NationStates Jolt Archive

Description: The UN should recognize that all people are created equal. The matter of race, sex, religion or sexual preference should not make anyone less equal. These are inalienable rights of all UN nation citizens.

ARTICLE I- No one race or culture is better than another.

ARTICLE II- Males and Females should be treated as equals. Whether it be in the workplace or at home.

ARTICLE III- Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another.

ARTICLE IV- One should have the right to express their love for a member of the same sex.

Article 1 -- All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state.
Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

A former resolution already states that all humans being should be treated equally. But the resolution we are examinating go further, saying that we are all equal, which isn't true.
Blacks and Whites and Asiatics are globally equal. However, I know that I am not equal to someone like, I don't know, Einstein. Some people are more intelligent than others, this is an evidence that shouldn't be denied; the fact that law treats everyone equally is good enough to protect everyone.
This covers the part about race, and the male/female equality.

Saying that all cultures are equal is wrong again. Cannibalism is not a culture that I support; every culture should be free to be applied as long as it doesn't go against the laws of the state. Saying that every culture is equal could lead to cases of people protesting because they cannot do some barbarian antic rite (human sacrifices...).

This also goes for religion; no religion shall be banned, but if a law goes against some religion-specific rite, the religion will have to adapt itself to the society - not the other way round. This way, murderers won't be able to say "I believe in Satan, he told me to kill. My religion is equal to yours, I shall not be judged." The right to worship any faith is enough, no need for equality, which could have bad consequences reguarding the application of the law.


Finally, resolution #7 grant sexual freedom, and resolution #12 allows gay marriage.


The resolution is either a repetition of former resolution, or an increase of their power to an extreme point that is not needed, and could result in bad consequencies.


please tell me why would you support it? :confused:

Because of the "First Rule of the Universe".

WHo needs civil rights seriously? We can just simply rule them and do whatever we like with them.
:gundge:

The resolution is totally self-contradictory.

How can all cultures be equal if only the cultures that allow homosexuality, gender equality and religious tolerance are allowed?

Utter crap frankly.

Now, come on. You know this one's going to get passed - why fight it? It's non-controversial, it takes the moral high ground, and most importantly it demands nothing from those who vote for it.

Just go with it. Arguing gets you nowhere.

The Holy Conclave of Cardinals have decreed that there are some who are not as worthy as others, and by accepting the rights of some groups as equal to others would be against the constitution of our nation.

we Firmly believe that non-christians, or even those claiming to be christians but who have not accepted the christ as their personal saviour and followed the principles laid down by the Cardinals will be damned.

Those who dance the tango, or produce that RAP music definately should have no participatory role in Government, economics, finance or the spiritual well being of a nation.

Thus we encourage all member nations of christian values to denounce this resolution and vote for its elimination.

the spokesperson for the Conclave of Cardinals, Christworld

The resolution is totally self-contradictory.

How can all cultures be equal if only the cultures that allow homosexuality, gender equality and religious tolerance are allowed?

Utter crap frankly.

Hear, hear!

That motion is an utter load of crap.

I agree mostly with Sadinistata, which is exactly what is wrong with the resolution. It is badly-written useless moralizing. I wouldn't vote against it, because that simply send the wrong message, but I'm abstaining until some writes a more effective proposal. Something that says that persecution of religious beliefs (not actions, such as human sacrifice) is an offense against the UN and can be dealt with would be one way to go. Something that says that education standards of a country must avoid bias on the basis of race or gender, or that people must be granted equal protection inside their home would all be ideas worth actually putting to a vote. But to literally write into our constitution that "no single religious belief is more right than another," or "no race is better than another race?" Why not just write "fluffy bunnies are cute to pet?" In fact, I'm off to draw up that proposal right now.

This resolution is KaKa.

That is all.

The Republic of Skredtch takes issue only with Article III: "Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another."

Our official stance is that those beliefs or worldviews which are in agreement with factual evidence, are inherently superior to those which are not, and that, among those which are not, those which are not in conflict with factual evidence are superior to those who are.

Despite this stance, we recognize that some individuals adhere to belief systems not supported by, or even in conflict with, factual evidence. In light of that fact, we do not grant or withhold any rights or privelidges due to individual or group acceptance or rejection of any or all specific or general world views.

In short, although we do not agree with the premise for Article III, we have no objection to the conclusion.

Since we have already implemented the policies recommended by the resolution, although not necessarily for the reasons cited, the passage of this resolution would have no appreciable affect on our way of life. Meanwhile, we recognize that this resolution almost certainly will have an impact on other nations. Since we do not wish to force our ideologies on other nations, the Skredtch delegation to the UN cannot, in good conscience, vote in favor of this resolution. Neither, however, will we vote against it.

The Republic has no desire to vote for it, as it is a redundant piece of legislature using up time on the NSUN floor. There is nothing that it does, that hasn't been more effectively implimented in another NSUN, already established, resolution.

As such, if it was ran proper, this should be deleted, and the author issued a warning by the mods, and hell, issue every delegate who approved it, a warning while they are at it.

There is no point in the approval and passage of resolutions, whose issues have already been addressed by a previous, established, resolution.

And as such, every NSUN member who votes on this resolution, should be taken before the NSUN commons, and publicly ridiculed by setting them in the corner, with a DUNCE cap on.

So, is this the official debate this resolution thread?

Well, either way, I'd like you to know that there's not a whole lot that can be done to keep this one from passing. Well, you could TG all the delegates voting FOR this resolution and tell them why they shouldn't. That might change a few votes. Not that anyone's that organized...:rollseyes:

I've voted AGAINST. Just thought I'd make it public knowledge.

We the Constituitonal Monarchy of Stripe-Lovers, whilst agreeing with the ideals behind the resolution, intend to vote against it. We believe it is not within the scope of the UN to declare what moral truths are and are not. We believe a better worded resolution, along the lines of "should be equal under law" rather than "are equal" would be preferable.

Our problems with the individual articles are as follows:

ARTICLE I: No one race or culture is better than another. We in Stripe-Lovers, whilst being on the whole tolerant and liberal, do, however, admit to feeling somewhat superior to necrophiliac cannibalistic cultures. We would also like it if the UN could at some point in the future legislate against such acts.

Whilst I personally would be very glad to sign up to Article II: "Males and Females should be treated as equals. Whether it be in the workplace or at home" since it would get me out of doing all the heavy lifting and technological tasks my girlfriend always dumps off on me, we do not feel it would be in the interest of our nation to put such a vague, ill-defined notion into law.

As for Article III "not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another" then this could logically result in the repealing of all human-rights based resoultions, on the basis that claims that of human rights are moral beliefs and thus no better than trampling on human rights. We would like to express our wish that resolution proposers take time to think through the consequences of all elements of their proposals in future.

Finally, ARTICLE IV: "One should have the right to express their love for a member of the same sex" As far as our government is aware there is not a single state, even in the current incredibly diverse world, where it is illegal for a father to tell his son he loves him. If the author of the proposal is referring to love of a romantic nature then we:
a) wish they'd bloody well say so and
b) would like to point them in the direction of resolution #12 "Gay Rights" which does a far better job than this article ever could of protecting the rights of same-sex couples.

In conclusion we would point out to all nations considering this resolution that almost all the aims of the resolution have already been accomplished by the following resolutions:

RESOLUTION #7 "Sexual Freedom"
RESOLUTION #12 "Gay Rights"
RESOLUTION #19 "Religious Tolerance"
RESOLUTION #26 "The Universal Bill of Rights"
RESOLUTION #69 "The Sexes Rights Law"

Those aims not already accomplished, for example the declaration that no culture or belief is better than another, are not only vague but could actually be dangerously counter-productive by discouraging future human-rights legislation.

Therefore we urge all members unconvinced by this resolution but abstaining from the vote to reconsider. A vote against this resolution would not, in our opnion, be a vote against human rights. Quite the contrary, it would be a vote to protect the primacy of human rights against ill-defined potentially counter-productive resolutions.

This resolution is pointless drivel; however, The Empire shall make a statement as to why it should be voted against.

As has been similarly mentioned, earlier, there is a difference between "equality" and being "equal".

The Empire believes that its citizens, as human beings, share equality, insofar as that each are born sentient, each has the ability to work, produce and achieve throughout his or her lifetime.

However, each individual is not equal. Some have more stamina, some more intellect, some more initiative. Crafting a document that claims that every being on the planet is equal to another, is meaningless. If the drafting nation meant to have equality - then it is similarly meaningless, as Enlightened nations already believe in the equality of its citizens; whereas, less Enlightened nations will not. Simply signing a name to a UN Resolution will not make it so. Besides, should a nation not come to its own beliefs, on its own for its people in order to become a better nation?

Finally, as has been mentioned, The Empire does not believe that every culture is equal, and We are aghast at the suggestion. A nation that engages in the rape and slaughter of its population, that believes that infants are a delicacy, that does not put rules and guidelines into place for its citizens to follow in order to prosper and become more productive - those are all traits of nations that The Empire refuses to be considered "equal" to. The very concept is abhorrent.

The Empire will vote against this laughable proposal.

What hasn't already been said, this resolution is utter drivel, written by someone who does not understand the full implications of the proposal and has also not researched previous resolutions. However, I am aghast at the number of people who have voted for it, obviously they have not read this forum or have no idea about the contradictory nature of the proposal. Should this go through, which I hope it does, a repeal will be launched immediatly to make it more publically known to UN members at what a laughable proposal is and I'm guessing most people here would agree to this.

Mattikistan is an 'evil' nation where people are free to do as they wish within reason. However, taking into account the fact that if this resolution is defeated nobody here will lose any of these rights, and noting the fact that this resolution is poorly worded and taking into account arguments made here, except for those of the intolerant, Mattikistan has thrown in its vote AGAINST, for all the good it will do.

And as such, every NSUN member who votes on this resolution, should be taken before the NSUN commons, and publicly ridiculed by setting them in the corner, with a DUNCE cap on.

Now that's some legislation I could support. :D

Soo. If we pass the resolution stating that all in all everyone is equal and such, why don't we just condense the entire world into one massive state, as the distinct problems with each of our societies would be solves with one fell sweep?

