republic.

Since all punishements would also be "at the discretion of the state", I can assure you the no punishements will be allowed, or even considered, within Burn infidel's borders.

This bill, if it does pass, will result in many nations leaving the UN. The UN has no place in legislating morality unless it comes to the death of someone. This is a sad attempt to create a new world order, and the region that I am delegate of, will have nothing to do with this scheme.

The nation of Peaonusahl is opposed to this resolution. We feel this is disrespectful to those cultures who define the age of adulthood and marriage differently.

Another solution would be to create a new proposal that allows nations to allow children to marry whenever they want to whomever they want, but for when *children* cross the border to another nation for nations to have a right to not recognize these civil unions.

My point isn't that should be done, but that there are many better solutions than the present one, which imposes a very specific rule:


charged with "Illegal Marriage to a Minor"


which assumes that minors, cultural practices, age of consent, etc. are similar between all nations. They aren't.

The votes are close on this proposal.

This is a joke of a resoultion, implamented in bible wielding states, trying to impose thier pyscotic morals on the rest of the world. Morality is a personal issue and should not be imposed on others nor should anyone care what other do in thier personal lives, if you don't like it change the channel.

Civil Rights Above All!!!!!!!!

Sirloinia, for one, believes that the global community has a moral duty to vote for this resolution. If the UN is not able to vote on important issues such as this, what may it vote on? Some may say that this resolution is out of order, that it exceeds our authority. We submit that the NS UN has the power to regulate any aspect of moral behaviour it sees fit. If it can regulate human rights, then it can regulate human wrongs.

While member states should be able to regulate higher ages of consent, I believe there is a clear case, in the name of protecting children from pedophiles, in preventing marriage below the age of 15. Indeed, we would argue that this barrier is too low. It represents a good start, in any case, and I commend this resolution to the Assembly.

Morality is for the socially minded among us. Why do you all need to impose YOUR morality on others.

In response to the above point,

Morality is either absolute, or it is relative. If morality is relative, then why ever have any UN resolutions on anything? If it is absolute, why not regulate everything?



True. But when you are talking about sex with minors I would have hoped there could be more consensus. People talk of the rights of nations to permit child abuse. Sirloinia will never stand for these alleged "rights".
\/\/\/\/\/\/

While morality is relative, people still can and do share common values.

Why conflate sex with minors and child abuse? You simply have to look at history to see this is not necessarily the case.

Moreover, what is a "minor" and by whose definition?

While morality is relative, people still can and do share common values.

Why conflate sex with minors and child abuse? You simply have to look at history to see this is not necessarily the case.

Moreover, what is a "minor" and by whose definition?

Indeed, to all of the above. The legal age for sexual activity amongst the people of Likeminded Souls is 14, as it is in many nations of the world (Canada, for one). That is also the age at which restrictions are placed upon marriage. If a person is capable of making their own decisions about their bodies, they are capable of making their own decisions about their futures. If this law allowed for local disagreements about the age of majority, we could conceive of supporting it. As it is, we are appalled and disgusted, and will leave the UN for long enough to avoid compliance if necessary.

On and OOC note - wtf? This is the best people can do for issues? I've already become disgusted with the forums again, I'm not inspired by this issue. I guess I could write one of my own, but really. This should never have made it to the UN floor.

TilEnca: Exactly......in fact a 96 year old marrying a 13 year old...face it.....is not likely going 2 work out...with the HUGE differences, maturity, needs, expectations, physical levels...etc. & frankly , i find this kind of marriage to be PERVERTED....about 13 year olds marring each other however, thats a different story, because they are at the same level in life

cheers ;)
Pethyr

This is a joke of a resoultion, implamented in bible wielding states
Look again. It's author is the UN delegate from 0000000000Islamic Countries0000000000Islamic Countries

World Factbook Entry: Countries whose main religion is Islam, with the belief in One God and that Muhammad is a Messenger of God. However, the People of the Book (Christians and Jews) are also welcome, if they would like to join. This is a region for moral nations. It is a region for cooperation and the trading of valuable knowledge concerning a range of topics. We are a member of the GIA(Grand Islamic Alliance) Our regional map can be found at http://www.freewebs.com/islamiccountries, the private forum at http://www.xsorbit6.com/users/islamiccountries/index.cgi.
I'm no fan of fundamentalists of any stripe, but pick on the right ones, please.

btw, it's currently losing. Huzzah!

Votes For: 4659
Votes Against: 4709

I believe there is a clear case, in the name of protecting children from pedophiles, in preventing marriage below the age of 15.

I fail to see how banning marriage deters pedophilia.

(Spokesperson for the Dictatorship of Crimson Hell, Juandaro Milguff)

Voting yes for this proposition would be adding a valuable law to each and every UN nation.

Please, think of it this way. Your daughter is 14 years old, and she runs off with an 18 year old boyfriend you did not know about. They get married and now you must deal with the fact that your baby girl is now married to a man who may or may not take advantage of her. It is hardly fair to our children to not let this proposition pass. 14 year olds do not know what is in their best interest, their parents do, and even then it is scary to think that parents do not pay particular attention to what their children do anymore. I urge you to vote yes for this proposition.

I agree with post #55: A new resolution that makes sense. Unfortunately, we cannot guarantee that the resolution be dropped simply by abstaining from voting. We must defeat it outright.

At present:

Votes For: 4776
Votes Against: 4855

Withdrawing a vote Against is effectively a vote For.

Your daughter is 14 years old, and she runs off with an 18 year old boyfriend you did not know about. They get married and now you must deal with the fact that your baby girl is now married to a man who may or may not take advantage of her.

Ignoring the ridiculousness of the above hypothetical situation, I provide a counter-argument: Your 14-yr-old daughter is impregnated by an X-yr-old boyfriend. Or, your 14-yr-old son impregnates his X-yr-old girlfriend. The 'X' age is irrelevant; it may range from 10 to 110. Both parties love each other very much, and wish to have the baby and get married. Both sets of parents agree to and support this union. But if this resolution passes, their marriage would be precluded and the couple and child would not receive any marriage benefits.

Ergo, this resolution is a bad one.

This proposal is a direct attack on the institutions of marriage of various cultures. Haven't we learned from the colonial rubbish that the destruction of cultures is a bad thing?

If you have ever made a moral decision in your life, vote against this!

Originally posted byPethyr about a highly unlikely hypothetical of a 13 year old marrying a 96 year old:
i find this kind of marriage to be PERVERTED

Does it really matter what you personally feel? Isn't the idea of government and making laws about how the people the laws affect feel? I mean, I don't like that idea either, but as outside observers, our opinon doesn't matter, so we shouldn't try and stop that. If its a mutually consensual marriage, what matter what the ages are?

Originally Posted by Crimson Hell
Your daughter is 14 years old, and she runs off with an 18 year old boyfriend you did not know about. They get married and now you must deal with the fact that your baby girl is now married to a man who may or may not take advantage of her.

