NationStates Jolt Archive

Vote on Proposal "Repeal Gay Rights"

Repeal "Gay Rights"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #12


Proposed by: Pessimus

Description: UN Resolution #12: Gay Rights (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The U.N. shall not be able to impose/force a certain viewpoint on all nations. The issue of Gay Rights shall be up to the disgression of the specific nation. Especially when regarding to the issue of Gay marrige. The people of the certain nation shall vote on the issue.

Voting Ends: Fri Nov 5 2004

We would rather not leave it open for nations to remove rights from people.

Thanks Anyway.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

We would rather not remove rights from people.

Thanks Anyway.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

This is not removing rights of the people..
this is giving the sovriegnty of the issue up to the country to decide

Sorry I edited once I realised I'd phrased it wrong.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

The main issue here is the problem of the UN forcing a nation to approve of Gay Marriage. This would affect many things. A new resolution would be in play to stop discrimination. But the issue of marriage should be voted on in the specific nation

First of all this replacement resolution is not guaranteed to pass.

Second, I don't see why nations should be allowed to discourage same sex relationships by giving them less rights as opposite sex relationships.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

This is not removing rights of the people..
this is giving the sovriegnty of the issue up to the country to decide

There's a really easy way to get all the sovereignity you want. Its called 'leaving the UN'. You should try it.

First of all this replacement resolution is not guaranteed to pass.

Second, I don't see why nations should be allowed to discourage same sex relationships by giving them less rights as opposite sex relationships.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Why should the U.N. be able to govern a opinion matter and not leave it to the country? This is a matter that should be addressed in the countrys supreme court. And voted on by the people. If the people are for it, then the country is for it. Leave the peoples rights to the people

Senate Majority Leader
Travis Porter
Pessimus

Why should the U.N. be able to govern a opinion matter and not leave it to the country? This is a matter that should be addressed in the countrys supreme court. And voted on by the people. If the people are for it, then the country is for it. Leave the peoples rights to the people

1) Because that’s what the UN does.
2) Because not all nations are democracies.
3) To protect the rights and equality of people.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

1) Because that’s what the UN does.
2) Because not all nations are democracies.
3) To protect the rights and equality of people.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Like previously stated. Why not leave the matter to the people? If the people endorse this right then so it shall be. As you blame us of taking rights from the people. Your are endorseing taking rights from the country.

Cheif Advisor to the Supreme Chancellor
Alan B. Ensigna
Pessimus

Like previously stated. Why not leave the matter to the people? If the people endorse this right then so it shall be. As you blame us of taking rights from the people. Your are endorseing taking rights from the country.
The rights of the country can be returned by resigning.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

The rights of the country can be returned by resigning.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

That was a irrealavent statement. thank you.

By forcing a nation to endorse Gay Marriage you are imposing your mindset. we are not suggesting banning this. Just leaving it to the people. This imposes no particular viewpoint on anyone.

thank you for your time

Not really the country forfeited rights by signing up, we didn't make you.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

The country did not forfeit rights. It agreed to abide by all resolutions. You did not give a response to my points. Perhaps i should relist them. You are imposing your mindset on everyone by forcing a nation to accept gay marriage. I am not suggesting banning Gay Marrige. Simply to leave it up to the people to decide. This forces no particular viewpoint on anyone.

Secretary of the Pessimus Press Syndicate
Richard Yilani
Pessimus

This forces no particular viewpoint on anyone.
No, it allows government to force the view that being gay is wrong, and being straight is preferred by only allowing straight couples the benefit of marriage.

Aside from that the UN can do anything it (collectively) damn well wants providing it isn't against the rules. Arguing sovereignty is pointless to quote Enodia (the old UN mod)
clearly the UN can infringe on whatever it wants because the option to make such proposals exists

If you can't, for any reason, take the infringement leave.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

No, it allows government to force the view that being gay is wrong, and being straight is preferred by only allowing straight couples the benefit of marriage.

Aside from that the UN can do anything it (collectively) damn well wants providing it isn't against the rules. Arguing sovereignty is pointless to quote Enodia (the old UN mod)


If you can't, for any reason, take the infringement leave.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World


I am sorry we can not have a calm/intelligent/professional conversation & debate. Thank you for your time.

Cheif of Staff
Ron Jacobs
Pessimus

I'll leave you to it then. I don't have enough will power to repeat myself. Again.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Neither Do I. Thank you for your time

Chief of Staff
Ron Jacobs
Pessimus

The People of Domnonia believe that while Sovereignty to govern ones nation is of utmost importance, we also believe that fundamental human rights cannot always be left in the hands of a political party with it's own agenda. And so, one mandate of the U.N., is to enforce humanitarian initiatives in exchange for membership within its body. Yes, one could argue that the U.N. is infringing on any nations "rights" to govern themselves, however, a national government is of no concern to the U.N. - only your citizens are. The Republic of Domnonia and the U.N. understand that Human Beings take precedant over political agenda.

The People of Domnonia will lobby strongly AGAINST this proposal.

Delain Gydor - Minister of Foreign Affairs
The Republic of Domnonia

If the issue is fundamental human rights-then the right is fundamental to all humans-and there is no need to grant/reinforce rights for any particular group via seperate and distinct UN resolutions.

From that viewpoint-A gay rights initiative is unnecessary and inherently discriminatory towards non gay or lesbian individuals. So, repeal it and let the Human Rights Initiative prevail.

If it were possible within U.N. operations to simutaneously repeal a resolution and enforce a new one, we could agree with you.

If this were possible, the U.N. should define marriage itself. A clause somewhere along the lines of "Specifically restricts the definition of marriage to two persons to the exclusion of all others;" would be just. This way, we believe, homosexuality is not in itself receiving any special attention, and can instead be inferred from this clause.