Ugh! I, quite frankly, shall never be able to consider myself equal to an axe murderer. Personally speaking of course.

The Imperium backs the motion. All humanity must see itself as equal, before it can see itself as united.

Brothers and sisters, this new UN resolution must NOT PASS! All religions are NOT EQUAL! That would be against the very idea of EVERY single religion there is. If this resolution is going to pass, I am forced to leave UN, and I recommend you all theocratic states do the same. This is HERESY and MADNESS, I say to you.

We the Constituitonal Monarchy of Stripe-Lovers, whilst agreeing with the ideals behind the resolution, intend to vote against it. We believe it is not within the scope of the UN to declare what moral truths are and are not. We believe a better worded resolution, along the lines of "should be equal under law" rather than "are equal" would be preferable.

Our problems with the individual articles are as follows:

ARTICLE I: No one race or culture is better than another. We in Stripe-Lovers, whilst being on the whole tolerant and liberal, do, however, admit to feeling somewhat superior to necrophiliac cannibalistic cultures. We would also like it if the UN could at some point in the future legislate against such acts.

Whilst I personally would be very glad to sign up to Article II: "Males and Females should be treated as equals. Whether it be in the workplace or at home" since it would get me out of doing all the heavy lifting and technological tasks my girlfriend always dumps off on me, we do not feel it would be in the interest of our nation to put such a vague, ill-defined notion into law.

As for Article III "not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another" then this could logically result in the repealing of all human-rights based resoultions, on the basis that claims that of human rights are moral beliefs and thus no better than trampling on human rights. We would like to express our wish that resolution proposers take time to think through the consequences of all elements of their proposals in future.

Finally, ARTICLE IV: "One should have the right to express their love for a member of the same sex" As far as our government is aware there is not a single state, even in the current incredibly diverse world, where it is illegal for a father to tell his son he loves him. If the author of the proposal is referring to love of a romantic nature then we:
a) wish they'd bloody well say so and
b) would like to point them in the direction of resolution #12 "Gay Rights" which does a far better job than this article ever could of protecting the rights of same-sex couples.

In conclusion we would point out to all nations considering this resolution that almost all the aims of the resolution have already been accomplished by the following resolutions:

RESOLUTION #7 "Sexual Freedom"
RESOLUTION #12 "Gay Rights"
RESOLUTION #19 "Religious Tolerance"
RESOLUTION #26 "The Universal Bill of Rights"
RESOLUTION #69 "The Sexes Rights Law"

Those aims not already accomplished, for example the declaration that no culture or belief is better than another, are not only vague but could actually be dangerously counter-productive by discouraging future human-rights legislation.

Therefore we urge all members unconvinced by this resolution but abstaining from the vote to reconsider. A vote against this resolution would not, in our opnion, be a vote against human rights. Quite the contrary, it would be a vote to protect the primacy of human rights against ill-defined potentially counter-productive resolutions.

Actually, the "culture and belief" point is addressed already as well, under the principles of the "Rights and Duties" resolution... So the entire body of the text is redundant... In all reality it is an amendment, and should have been treated as such, even though it doesn't actually do anything not already done. Why it wasn't deleted by the mods, I have no real clue... It's redundant nature is rife.

:sniper:

This proposal must not pass!

We're compiling a list of depraved nations who back this plan, and we'll designate them as: :mp5: :gundge:

The Axis Of Evil!


We know for a fact that the Imperium has hidden weapons of mass destruction! :headbang:


Coïncidentally, we agree with the points made by the post above.

This vague and foolish motion must be defeated!

If all religions had their way then every other one would be branded heresy. The fact that you are so opposed to this shows how truly ingrained the bigotry is. So what if everyone is equal? IS that now they were created, by whatever hand. I find it highly unlikely that countless gods created the exact same thing; mankind.
The days of being chained, drugged, to religion are over. One vision is how we view the future, with one determination.

And yes, the Imperium does have weapons of mass destruction. What relevance that has, we do not know.

The Imperium backs the motion. All humanity must see itself as equal, before it can see itself as united.
I suggest you read the passed resolutions.

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

Very well then Entirely Equal.

I agree mostly with Sadinistata, which is exactly what is wrong with the resolution. It is badly-written useless moralizing. I wouldn't vote against it, because that simply send the wrong message, but I'm abstaining until some writes a more effective proposal. Something that says that persecution of religious beliefs (not actions, such as human sacrifice) is an offense against the UN and can be dealt with would be one way to go. Something that says that education standards of a country must avoid bias on the basis of race or gender, or that people must be granted equal protection inside their home would all be ideas worth actually putting to a vote. But to literally write into our constitution that "no single religious belief is more right than another," or "no race is better than another race?" Why not just write "fluffy bunnies are cute to pet?" In fact, I'm off to draw up that proposal right now.


The whole point is that those resolutions already exist. We don't need to have 10 times the same resolution.

Very well then Entirely Equal.

I suggest you read the previous resolutions, thx >(

WHo needs civil rights seriously? We can just simply rule them and do whatever we like with them.
:gundge:


I need civil rights, my nation is going pretty well on civil rights. But nobody needs idiots who cannot read a post before posting.

ARTICLE III- Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another.

No belief is more right than another eh.... if this becomes official UN Law, then the belief of the people on my island that there is a loophole in the Human Rights Resolution allowing us to kill and rape anyone we please for fun is not any less right than your belief that we would be violated UN Law.....

Open the floodgates now

look iam all for womens rights i want them to have them :) But i do not like gay marriage that is why i voted against this resolution. :mad: They should make a resolution for women's rights but not gay marriage :headbang: :gundge:

This proposal illustrates the need to actually READ the previous proposals before submitting a new one. It's completely redundant, not to mention useless.

I'm now officially one step closer to requesting a population minimum for UN proposal submission. And shame on anyone who endorsed this proposal! Twenty idiot-points for the lot of you!

While the whole idea of the proposal is a good one - the posts on the forum clearly indicate this could be a more tolerant world - I voted against it because it doesn't actually achieve anything it says it will, it is vague and wolly and contradictory and in general not the best written resolution I have seen.

1) If all religions are as good as each other (which I totally agree with) then you must accept all the practices of the religion. And there are some religions that treat the two sexes in radically different ways (Islam for example). So you can either treat all religions with equal respect, and not men and women, or you can treat men and women with respect, but not all religions.

2) It only says you have the right to express your love for a member of the same sex. It makes no provision to define what "express" means. It could mean you can jump in the sack and hump like rabbits, or it could mean you can say "I love you" but no more.

Tolerance for all religions and love for all people is a good thing, but this is not going to get it, and it could easily be used to make things a lot, lot worse in the world as it stands today.

And yes, the Imperium does have weapons of mass destruction. What relevance that has, we do not know.

Be afraid, be very afraid...

This resolution has to be one of the most ridiculous I have ever seen. At best, it is extremely vague. At worst, it could actually REDUCE human rights across the world. Allow me to explain:
ARTICLE I: No one race or culture is better than another.
What, exactly, is this article supposed to mean? I understand the concept, that we should not discriminate based on race or culture, but this article says nothing about how it should be enforced. It is merely telling us what most intelligent people already know. It would do absolutely no good in enforcing equal treatment of different races. For example, anyone could say, "Yes, whites/blacks/latinos/asians are just as good as everyone else. Now go work in the coal mines for 3 cents a day while the rest of us work in an air-conditioned office for $150,000 a year."
ARTICLE II- Males and Females should be treated as equals. Whether it be in the workplace or at home.
This sounds like a wonderful idea, except the potential for abuse is ludicrous. For example, since males and females must be treated equally, females could not be given time off work when they are pregnant, since men could not receive that benefit. This means a woman would have to either quit her job, which could be disastrous if a family needed the income, or an 8-month pregnant woman could be forced to work in a steel mill. Is that really what we want?
ARTICLE III- Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another.
Again, this tells us absolutley nothing about how we should regulate it. And again, the potential for abuse is ridiculous. It has been stated several times that we could not persecute cannibals or satanic rituals, because that would be saying that their religion is less right than the others. Under this resolution, a person could commit virtually any crime, say it was an important part of their religion, and there wouldn't be a thing we could do about it.
ARTICLE IV- One should have the right to express their love for a member of the same sex.
This article is possibly the most vague of them all. As someone else mentioned, there is no definition of what "express their love" means. We could simply say, "All right, anyone can publically say 'I love you', but if it goes any farther than that, you'll be executed."

The fact that this resolution has three times as many votes for as against is absolutely mind-boggling. Are any of these people actually considering the implications of this resolution, or do they just see "equal rights" and automatically vote yes?

All I got to say is that this resolution will enforce laws which will contradict other laws already effect in our nations. That is all...

All I got to say is that this resolution will enforce laws which will contradict other laws already effect in our nations. That is all...

Other UN laws, or other laws that are in your nation?

Cause if it's the first it's serious, but the second - having the UN override national laws - it just a bonus/hazard of being a member of the UN and there is not a lot you can do about it except vote against it.

My main concern is that this resolution will smudge the recongition of individuality. Men and Women are different from eachother, obviously. Blacks (actually, that's a terrible generalization, as Africans from different nations can differ more than Whites from Asians), Whites, Asians, etc., are all different. Each person within the same race is also different from others. Difference in talents in different areas, difference in personality, difference in experience, etc. This resolution has the tone of "treat everyone the SAME", that everyone is born the SAME. In doing so, it can very well diminish civil rights.

What it should have proposed, is "equality in opportunity", so that everyone can fully exert his/her own potential. This way, individuality is still recongized.
Of course, equality in opportunity does not mean lower the standard to the bottom most of society, but rather raise the standard to the highest of society. Asking a nation to do it immediately would be impossible, but it is possible to ask a nation to "use all efforts to strive for this goal".