Uhh, Crimson Hell, in any marrige, there is a a "may or may not take advantage of" situation. There are middle-aged beaten wives, marital abuse can take place at any age. Hey, why don't we just outlaw marriage altogether, then there's no chance of any of our womenfolk running away with a guy who you don't know but there's a damned good chance that they do. We're just protecting people, aren't we? Why not protect everyone from a potentially abusive spouse?

Vote yes on this proposal, so that we can protect children, because they're more important than other people, right?

(Note: Experience has shown that people in forums can't understand sarcasm/satire/irony, so I colour-coded it for you: Sarcastic. Not Sarcastic)

Ignoring the ridiculousness of the above hypothetical situation, I provide a counter-argument: Your 14-yr-old daughter is impregnated by an X-yr-old boyfriend. Or, your 14-yr-old son impregnates his X-yr-old girlfriend. The 'X' age is irrelevant; it may range from 10 to 110. Both parties love each other very much, and wish to have the baby and get married. Both sets of parents agree to and support this union. But if this resolution passes, their marriage would be precluded and the couple and child would not receive any marriage benefits.

Ergo, this resolution is a bad one.



While your points are quite valid, you did seem to overlook the part about children not knowing what they are doing, AND aduls not quite thinking things through anymore. Many parents nowadays do not care enough to think about desicions when it comes to their children because of lack of time with their children. Anyway, regardless of what anyone says, I do support this proposal along with thousands of others.

I fail to see how banning marriage deters pedophilia.

If you truly believe sex outside of marriage is a sin, then this would be the only way for pedophiles to be able to pursue their goals. (But quite honestly if someone is that desperate to have sex with a minor, then I don't see how the thought of being condemmed to Morana is going to stop them from doing it).

(Spokesperson for the Dictatorship of Crimson Hell, Juandaro Milguff)

Voting yes for this proposition would be adding a valuable law to each and every UN nation.

Please, think of it this way. Your daughter is 14 years old, and she runs off with an 18 year old boyfriend you did not know about. They get married and now you must deal with the fact that your baby girl is now married to a man who may or may not take advantage of her. It is hardly fair to our children to not let this proposition pass. 14 year olds do not know what is in their best interest, their parents do, and even then it is scary to think that parents do not pay particular attention to what their children do anymore. I urge you to vote yes for this proposition.

And if the age of majority in your country is 14? This would mean someone could vote, drive and do everything else an adult is entitled to do, but not be allowed to follow the dictates of their heart. Which I find unacceptable.

Spokesman of the people that is the Rogue Nation of Grand Thuringia:

A govt. is there to protect the constitution, to protect the civil liberties and political freedoms, to ensure free trade and of course to have every individual being able to plan his life like he/she wants it. Morality should be an issue of the individual not the government. If that individual plans to marry early so it could have a stress-free business life later then so be it, if he/she thinks that is immoral then so be it. The UN already has too much policies interfering into private matters of our citizens and thus in the name of our people we have decided to vote for a bold NO.

Minster for International Relations of The Fistworthy State of Thulie, Rod Foxx
This proposal is the most disgustingly weak and sickening proposal the UN has has ever seen. When I first read it I was instantly reminded of soggy worms, such was my disgust.
It was the dreams of Thulie's founding fathers that children of any age could marry and subsequently divorce any day of the week. This proposal infringes in the innate rights of all fistworthy residents of Thulie. For marriage is something that reflects our deepest desires and wishes and the international body has no reason to control our love. People decide when to get married, NOT PATHETICALLY WEAK GOVERNMENTS!

If you aren't mature enough for marriage and proper adulthood somewhere between the ages of 13 and 16, you've got serious catching up to do compared to what nature intended.

(Spokesperson for the Dictatorship of Crimson Hell, Juandaro Milguff)

Voting yes for this proposition would be adding a valuable law to each and every UN nation.

Please, think of it this way. Your daughter is 14 years old, and she runs off with an 18 year old boyfriend you did not know about. They get married and now you must deal with the fact that your baby girl is now married to a man who may or may not take advantage of her. It is hardly fair to our children to not let this proposition pass. 14 year olds do not know what is in their best interest, their parents do, and even then it is scary to think that parents do not pay particular attention to what their children do anymore. I urge you to vote yes for this proposition.

if you dislike marriage between a 14 year old and a 18 year old, outlaw it. I dont see the problem! why do you have to enforce what you believe is moral onto other nations with vastly different cultures? this is what I have issues with. this should be left at a national leval, i share the feeling of many others, the feeling of despair that this got past proposal stage.

The United Nations is absolutely the last place that should be legislating "morality." Not to mention the fact that the resolution as written allows the U.N. to dictate what is acceptable behavior while putting the responsibility of enforcement on each nation--and worse, allows U.N. officials to come into our nations and start snooping around! Just think of the money we will have to spend, and the taxes we will have to raise, to be in compliance because some members of the moral majority are up all night with their panties in a twist thinking that somewhere in the world, minors might be saying "I do"?

Furthermore, there are marriage issues on the nation-level that allow citizens to marry the same sex--with a liberal vote resulting in your nation's citizens being allowed to marry anyone or anything--even their PETS. Anyone who thought their citizens had the freedom to decide this on a nation-level should find the current resolution to ban choice on the international level abhorent.

At best, this is an individual nation-level issue, and a badly written one at that. VOTE NO!!!! :gundge:

A person's individual rights are paramount. If a person wishes to have sex with another, then they can have sex with another. If they wish to live with another, then they can live with another. If they wish to support another financially, then they can do so. None of the aspects of a marriage actually require a marriage. Therefore a marriage is purely an unneccessary cultural institution over which the U.N. lacks any jurisdiction.

Also,
Children are free human beings, they are not sub-human nor are they slaves. Neither parents nor the government owns them, nor can either force them into doing something, nor keep them from doing something. All we can do for our children is act as guides and teachers, inforcing positive traits and dissuading negative traits. The only difference between a child and an adult is experience, and the only thing we can do about that is to share our experience with them, and help teach them proper courses of action, but we can not force them into anything. I feel sry for those who see their children as little more than high maintanance pets to be bossed around (do this, don't do that, fetch my slippers, bad boy, etc).

Welcome to the NationStates of Goontopia UN.

Roma Islamica has been slapping Moral Decency proposals into the list for as long as I can remember

I've looked for Roma Islamica in the Jolt member directory and I couldn't find anything. I think that means that he's never posted. I also have it on pretty fair authority that he hasn't propsed anything since about January, and even then it was an environmental proposal.

Anyway, knowing for myself that it's almost impossible to get a proposal passed with just Forum support, I would remind the regular forum users that we are in fact in the minority. Information still travels fastest and with the largest distribution on a regional or nation-to-nation level in Nation States.

This is my opinion (quoted from my regions offsite forum)

This has to be without doubt the silliest resolution ever especially since only a few months ago the U.N passed a resolution outlawing paedophilia and similar practices , Surely this would be basically covered by that previous resolution (now a law).

Secondly it makes no basic sense the words are all over the place in a sadly drastic attempt to make it look in someway researched which plainly it isn't , The author takes absolutely no time to outline the problems and causes of said problems nor does he/she even try to make suggestions as to what can and should be done about them if this passes.