If the UN passed a resolution forcing nations to accept mixed-race marriages, and a few fascist nations complained that the majorities of their people wanted them banned, I doubt there'd be such an outcry in support of the "democratic rights" of those nations' people to oppress minorities. Why should your people have the right to oppress their gay minority (I'm assuming it's a minority) but still enjoy the perks of UN membership, such as access to donor blood and organs from other UN members, and a voice in the world?

The country did not forfeit rights. It agreed to abide by all resolutions. You did not give a response to my points. Perhaps i should relist them. You are imposing your mindset on everyone by forcing a nation to accept gay marriage. I am not suggesting banning Gay Marrige. Simply to leave it up to the people to decide. This forces no particular viewpoint on anyone.

Secretary of the Pessimus Press Syndicate
Richard Yilani
Pessimus

What he was saying was that a nation gives up certain rights to do things once it joins the UN. For example abortion is legal in every UN nation. Gay rights are mandatory in every UN nation. Free education.... you get the idea.

So by joining the UN - which a nation does of it's own free will (there is no co-ercion involved in joining the UN, or at least there shouldn't be) - the nation gives up the right to ban abortion, to stop gay rights and to not have free education. And it will not be able to have these rights until a) it leaves the UN, or b) it gets them repealed.

If you do not want gay rights in your nation then, with all due respect, why did you join the UN?

If the issue is fundamental human rights-then the right is fundamental to all humans-and there is no need to grant/reinforce rights for any particular group via seperate and distinct UN resolutions.

From that viewpoint-A gay rights initiative is unnecessary and inherently discriminatory towards non gay or lesbian individuals. So, repeal it and let the Human Rights Initiative prevail.

But in defence of the straight people of the world, no one is trying to forbid them to marry. Because no one would consider straight marriage as a bad thing.

The UN has to be there to defend the rights of those who are not permitted to defend themselves.

The UN has to be there to defend the rights of those who are not permitted to defend themselves.
We agree.

If one minority’s fundamental rights can be denied, so can others.
Gay and lesbian people should have access to central social institutions such as marriage.

While it is true that this issue does not affect a majority of the world's population, and not all same-sex couples want to get married, for those who do, it is a deeply felt injustice.

Gay and lesbian human beings have long-term relationships. They belong to our families, and in some cases, raise children. They contribute to our communities and pay taxes.

Religious groups have always had the right to perform marriages according to the tenets of their religions, and for example, can refuse to marry divorced persons or perform inter-faith marriages. That does not change under current legislation.

In our democratic and pluralistic society, the Domini Government has a duty to ensure that marriage laws serve all Domnonians equally and without discrimination, ensuring that marriage is available civilly where couples do not wish to marry religiously, where they do not meet the qualifications set by their own religion, or where their religion does choose to marry same-sex couples.

Under current U.N. Legislation, marriage will remain what it has always been - a public reflection of a couple’s personal commitment to each other and a cornerstone of our society, regardless of orientation.

There is no reason for Resolution 12 to be repealed.

So by joining the UN - which a nation does of it's own free will (there is no co-ercion involved in joining the UN, or at least there shouldn't be) - the nation gives up the right to ban abortion, to stop gay rights and to not have free education. And it will not be able to have these rights until a) it leaves the UN, or b) it gets them repealed.

If you do not want gay rights in your nation then, with all due respect, why did you join the UN?

Hear hear

TilEnca in response to AP:

But in defence of the straight people of the world, no one is trying to forbid them to marry. Because no one would consider straight marriage as a bad thing.

The UN has to be there to defend the rights of those who are not permitted to defend themselves.

AP Replies:

By establishing human rights the UN is defending that class of individuals. Others can try to persecute them, however, they will be protected by a human rights bill, thus there is no need for specific legislation, and it should be repealed.

Marriage is not an issue as it is a religeous sacrament. Civil Unions are what the governments of NS have an interest. If human rights dictate that a person can not be discriminated against on the basis sexual orientation, then same-sex civil unions must be allowed.

By establishing human rights the UN is defending that class of individuals. Others can try to persecute them, however, they will be protected by a human rights bill, thus there is no need for specific legislation, and it should be repealed.

Marriage is not an issue as it is a religeous sacrament. Civil Unions are what the governments of NS have an interest. If human rights dictate that a person can not be discriminated against on the basis sexual orientation, then same-sex civil unions must be allowed.

Marriage is not a religious sacrement in my nation. It is defined as two people declaring their love for each other in a ceremony infront of their friends. They can chose to perform it "in the witness of The Lords and The Powers" but it's up to them.

And if - as you say - "human rights dictate that a person can not be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation" then you can not deny them the right to marry in whatever format they chose.

QUOTEMarriage is not an issue as it is a religeous sacrament.

Domnonia would like to know how marriage is a religious sacrament?

Marriages have been being performed well before the advent of Christianity, or any other modern day religion.

QUOTE Civil Unions are what the governments of NS have an interest. If human rights dictate that a person can not be discriminated against on the basis sexual orientation, then same-sex civil unions must be allowed.

If the intention of creating civil unions is to restrict marriage to opposite sex couples and deny it to same sex couples, it is the position of Domnonia that this approach would not live up to the equality guarantees in Article Four of The International Bill of Human Rights (Resolution #26).

This is because even a separate regime that provides equivalent benefits nevertheless denies gay and lesbian people access to civil marriage. Since marriage is one of society’s foundational institutions, this denial prevents gay and lesbian people from fully participating in society.

Greetings,

AS an introduction, I would like to point our opinion: In our country, gay marriage is legal and already was before I entered the UN.