The Most Catholic Empire of Christus Victor, as delegate of the region of Holy Roman Church, opposes this resolution. Article III violates a fundamental tenet of the nations of our region, that is, a belief in the truth of the Catholic faith as a cornerstone of our socio-political systems. Article IV also has the potential to violate our religious beliefs, by opening the door to legalization of homosexual unions. It is not a question of demanding that others follow our beliefs, rather of not having the beliefs/unbeliefs of others imposed upon us. If this resolution is passed, Christus Victor may be forced to withdraw from the United Nations along with other nations whose societies place a value upon faith.

it has already been stated, this proposal is needlessly redundent with other previous resolutions, lacks legally binding language, and is generally ill concived and poorly written. If this is the kind of drivel that I can expect from the UN I will withdraw my nation's support.

Now, come on. You know this one's going to get passed - why fight it? It's non-controversial, it takes the moral high ground, and most importantly it demands nothing from those who vote for it.

Just go with it. Arguing gets you nowhere.


You did not understand the resolution. It is controversial and immoral for reasons already explained, but the author like yourself seem to lack the culture to understand what the the resolution is implying.

This resolution is just regurgitated, burocratic bilge that is sure to pass becuase of the gut feelings it arouses when someone reads the title. Just like my proposal to repeal resolution #3 will never make it to the general assembly because it says "Repeal Education for All" in it's title, even though there is good reason for doing it, this one is sure to pass because no one (or almost no one) wants to be seen as an opponent to civil rights. I'm willing to bet that only about 5% of UN members actually read the resolutions presented, the vast majority either just evaluating the title or going with how the majority is voting. How sad.

In fact, the only thing remotely controversial about this issue is the implied gay rights, but because NationStates is mostly liberal anyways, it's virtually a non-issue (that and the numerous other resolutions already passsed in regards to the subject.)

I'm voting against it in an effort (however doomed it may be) to keep the red tape down to a minimum.

Are the member nations involved here seriously considering voting that a culture comprised of human sacrificing cannibals, devoted to the destruction of global ecology and economy, dedicated to the elimination of literacy and education, is on a par with it's opposite number simply because of gender/sexual equality? Cultures ARE vastly better or worse than one another,(or what are we fighting about, for Pete's sake?) men and women are NOT equal,(sorry ladies, but I think we took a major wrong turn in the late 1800's, and our whole society is now paying the price...) and the idea of "equally expressing love" opens up whole new doors that shouldn't be opened. If gender isn't a barrier, then why is age? Are we seriously still intending to pretend that the age of consent isn't a ludicrous fiction based on nothing more than current "culture" biases? Of course, with older women having 9-year old lovers, and mothers openly espousing prostitute dress for their pre-teens, maybe this cultural more needs to be moved back to Roman benchmarks, at least. Why species? With current studies into the rationality of several higher species, why should they be exempted from these same "expressions"? Hooray for dolphin sex, right?

Do these things make us a better culture? A worse? Because the shunning or salutation of them surely does at least one thing - it destroys any foolish notion of cultures being equal. Or individuals. NOTHING is equal to anything else, and better or worse are the judgement calls we have to make in order to progress, or at best change. Anything else is ostrich behavior.

There's no such thing as equality, and it's far beyond time we quit putting faith in this particular Santa Clause.

:headbang:

I believe, that is up to all of those that have some moral up rightness, to vote FOR this proposal.


This Proposal makes UN Law, what we all know to be true. There is no race better then another, there is no difference in quality between men and women, there is not one religion that is best, and there is nothing wrong with women and women, and men and men, expressing their love for one another.

The Proposal is a decent one, and has my full support, and I urge all sensible UN Nations to vote with it.

Thank you.

Listen you almost had my vote on that issue until you had to through in that stupid issue on same sex marriage. No it cannot happen even with the seperation of church and state.....you cant go against what most of the nation believes in....the bible.......it states that it should not happen so it cannot happen.....so since you liberals didnt get your way with kerry. Stop trying to change it in a fake world. When things like that come out of peoples mouths those people should just go and do this: :headbang:

I believe, that is up to all of those that have some moral up rightness, to vote FOR this proposal.


This Proposal makes UN Law, what we all know to be true. There is no race better then another, there is no difference in quality between men and women, there is not one religion that is best, and there is nothing wrong with women and women, and men and men, expressing their love for one another.

The Proposal is a decent one, and has my full support, and I urge all sensible UN Nations to vote with it.

Thank you.
Yes, suppressing no one thought of it before really…

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

Listen you almost had my vote on that issue until you had to through in that stupid issue on same sex marriage. No it cannot happen even with the seperation of church and state.....you cant go against what most of the nation believes in....the bible.......it states that it should not happen so it cannot happen.....so since you liberals didnt get your way with kerry. Stop trying to change it in a fake world. When things like that come out of peoples mouths those people should just go and do this: :headbang:
Gay marriage is already legal in UN member states. Deal or Repeal, and the repeals aren’t getting much support.

And... what nation?

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

I believe, that is up to all of those that have some moral up rightness, to vote FOR this proposal.


This Proposal makes UN Law, what we all know to be true. There is no race better then another, there is no difference in quality between men and women, there is not one religion that is best, and there is nothing wrong with women and women, and men and men, expressing their love for one another.

The Proposal is a decent one, and has my full support, and I urge all sensible UN Nations to vote with it.

Thank you.

Yeah, except for the fact that everything this resolution entails HAS ALREADY BEEN COVERED BY OTHER RESOLUTIONS!

Honestly, when will you people stop strangling yourselves with red tape?

ARTICLE I- No one race or culture is better than another.

ARTICLE III- Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another.


This resolution is deadly wrong.
You can state that a state should treat all religions and cultures as equal,
but no organisation can decree that no religion/culture is better than another.

If we say that our culture is not any better than other, why don't we abandon it?
Even more, such statesment is idiotic when it comes to religion terms.
A religion HAS TO claim that it's better than another.

The same You can decree that "no washing machine is better than another".
There are obviously differences between cultures and religions. And these differences can be judged. If there's a culture/religion that demands killing, torturing or whatever, it IS wrong.
If someone's a Christian, He's not only a Christian because his parents were, but also because He thinks Christian religion is better, more true, than other religion - and the same implies to other religions.

The Proposal is a decent one, and has my full support, and I urge all sensible UN Nations to vote with it.

I guess that doesn't apply to my nation, since we're the "senseless un-sessers from nonsense all 'bout de-sensed lack of senseness, occasionally a-sensalized by Powerhungry Chipmunks"

But you can call me Frank.

their is one single flaw in this resolution, that religon is equal. but all religon is based on a truth, and if one is wrong it is their for not correct, and also what if a religon opressess women? although it has the right to exercize it self, it cant!!!!!!!

I believe, that is up to all of those that have some moral up rightness, to vote FOR this proposal.


This Proposal makes UN Law, what we all know to be true. There is no race better then another, there is no difference in quality between men and women, there is not one religion that is best, and there is nothing wrong with women and women, and men and men, expressing their love for one another.

The Proposal is a decent one, and has my full support, and I urge all sensible UN Nations to vote with it.

Thank you.

I do not support the resolution because it is redundant... It merely reiterates

"Gay Rights" Resolution
"Universal Bill of Rights" resolution
"Rights and Duties of UN States" Resolution
"The Sexes Rights" Resolution
etc.

As such, the resolution, in and of itself, is useless, in that it does not CHANGE anything, its presence on the NSUN floor is a travesty to the principle of efficient government.

We already have more than 5 resolutions, which combined already handle the issue this resolution presents, at such, voting for it is a waste of time and resources, that could have been better used in tackling a new issue. As such, it is repetative, and ILLEGAL... And should have been deleted by the moderation department. Why they choose not to, is beyond me.

Merely because you, the approving delegates involved, and the proposal writer were too irresponsible and incompitent to involve yourself in present and established NSUN resolutions, and you continue as such to do so... Is of no reason why I should lower myself to your level of incompitency in government.

I will state again, I vote against this resolution because, it is redundant and uneccessary piece of legislation written by an author who could not take the time, when considering his own ideals he wished to bring forward, consider that they may have already been tackled by previous legislation by this body.

As such, since you have refused to properly involve yourself in this process of government, I will be smacking your pee-pee and setting you in the corner with a dunce cap.... As such, I vote against this resolution to disapprove of the rank laziness of the proponents.

What hasn't already been said, this resolution is utter drivel, written by someone who does not understand the full implications of the proposal and has also not researched previous resolutions. However, I am aghast at the number of people who have voted for it, obviously they have not read this forum or have no idea about the contradictory nature of the proposal. Should this go through, which I hope it does, a repeal will be launched immediatly to make it more publically known to UN members at what a laughable proposal is and I'm guessing most people here would agree to this.
Your repeal will have my support.

I suggest you read the passed resolutions.

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

Me too. I'm new and I read them.

I believe, that is up to all of those that have some moral up rightness, to vote FOR this proposal.


This Proposal makes UN Law, what we all know to be true. There is no race better then another, there is no difference in quality between men and women, there is not one religion that is best, and there is nothing wrong with women and women, and men and men, expressing their love for one another.

The Proposal is a decent one, and has my full support, and I urge all sensible UN Nations to vote with it.

Thank you.

I urge you to read the history of the UN regulations so you will understand why we are voting against this. It is redundant.

There are only 16 pages, it won't take long I promise.

Cultures ARE vastly better or worse than one another?

Why? I might not approve of a government based on religion, or a country that eats it's own young, or a nation that everyone over 25 should be killed, but who am I to judge?

I might think TilEnca is the best culture around, but I could be vastly wrong and we could be a degenerate bunch of morons that everyone looks down on.

But does that make us better than everyone else? Or worse than everyone else?

I voted against the proposal because it has no hope of achieving what it set out to do, not because of it's aims. It's aims are very worthwhile and should be applauded.

I believe, that is up to all of those that have some moral up rightness, to vote FOR this proposal.


This Proposal makes UN Law, what we all know to be true. There is no race better then another, there is no difference in quality between men and women, there is not one religion that is best, and there is nothing wrong with women and women, and men and men, expressing their love for one another.

The Proposal is a decent one, and has my full support, and I urge all sensible UN Nations to vote with it.

Thank you.

I appriciate your position, and do support what it is trying to do. However the way it is written is vague and non-declaritive, and could easily be twisted and changed to make the world a much worse off place.

Well as this is a sensitive issue, I have tried not to be too extreme on either hand, hence my vague view.