In short it's mightily flawed.

Maybe my opinion will enrage the masses but i can't help but see the stupidity of this one.

I did send a telegram to Roma Islamica and they did reply, basically stating that I should note that individual states would decide on investigation and punishment. Even with this fact, it's obvious that UN level influence on this matter is not needed. It may also cause HUGE numbers of UN members to resign, by basically using the UN to enforce local "western" values on nations and states that have arranged child marriages and other local issues that would make this resolution incompatable. No, this is a matter for local authorities to deal with....let alone to decide if anyone should be bothered in the first place.

We repress our people enough as it is....but we find the intrusion into other nations personal affairs/cultures absolutely disgusting.

GOOD LORD! VOTE NO! I could write ten other paragraphs for voting against this thing....conflicts aside, it would also be a huge waste of time and resources.

Emporer BUTTWEASEL

basically stating that I should note that individual states would decide on investigation and punishment. Even with this fact, it's obvious that UN level influence on this matter is not needed.
Emporer BUTTWEASEL

(I Edited i hope you don't mind)

That's not how things actually work in Nation States actual laws have to be put in place after each and every resolution there is no room for discretion {sp}.

Also it seems to me that this particular resolution is very undetermined it has no suggestions as to what to do when/if it's passed it also seems very immature in it's wording , Even the worst resolutions of late have had solutions to whatever proposal they are putting forward , I honestly read this one as putting forward a proposal for the hell of putting forward a proposal.
There are no real suggestions on how to deal with it and no real ideas on how to cope with the problem.

This is the most flawed resolution i have ever seen i strongly recommend voting against it.

Crimson Hell said:

While your points are quite valid, you did seem to overlook the part about children not knowing what they are doing, AND aduls not quite thinking things through anymore. Many parents nowadays do not care enough to think about desicions when it comes to their children because of lack of time with their children. Anyway, regardless of what anyone says, I do support this proposal along with thousands of others.

I sure hope you're just pressing our buttons. If you really think that shifting the responsibility from the parents to the govt is better...You are TELLING citizens that they cannot be trusted to look after themselves, hence we will do it for you. PARENTS CANNOT BE TRUSTED, AND CERTAINLY YOUR CHILDREN CANNOT EITHER. Who are these magical people who WILL have the great judgement and character to take over? A new species of perfect human beings who have more regard for "clients" than there own families? Life is tough and certainly not perfect. Your point basically says you have no faith in people to solve their own problems.....but you are just shifting things to different people to manage things and imagining the circumstances to be constant. Tell me, would you rather turn over your children to a friend, a relative, a neighbor, or the state?

Crimson Hell, you must be either very young, very niave or both...or joking.

BW

It may also cause HUGE numbers of UN members to resign, by basically using the UN to enforce local "western" values on nations and states that have arranged child marriages and other local issues that would make this resolution incompatable.

Word on this. This is being legislated as a morality issue, but morality is culturally constructed. It is a completely Western idea that certain freedoms only be awarded to those 18 or over--but it should be mentioned that even today in the US, certain states allow people to marry as young as 14.

Get that--within the US, STATES have the right to legislate this. This is not even a nation issue, no less a world one.

This isn't even a morality issue it seems to be a "i read about underaged brides in a magazine last week" thing

Would this resolution not also conflict with resolutions currently in force?

This is a LOCAL issue. Things such as "child slavery", "child sex-slavery", "slave trading" and "human trafficing" and all of it are already illegal and covered in resolutions currently in force along with pedophillia. This resolution would only make those things worse. It would require a waste of law enforcement resources/personell to be obligated to investigate cases that have nothing to do with sexual crimes against kids. We have to trust the judgement of our investigative forces to focus their efforts where they belong. Simply banning marriage at age "x" seems nice, but only spreads out enforcement like peanut butter over too much bread.

A resolution banning "all immoral acts" would make as much sense.

That's exactly what i mean , There is no originality in the U.N today nearly every resulution that is up to vote lately has already been covered including this one .

It's resolutions like these that make me consider leaving the U.N i know i'm not a big Delegate but still a little research wouldn't hurt when compiling a proposal .

Look I'm a national sovereigntist too, but this resolution just makes too much sense to vote against. You all have to vote for this, because if you don't vote for this...
...what does that say about what you believe in?

DOES ANYONE VOTE AGAINST THIS BECAUSE IT ISN'T RIGHT TO DO????

Look I'm a national sovereigntist too, but this resolution just makes too much sense to vote against. You all have to vote for this, because if you don't vote for this...
...what does that say about what you believe in?

DOES ANYONE VOTE AGAINST THIS BECAUSE IT ISN'T RIGHT TO DO????


Ok yes it is a good cause and yes it is a resolution i would have voted for if it wasn't already covered by a few other resolutions that have passed.

Actually read it it makes no real sense nothing is actually being said the author is using big long words to confuse you , He/She is dazzling you with political mumbo jumbo and you are actually buying it .

This resolution is covered by another few that have passed why repeat ourselves.

Look I'm a national sovereigntist too, but this resolution just makes too much sense to vote against. You all have to vote for this, because if you don't vote for this...
Too much sense? A badly written, ill-conceived ploy to force the world to comply with the morality of a particular culture? By voting against my nation declared that the tenets of its culture were not subject to world regulation. It is only the right thing to do by your perspective.

I have issues with the new repeal option but I will use it and vehemently fight to have this stricken down, should it pass.

Those who do not wholly supprot this law is something of a child, wanting marriage for sex at the age of 15.
To minors: You can't vote, so we the Government of Integrated America will not allow marriage.
They can't vote, so don't allow them to get married. And Also do not give them the chance to vote at their age, their demographic is too easily bought.


Sheryl Johns
Department Of Families
Integrated America

Too much sense? A badly written, ill-conceived ploy to force the world to comply with the morality of a particular culture? By voting against my nation declared that the tenets of its culture were not subject to world regulation. It is only the right thing to do by your perspective.

I have issues with the new repeal option but I will use it and vehemently fight to have this stricken down, should it pass.

Whether or not it is a cultural issue, the morality of the thing makes it so that you should vote for it. If you vote against one would question your moral code.

Sheryl Johns
Department of Families
Integrated America

Whether or not it is a cultural issue, the morality of the thing makes it so that you should vote for it. If you vote against one would question your moral code.

That is the biggest load of crap ever to grace the pages of this forum. I think fertilizer stock just rose by 10 points in every nation currently online.

Whose moral code are we defining this issue by--yours? There is no worldwide definition of morality--you simply want to impose your definition on the world. Question my nation all you want, sweetheart--but don't make me live by the rules of yours.

This isn't even a morality issue it seems to be a "i read about underaged brides in a magazine last week" thing

(OOC)
I realise that this is a serious forum, and not the place for levity. But I read that as "i read about underaged bridges in a magazine last week" and got completely confused!

Look I'm a national sovereigntist too, but this resolution just makes too much sense to vote against. You all have to vote for this, because if you don't vote for this...
...what does that say about what you believe in?

DOES ANYONE VOTE AGAINST THIS BECAUSE IT ISN'T RIGHT TO DO????