To say that it is a religious sacrament is an extremely poor argument. You cannot say that, becouse it is both religious and a sacrament, then homossexuals should not be able to perform it. Unless your religion condemns homossexuals as being unholy, unnatural and other such, pardon my (in your eyes) blasphemy, absolute nonsense.

Given that homossexual behaviour has existed in humans, with all probability, since Humanity itself began;

Given that homossexual were not always regarded in the same suspicious way with which some people regard them now, and nothing wrong came to the world from that;

Given that marriage is an important symbol and institution in most societies, to the point where marriage has been considered a fundamental right;

Then two homossexuals who would like to get married, and not just be "united in fact", they should be able to do so.

I would also add that if they want to adopt a child, they should do so in complete equality with heterossexuals.

Regards,

The Representative of Hakopam

Argument: The U.N. shall not be able to impose/force a certain viewpoint on all nations.Instantly in-correct. The point of the U.N. is that you can write a proposal to do so, and it may pass if enough people who vote agree with it. In fact, this very line may well make your repeal illegal.The issue of Gay Rights shall be up to the disgression of the specific nation.Why ? Why is it not right to protect them as we do now ? Why revoke these civil rights ?Especially when regarding to the issue of Gay marrige. The people of the certain nation shall vote on the issue.While there is an national issue to allow or not allow Gay Marriage, or gives it as an option, International Law and hence U.N. law, over-rides these and maakes them moot, only to apply to non-members.This is not removing rights of the people.Actually, it is. The repeal negates the effect of the original proposal, even upon nations who were not members when it passed.this is giving the sovriegnty of the issue up to the country to decideAs opposed to the U.N. deciding by democratic vote to make a law ? What exactly makes this specific topic so special as not to be for the U.N. to deal with it ?The main issue here is the problem of the UN forcing a nation to approve of Gay Marriage.So ? Why ?This would affect many things.So kind of you not to go into specifics ... but really ? A nation has to allow gay marriage = member nations must allow gay marriage. What is so bad ?A new resolution would be in play to stop discrimination.Why should we remov this one though ? There is no promise a new proposal will be passed.But the issue of marriage should be voted on in the specific nation.In case you did not notice, in N.S. governments tend to exercise a greater control over religion. Practically no matter how you play. As far as N.S. nations should be concerned, the only great power is who-ever decides on the national issues, that is, you. You are only over-ridden in your governance, by U.N. law, if you are a U.N. member, that is.Why should the U.N. be able to govern a opinion matter and not leave it to the country?Because thats how the U.N. works, an opportunity to pass law to make something in question a law or legal principle.Its like a government for governments.This is a matter that should be addressed in the countrys supreme court.Try thinking of the U.N. as the supreme court of the world, for its members.And voted on by the people.See U.N. members, then in this case.If the people are for it, then the country is for it.UIn case you did not notice, in the recent past, entire governments ( voting nations ) were for it.Leave the peoples rights to the people.In case you did not notice. Your argument is moot. Entire countries have made this law, why should we revoke these legally protected rights just to leave it up to individual countries to decide ? Most people assume human rights over-ride national sov.Why not leave the matter to the people? If the people endorse this right then so it shall be.People, many, many people, already endorsed the Gay Rights Resolution. Its been done, and for the most part the majority of members, and hence citizens seems happy, in theory. Also, leaving it up to " the people " leads to discrimination in the first place, so it seemed ...As you blame us of taking rights from the people.Yes, you are. Your advocating repealing human rights just because you don't like Gay Marriage, on small portion of the resolution, being protected and allowed in member nations.Your are endorseing taking rights from the country.No, you are endorsing removing human rights from every member nation just because you don't like gay marriage being protected. This reeks of religous opinion trying to over-ride recognised human rights.That was a irrealavent statement. thank you.Well, if it was, it would certainly match the theme of the repeal shown here, for sure.The country did not forfeit rights.Yes it did, the ability to ignore / not follow past and future U.N. law. It also gave up the right to national sov. in that it must follow U.N. law as that is the rules of the game, or part of them, any-way. It agreed to abide by all resolutions. You did not give a response to my points.Yes, at least you've got this right.Perhaps i should relist them. You are imposing your mindset on everyone by forcing a nation to accept gay marriage.And your enforcing yours by saying gay marriage should not be protected by law in member nations. This looks vry much like the pot calling the kettle black.I am not suggesting banning Gay Marrige. Simply to leave it up to the people to decide.No, your allowing for conditions where it will be.This forces no particular viewpoint on anyone.It will, by setting up conditions for it to happen, to tthe detriment of member nations and the civil rights of its citizzens.

The very principle of this proposal to me seems very much to be the cutting off of the nose to spite the face. Very much so, so far.I am sorry we can not have a calm/intelligent/professional conversation & debate. Thank you for your time.I take it your not going to go on, then ? So far The Black New World has been far more clam, intelligent, and certainly professional in this matter then others may be, and certainly more so then this ... situation ... warrants.Neither Do I. Thank you for your timeVery eager to get in the last word, as it were ? Thought you were leaving ... oh, I see, you were trying to be smart. Pity a little more work could not be done to make the proposal a bit ... brighter.

** Lydia’s heart warms seeing the Rep of Komokom taking part in a debate and hopes to see more of the good fellow in future. Nodding in his direction she points to the bar where a drink stands waiting.**

My honourable colleagues from The Black New World and Komokom make excellent points as always. May I also ask those who seek to repeal this legislation to examine the voting margin of this legislation? 62% of the vote was in favour of this resolution and only 38% against. The margin therefore suggests that there is particularly strong support for this resolution and chances of a repeal therefore seem unlikely.