Can't we just make amendments to the resolution?

Sorry for appearing :confused: but I'm new here. They have amendments in the real UN, but I don't know about here.

now im all for rights to minorities and all thats fair enough but women being bundeled in the same boat? there should be seperate resolutions for that.

What I find most distressing about this resolution is:

"No (sic) ... BELIEF ... is better than another." (emphasis added)

Has this really been thought through? This single statement is capable of generating great distress. What is meant by "belief"? No definition is offered. Because of that, "belief" is left to the nation defining it. Is it a philosophy, policy, or some other amorphous creation?

Hence, a nation can have existing beliefs in anarchy, environmentalism, capitalism, democracy, theocracy, facism, conspiracies, McCarthyism, terrorism, "live and let live", etc. How, pray tell, can these "beliefs" coincide?

I submit that on a practical level, they can't. The resolution is shocking in its incoherent brevity.

I recommend a "no" vote on this resolution.

Why? I might not approve of a government based on religion, or a country that eats it's own young, or a nation that everyone over 25 should be killed, but who am I to judge?

I might think TilEnca is the best culture around, but I could be vastly wrong and we could be a degenerate bunch of morons that everyone looks down on.

But does that make us better than everyone else? Or worse than everyone else?

I voted against the proposal because it has no hope of achieving what it set out to do, not because of it's aims. It's aims are very worthwhile and should be applauded.


Who are you to judge the resolution in the first place, if you can't even decide that murder is wrong?!?

Who are you to judge the resolution in the first place, if you can't even decide that murder is wrong?!?

The leader of my nation. Not the voice of The Powers That Be, nor the right hand of The Lords Of Order. I am mortal, and as such do not feel that I have the intelligence, wisdom or ability to speak for all people in all nations.

(This next part is not meant as a starting point for a debate on the death penalty, so please don't use it as such. It is just to indicate a point).

I believe the death penalty to be murder, pure and simple. So it is outlawed in TilEnca because I, and most of my people, believe it is wrong.
But if you have seen some of the debates about it on this forum you will know that other people think that is not the case - that it is justifiable and required to maintain law and order in their nation.
And maybe I am wrong. Maybe executing criminals is the only way to bring an end to crime.
I don't believe it is in my nation, but I am not so arrogant to believe I can say it should be banned in all nations, given how little I know about the cultures of most of them.

I know my people. I know my country. I know somethings about other nations, but I tend to believe the leaders of the other nations know more about them then I do, just as I know more about mine than they do, and than you do.

So I am not willing to say that just because GeminiLand practices ritual sacrifice and TilEnca doesn't that TilEnca is a better nation and a better culture than GeminiLand is. And by exention I am not willing to say that a culture I know nothing about except for the odd facts that have been reported to me from sometimes dubious sources is degenerate and unworthy of existance, and that we should do something about it.

Quite honestly you are close to convincing me to chang my vote on this proposal and get it passed. However the fact it is written in such a wolly and un-definitive manner, and as such could EASILY be used to start a wave of abuses across all nations, is the one thing stopping me from doing so. Because at it's heart it is a proposal about tolerance for our fellow nations, and I think the UN could do with a damn good dose of that sometimes :}

Who are you to judge the resolution in the first place, if you can't even decide that murder is wrong?!?

The town empied faster than a beer can on campus. They all knew what was about to happen. For but a moment they all had a high-quality Tivo of the future. Today wasn't going to be just another day in the forum...

Today was going to be a showdown

*"The Good, The Bad And the Ugly" is whistled in the background*

Yes, folks this UN forum aint big enough for both Sheriff "Erasthmus" TilEnca And Outlaw "Isle Ike" Masked Cucumbers. There'd be a face-off, a scuffufle, fisticuffs, a downright mud-wrestling match, now. In these here parts one can't just call someone out and expect not to be branded with multiple ENTER keys. No sirree. Everything is Not OK in this here corral...

Hence, a nation can have existing beliefs in anarchy, environmentalism, capitalism, democracy, theocracy, facism, conspiracies, McCarthyism, terrorism, "live and let live", etc. How, pray tell, can these "beliefs" coincide?


Maybe they can't coincide. But I respectfully suggest that it is up to the nation (I assume you mean one nation having all these beliefs) to determine that, and not the UN or other member states.

look iam all for womens rights i want them to have them :) But i do not like gay marriage that is why i voted against this resolution. :mad: They should make a resolution for women's rights but not gay marriage :headbang: :gundge:

Sorry to break this to you, but if you are a member of the UN then you are required to allow gay marriage by virtue of a previous resolution ("Gay Rights").

Just thought I would mention that :}

If you believe than murder is wrong, and that resolution could allow murder in your country, why would you vote for?

What is important is equality of all people, no matter their culture, under the law. Not the equality of all cultures; even if you argue that one cannot judge another culture, I can ask you this question:Imagine 2 cultures, being exactly the same in all points except for murder - One promotes it, the other condemns it . How can those 2 cultures be equal? Even if we cannot judge which, we must admit that one must be right and the other must be wrong. They aren't equal.

I do not support the resolution because it is redundant... It merely reiterates

"Rights and Duties of UN States" Resolution


I'm not seeing how this resolution reiterates the "Rights and Duties of UN States" resolution.

The town empied faster than a beer can on campus. They all knew what was about to happen. For but a moment they all had a high-quality Tivo of the future. Today wasn't going to be just another day in the forum...

Today was going to be a showdown

*"The Good, The Bad And the Ugly" is whistled in the background*

Yes, folks this UN forum aint big enough for both Sheriff "Erasthmus" TilEnca And Outlaw "Isle Ike" Masked Cucumbers. There'd be a face-off, a scuffufle, fisticuffs, a downright mud-wrestling match, now. In these here parts one can't just call someone out and expect not to be branded with multiple ENTER keys. No sirree. Everything is Not OK in this here corral...

(Smile) You crack me up :}

If you believe than murder is wrong, and that resolution could allow murder in your country, why would you vote for?

What is important is equality of all people, no matter their culture, under the law. Not the equality of all cultures; even if you argue that one cannot judge another culture, I can ask you this question:Imagine 2 cultures, being exactly the same in all points except for murder - One promotes it, the other condemns it . How can those 2 cultures be equal? Even if we cannot judge which, we must admit that one must be right and the other must be wrong. They aren't equal.

Okay I am completely lost now.

Firstly - what resolution? I have never voted for a resolution that would enforce the death penalty in my nation. By the by the same token I have never voted for a resolution that would ban it across all nations. Simply because even though it is not right for my nation, I understand it might be right for other nations.

Two cultures - one promotes murder, one condems it. How can they be equal?
Well - it depends on what you think is meant by equal. If you mean "identical" then no - of course they are not identical. No nation is identical to another. That would be almost impossible.
But what I mean by equal is "no less worthy and no more worthy". I can say "I don't think they are right to promote murder", but I am not going to say that a nation that condems it is a "better" nation than one that promotes it, because for all I know the one that promotes it might have a damn good reason for doing so. And even if it doesn't, the people (or leaders) of that nation might all think they have a damn good reason for doing so.

So yeah - I would say they can be equal, even if I think one is behaving in way I would not behave, and the other one isn't.

Okay I am completely lost now.

Firstly - what resolution? I have never voted for a resolution that would enforce the death penalty in my nation. By the by the same token I have never voted for a resolution that would ban it across all nations. Simply because even though it is not right for my nation, I understand it might be right for other nations.

Two cultures - one promotes murder, one condems it. How can they be equal?
Well - it depends on what you think is meant by equal. If you mean "identical" then no - of course they are not identical. No nation is identical to another. That would be almost impossible.
But what I mean by equal is "no less worthy and no more worthy". I can say "I don't think they are right to promote murder", but I am not going to say that a nation that condems it is a "better" nation than one that promotes it, because for all I know the one that promotes it might have a damn good reason for doing so. And even if it doesn't, the people (or leaders) of that nation might all think they have a damn good reason for doing so.

So yeah - I would say they can be equal, even if I think one is behaving in way I would not behave, and the other one isn't.


OK... Now can you imagine a culture that does not tolerate other cultures? How that culture would be equal with the others? How this UN resolution would act towrd that culture - if the UN condemns it, then it is not treated as equal; if the UN does not condemn it, then cultures are not judged equal in this country. How can you deal with this?

I'm not seeing how this resolution reiterates the "Rights and Duties of UN States" resolution.
Being something of a specialist in this particular resolution, I'd have to agree with Mikitivity here. I completely removed all aspects of Human Rights from Rights and Duties, as I was going for Political Stability all the way.

Article 3 mentions a nation's right to choose (among other things) their own concept of religion, but the proposal had nothing whatsoever to say on the validity of religion in any form. The only commonality between my Article 3 and this proposal's Article III is that both of them are the third article and both mention religion.

That's it. The rest of Rights of Minorities and Women addresses individual rights, while Rights and Duties of UN States deals with national soveriegnty issues and war. No crossover, no relation.

Being something of a specialist in this particular resolution ...

That's it. The rest of Rights of Minorities and Women addresses individual rights, while Rights and Duties of UN States deals with national soveriegnty issues and war. No crossover, no relation.

There ya go, more to add to the NSWiki discussion on that important resolution. :)

Altho the intentions are good, the proposal is simply not precise enough.
ARTICLE I- No one race or culture is better than another.
~ How exactly is this going to be enforced?

ARTICLE II- Males and Females should be treated as equals. Whether it be in the workplace or at home.
~ hmmm. Who's better in public places then? What about at a private recreational area?

ARTICLE III- Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another.
~east to say impossible to assure or inforce

ARTICLE IV- One should have the right to express their love for a member of the same sex.
~ In what way? publicly? What if this expression is violent or dangerous?

This proposal, if passed, will surely need to be looked over and will only cause problems untill then.

This is the most inept bill I have ever seen. It is useless. There are problems throughout this one. It never lays down any action, just ideas. I agree with the ideas of it, however it does not accomplish anything.

1. Ok, this article is a thought, it has no real impact on current laws.
2. This one uses the word should, meaning it is a thought, and has no real impact on any laws.
3. See #1
4. See #1-3

The point I'm trying to get across is that the resolution accomplishes nothing. I think I'm going to vote nay.

