NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Moral Decency

Resolution Name: Ban on Heterosexual Marriage

IN LIGHT OF calls from the religious right and social conservatives in many nations to ban homosexual marriage, this proposal places a ban on the marital union of heterosexual people on the basis of consistency.

THEREFORE, The Free Land of Anarchist Collectivity
PROPOSES THAT
1. Because many believe that homosexual marriage is morally wrong, in the name of consistency in morals, heterosexual marriage must also be as dispicable;
2. All UN member states with bans on homosexual marraiges place an immediate prohibition on the performing of any sort of marriage ceremony between a male and a female;
3. The acts of performing or attempting to perform such a ceremony, or proclaiming that one is "married" to another of the opposite sex are morally wrong and they be made crimes of all UN member states;
4. The penalty for breaking this law is in each member state to be equal to that of the penalty for a homosexual marriage, where one exists.

ADDENDUM:
1. This resolution is irrelevant in any member nation where there is no current ban on homosexual marriage.

Strength: Strong

This resolution is irrelevant in any member nation where there is no current ban on homosexual marriage.

Ahhh, perfect, Tekania has no marriage laws whatsoever.... we believe it is "morally wrong" for government to legislate upon institution which predated the very existance of government, such as marriage.

We don't do joke proposals here...

We don't do joke proposals here...

I must have missed the joke here. Please enlighten me. What is it that makes this proposal a joke? Granted a better draft of the proposal would legislate a universal ban on benefits rather than singling out any specific group of individuals in the interests of egalitarianism. Regardless, to imply a proposal is a joke requires the claim to be substantiated.

g.e.
Spokesperson for TFPotJW
and
Delegate Emeritus to the DU

Axis Nova does not have jurisdiction over the marriage of it's citizens, as legislation on that matter is left to our provinces.

We don't do joke proposals here...

Question: would a ban on homosexual marriage also have been ruled as a joke prior to the passage of the Gay Rights resolutions?

If so, then this is a joke. If not, then it actually should be treated the same.

Question: would a ban on homosexual marriage also have been ruled as a joke prior to the passage of the Gay Rights resolutions?

If so, then this is a joke. If not, then it actually should be treated the same.

Excellent point.

It's pointless, because since the passing of Gay Rights, all UN members allow gay marriage, so this resolution would apply to none of them.

This is my answer to the "repeal gay rights" proposal. I want to get it drafted and all such before it gets enough endorsements, so I'm ready to go as soon as they are. Its not a joke, its just logical retaliation.

this isnt a joke, it's an excellent response to the potential repeal of gay marriage.

It's pointless, because since the passing of Gay Rights, all UN members allow gay marriage, so this resolution would apply to none of them.

You are right that with the Gay Rights resolution around, that this proposal is not necessary, but I also agree with the Anarchist Collective, in that discussing this draft and then tabling it should any repeal of the Gay Rights come to the floor is a sound idea.

Ultimately I feel all of these issues are domestic rights, but if the UN is going to spend time discussing the taking away of homosexual rights, then it should be fair and spend time discussing taking away hetrosexual rights as well.

Originally posted by The Jovian Worlds
Granted a better draft of the proposal would legislate a universal ban on benefits rather than singling out any specific group of individuals in the interests of egalitarianism.

So... does anyone want to help me out with this, or shall we all just sit here talking about how cut The "Most Glorious" Hack got?

So... does anyone want to help me out with this, or shall we all just sit here talking about how cut The "Most Glorious" Hack got?

The Hack is a game mod, and until he removes his objection, we really can't submit anything. I've been partially awaiting an official moderator reply.

As for the proposal, I'm defending your right to make this proposal and consider it serious, but my government will not vote in favour of a ban on heterosexual marriages. My government believes that any marriage between consenting adults should be allowed, and it would be discriminatory for my government to support any proposal that discriminates against homosexuals or hetrosexuals. Frankly, your point is valid, but only because there is an inconsistent and discrminatory practice of allowing nations to target homosexual populations while ignoring heterosexual populations.