It says that fifteen is an arbitrary age - one that might conflict with the age of consent in some contries. It says that a national leader might have a better idea of how the children in that nation mature, and if they are capable of understanding marriage at 14 or 114. It says that I am not going to sit back and let the morals of one country ride roughshod over the rights of my people.

That's what it says I believe in.

I am not going to sit back and let the morals of one country ride roughshod over the rights of my people.

BINGO.

I find this proposal a oppressive one because it imposes the values of ONE ora FEW nations on the other TENS OF THOUSANDS of nations in the UN. Why did the UN moderators not stop this proposal from launching? Is the UN becoming one big Fascist organization? Its sad. In response to the 96 year old marrying a 13 year old, you're right. I would ban it in MY nation, but i would not IMPOSE it upon OTHER nations. I hope this reaches to all the nations who voted FOR the proposal. BAN it in your country if you wish, but please do not IMPOSE anything upon unwilling & defenceless nations. If this kind of marrying is such a bad idea for community, many nations would ban it in their own countries, not FORCE it upon others. Please. This reduces the diversity of the world, turns the nations into single minded drones as well as reduce the FUN of the game as well. So, just please, you know, look into your hearts and think more about the rest instead of just yourself.

The Confederation of Landeras amd it's member colonies have rejected this proposed resolution.

It attempts to regulate an issue which is best determined by individual nations, and as such is not within the jurisdiction of the UN.

That is the biggest load of crap ever to grace the pages of this forum. I think fertilizer stock just rose by 10 points in every nation currently online.

Whose moral code are we defining this issue by--yours? There is no worldwide definition of morality--you simply want to impose your definition on the world. Question my nation all you want, sweetheart--but don't make me live by the rules of yours.

One, must think about what he is doing and unless your people have an average lifespan of thirty or less I would think that you might need to have UN peacekeepers in your country to uphold the law.

Offical Statement
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Integrated America

One, must think about what he is doing and unless your people have an average lifespan of thirty or less I would think that you might need to have UN peacekeepers in your country to uphold the law.
Okay, again how much wrong is in this one statement?

1. How do you know the average life span of nations here? For all you know, the average age is 20 and so people should get married and start procreating the second the female has reached menarche.

2. I find it repulsive that you think it is ok to have UN appointed people crawling up the butts of every nation on the planet, wasting enormous resources as well as destroying every shred of personal privacy anyone has world wide just to catch "minors" in wedlock.

3. What business do UN "peacekeepers" have in regulating whether 15 year old Dick and 14 year old Jane get married somewhere on the planet? Is there not a nuclear war somewhere that the UN, which is in existence to regulate the WORLD, might be effective?

You are advocating moral legislation at the international level, which is wrong--PERIOD. If you find underage (Itself culturally subjective) marriage offensive, ban it in your nation. Do not ask my nation or any other to subscribe to your idea of morality.

Oh yea--I think all citizens under the age of 16 should be handcuffed to a wolverine. Ergo, your citizens should also do so because my nation believes it to be moral. Wanna trade? If you are going to insist I abide by your cultural kinks I insist you abide by mine.

Whether or not it is a cultural issue, the morality of the thing makes it so that you should vote for it. If you vote against one would question your moral code.

You question my moral code? I'll have you know that The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites has already required that people be at least 18 before getting married unless they get special permission from the Grand Poobah. We also voted against this resolution because we don't see why the UN should have any say over what the individual member nation's marriage laws should be.

The Republic of Beerbrewers strongly disagrees and raises objections against any union, community of foreign country willing to change our national traditions and habits regarding marriage. Be it age, gender or anything else.

In our Republic we require parental agreements from both sides to marry couples below 18 years of age. You could say that this is in comformity with the given UN proposal.

We still vote against such UN law.

Well, it looks like this travesty will not pass, by a margin of almost 2000 votes. This makes me and all of the people in my nation very happy :D

The Digital Dimension of 3l3ctrophr34k doesn't approve of a UN measure that restricts its civil rights in the interest of "moral decency." Moral decency is transitive and different for every person. Too many people in this country try to force their moral values on other members of society. They are dealt with and have learned that that isn't tolerated and everyone is allowed to make their own choices. I'm definitely voting no.

While member states should be able to regulate higher ages of consent, I believe there is a clear case, in the name of protecting children from pedophiles, in preventing marriage below the age of 15. Indeed, we would argue that this barrier is too low. It represents a good start, in any case, and I commend this resolution to the Assembly.


Of course, forget that that marriage laws and ages of consent have no logical connection to pedophilia.


Morality is either absolute, or it is relative. If morality is relative, then why ever have any UN resolutions on anything? If it is absolute, why not regulate everything?


Morality is for the weak minded, ethics is based on logic. NSUN concentrations on social order should exist in the realm of logical ethics, and not rhetorical morals.


Please, think of it this way. Your daughter is 14 years old, and she runs off with an 18 year old boyfriend you did not know about. They get married and now you must deal with the fact that your baby girl is now married to a man who may or may not take advantage of her. It is hardly fair to our children to not let this proposition pass. 14 year olds do not know what is in their best interest, their parents do, and even then it is scary to think that parents do not pay particular attention to what their children do anymore. I urge you to vote yes for this proposition.


Of course, it would also make consensual unions, including those approved by parents between such as illegal as well. In debate you created what is known as a "straw man" argument. You developed a false presumption based on skewed information, presented it as the opposition, and then debated it, rather than directly confront the views of the opposition. You lost.


While your points are quite valid, you did seem to overlook the part about children not knowing what they are doing, AND aduls not quite thinking things through anymore. Many parents nowadays do not care enough to think about desicions when it comes to their children because of lack of time with their children. Anyway, regardless of what anyone says, I do support this proposal along with thousands of others.


Of course your defense is based on straw man arguments and rhetoric. So, logically, what you think does not matter. To top that off, government is of the people, and they make the laws. As for "adults not considering" such may be the case in your nation, but not in mine. So therefore please do not press your problems on my own. Your nation has its own government to handle this matter, and we don't need your illogical unethical rhetoric shoved down our throats.


Those who do not wholly supprot this law is something of a child, wanting marriage for sex at the age of 15.
To minors: You can't vote, so we the Government of Integrated America will not allow marriage.
They can't vote, so don't allow them to get married. And Also do not give them the chance to vote at their age, their demographic is too easily bought.


On the first point, strawman. None of the opposition has presented that argument, you've invented it as a point of defeating. Either raise issues based on the oppositions points and views, or conceed the argument to their favor.

On the second point, such is the case for your nation. No other nation is telling you to allow minors to vote. So your message is meaningless in this debate in that case.


Whether or not it is a cultural issue, the morality of the thing makes it so that you should vote for it. If you vote against one would question your moral code.


Once again, morals are for the weak minded, being based upon rhetoric and not facts, truth and logic. Ethics, based on logic is the only reasonable regulatory concept. We have no need of your inferior morals we have ethics.


One, must think about what he is doing and unless your people have an average lifespan of thirty or less I would think that you might need to have UN peacekeepers in your country to uphold the law.