OK... Now can you imagine a culture that does not tolerate other cultures? How that culture would be equal with the others? How this UN resolution would act towrd that culture - if the UN condemns it, then it is not treated as equal; if the UN does not condemn it, then cultures are not judged equal in this country. How can you deal with this?

(grin) Is there any possibility that when you are not acting as the UN diplomat to your nation you work as a lawyer?

Anyway - to answer your question.

GeminiLand is intolerent of any other cultures. However it has joined the UN because - well let's just assume GeminiLand had a reason for joining the UN.

GeminiLand's view of all other nations does not make it less good or more good than any other nation - they might have a reason for their view that I don't understand.

Then this resolution passes (and may we all cry ourselves to sleep if that happens), but - shock horror - GeminiLand suddenly respects all cultures.

Why? Because this resolution says it is so, and nations have NO CHOICE but to conform to it. So it must now respect all cultures as equal, or leave the UN.

If it leaves the UN then it doesn't much matter what the UN thinks of it, because it is no longer under the jurisdiction of the UN.

My point is that if all religions can be equal, including agnostics and atheists, then why can not all nations and cultures be equal, even those who don't believe that?

Can't we just make amendments to the resolution?

Sorry for appearing :confused: but I'm new here. They have amendments in the real UN, but I don't know about here.

That's quite a letgitimate question, really. While it would be nice to be able to amend resolutions, we can't here simply because the programmers have made no provision for it. Maybe we should petition them to alter the program so that we could. It would sure make things more interesting.

I'm not seeing how this resolution reiterates the "Rights and Duties of UN States" resolution.

In conjunction with the bulk of others, yes... It reinterates the principle that one belief (which would include belief in particular economic and governmental forms) is considered equal.

Or does this NSUN not look upon precedent?

Well, some nice anarchy would come from this resolution as well... Thans to Article 3... All sorts of resolutions can be potentially shot down... Whenever resolutions pushing for socialist reforms pop up, capitalists can jump up and claim the author is in violation of Article 3 for purporting that "socialism" is better than "capitalism"... on the flip side, whenever Free Trade resolutions pop up, or privitization resolutions pop up, socialists can make the same claims...

In the long run, should this resolution be passed, and actually properly implimented, the NSUN would be able to vote on little to nothing... As just about anything in relation to government and economy can be protected under Article 3...

Mentor, Ohio, United States


Mentor is a nice place.

Oh, and it's too bad about ammendments. The game just doesn't support them. Judging from Maxchat 3.0, I think Max might've added that feature if he had to do it all over again.

*laments uproarously*

In conjunction with the bulk of others, yes... It reinterates the principle that one belief (which would include belief in particular economic and governmental forms) is considered equal.

Or does this NSUN not look upon precedent?

It actually focused on the rights of nations to have a religion. Nations not individuals.

I saw nothing that implied equality of religions themselves nor individual rights.

That resolution was designed to serve as a sort of "charter", but had its basis on the issue of national sovereingty, not social rule. It was a good resolution, but in this case it really doesn't apply.

Should this resolution pass, I will ask fellow members to reconsider and repeal.

Well, some nice anarchy would come from this resolution as well... Thans to Article 3... All sorts of resolutions can be potentially shot down... Whenever resolutions pushing for socialist reforms pop up, capitalists can jump up and claim the author is in violation of Article 3 for purporting that "socialism" is better than "capitalism"... on the flip side, whenever Free Trade resolutions pop up, or privitization resolutions pop up, socialists can make the same claims...

In the long run, should this resolution be passed, and actually properly implimented, the NSUN would be able to vote on little to nothing... As just about anything in relation to government and economy can be protected under Article 3...

I realise you are going to know why I am asking this, but would this also mean that governments who wish to slaughter half their own people, because they don't like red-heads, would be procted under a form of government?

The resolution is totally self-contradictory.

How can all cultures be equal if only the cultures that allow homosexuality, gender equality and religious tolerance are allowed?

Utter crap frankly.

This is my precise feeling on the matter, among other things. I don't believe that the ideals stated are bad and neither am I against them, I just think that it's amazingly contradictory and states should pass laws like these individually and not as a whole.

Should this resolution pass, I will ask fellow members to reconsider and repeal.

As a Delegate, I voted for the resolution as a result of the polling of our member states. Our region, US Politics, has a highly democratic system whereas the member states tell the delegate how to vote.

I, however, do not support this resolution. I has no real teeth, and seems silly. I would happily support a repeal.

Ben

Oddly, I have very little to say on this matter.

My opinion is that the resolution in its current terms does repeat the intended spirit of other resolutions, and I abhor the use of equal in the resolution. Therefore I have voted against it.

On the surface, it seems like it is trying to uphold human rights and be a good thing. But I also think that it is poorly worded and does not do anything to further human rights that hasnt already been done through previous resolutions.

Lets not clutter our resolution list with yet another senseless resolution.

This resolution is bad because of article 3. Basically it says that is there is an issue with one religion and you need to shut it down, you have to shut down all religious groups in the nation down.

I think the whole idea is just dumb. Sure, people should have equal oppourtunities but to say every single person is equal in every way isn't right.

Tell me this,

Is it right for any nation , or nations, to tell another nation that its beliefs, the beliefs that it was founded on, no longer take precedence??

If a Christian nation does not believe that homosexuality is right, then who are the other nations of the world to force that nation to ignore its own beliefs and accept those that violate those beliefs. Its just not right.

This is reply is OOC.

Tell me this,

Is it right for any nation , or nations, to tell another nation that its beliefs, the beliefs that it was founded on, no longer take precedence??.

Maybe.

Oh, and most nations (in RL, NS is a different matter, obviously) weren't founded on beliefs. Or if they were those beliefs have changed dramatically since the founding of the nation.

If a Christian nation does not believe that homosexuality is right, then who are the other nations of the world to force that nation to ignore its own beliefs and accept those that violate those beliefs. Its just not right.

Why should it be OK for a nation to ignore the beliefs of some of its people but not OK for the international community to ignore the beliefs of some of its constituent nations? And if you argue national sovereignity I want to see a concrete argument why national sovereignity is so sacred.

Resolution....

No mention of disABLED.

Crappy Civil Rights resolution..

Nuff said

(grin) Is there any possibility that when you are not acting as the UN diplomat to your nation you work as a lawyer?

Anyway - to answer your question.

GeminiLand is intolerent of any other cultures. However it has joined the UN because - well let's just assume GeminiLand had a reason for joining the UN.

GeminiLand's view of all other nations does not make it less good or more good than any other nation - they might have a reason for their view that I don't understand.

Then this resolution passes (and may we all cry ourselves to sleep if that happens), but - shock horror - GeminiLand suddenly respects all cultures.

Why? Because this resolution says it is so, and nations have NO CHOICE but to conform to it. So it must now respect all cultures as equal, or leave the UN.

If it leaves the UN then it doesn't much matter what the UN thinks of it, because it is no longer under the jurisdiction of the UN.

My point is that if all religions can be equal, including agnostics and atheists, then why can not all nations and cultures be equal, even those who don't believe that?

Problem is that this proposal does not just specify actions between nations. Conside the following example:

LibraLand is a tolerant, liberal democracy. Following this ideology, and supported by various UN resolutions, they have enacted legislation to (mildly) restrict racist and sexist literature and behaviour by certain groups.

Upon the passing of this resolution the Aryan Brotherhood declares that its beliefs should not be restricted in any way. LibraLand is thus forced to repeal all anti-racist legislation. The punk song "Shoot Me A Nigga" becomes a nationwide sales success.

Resolution....

No mention of disABLED.

Crappy Civil Rights resolution..

Nuff said

Actually I've been trying to dream up an "international" justification for something akin to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which I think is one of the US laws that more real world countries are in desparate need of. During my travels in continental Europe, I've observed that if you have a serious disability, there appear to be fewer services or means for a non-native to move around (England may very well be an exception to this, as my experiences with the British is that they are kind almost to a fault!). ;)

That said, this is my approach so far ... we might not have the ability to make national laws for a UN Disability Act, but we certainly can pass an "administrative" resolution requiring nations to accomidate UN ambassadors with disabilities and for the UN itself to make sure that its outreach programs offer alternative services so that visually impaired citizens made have the same access to the UN as non-disabled citizens.

It is just a very hard issue, but even if this resolution doesn't address this, does not mean that the idea hasn't been on the radar of some nations (probably admittedly the liberal nations that see this as a basic human right, but trust me, if I saw a straight forward way to drive this stake in I would). :)

But if you think this should be done and have your own ideas, make the proposal. I'd love to see the NS UN at the very least talk about the subject, as I hate to say it ... but it seems -- to me -- a lot more important of a human right than gay marriage (because we've talked that subject to DEATH and have passed plenty of resolutions dancing around the subject) or prostitution.

It is possible that one of the prior NS UN resolutions has already touched upon this area along with other issues, but nothing has jumped out at me. On the other hand, we have actually debated things like HIV __3__ times (which I still think we need to tackle STIs themselves sometime -- and for that I'd like to start with a NS World Health Organization).

* STIs are Sexually Transmitted Infections. Some medical organizations / web sites started using infection instead of diease a couple of years ago.

The first three articles are acceptable in some ways, but need to be expanded upon, they are a little too vague. Too many if then clauses are in their, and men and women are fundamentally different, but should be seen in the same light politically. The fourth article should not even be a UN decision. Each nation can decide for itself whether or not same-sex marriages are legal, depending on what type of nation it is. Overall, i think it is an interesting proposal, but needs some work, and should be broken up into multiple proposals, as each article addresses a separate issue.

The first three articles are acceptable in some ways, but need to be expanded upon, they are a little too vague. Too many if then clauses are in their, and men and women are fundamentally different, but should be seen in the same light politically. The fourth article should not even be a UN decision. Each nation can decide for itself whether or not same-sex marriages are legal, depending on what type of nation it is. Overall, i think it is an interesting proposal, but needs some work, and should be broken up into multiple proposals, as each article addresses a separate issue.