I suggest that the considerable energies being placed in the repeal of this resolution be directed to something a little less futile and refocused to helping the citizens of world by writing new and exciting proposals.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

What I don't understand is why people want to repeal a motion that received a majority vote in the un, so they can have it decided by a majority vote in their country.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites supports this repeal, because, as we have stated many times before, we believe that the UN has no business dictating marriage laws to its members.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites supports this repeal, because, as we have stated many times before, we believe that the UN has no business dictating marriage laws to its members.

my thoughts exactly...these are national constitution matters...not UN matters

Telidia And if - as you say - "human rights dictate that a person can not be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation" then you can not deny them the right to marry in whatever format they chose.

Okay, I can not disagree with that-however, keep in mind that you just proved The Empire's point. That unions observed by the government can not discriminate so long as their is a UN human rights initiative forbidding such discrimination exists. Since this is the case, there is no need for resolution 12. So repeal it.

If it were possible within U.N. operations to simutaneously repeal a resolution and enforce a new one, we could agree with you.

If this were possible, the U.N. should define marriage itself. A clause somewhere along the lines of "Specifically restricts the definition of marriage to two persons to the exclusion of all others;" would be just. This way, we believe, homosexuality is not in itself receiving any special attention, and can instead be inferred from this clause.

No.

My people marry penguins. They marry en-masse, in groups, and to whom or whatever they wish.

"Marriage" is only a word, utterly meaningless. As such, nations may define it however they like.

Vastiva chooses not to restrict it in the least. People will do whatever they wish - and accept the consequences.

Your bigoted "justice" is not just in the least. If you could see it from the other side, you would see that bigotry for what it is.

Better luck in your next life.

Bigotry? What bigotry?

Unless, of course, you are refering to our inclusion of "persons", instead of all "living things including penguins"?

It is our belief, though we may be wrong, that the U.N. sets policies dictating human law, and not that of the Animal Kingdom.

my thoughts exactly...these are national constitution matters...not UN mattersFunny thing that, so countries cannot decide on matters of " marriage " and its okay to revoke human rights to make this so, but we are free to dictate matters of economy, environment, and other criteria ... not to mention, other human and civil rights issues ( and social justice ) like recognising trans-genders and sexual orientations which are " outside the norm " ... I didn't realise we could now start defining what we can't decide on within the game set criteria.

Oh, wait, thats right, we can't.

:rolleyes:

Telidia And if - as you say - "human rights dictate that a person can not be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation" then you can not deny them the right to marry in whatever format they chose.

Okay, I can not disagree with that-however, keep in mind that you just proved The Empire's point. That unions observed by the government can not discriminate so long as their is a UN human rights initiative forbidding such discrimination exists. Since this is the case, there is no need for resolution 12. So repeal it.

Firstly, I did not say that, it was the honourable member from TilEnca who said that, I do however completely agree with their sentiment.

I really cannot see why there is such a huge issue regarding marriage in this legislation. It seems to me that you are prepared give homosexual couples every right under the sun, apart from marriage. Why?

Marriage is simply a contractual obligation between two people who love each other to share all they have. Therefore marriage under law provides each person in the union certain rights regarding inheritance, assets, pensions and so forth. I assume the honourable member will not have an issue affording these rights to homosexual couples in Anti Pharisaism, so why not marriage? I really don’t see a difference.

Respectfully,
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

*Peeks in. Finds copious, belligerent masses. Shuffles away, muttering "This is why I don't post my proposals in the forum anymore..."*

So, when is this repeal passing? As soon as possible, I hope.

So, when is this repeal passing? As soon as possible, I hope.

I seriously doubt that this has a real chance of passing at any time, unless the UN undergoes a fairly substantial change in the attributes of its members.

Firstly, I did not say that, it was the honourable member from TilEnca who said that, I do however completely agree with their sentiment.


And I was quoting someone else :}

Okay, I can not disagree with that-however, keep in mind that you just proved The Empire's point. That unions observed by the government can not discriminate so long as their is a UN human rights initiative forbidding such discrimination exists. Since this is the case, there is no need for resolution 12. So repeal it.

Erm - no. Because there is no actual arguement that the right to marry is a fundemental human right. And #12 is the only one that spefically states gay marriage is not only acceptable but legal in every UN member nation.

Until something else comes along to assist in this, #12 has to stay to stop nations abusing this lack of clarity.

Bigotry? What bigotry?

Unless, of course, you are refering to our inclusion of "persons", instead of all "living things including penguins"?

It is our belief, though we may be wrong, that the U.N. sets policies dictating human law, and not that of the Animal Kingdom.

Marriage does not have to be two persons.

And you are incorrect, as many of the UN nations are entirely in the "Animal Kingdom", or at least not human.

"Marriage doesn't have to be between two persons"

But that is a touchy subject. The word "Marriage" has a contextual definition.

In some cultures, marriage DOES have to involve two persons. Since governments, for the most part, are products of their culture, each culture determines the definition of marriage.

In some societies, marriage is defined as "The matrimonial bond between and male and female human". By passing a proposal to make homosexual marriage legal in ALL countries would be subversive in its very nature. Besides, marriage is not a universal right. It is a cultural privelege

If your nation feels the need to make homosexual marriage legal, then by all means, pass the appropriate legislation in your country. Do not force the world to bend to your moral viewpoint. And remember: If there is no specific resolution banning a practice, then it's not illegal world wide.

"Marriage doesn't have to be between two persons"

But that is a touchy subject. The word "Marriage" has a contextual definition.

In some cultures, marriage DOES have to involve two persons. Since governments, for the most part, are products of their culture, each culture determines the definition of marriage.