Your pathetic threats have no bearing here. The Constitutional Republic has a military larger then your population.

The Empire of Vreezpots has logged its vote in favour of this sensible motion, as the dangers of abuse and paedophilia outweigh what few benefits there are at this age. As a minor, the under-15 may not be fully aware of the consequences of his/her choices, and thus should not be given an opportunity to make a decision that could ruin his/her entire lives.

The Empire of Vreezpots has logged its vote in favour of this sensible motion, as the dangers of abuse and paedophilia outweigh what few benefits there are at this age. As a minor, the under-15 may not be fully aware of the consequences of his/her choices, and thus should not be given an opportunity to make a decision that could ruin his/her entire lives.

Once again, no logical argument as such. The proposal is too high handed in it's operation of the issue (if there even is one). And best either to be more limited in operation or left to the nations own determinations.

The people of the Constitutional Republic of Tekania are quite capable of making their own laws in regards to this issue, far more equitable and ethical than what is being proposed. Our morals will be determined by our own logical ethics, and not by the rhetoric of sophists.

As such, this proposal will be defeated, for the good of the people.

The Democratic Republic of Nowhere Place does not support this motion, despite what its regional delegate (Mechatania) has voted.

People, all over the world, for thousands of years, have been marrying young. It is a large part of many religions. A motion such as this may outlaw some of the practices of those religions, and thus alienate them. Hell, even some religion based countries may be alienated. That's something that the UN should not do.

And then, there's the matter of "love". If you love someone, you should be able to spend your life with them, regardless of age (with parental consent while you're still a minor, of course). Of course, the understanding of "love" grows with your sexual maturity. A 13 year old won't have the same concept of physical attraction as a 3 year old. Therefore, it is highly doubtful that a 3 year old will ask for someone's hand in marriage (and get their parents' consent on the matter). A 13 year old, however, should have the right (again, upon parental consent) to be with the person that they love for life. If that relationship doesn't work out, then so-be-it. That's life, and they'll move on.

Finally, parents often know what is "best" for their children. They aren't going to marry off their infant and not take care of their own child. They will support their child until such a time as that minor can support himself/herself. If they don't, then they are in violation of their member nation's laws. And if this isn't true, either, then that member nation is not in accordance with UN Resolution #25: The Child Protection Act, Article 2, Section 1. Just because a minor is married does not mean that the parents don't have the legal responsibilty to take care of their child until such time as that child is no longer a minor (under current definition). That level of care may decrease as the child gets older and more independent, as stated by the above resolution in Article 3, Section 2.

Finally, Nowhere Place feels that any laws or regulations regarding this issue should be passed by that member nation's specific government, upon how their government sees fit to deal with it.

Therefore, the Democratic Republic supports the marriage of minors. We don't encourage it, but we don't want to restrict it, either.

The United Socialist States of Upitatanium hereby label this proposal as ludicrous and have therefore voted against.

Restricting such an inherent right in many cultures around the world should not be the UN's mandate. For the UN to dictate what is acceptable in a culture or religion is immoral, unless it acts severely against human rights (say genocide in a tribal war). If anything the UN should ensure people are allowed to marry whomever they please under the protection of human rights. Expand, not restrict marriage laws.

I would prefer, if the UN wants to protect children from marriage/sexual abuse then I suggest they allow these children the option of running to the UN for protection if they are too young and may find themselves married without their consent to a potentially abusive person. An outright ban, at any age, disregards the conditions the marriage was set.

OOC I have no idea if a resolution like this was passed in the NS UN.

I move for this proposal: Protection of Marriage Act

=======================================================

Protection of Marriage Act

It's main provisions are:

1) To protect all marriages that can be recognized under international law.

2) Unions recognized under International Law:

- One woman and one man
- One woman and one woman
- One man and one man
- Any other regionally, legally recognized union

Escape Clause:

3) Protection from Marriage:

- One has the right to seek legal seperation and protection within the UN from an unwanted or forced marriage, given that they can prove that their health or human rights are being violated (health and human rights apply if the applicant considers themselves to be too young).
- Upon identification of such an unwanted marriage, amnesty can be granted and the marriage annulled in international court.
- If the applicant has reason to believe their life is at stake they may be relocated to another country after they apply for asylum.

=======================================================

I request input from other member nations. Not to mention support from a delegate to put it forward to vote.

The Constitutional Monarchy of Hajjistan could not in it's right mind vote for this bill. In no way should the UN have this kind of power over it's member nations.

We vote against.

Escape Clause:

3) Protection from Marriage:

- One has the right to seek legal seperation and protection within the UN from an unwanted or forced marriage, given that they can prove that their health or human rights are being violated (health and human rights apply if the applicant considers themselves to be too young).
- Upon identification of such an unwanted marriage, amnesty can be granted and the marriage annulled in international court.
- If the applicant has reason to believe their life is at stake they may be relocated to another country after they apply for asylum.



I am not convinced this would be acceptable. It would mean that in a country where divorce is illegal, someone could go to the UN and demand that their marriage be anulled.

Plus it would set up an international court (paid for by whom?) to rule on what is classed as a legal marriage. And depending on who staffs this court it could lead to marriages of various types being declared invalid.

Finally there is a historical precedence in my nation (at least) for wars being settled by one person from each side being married. While this is usually done with the consent of both parties, but if it wasn't then your proposal would undo this tradition and lead to bloodshed and so forth.

While I do not believe children should be forced in to marriage, I do not believe it is the UN to decide on what age marriage is acceptable. It should be down to the nation to decide, based on the age of majority.

Truthfully, as such, the Constitutional Republic of Tekania does not control or lisence marriage. Marriage is an institution existing in the Common Law, and it is not in the capacity or authority for government to control or regulate. Merely to arbitrate between parties in a marriage, when one of them brings contest over the contract to the other. As such we do not recognize, and shall never recognize the authority of the UN to legislate on this matter, as it lies in the case by case pervue of civil law, and not legislative law.

That is the biggest load of crap ever to grace the pages of this forum. I think fertilizer stock just rose by 10 points in every nation currently online.

Whose moral code are we defining this issue by--yours? There is no worldwide definition of morality--you simply want to impose your definition on the world. Question my nation all you want, sweetheart--but don't make me live by the rules of yours.

All right, then. What you're saying is: if you think murder is absolutely not immoral, I should not impose, on you, the laws I have that punish murder. I think we understand your moral bearing.

All right, then. What you're saying is: if you think murder is absolutely not immoral, I should not impose, on you, the laws I have that punish murder. I think we understand your moral bearing.
You should not impose on me your laws that punish murder.

I will punish murder however I see fit.

I will allow marriage as I see fit. And I see no reason why it is unfit for people to marry.

All right, then. What you're saying is: if you think murder is absolutely not immoral, I should not impose, on you, the laws I have that punish murder. I think we understand your moral bearing.

Comparing murder to marriage is like this bill: idiotic.

The Queendom of Teh Queen is against this proposal. Why? For many reasons, but these would be the most important two.