[In other words, you've already proved your point. I'd suggest just saving this thread and pointing to it in the future.]

discussing this draft and then tabling it should any repeal of the Gay Rights come to the floor is a sound idea.

Oh I see now - I thought he meant it as something to submit now. Well yes, if Gay Rights is repealed, then I would support an effort such as this (although I'd ask that it be changed somewhat to sound less like a retaliation witha shock-factor name, and more like a sensible egalitarian proposal which simply said that if a government allows straight marriage, it must allow gay marriage - with equivalent legal status and rights for the members of both - and vice versa - this provides for nations which believe government shouldn't touch any marriage)

Category: Moral Decency

Resolution Name: Ban on Heterosexual Marriage

IN LIGHT OF calls from the religious right and social conservatives in many nations to ban homosexual marriage, this proposal places a ban on the marital union of heterosexual people on the basis of consistency.

THEREFORE, The Free Land of Anarchist Collectivity
PROPOSES THAT
1. Because many believe that homosexual marriage is morally wrong, in the name of consistency in morals, heterosexual marriage must also be as dispicable;
2. All UN member states with bans on homosexual marraiges place an immediate prohibition on the performing of any sort of marriage ceremony between a male and a female;
3. The acts of performing or attempting to perform such a ceremony, or proclaiming that one is "married" to another of the opposite sex are morally wrong and they be made crimes of all UN member states;
4. The penalty for breaking this law is in each member state to be equal to that of the penalty for a homosexual marriage, where one exists.

ADDENDUM:
1. This resolution is irrelevant in any member nation where there is no current ban on homosexual marriage.

Strength: Strong

I'm the Purple Cow who Rules The Nomadic Peoples of jessiecow, and i approve this message:
Hmm... Well, I wouldn't confuse church or religious order with government. Too messy, for many reasons. But, the way i see it, if you agree with this enactment you are either afraid that same-gender marriages will cause a decrease in population thus causing the fact that there will be no one to pay taxes, new blood out there for voting, work fource, ect. Or, you're just really religious when it comes to things especially politics or in the "Bible Belt" as we historians call it. Ah, the human enigma... If i had to ban same-gender marriages i would only reluctantly agree with the first reason which is logical for any economy stressing nation (AND THAT'S EVERYONE!!!). This is all i have to say to The Free land of Anarchist (collectivity of course...)

Keep up the work. Discuss! :fluffle:

The Nomadic Peoples of Jessiecow

I whole heartily agree with this proposal, seeing marriage as a means for the Church to reach there fingers into the governing body. I support civic unions, which give the benefits of traditional government marriages to any pair of legal adults. If three or more wish to join, they may form a corperation.

Thomas Robert Moresi II: Minister of Faith.

Alas, there is no.. positive critisim for this... unfortunatly retarded proposal. The first thing that is wrong is the Seperation of Church and State you must understand this. This proposal will never get itself off the ground with right wing conservatives like myself fighting :mp5: for the union of a man and a woman... basically what a heterosexual marriage is. Thank you

2. All UN member states with bans on homosexual marraiges place an immediate prohibition on the performing of any sort of marriage ceremony between a male and a female;

No member state has a ban on homosexual marrage unless it has a ban on all marrage; Gay Rights ensures that.

ADDENDUM:
1. This resolution is irrelevant in any member nation where there is no current ban on homosexual marriage.

All Resolutions affect all member states.

There's two Game Mechanics/Format violations right there.

My objections aside, this proposal would still be deleted. Spend less time being cute and more time being serious.

Excellent point.

Agree.

I don't believe that the United Nations as a whole needs to pass a resolution about banning marriage. Were all about Equal Rights and yet were going to discriminate against a group of people by passing a draft about banning gay marriage? The Holy Nation of Shazbotdom does not like that idea.