In some societies, marriage is defined as "The matrimonial bond between and male and female human". By passing a proposal to make homosexual marriage legal in ALL countries would be subversive in its very nature. Besides, marriage is not a universal right. It is a cultural privelege

If your nation feels the need to make homosexual marriage legal, then by all means, pass the appropriate legislation in your country. Do not force the world to bend to your moral viewpoint. And remember: If there is no specific resolution banning a practice, then it's not illegal world wide.

As you're seeking to "define marriage", you are attempting to impose your cultural view on others.

And homosexual marriage is legal if you're in the UN. It's in the rules - or more specifically, its in the Resolutions that your country abides by, by nature of belonging to the UN.

Therefore, "Homosexual Marriage" is legal in your country.

Well, I would hope that it is legal in my country....since it was before I joined the UN.

"I" was not seeking to define the term. I was using an example of a culture definition.

Tel***
I really cannot see why there is such a huge issue regarding marriage in this legislation. It seems to me that you are prepared give homosexual couples every right under the sun, apart from marriage. Why?

Marriage is simply a contractual obligation between two people who love each other to share all they have. Therefore marriage under law provides each person in the union certain rights regarding inheritance, assets, pensions and so forth. I assume the honourable member will not have an issue affording these rights to homosexual couples in Anti Pharisaism, so why not marriage? I really don’t see a difference.

AP has no problem with Homosexuals, polygamists, monogamists, and the like consenting to such a contractual arrangement. AP is of the opinion that if it is not considered a right-to be free from such discrimination-than such a right should exist (AP thought this does exist in the Rights initiative).

A proposal extending marriage or such contractual disagreements is not necessary in light of a rights initiative. The current resolution is discriminatory to non-gays/lesbians as they are the only groups covered-irregardless of whether other unions are currently not threatened. Rights, theoretically, should be uniform allowing for equal opportunity. This proposal is a band aid to a bigger problem (discrimination) and should be repealed and replaced with a right to marry whoever consents to the agreement. (Union, as some NS consider marriage to be a faith based term)

As horrible as it is to discriminate against any group of people, one must not impose another way of life onto others. The issue of homosexual marriage, or even the thought of someone being homosexual, is one that needs to develop over time. You can not simply expect a nation, let alone the whole world, to just accept it. The tolerance of homosexuals must come gradualy. I do not condone the injustice done to them. However, people must realize that you can not shove this down their throats.

It has already been shoved, and as such, the arguement is moot.

Yeah, but remember: You shoved it down their throats.

That'll keep them in the UN.

If the UN continues to make these policies and resolutions that encroach upon the sovereignty of nations, the nations will leave. You will, once again, be stuck in the minority of nations.

As horrible as it is to discriminate against any group of people, one must not impose another way of life onto others.
Very good point.
In contradiction to the rest of your post, your introduction implies that not only should "gay" people not shove their "gay" way of life down straight peoples throats, but that straight people as well should not be permitted to do so to gay people.

Question: Does my being a homosexual impose anything upon you, personally?
Another question: Does my being a legally married homosexual impose anything on you, personally?

Very good point.
In contradiction to the rest of your post, your introduction implies that not only should "gay" people not shove their "gay" way of life down straight peoples throats, but that straight people as well should not be permitted to do so to gay people.

Question: Does my being a homosexual impose anything upon you, personally?
Another question: Does my being a legally married homosexual impose anything on you, personally?


Me personally, I do not feel encroached upon in anyway. In fact, I'm more than happy to be of an aquaintance to you now. (On a side note, I'm from the States, and it angers me to know what we are the most intolerant people on the planet, in regards to gay rights.) I just feel that both sides should not have any type of enforcement on how their lives are run. I think individual rights should be left up to individual nations.

I just feel that both sides should not have any type of enforcement on how their lives are run. I think individual rights should be left up to individual nations.

By forcing nations to grant homosexuals the right to marry, we impose nothing directly upon non-homosexuals, and indirect effects are negligible. By allowing some nations to ban gay marriage, non-homosexuals are again barely affected, but homosexuals suffer a major infringement on their rights, one which can be distressing.

To those advocating the repeal of "gay rights" in order to replace it with something granting equal rights to both major forms of sexuality, why risk this? Why not simply pass a "heterosexual marriage rights" resolution, stating that, following in the spirit of equality espoused by "Gay Rights", the UN demands that all member states grant and maintain equal rights and status to heterosexual and homosexual marriage, in order to protect the rights of both.

Because you are proposing using band aids to cover a laceration. Because you are completely missing the point of our argument. The fundamental problem is not discrimination againts gays or lesbians with respect to marriage-it is discrimination in general.

To those advocating the repeal of "gay rights" in order to replace it with something granting equal rights to both major forms of sexuality, why risk this? Why not simply pass a "heterosexual marriage rights" resolution, stating that, following in the spirit of equality espoused by "Gay Rights", the UN demands that all member states grant and maintain equal rights and status to heterosexual and homosexual marriage, in order to protect the rights of both.

Why ride the slippery slope of hundreds of resolutions proposing the end to various forms of discrimination the UN decides it will not tolerate when it can have an umbrella resolution that covers them all.

The methodology you propose is a stupendous waste of time.

The methodology you propose is a stupendous waste of time.

And the methodology you propose will waste even more time and to make matters worse, during the time this resolution will be in repeal, thousands of people will be discriminated against. It is not as if we can just repeal the marriage proportion, ALL rights afforded under this legislation will be in repeal. If you really feel so strongly that this legislation is discriminatory against heterosexuals then I feel my honourable colleague from _Myopia_’s suggestion is more than equitable.