1. Teh Queen is a very liberal nation, with many religions, many, many different customs. To deny some people marriage might go against their beliefs and fly in the face of Teh Queen's right to religious freedoms.

2. We, as a soverign country, believe that the age of fifteen is old enough to decide whether or not you would like to get married. And if they have their parent's okay, then the parents must think highly of their child and soon to be spouse.

Besides, I do not believe this should even be in the UNs power to control what our nations do to this extent.

Of course, forget that that marriage laws and ages of consent have no logical connection to pedophilia.

Morality is for the weak minded, ethics is based on logic. NSUN concentrations on social order should exist in the realm of logical ethics, and not rhetorical morals.

The Sirloinian delegation rejects the distinction. Morals and ethics are largely synonyms. If ethics were based on logic, then one would be forced to adopt Kantian or Randian versions of the concepts. Kantian categorical imperatives imply that one should act by that maxim etc. i.e. that one should act as if ones actions become the universal rule. The Kantian liberal thus accepts this resolution if he believes that forbidding such actions should be universal, i.e. that he would not mind that constraint himself. Randian logic states that man must reach his full rational potential before he reaches the age of majority at which he must be free. Logic can justify any set of social conditions. Look at modern economics! Indeed, your assertion that logical ethics is superior to rhetorical morals is itself an example of such a case.

The fact is that the UN has the power to enforce certain minimum social standards on its members. It does not matter if these principles are inspired by logic or by God. We in Sirloinia worship the great Xxabdxac and he teaches us such a law. Others, I read, worship the colour grey. Others obey logic. But it is a fact that nobody wants to see a 14 year old, who let us face it is not an adult (especially in the case of males), end up in a marriage which in some jurisdictions is an eternal bond. By banning under 15 marriage, we are expressing our disapproval.

Now, on the point that marriage does not logically imply paedophilia. I would argue against.

Syllogism:

Marriage is for the purpose of having socially permissable sex.
A 14 year old is getting married.
Therefore the 14 year old is getting married for the purpose socially permissable sex.

I must also point out that the practice of marriage before the sixteenth year is forbidden at least twice by the Sirloinian Holy Book of Hermaithlnyinites. Which is our secondary reason for supporting the resolution. (The Archbishop has lobbied all his friends again. Clerics eh?)

A state that permits a 14 year old to marry is thus permitting paedophilism.

Hence I recommend this resolution.

Thank you for your patience.

A state that permits a 14 year old to marry is thus permitting paedophilism.

Um, it's only paedophilia if the 14 year old is marrying someone over 18.

Um, it's only paedophilia if the 14 year old is marrying someone over 18.

Thank you. That is a good point. However:

The resolution says:

-CONSEQUENTLY, all persons engaging in such a marriage illegally, and are over the age of 18, will be charged with "Illegal Marriage to a Minor" and will be punished accordingly, at the discretion of the state.

Below 18 the punishment is not clear. Thus a 14 year old and a 17 year old is permissable, at least without punishing the 17 year old provided the 14 year old turns 15 before the 17 year old.

Um, it's only paedophilia if the 14 year old is marrying someone over 18.

It isn't even that if the age of consent in the nation is 14.

Or have I missed the point of your comment?

Thank you. That is a good point. However:

The resolution says:

-CONSEQUENTLY, all persons engaging in such a marriage illegally, and are over the age of 18, will be charged with "Illegal Marriage to a Minor" and will be punished accordingly, at the discretion of the state.

Below 18 the punishment is not clear. Thus a 14 year old and a 17 year old is permissable, at least without punishing the 17 year old provided the 14 year old turns 15 before the 17 year old.

I believe that it means that you can not be tried if you are not an adult (if you define 18 as being an adult that is).

The whole proposal is filled with arbitrary ages and definitions, which is not acceptable to my nation.

I believe that it means that you can not be tried if you are not an adult (if you define 18 as being an adult that is).

The whole proposal is filled with arbitrary ages and definitions, which is not acceptable to my nation.

Thank you. Another good point.

However, I believe that it is quite right for the UN to impose minimally acceptable ages on the rest of the world. If we do it with human rights we can do it with human wrongs. Face it: the only reason this amendment is kicking up so much fuss is because of the arbitrary distinction between human rights and moral decency. We believe that, in a civilised world, there need be no distinction.

Thank you. Another good point.

However, I believe that it is quite right for the UN to impose minimally acceptable ages on the rest of the world. If we do it with human rights we can do it with human wrongs. Face it: the only reason this amendment is kicking up so much fuss is because of the arbitrary distinction between human rights and moral decency. We believe that, in a civilised world, there need be no distinction.

I am sorry, but I disagree. While it would be (in theory) to accept that there should be no marriage under the age of consent, the UN should not have the right to decide what the age of consent is across all nations. My nation might have an excellent reason for deciding (for example) that the age of consent should be ten. Or it might have a good reason for deciding it should be fifty. But it would have no reason to impose such a decision on other nations.

Secondly marriage should depend soley on the age of majority - the age at which the person can legally enter in to a contract. It is possible that that could be below the age of consent (a person can be mature enough to live their own life without reaching sexual maturity). And the age of majority is also something that should not be decided by UN Mandate, but rather by the citizens (or government) of the nation in question (noting that some UN nations are not exactly the most democratic of places).

Given these two beliefs, I can not accept that there should be a minimum age of consent, or of majority across the UN.

And in relation to human rights and moral decency - these two are never the same thing. Moral decency would argue that child molestors should be killed, as their crime is so heinous. Human rights would argue that no person should be executed for their crime because it is a barbaric way of dealing with criminals. Moral decency would argue that the best way to keep a country moral is have it's citizens worship together in an organized manner. Human rights (and the whole history of my nation) suggests that it violates someone's human rights to tell them how and when they should worship.

And most importantly human rights and moral decency are both subjective terms. So even if one person can see them as being the same thing, it is likely the person sat next to them would disagree.

The Sirloinian delegation rejects the distinction. Morals and ethics are largely synonyms. If ethics were based on logic, then one would be forced to adopt Kantian or Randian versions of the concepts. Kantian categorical imperatives imply that one should act by that maxim etc. i.e. that one should act as if ones actions become the universal rule. The Kantian liberal thus accepts this resolution if he believes that forbidding such actions should be universal, i.e. that he would not mind that constraint himself. Randian logic states that man must reach his full rational potential before he reaches the age of majority at which he must be free. Logic can justify any set of social conditions. Look at modern economics! Indeed, your assertion that logical ethics is superior to rhetorical morals is itself an example of such a case.


Incorrect, logic based Ethics is Aristotelian ethical model, not Kantian, under Kantian system morality is relative, based on cultural considerations, under Aristotelian it is based on logic (logic is not relative, instead relies on logical truth.. as opposed to the sophistic rhetoric). Logic cannot justify any set of social conditions, you appearantly can't distinguish formulations of logic vs. formulations of rhetoric.
I oppose your resolution because it is not logical. And does not seek to define ethics, but rather create a sort of morality from thin air. The Constitutional Republic, under Common Law, recognizes that it is indeed possible for "under-15" marriages to occur, and for them to be beneficial, and will not blanketly abuse our powers of government in cases where the union exists WILLINGLY and by consent of all parties (including the minor(s)' guardian). You can refuse to follow suit as such, and make those decisions, but they are not based upon logic, but rather opinionated rhetoric.