For the LAST G^%^$% MO$%#$@%# F@#$^%$ time......

It does not matter, homosexual marriage is legal in all NSUN member nations already by previous resolution....

And that is the basis for MY contention against this one... The fact that the resolution is nothing more than a poor implimentation of principles we have already effectively implimented...

No single person who knows, already, all the en force, existing legsilative resolutions by this NSUN body, supports this resolution, because not only is it redundant, it's poorly written and redundant... Seriously people... The next person who argues from ignorance, I'm going to work on resolution to mandate redundant proposal writers and supporters have their forehead branded with the link to the NSUN resolutions through history page...

Resolution....

No mention of disABLED.

Crappy Civil Rights resolution..

Nuff said

How many more groups would you like to add to this Gay-Socialists Wish List? The UN is corrupt, ineffectual, and broke. A meaningful confederation of Responsible-United-SelfSupporting-Honest countries [RUSH Nations] should be established. One of its first jobs should be the trial of the UN for Corruption, and Failure to Enforce its own (few legal) resolutions.

How many more groups would you like to add to this Gay-Socialists Wish List? The UN is corrupt, ineffectual, and broke. A meaningful confederation of Responsible-United-SelfSupporting-Honest countries [RUSH Nations] should be established. One of its first jobs should be the trial of the UN for Corruption, and Failure to Enforce its own (few legal) resolutions.

Using the characters RUSH in relation to the words Responsible and Honest, is officially classified as an oxymoron.

Every Resolution that is passed is legal, legality is defined by the law, and in the end, it is the NSUN which defines law on its members, as such, you cannot call ANY NSUN resolutions "illegal"...

And, as such, if any conglomeration of nose-picking RUSHites even attempted at harassing the Republic, or her allies in the UN, you better kiss your ass goodbye, I'll have 9 Sector Control Vessels parked over your nations very rapidly changing them into glass parking lots.

ARTICLE III- Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another.

This is a clear attempt to legally remove my Great Nation from the UN council.

I have had two specific parlimentary issues regarding religion. The first created the nation wide and mandatory Church of Burn infidels. The second has begun a crusade against barbaric religious practices

To have to enact laws againts legislation already passed by my government is completely unacceptable.

How can the following two things be both true:

All cultures are to be considered equal.
Men and Women must be equal in all member states.

MADNESS!!!!

I like your sardonic wit, Mondiala. You must be a Terra Utopian.

Rights of Minorities and Women
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
------

The title says it aims to increase rights, but in fact it takes away rights by madating equallness... not equal treatment, or even better, fair treatment.

I don't help All Beverages by madating that Milk and Orange Juice are equal. They are different and it is their differences that make them each tasty.

Cheddar is the most popular cheese, but occasionally I enjoy Swiss cheese, and a bit of Turkey or Ham. These things are all different, but that is why I enjoy them.

If you want to improve Rights, then mandate that fair consideration be given to all applicants for a job, or that relationships ought to be considered between adults not the purview of the state, or that all Religious Faiths be given an opportunity to exist, and not be mandated nor denied existence by the state, but rather be decided among the people and the followers of that faith.

This ''all must be equal'' is more math than political science. 3 + 1 = 4 and 2 + 2 = 4 so therefore
3 +1 is equal to 2 + 2

But turkey and swiss is different than ham and cheddar. Good intentions (I hope), Bad resolution.

Anyone want to bet that this one won't pass?
Need someone to bet against.
Having seen the first numbers.

*sighs* BLARGH! Only 30 more to go to get into queue.

The Free Land of Come Together has voted in favour of this resolution. We believe in total freedom for everyone and that everyone has the same rights in the eyes of The Great Energy that gives us life and permeates our world.
We may have different bodies, but inside we are all equal whether we're male, female or androgenous. Therefore we should be treated as equal in the eyes of the law. This same argument goes for those of different races and cultures.
We also believe that all religion or spiritual beliefs originate from the same source and therefore there can be no difference between them. None is better or worse than the other.
Loving a member of the same sex can be viewed from different perspectives. It can be an emotional love (like a father and son) or a physical love (sex). Ultimately in our belief it is the love between two souls and therefore it has the right to be expressed in the appropriate way.

Freedom In Growth.

The People's Republic of Groot Gouda will not vote FOR this resolution. We are in doubt between abstaining and voting AGAINST, depending on what the region advises.

We mainly think that this resolution does not add anything to the NSUN, with several resolutions either being in place already or pending approval, which are phrased better and have a broader scope. We would rather support those. Voting for this resolution might decrease the chances of better proposals.

Ecopoeia has voted against this resolution. Really, there's no need for it.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

The Free Land of Come Together has voted in favour of this resolution. We believe in total freedom for everyone and that everyone has the same rights in the eyes of The Great Energy that gives us life and permeates our world.
We may have different bodies, but inside we are all equal whether we're male, female or androgenous. Therefore we should be treated as equal in the eyes of the law. This same argument goes for those of different races and cultures.
We also believe that all religion or spiritual beliefs originate from the same source and therefore there can be no difference between them. None is better or worse than the other.
Loving a member of the same sex can be viewed from different perspectives. It can be an emotional love (like a father and son) or a physical love (sex). Ultimately in our belief it is the love between two souls and therefore it has the right to be expressed in the appropriate way.

Freedom In Growth.

Branding iron ready, Tekania?

The People's Republic of Groot Gouda will not vote FOR this resolution. We are in doubt between abstaining and voting AGAINST, depending on what the region advises.

We mainly think that this resolution does not add anything to the NSUN, with several resolutions either being in place already or pending approval, which are phrased better and have a broader scope. We would rather support those. Voting for this resolution might decrease the chances of better proposals.

I urge you to read my initial response to this proposal. It attempts to outline why this proposal would in fact be a limiting factor on human rights. I also urge you to vote against.

Well, I guess I wrote down it in the wrong place.

So, again.

Everything right but the Article III.

Not every religion and belief is equal to another, not all the religions/sects deserve the same consideration or rights.

My country is basicly atheist, but we respect every religion that DO Not attack the freedom, the human rights, or the person´s integrity.

We can not consider equal a religion based in love and peace to another based in hatred and violence.

We think that every human being is born equal with the same rights, but the way they/us act make us differents.


Thanks.

Broken.

Elected President Of Al-Anladuz.

Branding iron ready, Tekania?

No frikken kidding...

It's the ultimate proof of the inherant problem of pure democracies, a pure democracy relies on an informed and intelligent populace... This resolution is demonstrating perfectly well, from most of those for, and some against (the principles of the resolution) that there is a significant majority in the NSUN who are neither informed, nor intelligent...

All the tools are before them, the ability to read and learn all previous resolutions passed by this body, yet, in laziness, they refuse to do so, and so, we are forced, by new resolution (and not in the matter of reconsideration by way of repeal of the previous) but to tackle anew, issues which we have already tackled, in the passage of a resolution to encompass things which we have already handled. So by way of new resolution, we have proponents, ill informed of present and enacted NSUN legislation, arguing for the passage of a resolution of which we have already tackled issues of; and opponents, ill informed, arguing of its illegality, in the face of previous resolutions which have already accompished its task... From a disconnected, arbitrational and inquisitive viewpoint, it's an interesting study of the human nature and its massive flaws... But extreamly sad from the viewpoint of effectual and efficient people-centric government.

OK, having criticised this proposal in the pass I wish to reconsider. If (or more likely when) this resolution passes I would like to use it as a precedent to make the following proposal I've been keen on for a long time:


The Goodness Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights


Category: Human Rights Stregth: Strong

Description:The UN should recognise that goodness is good.

ARTICLE I- People, like, should be friends and stuff.

ARTICLE II- Don't be a meany. That's bad.

ARTICLE III- Wars make bady Jesus cry. Don't make baby Jesus cry.

ARTICLE IV- I want a pony.

It is sad to say that the fools that support this resolution will get it passed because they want to feel like they are doing a good thing, all the while they are interfering in matter that are and should remain the internal matters of each nation, and inhibiting nations that don't share their lollypop and cotton candy views of the world.
If previous resultion state we are and already have human rights then lets stop beating a dead horse.

OK, having criticised this proposal in the pass I wish to reconsider. If (or more likely when) this resolution passes I would like to use it as a precedent to make the following proposal I've been keen on for a long time:


The Goodness Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights

Category: Human Rights Stregth: Strong

Description:The UN should recognise that goodness is good.

ARTICLE I- People, like, should be friends and stuff.

ARTICLE II- Don't be a meany. That's bad.

ARTICLE III- Wars make bady Jesus cry. Don't make baby Jesus cry.

ARTICLE IV- I want a pony.




(grin) See - this is something I could get behind. Plus we have spare ponies in TilEnca :}

Yes, this is a lousy resolution. This to me seems more like a personal or political view rather than something that could benefit humanity. That's like a resolution saying "I like Puppies and Kittens Equally!" But what does that issue do for animal rights? Nothing. That's like saying "Mountains are just as pretty as lakes and streams" but what does that do to benefit the enviorment. I have no problem with a resolution that would do something to ensure the rights of minorities and women, but a resolution just saying they are equal doesn't do squat.

The Dominion of Necros-Vacuia agrees and laughs with the delegate from Stripe lovers.

We believe that the very title of this resolution is flawed; it claims to give rights to women, yet in Article II it supports the idea of men's rights? What about cases where the women are at the top of the hierarchical ladder, and have oppressed the men as part of their culture for generations?

We'd also like to point out that nations never speak that plainly. After all, we have never regarded any of our myriad races or cultures as "superior" or "inferior." That doesn't mean that one of our races isn't bred, monitored, and kept under the thumb of the State.

Finally, EVERYTHING in this Proposal is covered in UN Resolution #26!

The Dominion, quite frankly, is sick of proposals endorsing "civil rights". Civil rights are a construct that not everyone defines on the same level. The Constitution of the Dominion of Necros-Vacuia defines them thus:

Civil Rights are not Inalienable...they are a Privilege that must be Earned.

We already have equality. Why is it necessary for the UN to continue making resolutions that poke their noses into our nation and try to criticize us for not living up to *their* cultural standards?