I have to admit however that drafting a proposal to ‘equalise’ this legislation does seem a complete waste of time, because I cannot think of one country in the world that would ban heterosexuals from marrying if they chose to do so. Therefore if no one is doing it, how is it this legislation discriminatory? From that standpoint it's equalisation.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Thankyou Telidia. I would also point out that if you can persuade the UN members to pass something titled "Repeal 'Gay Rights'", there's absolutely no guarantee that it will be possible to pass a further proposal which then re-legalises it.

Actually, AP is right.

See the Universal Bill of Human Rights.

The rights already exist, all that is necessary is an addendum extending it those non-human NS.

Again you miss the point. It is not discrimination against heterosexuals or homosexuals AP is interested in, but discrimination in general, against all regardles of sexual orientation. This bill creates rights on the basis of sexual orientation. Thus it is discriminatory.

By your methodology the UN would have to grant rights to inter-racialmarriages, polygamists, and anything else, independantly. Quite an ardous task, and waste of time if all can be accomplished with one resolution.

From the Universal Bill of Human Rights:

Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

All that is needed is a one sentence resolution extending the Human Bill of Rights to all Similar Beings (Conscious, Sentient..etc).

From the Universal Bill of Human Rights:All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.All that is needed is a one sentence resolution extending the Human Bill of Rights to all Similar Beings (Conscious, Sentient..etc).Of course, you can't really extend a resolution, you usually have to repeal it and compose a replacement to then push through the entire process ... again ...

An easier way to argue though, is that since " The Universal Bill of Rights " was written way after " Gay Rights " was, is that it extends the rights granted under " Gay Rights " to " All human beings ... " etc, so as to be granted those rights through " have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation. " ...

So really, the entire argument that all people should be treated equally and we should not have specific or " minority " law is moot. Cause we don't, strictly speaking as far as gay rights and that specific clause you have quoted go. We in fact have rights granted under " Gay Rights " for all people, in theory.

Or to make it simple for all readers,

Rights Granted in G.R. = For all people via Article 4 of T.U.B.o.R.

( I think )

If that's the case then there should be no problem with repealing "Gay Rights" because the rights are still granted by Article 4 of The Universal Bill of Rights.

Nooo,

Because the specific rights mentioned for homosexuals in " Gay Rights " are only expanded to include other " groups " ( well, technically in the case of Article 4, every-one ) by article 4. You need " Gay Rights " for the knock on effect to grant those particular rights to very-one. While " Gay Rights " granted those rights to only homosexuals, originally, now while it ( Gay Rights ) exists, Article 4 of The Universal Bill of Rights gives those rights to all citizens.

Take away " Gay Rights " and those laws cease, so consequently, Article 4 will not promote those rights to all people.

So, I mean :

" Gay Rights " provides initial rights. Article 4 gives them to all, as long as " Gay Rights " provides those rights.

Actually, AP is right.

See the Universal Bill of Human Rights.

The rights already exist, all that is necessary is an addendum extending it those non-human NS.

That resolution guarantees equal treatment under the law, but homophobes will just argue that what they offer is technically equality, because gays would have the same right to marry members of the opposite sex that heterosexuals would have.

...ergo, both are necessary and repeal is a bad idea.

That resolution guarantees equal treatment under the law, but homophobes will just argue that what they offer is technically equality, because gays would have the same right to marry members of the opposite sex that heterosexuals would have.

...ergo, both are necessary and repeal is a bad idea.

No. Equality implies the right to engage in a consensual, legally recognized union with all rights pertaining thereto. Not of the right to marry the opposite sex, or be a polygamist..etc.

You need to think past the key term and extrapolate the underlying rights associated with it. This makes your hypothetical moot as granting those rights to one class of citizens but not another would be a clear violation of the UN Resolution.

Komokon begins to illustrate a good point. However, it would follow that Human rights supercedes and repeals gay rights with respect humans. Wherever a Nation legally recognizes permanent relationships as marriages, or unions, or both, the Bill of rights intervenes and there is no need for the gay rights initiative.

However, it only applies to humans. So, a modification of Human rights extending them to other beings would repeal human rights, gay rights, and other anti discriminatory resolutions, replacing them with a universal bill of rights. It appears, given the success of past resolutions, such a rights bill would be successful.

No. Equality implies the right to engage in a consensual, legally recognized union with all rights pertaining thereto. Not of the right to marry the opposite sex, or be a polygamist..etc.


How can you argue that? Equallity implies that if a man can marry a woman, with all the tradition, beliefs and so forth that underlie that in a given country, then a man should be able to marry a man with the same tradition and beliefs and so forth.

If you let a man and a woman marry in church, and call it marriage, then equality dictates that you should do the same for man/man and woman/woman couples. (Note - I use the term man to indicate male, and woman to indicate female. Through countless years of debate the people of my nation - elves, dwaves and humans - have all agreed that "man" and "woman" are suitable terms to apply to all of them without feeling discriminated against because of their species).


Komokon begins to illustrate a good point. However, it would follow that Human rights supercedes and repeals gay rights with respect humans. Wherever a Nation legally recognizes permanent relationships as marriages, or unions, or both, the Bill of rights intervenes and there is no need for the gay rights initiative.


So #12 is redundant. But if it isn't bothering anyone, why are they trying to repeal it? The main reason someone would repeal "gay rights" is because they wish to deny their people some of the things contained within it.


However, it only applies to humans. So, a modification of Human rights extending them to other beings would repeal human rights, gay rights, and other anti discriminatory resolutions, replacing them with a universal bill of rights. It appears, given the success of past resolutions, such a rights bill would be successful.