The fact is that the UN has the power to enforce certain minimum social standards on its members. It does not matter if these principles are inspired by logic or by God. We in Sirloinia worship the great Xxabdxac and he teaches us such a law. Others, I read, worship the colour grey. Others obey logic. But it is a fact that nobody wants to see a 14 year old, who let us face it is not an adult (especially in the case of males), end up in a marriage which in some jurisdictions is an eternal bond. By banning under 15 marriage, we are expressing our disapproval.


Once again, not logical.... You say "It is a fact that nobody wants to see a 14 year old....... end up in a marriage"..... Well, that remark was rhetorical at the least, and a downright lie, at the most. (appearantly LYING isn't against your SO-CALLED morality). The fact is, at present, that more then 7000 voters want to see this decision not in the UN's hands, because the recognize the objection, isn't a universal maxim, but should be left to independent decisions. Many of which, most likely, would rather see this decision exist in the proper hands, that of the people.


Now, on the point that marriage does not logically imply paedophilia. I would argue against.

Syllogism:

Marriage is for the purpose of having socially permissable sex.
A 14 year old is getting married.
Therefore the 14 year old is getting married for the purpose socially permissable sex.


Hmm, marriage is not for the purpose of socially permissible sex. Not in the Republic, Marriage exists as an institution of love and partnership, in life and family by two parties. And exists as social contract only binding and operative on those parties. That may be YOUR definition of marriage. But your own personnal and independent re-definition of words is meaningless to the Republic.


I must also point out that the practice of marriage before the sixteenth year is forbidden at least twice by the Sirloinian Holy Book of Hermaithlnyinites. Which is our secondary reason for supporting the resolution. (The Archbishop has lobbied all his friends again. Clerics eh?)


We really could care less about what your clerics and other sophists of your nation say. They are meaningless to this debate.


A state that permits a 14 year old to marry is thus permitting paedophilism.

Hence I recommend this resolution.

Thank you for your patience.

Believe that if you want, it's merely more rhetorical bullshit, based on rhetoric, existing in rhetoric. Your nation is a nation of sophist bullshit artists. And you are no different, sir....

This resolution would bar, "under-15" marriage of ALL sorts. regardless if they are concensual, minor-parties, and by parental concent. It seeks to do MORE then what you purport. (sophist operation). In fact, the resolution has NOTHING to do with Pedophilism.

Your arguments in favor of this resolution have NO BEARING whatsoever to what the resolution ACTUALLY does. Hense, they are ILLOGICAL. And therefore, unethical.

We are really not concerned, as appearantly, most of the NSUN can use their brains just long enough to see the problem with this FAILED proposal.

While recognizing that in most cases marriage at a young age is probably a bad thing We resent this sort of micromanagement of the affairs of Sovereign States. What the U.N. should be concerned with is war, poverty reduction, education, reducing over-all poverty, and increasing the level of education, particularly of girls, will tend to raise the age of marriage despite any legislation on that matter.

This is not an appropriate place to concentrate the U.N.'s energies. Trafficking in women and girls in particular and people in general is a more appropriate issue.

We think that resolution is badly written and shows a patronizing lack of respect for other people's customs.
With for example the United States of America, marriage age varies greatly from State to State, it is one country, but things like this are a matter for states not the central government. Legal age for marriage, with parental or judicial consent is as young as 12 years old in some Southern States. The fact of the matter is that few people marry in the United States before economic self suficiency, which may not occur much before age 25.
We think that no central authority can decide this for Nations as culturally and economically disparate as say India, China, the U.S. the Republic of Ireland, France, Yemen, Nigeria. It is folly to think that is even fair!
Katarina of Zahumlje
Ruler of Vrhbosna, Donji Kraj,Jugska Dalmacija,Zahumlje,Istocna Sandzak

This resolution would bar, "under-15" marriage of ALL sorts. regardless if they are concensual, minor-parties, and by parental concent. It seeks to do MORE then what you purport. (sophist operation). In fact, the resolution has NOTHING to do with Pedophilism.

Thank you, sir.

I respect the right for the honorable ambassador from Tekania to introduce a resolution permitting pedophilia with parental consent.

ooc: Sophistry r0x0rs!

Back in character:- "I totally reject the assertion that my argument is based on misleading sophistry. FLAY THE INFIDEL ALIVE FROM ORBIT!"

Thank you, sir.

I respect the right for the honorable ambassador from Tekania to introduce a resolution permitting pedophilia with parental consent.

ooc: Sophistry r0x0rs!

Back in character:- "I totally reject the assertion that my argument is based on misleading sophistry. FLAY THE INFIDEL ALIVE FROM ORBIT!"

As stated before, The Republic considers marriage a matter of common law, and therefore outside the pervue of government, unless brought before civil law by involved parties. Therefore it would be logically inconsistent for us to present ANY law regarding marriage.

As for "flaying [us] alive from orbit" I would highly recommend against that, unless you want a couple 13.8 million Metric Ton Orion class vessels parked near any of your orbital holdings, to neutralize them. We dislike violence of all sorts, and we hate it to come to that.

Comparing murder to marriage is like this bill: idiotic.

What's idiotic is not taking the sanctity of marriage as seriously as the death of a person.

What's idiotic is not taking the sanctity of marriage as seriously as the death of a person.

That would depend on whether you believe marriage to be a religous or civil institution I guess.

What's idiotic is not taking the sanctity of marriage as seriously as the death of a person.

Well, Tekania takes the sanctity of marriage so seriously, we won't even let the government corrupt it into a licensing system of polygamy whereby the government becomes a third party with the ability to control a historically two-party agreement.

Liaranta stands firmly, believing that allowing marriage of minors will make marriage a laughing stock. This is not a matter of personal freedom, but of basic logic. Allowing minors at such an age to marry is ludicrous.

People under 15 are minors. They cannot make a decision such as marriage at such an early age. In addition, Marriages at such an early age would pose alot of problems in the future, one of them might be a rise in teenage pregnancies, divorce rates would skyrocket as in three-four years, when the couple grows up and realizes there is no love, they will want divorce.

Liaranta stands firmly believing that family values have to preserved at all costs. Hence minors must be made to wait untill they are 18 years of age atleast, untill by law they are allowed to marry. It is for their own good.

Since the legislation is failing, We the people of Integrated America will stand behind the decision of the U.N.

We understand that we cannot instill what may be morally appropriate and what may be best for the world we cannot force it upon other nations.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Integrated America

Liaranta stands firmly, believing that allowing marriage of minors will make marriage a laughing stock. This is not a matter of personal freedom, but of basic logic. Allowing minors at such an age to marry is ludicrous.

People under 15 are minors. They cannot make a decision such as marriage at such an early age. In addition, Marriages at such an early age would pose alot of problems in the future, one of them might be a rise in teenage pregnancies, divorce rates would skyrocket as in three-four years, when the couple grows up and realizes there is no love, they will want divorce.

