NationStates Jolt Archive

This article calls for the banning of all marriage for the following reasons:

1) This article treats every equally. It does not discriminate based on gender, partner preference, religion, nationality, age, intelligence, observable physical differences of any sort, class, or opinion.

2) This article ends the arguement about what types of marriage should be legal by making all types illegal.

3) This article does not enforce the religious beliefs of a certain group or groups upon anyone.

4) This article helps multiple governments relieve part of their economic burdens, thus reducing the taxes on the general populace, by eliminating one institution which may or may not recieve tax breaks from governments.

5) This proposal eliminates one possible area of discrimination.

For the sake of this proposal, a marriage is defined as such:

(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.
(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same gender in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.
(3) : the state of being united to multiple partners in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.

What an interesting proposal. And quite serious, it appears. Certainly solves the issue of whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry and preserves equality.

Any comments?

This effectively prohibits people from living together and expressing their love:

(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same gender in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.
(3) : the state of being united to multiple partners in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.

In order to be even reasonable, these two need to be phrased like the 1st one, in terms of legal recongition of the relationship. although we still wouldn't support it.

This is absoluetly the stupidest resolution the UN has ever come up with.

I hope it passes it will bring flocks to GCON and away from the UN.

Guys, I was laughing while typing that post. That's why it's so short.

That is not my proposal. That piece of stupidty comes from Tiamat Taveril, my ally, who submitted it as a way to deal with the marriage issue. And he supports marriage as an option for everyone, so I don't know what motivated him. I didn't even know about it until I ran across it by accident, and I posted this topic five minutes later. You can actually find it if you look for it in the proposals section.

The stupidest one? Not by a long shot. The stupidest one is the one to ban nuclear weapons. Go ahead. I'm sure all the nations opposing the UN won't mind having the ability to nuke it without retaliation. It would certainly make my region easier to handle.

If this resolution passes. I'll withdraw from the UN. Whoever wrote this is an idiot.

lol

i dont even itll solve the gay rights problem to be honest, when one problem is resolved theyll just bitch about a new one

Rather than saying that the resolution "bans marriage", it should probably say that it "prohibits governments from recognizing marriage or cohabitation as a legal state". That way, people would still be able to get married, but the government would neither be required nor allowed to do anything to or for couples who do get married.

The biggest problem with doing that, however, would be that an entire body of legislation regarding children's rights and parents' rights with respect to children would need to be drafted, since anything based on marriage or divorce would be rendered moot.

that is the single most stupidest thing I have ever heard. So incredibly stupid. If it passes I too with withdraw from the UN.


God Bless
Erica

Rather than saying that the resolution "bans marriage", it should probably say that it "prohibits governments from recognizing marriage or cohabitation as a legal state". That way, people would still be able to get married, but the government would neither be required nor allowed to do anything to or for couples who do get married.


We do that. Well, technically we have to recognise it so we just give everyone a nice piece of paper and no benefits.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Arrr, i lives together wiu' many a maid an' expresses me love an' none of us is married, arrr!

A girl in every port, and none of 'em a wife!

*ahem* We hereby offer our support of this resolution.

Hmmm, a blatant breach of human rights perhaps.

And besides it would deny Bahgum all those Mother in law jokes!!

You know when I saw your name next to this I thought that you were going top make a mother in law comment. :p

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

It please Bahgum mightily to have not let you down Giordano!

Guys, I was laughing while typing that post. That's why it's so short.

That is not my proposal. That piece of stupidty comes from Tiamat Taveril, my ally, who submitted it as a way to deal with the marriage issue. And he supports marriage as an option for everyone, so I don't know what motivated him. I didn't even know about it until I ran across it by accident, and I posted this topic five minutes later. You can actually find it if you look for it in the proposals section.

The stupidest one? Not by a long shot. The stupidest one is the one to ban nuclear weapons. Go ahead. I'm sure all the nations opposing the UN won't mind having the ability to nuke it without retaliation. It would certainly make my region easier to handle.