Again - the people of my nation, regardless of their species, have chosen to accept the phrase "human rights" as applying to all of them. And so has my government. I am not convinced another resolution is needed to define "people rights" or "beings' rights" cause it could get silly :}

No. Equality implies the right to engage in a consensual, legally recognized union with all rights pertaining thereto. Not of the right to marry the opposite sex, or be a polygamist..etc.

You need to think past the key term and extrapolate the underlying rights associated with it. This makes your hypothetical moot as granting those rights to one class of citizens but not another would be a clear violation of the UN Resolution.

Komokon begins to illustrate a good point. However, it would follow that Human rights supercedes and repeals gay rights with respect humans. Wherever a Nation legally recognizes permanent relationships as marriages, or unions, or both, the Bill of rights intervenes and there is no need for the gay rights initiative.

However, it only applies to humans. So, a modification of Human rights extending them to other beings would repeal human rights, gay rights, and other anti discriminatory resolutions, replacing them with a universal bill of rights. It appears, given the success of past resolutions, such a rights bill would be successful.

YES, the spirit of equality might suggest that we should grant gay marriage rights. But banning gay marriage would still satisfy the letter of the law requiring equal rights, because the right being granted is the right to marry a member of the opposite sex, and it is being denied to nobody. That's why we must keep a guarantee of gay marriage rights.

Komokon begins to illustrate a good point.No, Komokom does illustrate a good point, :p

I mean to say, while normally the current " gay rights " laws are a problem for some, while both they and Article 4 of the Bill of Rights Resolution both stand it is not a problem, as while " Gay Rigghts " were originally a set of " minority laws " as some may put it, now they are not. Because Article 4 extends those rights to all people.

Its a two part process. " Gay Rights " grants the rights, and Article 4 provides the equality.... ergo, both are necessary and repeal is a bad idea.See, Vastiva gets it spot on.

Its no longer " just ", " rights for gays " ... at this time, on reflection, its rights for every-body we are looking at here ... And a repeal would be a far more wide spread tragedy then at first glance, once you see the logic I'm trying to get across.

*makes bet the logic will not be seen*

It's too simple - people ignore the simple. Then there's that whole bigotry thing to get over.

It's too simple - people ignore the simple. Then there's that whole bigotry thing to get over.
Are you accusing me of bieng a bigot because I don't want the UN to be telling me what my marriage laws have to be, or is that comment directed towards someone else?

:
Originally Posted by Anti Pharisaism
No. Equality implies the right to engage in a consensual, legally recognized union with all rights pertaining thereto. Not of the right to marry the opposite sex, or be a polygamist..etc.




How can you argue that? Equallity implies that if a man can marry a woman, with all the tradition, beliefs and so forth that underlie that in a given country, then a man should be able to marry a man with the same tradition and beliefs and so forth.

If you let a man and a woman marry in church, and call it marriage, then equality dictates that you should do the same for man/man and woman/woman couples. (Note - I use the term man to indicate male, and woman to indicate female. Through countless years of debate the people of my nation - elves, dwaves and humans - have all agreed that "man" and "woman" are suitable terms to apply to all of them without feeling discriminated against because of their species).

Okay, AP hastily mistated its beleifs:

No. Equality implies that if the right to engage in a consensual, legally recognized union with all rights pertaining thereto exists, excercising that right can not be denied via discrimination as illustrated by the Universal Bill of rights. This statement was made because other NS were focused on the term and how a nation may define it, without paying adequate attention to the rights the term grants.

You are correct: If resolution grants the rights of Gays to marry, and there are nations that do not acknowledge such unions-those nations can not disallow gay citizens to marry, and if two gay citizens declare themselves married, then the UN would step in and allow it. It would then follow that all members of that nation would be allowed to marry. However it is the intent of such UN Resolutions that Individual UN Nations use equality in administering their laws

The true nature of resolution 12 lies in the body of the resolution, not the last sentence:

We, the People's Republic of Kundu and the other peoples of the world wishing for the preservation of freedom and the respect of all hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life.

The intent of the resolution was clearly anti discrimination. The last sentence serves as an illustration of discrimination against gays-primarily the ability to enter into a consensual relationship. This is incorporated into and overuled by The Bill of rights.

Your argument presents an even greater reason to repeal resolution 12 on the grounds of national sovereignty as it forces NS to recognize unions as the institution of marriage, which may or may not be desired over the nations system of unions or relationships-irregardless of the Nations system of unions the rights initiative would mandate that it be administered on a basis of equality and not discriminatory. The rights bestowed are important-not the word used to describe them-as the word could carry different meanings to different NS.

Actually, the resolution does not even define gay marriage, so it is useless. Gay Marriage in AP means that Happy Unions shall not be denied to people. Therefore, in AP the right to surround yourself with those who make you feel happy shall not be denied.

If your main worry is symantecs, resolution 12 does nothing to help you.

Vastiva believes we are overlooking the issue even though it is so simple in the NS eyes to identify. The next sentence could mean the issue is bigotry, put plainly before us, and we miss it. No, reason is offered of course, as to how this is so.

It is not aimed at anyone in particular. Or not worded that way at least.

"YES, the spirit of equality might suggest that we should grant gay marriage rights. But banning gay marriage would still satisfy the letter of the law requiring equal rights, because the right being granted is the right to marry a member of the opposite sex, and it is being denied to nobody. That's why we must keep a guarantee of gay marriage rights."

AP has clarified earlier points it has made. That may be necessary with this comment. Although the gist may be discernible, you do not appear to be truly saying what you mean, but if you are please clarify.

Vastiva believes we are overlooking the issue even though it is so simple in the NS eyes to identify. The next sentence could mean the issue is bigotry, put plainly before us, and we miss it. No, reason is offered of course, as to how this is so.