Liaranta stands firmly believing that family values have to preserved at all costs. Hence minors must be made to wait untill they are 18 years of age atleast, untill by law they are allowed to marry. It is for their own good.

Note the above example of rhetoric. Historically marriage has not been banned for minors, however, the person uses "traditionalist" rhetorical to defend the limitation of rights on an institution and situation to which has not been historically applied. IOW, they want to "preserve" the "sanctity" of "traditional" marriage, by banning a practice that has been in place for millenia. IOW everything the above person just said was a load of horse manuer.

Allowing minors at such an age to marry is ludicrous.

People under 15 are minors.
I'll bet that people between 15 and 18 are also minors in your country. What makes 15 so special?

The age of majority in Frisbeeteria is 11 (ALL of our children are above average). This law makes it illegal for Frisbeeterian adults to make a legal and permitted choice. Bad plan.

It is the opinion of the Holy Empire of Vexland and her allies that the present resolution is not an UN issue. This is something that should be left up to each nation to decide. We vote no to this resolution and ask all that have voted yes to rethink their position.

This is not about marriage under the age of 15, but how much control are we intend to give the UN over our independent countries.

Hans Wolfberg,
UN Ambassador of the Grand Imperial Dominion of Vexland

Its not on the UN side to decide when and who my fellow Lothringians marry, that must be left to each citizen to decide.
further, the idea of UN inspectors to come into the country and decide for them if theyre allowed to marry, is an unaczeptable intrusion into the personal life.

I wholeheartly voted AGAINST this proposal. :mad:

The people of Adrenia have as always been monitering the situation with regard to this UN issues and we have ascertained that over 80% of our population are in favour of this law not being passed.

Adrenia is therefor continuing its stance to vote against this law. We will not withdraw our vote against.

Adrenia does however recognise the internal contradiction faced by most U.N. members in this issue.

Namely, U.N members recognise the need to for laws intent to protect vunerable members of society from forced marriage and sexually exploitative behaviour.

At the same time we also recognise the infeasibility of enforcing such a law. Through the limitations of U.N's power, adversely affecting the age demographics of poorer rural countries and problems creating a universal "age of consent" across many different countries.

Adrenia therefore proposes that as a solution the members of the U.N. concentrate on resolutions providing poorer countries with aid and eduction as opposed to outright policing of other cultures values.

Liaranta stands firmly, believing that allowing marriage of minors will make marriage a laughing stock. This is not a matter of personal freedom, but of basic logic. Allowing minors at such an age to marry is ludicrous.

People under 15 are minors. They cannot make a decision such as marriage at such an early age. In addition, Marriages at such an early age would pose alot of problems in the future, one of them might be a rise in teenage pregnancies, divorce rates would skyrocket as in three-four years, when the couple grows up and realizes there is no love, they will want divorce.

Liaranta stands firmly believing that family values have to preserved at all costs. Hence minors must be made to wait untill they are 18 years of age atleast, untill by law they are allowed to marry. It is for their own good.

People under 14 in my country are minors. People 14 and over are adults and will be treated as such.

Unless this resolution gets at least 2500 votes today, it's going down. Can you say hallelujah?

I realise this is coming a bit late to the table, but something occurred to me during my last reply regarding the age of consent.

What if a UN nation doesn't have "marriage" as such? What if there is no legal require for wwo people (regardless of gender) to marry before they can live together? What if the whole concept is anti-thetical to their nature?

Where would this proposal stand on that?

Would it be permitted for someone to live together with someone under the age of 15, but not to marry them until they turn 16? Or would the proposal have to be expanded to include who can live with someone else (whether or not they are having sexual relations), and thus further impinge on the freedom of the citizens of my nation.

In these circumstances I put it to you all that, rather than defending the nature, institution and sanctity of marriage (as this act is attempting, however misuidedly, to do) it would infact make a mockery of the whole notion of marriage, and lead to a great deal more people "living in sin", because they can not marry the one they love.

Unless this resolution gets at least 2500 votes today, it's going down. Can you say hallelujah?

Erm - no. But I can say "Praise the Lords" if that helps :}

Civil Tribunes Mark Reardon, Christopher Stone, and Alex Tramantanis have been informed of this law. They have all commited comments which, for reasons of maintaining decorum in this meeting, may not be repeated to foreign delegates.

All Swordsmith citizens believe in freedom: the right for a person to do whatever he or she feels like as long as the actions in question do not infringe upon the rights of others. While it is true that other nations may not feel the same way, the nation of Swordsmiths will defend to the death the right for others to do as they dang well please as long as those nations do not try to impose rules to restrict the freedoms of other nations. Given this fact alone, it should come as no suprise that the nation of Swordsmiths votes against this resolution and vehemently implores other nations to do the same.

Besides which, the UN is kinda overstepping its bounds. So no.

Certainly the UN has better things to do than to regulate the age in which people are permitted to be married? To which, what business is it of the UN's to regulate this anyway?

The UN should handle International Law - that is, law affecting the way nations treat, entreat and mistreat each other. This is clearly a civil law dependent on one nation to another.

While I, as an individual, do not necessarily believe in marriage at a young age, I am totally against a law that forcibly forbids it.

A Maniacal Autocrat has voted against this law.

In Spoonskia, we eat the children of the underaged and unmarried. They are tasty, cheap and, plentiful. Thanks to this practice agriculture is obsolete.

Thus, we must support this proposal in order to bolster our reliance on other nation's food supplies (who are inherently unworthy of said supplies due to their inability to comprehend the timecube) and foster a better a world economy.

This, of course, will have no affect on our Uranium for babies for trade with non-UN states.

In Spoonskia, we eat the children of the underaged and unmarried. They are tasty, cheap and, plentiful. Thanks to this practice agriculture is obsolete.

Yum, soylent green! In my nation, dead people are turned into food. Why waste it? Rich in protein, low in carbs. If they carry diseases they are incinerated. But we taste just like pork. Flavorful, with a hint of parsley. We go well with a smooth burgundy, especially when made into a stew.

TilEnca: Praise the Lords, indeed! I say bring back all of the old Gods. Pre-Jesus, we really knew how to have fun with our deities.

For the record books:

The resolution "No Marriage Under Age of 15" was
defeated 8,642 votes to 6,226.

For the record books:

The resolution "No Marriage Under Age of 15" was
defeated 8,642 votes to 6,226.

Nat'l Soveriengty Prevaiils and the freedom of every country to define it's own marriage laws is preserved!

a big thank you goes out to all who said NO, and a big fart to all who said yes. at least this shows there is some sanity left in the world.

Hooray! Now can you (used generally) all stop voting on this kind of crap? Please go read up on what the UN is really for. Maybe go READ, period? Jeez. This is the most embarrassing proposal ever to make it to vote (Well there's the "Axis of Evil", but until someone gives a decent reason we must abide by it). I can't believe people actually voted yes on this. This was so a nation ISSUE and not a resolution. No wonder less than 10% of all nations choose to participate in the U.N. process.