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

so a tribe found in the forests of Tanakeir living in the stone age should be given the same rights as the people who developed and built my great nation, pssshhooot!!

inequality is what gives life a bit o' spice to live. all equal?!?! UN going a bit too far on this one. the bum living on the street is equal to hehe, ME?!?! another ploy masked by a human rights argument to make you feel guilty to vote against it. it is your perogative but this one is a complete folly as a resolution, no doubt about it.

Lord Delandou

The thought of ponys is actually quite interesting. That new proposal should go far, with the right backing. Also, we dont want to make baby Jesus cry now, don't we?

This resolution, while noble in intent, is not sufficiently refined and is too vague to be enforced. In the extreme, this resolution could be used to almost any end along the lines of its chief subjects of personal equality. The resolution can be interpreted to follow any nation's preferences simply by taking the position that one group of people that is not a separate race of humanity, and having high standards of who can be classified as a recognizable culture. Should this scenario actually appear in a UN nation, the resolution either does not apply, or is a clear violation of the articles depending on each nation's interpretation. Without a follow-up resolution that defines what constitutes a race or culture, and the wording of article II changed to move from being a suggestion to a strong, clear standard, which can be universally applied with little room for differing interpretations.

Currently, simply declaring people with freckles to be below all others would not be prevented by this resolution, and could lead to genocide with no ability to contest it on this resolution's basis.

It is the position of Technia that this resolution can only serve to further complicate human, racial, and sexual dealings, without providing any clear directions. Technia would not endorse this resolution in its current form.

~~X. Raddix, Coordinator of Technia

Red stovals are opposed to this resolution for one and simple reason : if adopted, this resolution will allow every little sect to ask for legimity, and will put forwards conflicts between minorities.

This resolution create more problems than it solves and others resolutions give guarantees enough to dosciminated minorities.

This is why Red Stovals authorities appeal all nations who are opposed to the religious lobbies to vote against this resolution. Diplomatic services are in action with brother-lands

Officials Greetings,

Red Stovals' Government.

How can we muster enough votes AGAINST this resolution? Is it futile? Or will we just have to try and repeal it as soon as it passes? I agree with everyone else who's stated their views AGAINST.

The thought of ponys is actually quite interesting. That new proposal should go far, with the right backing. Also, we dont want to make baby Jesus cry now, don't we?

Actually it could be kind of fun. We could have huge international contests - like the Olympics - to see who can make him cry the most? And the fastest? And t-shirts!! "I went to (name of the country) to make Baby Jesus Cry and all I got was this dumn t-shirt and a bad case of leprosy!"


Then again - maybe not :}

But seriously - the pony thing is a winner!

QUOTE: The Free Land of Come Together has voted in favour of this resolution. We believe in total freedom for everyone ....

We may have different (no they are the same now after this UN res) bodies, but inside we are all equal whether we're male, female or androgenous.

Therefore we should be treated as equal in the eyes of the law. This same argument goes for those of different races and cultures.

(yeah TREATED equal, not ARE equal)

We also believe that all religion or spiritual beliefs originate from the same source and therefore there can be no difference between them. None is better or worse than the other.

(So if I believe an iguana lives under my bed and tells me how to make pie and that pie is the key to human peace, then I am ok, and not in fact in need of some counseling?)

Loving a member of the same sex can be viewed from different perspectives.

(no it can't.... not after this resolution... all beliefs are the same, read the res)

It can be an emotional love (like a father and son) or a physical love (sex). Ultimately in our belief it is the love between two souls and therefore it has the right to be expressed in the appropriate way.

(all things are appropriate/inappropriate after this resolution)

QUOTE: The Free Land of Come Together has voted in favour of this resolution. We believe in total freedom for everyone ....


Even child molestors?


We may have different (no they are the same now after this UN res) bodies, but inside we are all equal whether we're male, female or androgenous.


That much I will agree :}


Therefore we should be treated as equal in the eyes of the law. This same argument goes for those of different races and cultures.


So you would be happy for women to be denied maternity leave, cause males are denied maternity leave?

I totally support the idea of the resolution, but it is far, far, far too vague to actually do any good. And is equally capable of being used for "bad" purposes as well as "good" ones.

So you would be happy for women to be denied maternity leave, cause males are denied maternity leave?
And childfree women never get maternity leave either. S'not fair.

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

In the Gilded Age which is ruled by Victorian virtues, the idea is proposturous

In the Gilded Age which is ruled by Victorian virtues, the idea is proposturous
Please remember that your Victorian virtues are second to the decisions of the UN.

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

The Free Land of Come Together has voted in favour of this resolution. We believe in total freedom for everyone and that everyone has the same rights in the eyes of The Great Energy that gives us life and permeates our world.

In other words, you support this motion because it enforces your religious beliefs on the rest of us.
We also believe that all religion or spiritual beliefs originate from the same source and therefore there can be no difference between them. None is better or worse than the other.
To an extent I commend you on your honesty. This is not a civil rights motion, despite how it's supporters are portraying it. It is an attempt to force all nations to comply with an idea of cultural and religious relativism that this motion's proponents share. In other words, this 'tolerent' motion is an attempt to force ideals on those who don't share them. It's imperialism, pure and simple.

OK, the thing will pass on Saturday... lets have a race to see who can submit their repeal the fastest.

The sad thing is that the repeal will probably be approved by about the same vote count as the original resolution just a few days earlier!

In the Empire of Nicod, people are entitled to equal rights under the law. However, they are not entitled to government sanction of their behaviors. The Empire of Nicod does not promote or sanction deviant sexual acts - such as homoanal sodomy - and strives to protect the innocence of its children from knowledge of such. A resolution such as this will end up promoting such perverse and destructive sexual behavior - which is ruinous to the innocence and welfare of children - and to the people who engage in it.

The Emperor of Nicod

Such a proposal will destroy the culture of Spider Queen Lolth irrevocably! In our city, females have always held higher positions, religious, noble or otherwise. Only a female can hold the rank of Matron Mother to any of our noble houses, and this is the way it has always been! To force us to acknowledge male Drow as the equal to female Drow is stupidity, and could bring destruction due to the disfavour of our spider goddess!

Further, the notion that all religions are 'equal' is an absurdity. Different religions posit mutually exclusive beliefs; some, such as Satan worship, promote evil. Some promote violent death to unbelievers. To 'declare' that they are all 'equal' is a silly and childish fiction. The Empire of Nicod does not endorse such idiocy. Further, the United Nations loses legitimacy in promoting such absurdities.

The Emperor of Nicod

Further, the notion that all religions are 'equal' is an absurdity. Different religions posit mutually exclusive beliefs; some, such as Satan worship, promote evil. Some promote violent death to unbelievers. To 'declare' that they are all 'equal' is a silly and childish fiction. The Empire of Nicod does not endorse such idiocy. Further, the United Nations loses legitimacy in promoting such absurdities.

The Emperor of Nicod

Actually, it depends on the Satanism. Some forms view Satan as a being of light and goodness and come up with ways to follow him the look like a mixture oof Christianity and several other religions. The rest either don't actually have him as a deity or don't view him as evil. The people who actually worship evil are quite rare, even among how rare Satanists are.

You might want to research before spouting off what you don't know.

Actually, it depends on the Satanism. Some forms view Satan as a being of light and goodness and come up with ways to follow him the look like a mixture oof Christianity and several other religions. The rest either don't actually have him as a deity or don't view him as evil. The people who actually worship evil are quite rare, even among how rare Satanists are.

You might want to research before spouting off what you don't know.

(grin) Thank you for saving me the trouble :}

OK, the thing will pass on Saturday... lets have a race to see who can submit their repeal the fastest.

The sad thing is that the repeal will probably be approved by about the same vote count as the original resolution just a few days earlier!

Right, well since this is most probably the case, we should stop arguing about the proposal and being the construction of a repeal now. Surely a formulated and structured repeal thought out over several days will be more reliable than one hurried?
And since in this forum we are all against it, post little bits and bobs of the most significant error you can find.

Well, some nice anarchy would come from this resolution as well... Thans to Article 3... All sorts of resolutions can be potentially shot down... Whenever resolutions pushing for socialist reforms pop up, capitalists can jump up and claim the author is in violation of Article 3 for purporting that "socialism" is better than "capitalism"... on the flip side, whenever Free Trade resolutions pop up, or privitization resolutions pop up, socialists can make the same claims...

In the long run, should this resolution be passed, and actually properly implimented, the NSUN would be able to vote on little to nothing... As just about anything in relation to government and economy can be protected under Article 3...

Yeah, but they can argue all they want. People clearly don't read the forums to make a decision, as is evidenced by the vast number of people voting for this proposal.

Yeah, but they can argue all they want. People clearly don't read the forums to make a decision, as is evidenced by the vast number of people voting for this proposal.

Actually I think a lot of people do debate the proposals. More on the regional boards than this one. But they don't appear to just head off and vote without considering them first.

Actually I think a lot of people do debate the proposals. More on the regional boards than this one. But they don't appear to just head off and vote without considering them first.


there was a "debate" in my region, it was like "Would you vote against women and minorities rights???" (like "Are you a nazi?!?")

Most of the people just vote by the title and don't make any real search or debate before they vote.

Well, if the vote goes like this:
Votes For: 6,750

Votes Against: 2,627,

I have a hard time believeing most of those 6,750 people looked into this kind of argument that we have here on the forums.
***
Furthermore, I propose that Amsterdam Junior (or anybody else in the 6,750 people who voted for this resolution) to answer the following questions (yes, they have been said before, but I think it would do nicely to collect everything:

1) What if my nation has an official religion?

2) What if a religion in my country believes women are just sexual toys for men, and that women have no right to speak without permission from their man, let alone leave the house or act independently?

3) What if various hate groups insist on killing people as part of their "belief" system?

4) What if people of the same sex start having sex in public?

5) It is my nation's belief that no third power should be able to impose its will on my country. Now, do I have to obey UN policy/resolutions?

Actually, I htink you get my point, and I just thought of something else. People have talked about how this resolution could possibly be enforced. I find it a shame to be asking this, but I guess I must. WHOSE JOB IS IT TO ENFORCE THIS RESOLUTION? MY COUNTRY OR THE UN?