I was wondering how far these two nations would take it. Let me meantion the nation that supports me is located in the same region as these two. While I am opposed o this resolution, I really must wonder is being against the terms of the motion are the estemed DemonLordEnigma's only reason for taking it this far.

My main reason to being opposed to this is on purely religious grounds. While I belive it is their choice in what they do, its not marrage, and it should never be so. Let them call it what they want, but NOT MARRAGE.

As for the other issues, I'm begining to contact our represenitive about some of them, like the not-so-wise Safety through wisdom one.

-Lee
Represinitve, The Rogue Nation of Lemiden

I was wondering how far these two nations would take it. Let me meantion the nation that supports me is located in the same region as these two. While I am opposed o this resolution, I really must wonder is being against the terms of the motion are the estemed DemonLordEnigma's only reason for taking it this far.

My main reason to being opposed to this is on purely religious grounds. While I belive it is their choice in what they do, its not marrage, and it should never be so. Let them call it what they want, but NOT MARRAGE.

As for the other issues, I'm begining to contact our represenitive about some of them, like the not-so-wise Safety through wisdom one.

-Lee
Represinitve, The Rogue Nation of Lemiden

Ok, they'll call it marriage and we'll call yours a religious union. All better now?

No?

Can you see the bigotry you're putting forward?

Nuff said.

There is already a topic on gay marriage. I request all people talking about it move the conversation to that topic.

Edit: I know I semi-started the hijack, but this is threatening to derail the thread and there is already one in place for that.

Ok, they'll call it marriage and we'll call yours a religious union. All better now?

No?

Can you see the bigotry you're putting forward?

Nuff said.

yep, I'm bigoted on this

then again, I could have just said they are an abomination to God, and their time will come when they confront him...

but I'm nicer than that.

besides, marrage was defined as the bonding of a man and wife, so its alright to change the defenition so as to not be bigoted. Trying not to step on anybodys toes?

guess what...I think thats bigoted against me, now whats your solution?

I was wondering how far these two nations would take it. Let me meantion the nation that supports me is located in the same region as these two. While I am opposed o this resolution, I really must wonder is being against the terms of the motion are the estemed DemonLordEnigma's only reason for taking it this far.

My main reason to being opposed to this is on purely religious grounds. While I belive it is their choice in what they do, its not marrage, and it should never be so. Let them call it what they want, but NOT MARRAGE.

As for the other issues, I'm begining to contact our represenitive about some of them, like the not-so-wise Safety through wisdom one.

-Lee
Represinitve, The Rogue Nation of Lemiden

Marriage, is of course consistently misused as a noun, when in all operative origination it is a transitive verb.... marriage... to marry..... our present word marry is descended from the Middle English word marien, and borrowed from the Old French word marier... a nautical term describing the close combination, or union of two ropes in a permanate way.... so in relative scope, can be attributed to the permanate combination of any two items, or the legal or contractual binding of two persons (bound in marriage)... So... in all truth, the only group trying to "re-define" marriage are the self-labled "conservatives" mostly in relation to the self-labled "religious right"...

*** In the USA we had "Conservatives" during the Revolutionary war.... most of them wore Red Coats.... and ended up either getting shot for treason, or kicked out to the british colonies in Canada... The only, uniquely American "Conservatives" left are the Libertarians...... the Republicans are all traitorous Red Coats hell bent on destroying everything America stands for.... They are also the only true Liberals.... the Democrats are just as hell bent on destroying everything that is American ***

guess what...I think thats bigoted against me, now whats your solution?
You don't marry anyone of the same sex.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

To ban marriage is to ban love. I do not believe that you should ban possibley the most powerful bond between two people in any sence. For to do that would be an injustice for all people. I do not think this should be a resolution and the person who came up with this idea needs to think about the people it would effect.

wow this is the stupidest proposal ive ever seen

the proposal needs to be :mp5:

Myopia- I copied it out of a dictionary and added the third part myself. I figured, if anyone asked, the first part would be the "traditional marriage".