It is not aimed at anyone in particular. Or not worded that way at least.

That would be it.

For Vastiva:
What is the opposite of Hot (Temperature)?

"YES, the spirit of equality might suggest that we should grant gay marriage rights. But banning gay marriage would still satisfy the letter of the law requiring equal rights, because the right being granted is the right to marry a member of the opposite sex, and it is being denied to nobody. That's why we must keep a guarantee of gay marriage rights."

AP has clarified earlier points it has made. That may be necessary with this comment. Although the gist may be discernible, you do not appear to be truly saying what you mean, but if you are please clarify.

In short, to prevent legal quibbling and phrase-turning, it is necessary to mention both directly. Why? Because some legal-nimwit is going to attempt the "it's the right to marry the opposite sex that we're talking about" line of crap if both are not spelled out in there.

Ergo, decline to support repeal.

For Vastiva:
What is the opposite of Hot (Temperature)?


There isn't one. Hot is a thermodynamic state, scaled, and as such the term "opposite" does not apply.

Unless you want to talk about being in a negative-energy universe as opposed to a positive-energy one, in which case an opposite would exist... but I see your eyes are glazing over.

Please see AP comment on previous page.

There is no UN resolution AP is aware of that defines marriage. Therefore rights pertaining to unions are soveriegn to states, and could not be discriminatory if a Bill of rights were passed.

Please see AP comment on previous page.

There is no UN resolution AP is aware of that defines marriage. Therefore rights pertaining to unions are soveriegn to states, and could not be discriminatory if a Bill of rights were passed.

Boy are you in for a shock.

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #12

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

Description: WHEREAS it has been clearly witnessed there is an outspoken minority who wish to oppress gays.

We, the People's Republic of Kundu and the other peoples of the world wishing for the preservation of freedom and the respect of all hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life. We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.

Votes For: 12,705
Votes Against: 7,734

Implemented: Sat May 3 2003

(bold mine)

Impressive, and good analysis to a trick question. What is hot is a subjective thermodynamic state.

No, eyes are not glazing over. It goes against principle to ask a question that can not be answered by the person asking. It has also been awhile since AP has given thought to the brightness of supernovas, why the universe is accelerating, and whether the theory of relativity and big bang should be dumped even though we are without an adequate replacement.

That does not define gay marriage. It uses the term, but does not define it. See remarks on previous page.

Also, the opposite of hot would therefore be not hot.

That does not define gay marriage. It uses the term, but does not define it. See remarks on previous page.

Also, the opposite of hot would therefore be not hot.

Its quibbling like this that makes for thick law books and slow trials. See also Clinton. You are, perhaps, a Virgo?

Pisces actually.

AP normally despises symantecs. But the conversation lent itself to such.

Thank Harvard (learn via case law) and a judicial system based on precedent for thick law books, both of which influenced Clinton's education. And the speed of trial.

The Dominion of Necros-Vacuia believes that those who accuse the UN of violating national sovereignity in this matter are in error.

Homosexuality is a condition that exists across all of humanity. In every country, there are some homosexuals. The daughter of our own National Security Executor, Leli Dzerrin, is herself a "lesbian."

The UN exists to ensure that the rights of humanity are not trampled upon. Homosexuals are a division of humanity; as such, it is entirely proper their rights be protected.

Proposals that violate national sovereignity are such like those attempting to ban the death penalty or ID databases; these apply only to *citizens* of a nation exercising such options, and do not fall into UN jurisdiction, in the Dominion's view. They must be reformed otherwise.

There is a clear difference between defending human rights and impugning on national rights, which is not being discerned here.

If the UN honors this ridiculous proposal, which we are certain it will not, Necros-Vacuia will respond by banning marriage altogether in our nation, so as to keep our traditional equality of rights; and as marriage will have been judged a matter of national sovereignity, we believe other nations shall have no business complaining. This is the view of the Lord Praetor.

--Ellion Kev, Necros-Vacuia Ambassador to the UN

Pisces actually.

AP normally despises symantecs. But the conversation lent itself to such.

Thank Harvard (learn via case law) and a judicial system based on precedent for thick law books, both of which influenced Clinton's education. And the speed of trial.

For reference, Vastiva bases its legal system on the idea of Self-Responsibility

We don't care what you do to yourself or your property. What you do to others is another question.

You may find the following interesting:

http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/101.htm#controversial

Despite opposing value judgments on the neccessity of resolution 12, it appears we share similar interests in the role of government.

Thank you for the page, it is now on my favorites list.

Necros,

AP meant sovereignty with respect to imposing NS to recognize any system of marriage, not gay marriage.

With the adoption of a definition of Marriage Komokon's scenario comes into play, and a whole other argument will begin.

AP is not arguing for discrimination. Please critically read comments before making such defamatory statements.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7438733#post7438733 vastia

Necros,

AP meant sovereignty with respect to imposing NS to recognize any system of marriage, not gay marriage.

With the adoption of a definition of Marriage Komokon's scenario comes into play, and a whole other argument will begin.

AP is not arguing for discrimination. Please critically read comments before making such defamatory statements.

....The Ambassador wishes to extend a most sincere apology to the delegate from Anti Pharisaism; the Dominion's comment is meant completely towards the repeal itself, and such nations as Pessimus, who seem to endorse such a viewpoint.

Actually, the Ambassador, apart from apologizing once more and offering a basket of fresh incenamelons, agrees with AP on the recognition of *any* system of marriage needing such a definition. *sweatdrop*

--Ellion Kev, Necros-Vacuia Ambassador to the UN

Apology accepted, and thank you for the gesture of kindness.