Skredtch- True. I knew this wouldn't pass. But, it would give people a way to think about things. And, as no one can be equally happy on the subject, this makes everyone equally unhappy. Plus, it would allow certain groups to get exactly what they want, even if they had to pay a price in the process.

Lemiden- I'm pulling a Demon:

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

Orokusake- Love is a mental emotion that is independant of whether or not people get married. Many people today, both straight and not, are in love and live together despite not being married. Marriage is really more of a convenience thing in this world.

DemonLordEnigma- The next time you wish to oppose anything, try to have an actual arguement. Poking fun is okay in telegrams. Doing it on here is another matter.

The rest of you- Thank you for wasting bandwidth with such things as "wow this is the stupidest proposal ive ever seen" and "that is the single most stupidest thing I have ever heard. So incredibly stupid. If it passes I too with withdraw from the UN." I enjoyed openly laughing at those and the people who posted them. But, if you wish me to take you seriously on something that actually involved a lot of thought and some effort to present as serious (which, this clearly was), then respond with logical, thought-out arguments. Otherwise, I am forced to conclude you are trying to make it pass by trying to make the opposition look incapable of arguing against it. But, really, save the n00bish flames for such things as proposals for forcing all nations to drive on a certain side of the road.

This is absoluetly the stupidest resolution the UN has ever come up with.
I agree. This is one reason why I'm a rogue state.

You don't marry anyone of the same sex.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

*applause*

First off Tiamat, I wonder just how new that dictionary is? 'Cause I would guess its been affected by the winds of political change. I could be wrong...it could be old as the hills...but I doubt it.

Marriage, is of course consistently misused as a noun, when in all operative origination it is a transitive verb.... marriage... to marry..... our present word marry is descended from the Middle English word marien, and borrowed from the Old French word marier... a nautical term describing the close combination, or union of two ropes in a permanate way.... so in relative scope, can be attributed to the permanate combination of any two items, or the legal or contractual binding of two persons (bound in marriage)... So... in all truth, the only group trying to "re-define" marriage are the self-labled "conservatives" mostly in relation to the self-labled "religious right"...

*** In the USA we had "Conservatives" during the Revolutionary war.... most of them wore Red Coats.... and ended up either getting shot for treason, or kicked out to the british colonies in Canada... The only, uniquely American "Conservatives" left are the Libertarians...... the Republicans are all traitorous Red Coats hell bent on destroying everything America stands for.... They are also the only true Liberals.... the Democrats are just as hell bent on destroying everything that is American ***

hold it! let me answer these unjust accusations. I've personally never seen rope have a marrage cerimony (outside of Las Vegas). I am one of these "Conservitives" that he has tried to create such a loathing for. And if Conservatives were/are trators, then why is it WE are the ones defending the law the founding fathers put forth? No, you liberals cannot have my first ammendment rights. No, you liberals cannot have my fifth ammendment rights. And if your so intent on getting my second ammendment rights, then come get my arms yourself...see if you make it. If these things are abolished or outlawed, then I will be the first to become an outlaw. HOWEVER, I am not a trator. That would be the country betraying ME, and its (legal) inhabitants. And until then, I can just about garentee that I would die for my country, before you would break a fingernail for it. I won't meantion the name of who THAT was aimed at(though I will say thats who I quoted).

So in conclusion...

*** In the USA we had "Conservatives" during the Revolutionary war.... most of of whom fought for freedom in America... and ended up either getting shot for treason against Britian, or imprisioned in the british colonies in Canada... The only, uniquely American "Conservatives" left are still fighting for our freedom... the Republicans are mostly those who are willing to stand up for their own freedoms and for everything America stands for.... They are also fighting the only true Liberals... the Democrats are hell bent on destroying everything that is American(this I almost don't agree with. they are after power, which in the proccess of getting it, will have the same result)***

sincearly
Lee, chosen represinitve of the Rogue Nation of Lemiden

The dictionary is supposed to change. Based on how people use words. It is supposed to help us understand what things mean now not dictate the meaning for the rest of time.

but

This is not America! It never will be America. If you want to argue about America do it in general.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World