If my country is forced to spy on the homes of every single family in my nation to make sure women are treated equally, where am I going to get the money (besdies the fact that civil rights thus go down the drain)?

If the UN does manage to somehow define any of the terms used, or create any policy of enforcement, what is done with the "transgressors"? Do I have to do anything to them (the resolution doesn't say so), or can I just put them in prison for a minute and half, and then let them go? Or can I slap them on the wrist with a ruler? Or do I use the Death Penalty, or do I deny them any rights?

This is a horribly worded resolution that (I have actually not read past reslutions) seems to simply reiterate previous resolutions. The possibilities for confusion abound. There is no way to define the terms, there is no way to enforce, and there is no way to determine proper punishment. There is no way to stop somebody from turning it around, and there is no way from stopping this case from becoming a precedent for similar moralistic and useless trash that simply clutters up the UN. It is exactly for this reason that I don't support the UN in real life, and I am sorry to see such fault carry over into Nation States.

there was a "debate" in my region, it was like "Would you vote against women and minorities rights???" (like "Are you a nazi?!?")

Most of the people just vote by the title and don't make any real search or debate before they vote.

(smirk) I didn't say it was an informed debate :}

(smirk) I didn't say it was an informed debate :}\

Unfortunately, very few debates are. :(

Ah, so now people who have a knowledgable and working understanding of NSUN legislative documents in power, and who decides the direction of their vote in an informed and intelligable manner are nazis....

Ahhh, just when you think you've seen the absolute abyssal lows of rank incompitence... someone has to go and surprise you by sinking even deeper...

People should be forced to take an exam on reading comprehension, and NSUN history to vote.... Judging by the present level of vote, about 1/7th of the NSUN voting block would be shut out from votes.

:sniper: :mp5:

The resolution as stated basically reaffirms the obvious, except in it's declaration of the absolute right to affirm love between men and men or women and women. While this may or may not be a laudable belief(I don't think it should be mandatory) it intrudes into the religious beliefs of various countries. Say, Islamic Republics, for example, or The Vatican. To force secular beliefs through the doors of a house of worship violates the foundation of sanctity of worship, and it, in and of itself, represents a tyranny of belief. Conversely, religion should have a voice in such policies, but, except in examples as I have stated earlier, religion should not be the deciding factor in creating those policies. My objection to this portion of the resolution is in that it dictates the belief systems and legal practices of a few into the majority of nations that may not see it in such terms. Perhaps a rewrite of the resolution, with the offending portion removed, will be in the works, and therefore help in its passing?

It has been brought to my attention that nations such as DemonLordEnigma beleive that this resolution doesn't apply to the individual but to the country as a whole. I don't ean to single anyone out but I feel this subject must be adressed along with some other things.

1) This resolution can only apply to the individual since whole nations do not have a religion and cannot be a minority.

2) This resolution will have no affect on a large majority of nations since a lot of nations have outstanding civil rights but to vote this in to improve civil rights is pointless. So when the repeal comes around anyone out to improve civil rights should make the right decisions on issues and NOT vote in this resolution.

Actually, this is a typical and completely meaningless UN resolution, which everyone ignores, but which everyone likes to tout in order to earn political correctness points. This is an example of what the UN does, when it has nothing better to do.

The Emperor of Nicod

Actually, this is a typical and completely meaningless UN resolution, which everyone ignores, but which everyone likes to tout in order to earn political correctness points. This is an example of what the UN does, when it has nothing better to do.

The Emperor of Nicod

I couldnt have said it better myself

Despite the fundamental absurdity of this resolution, it seems as though it's going to pass with flying colors. I am considering resigning from the UN on account of this resolution. I believe that homosexuality is a sin. I also disagree with the equality arguement.

Anyway, my question is this: will it do any good to resign? I know no one's going to notice if one tiny country resigns. But maybe if a group of tiny countries resign, it'll make a statement. I wonder if it's worth the effort.

This debate makes me wish for a UN "President" (preferably a conservative) who had veto power.

This debate makes me wish for a UN "President" (preferably a conservative) who had veto power.

That is quite frankly the most absurd thing I have heard this week.

1) This resolution can only apply to the individual since whole nations do not have a religion and cannot be a minority.

I am sorry, but I disagree. The mighty (and I might add mandatory) Church of Burn infidels is the religion not only of individual members of my population, but ALL members of my population. This means that the nation of Burn infidels can, and does, have a religion.

A religion, I might add the is in middle of a crusade to make sure that the Church of Burn infidels is the one and only church within my borders.

Should this foolish resolution pass, I will immediately resign as a member of the UN. I will not have you insult me, my nation or my 301 little playthings by passing laws stating that our Great religion is equal and just as important as every other religion, when we are right and you are wrong. The Church of Burn infidels is the one true path and I will not allow anybody to convince me or my country otherwise.

Beetle dung serves more purpose on this earth than the author and supporters of this ridculous attempt to legitimize a repulsive, destructive, immoral and just plain NASTY way of life. For the author to attempt to hide their real agenda amongst "Minority and Women's rights" shows the author and supporters will use everyone and anything to justify their sick way of life.

Put all politics aside and focus on ONE POINT. Man and woman pro-create life. Yep, that's how it work's. Been that way since the beginning of time. Man and man or woman and woman can not pro-create life without Dr. Jekyl getting involved.

To the author and supporters of this idiotic attempt to masquerade your true agenda at the expense of a more intelligent, concerned and informed society WORLDWIDE, I say "Go Suck Yourself and Implode".

The Nation of MillerLiteDrinkers shall vote AGAINST the proposal because it defecates upon" Minorities and Women " for self gain.

Beetle dung serves more purpose on this earth than the author and supporters of this ridculous attempt to legitimize a repulsive, destructive, immoral and just plain NASTY way of life. For the author to attempt to hide their real agenda amongst "Minority and Women's rights" shows the author and supporters will use everyone and anything to justify their sick way of life.

Put all politics aside and focus on ONE POINT. Man and woman pro-create life. Yep, that's how it work's. Been that way since the beginning of time. Man and man or woman and woman can not pro-create life without Dr. Jekyl getting involved.

To the author and supporters of this idiotic attempt to masquerade your true agenda at the expense of a more intelligent, concerned and informed society WORLDWIDE, I say "Go Suck Yourself and Implode".

The Nation of MillerLiteDrinkers shall vote AGAINST the proposal because it defecates upon" Minorities and Women " for self gain.

No self gain in it...

Homosexual relations, and gay/lesbian marriage is legalized already in the NSUN by two previous resolutions. In all reality, this resolution has little to no effect, because all it does is seek to legislate upon the already legislated positions it seeks. Hense why I reject it... However, you must understand, YOU have gay marriage in your nation, in lieu of your present membership in the NSUN, gay-marriage is a non-issue in this body at present, unless the present "Gay Rights" Resolution is repealed.

I urge all members of the UN to send a message to their UN delegate to vote against this measure. The more opposition they hear, the more likely they are to vote against it...or even change their vote if they have already cast their vote for this resolution. We should be taking a hard look at what our UN delegates vote for and against on all issues and if they aren't in line with our country's viewpoints consistantly we should reconsider our endorsements of them if they do not represent our views or wishes consistantly. Just a thought.....however, if they do represent our views....cast your endorsement for them so they can stay your delegate and continue to do good work for your Region.

Like I said earlier in another thread:

This new proposal must fail. Not only is it vague in both language ("should," for example, as opposed to 'will') and allows for an innumerable amount of loopholes, but look closely at this:

"ARTICLE III- Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another."

Governments may legislate that a person may follow any religion that they choose or no religion at all, which is fully acceptable, but this resolution is trying to legislate belief. By saying that no religion is no more correct than another, that would be violating a person's civil liberties to believe that his or her religion is better. The government must protect people if they choose not to believe, but this is an attack on those that do believe and will do nothing but tarnish civil freedoms by legally forcing them to educe their personal beliefs. It's just plain communism.
Let everyone know before they cast an uninformed vote.

Actually the reason it isnt a good resolution is ,
you are attempting to force someone to think a way you desire,
this is the United Nations Not Big Brothers 1984
Legislation of this type is inherently more damaging to society than the very situation it is attempting to cure.

I know I'm not one who usualy replies to UN stuff, but, I felt that I should point my thoughts out.

The Grand Oppressor of the Dominion of Oppressvia views this resolution as an infringment of his powers.

He believes his oppressing power will be deminished and so render his impresive title obsolete.

The Dominion of Oppressvia will be voting against this resolution.

The Grand Oppressor calls on all extreme right-wing, paranoid and all other nations bent on the full oppression of their peoples to VOTE AGAINST THIS RESOLUTION and help preserve high levels of healthy oppression the world over.

Great is the Grand Oppressor!

Any UN delegates reading this, if you are against the current resolution, or previous resolutions, please vote for my proposal. The Cultural Preservation Act. It allows nations to follow the laws passed by the UN, unless they or a part of them conflict with cultural or religious beliefs in a nation. Its on page 13 of the proposal lists. Please check it out.

The Church of the Holy Word has a new doctrine. We believe it is our religious duty to set up churchs and missionarys in foreign nations. Can you guess which nations will be priotised for this move? ;) Any other nations who's religious body's have also come to this conclusion should TG me.

It allows nations to follow the laws passed by the UN, unless they or a part of them conflict with cultural or religious beliefs in a nation. Its on page 13 of the proposal lists.
It won't be for long. Opting out of UN resolutions isn't an option in this game, no matter how many proposals get proposed. The only way to not be affected is to not be a member of the UN.

Next time, start your own thread. This one is about the current resolution.

We of The Piratical Persuasion, having laboriously read EVERY POST so far in this thread, have some points to get off our collective (dead man's) chests.

Point, (or article, if you will...) One>

To paraphrase Tekania:

No frikken kidding...

It's the ultimate proof of the inherant problem of pure democracies, a pure democracy relies on an informed and intelligent populace... This resolution is demonstrating perfectly well, from most of those for, and some against (the principles of the resolution) that there is a significant majority in the NSUN who are neither informed, nor intelligent...
[End Quote=Tekanina]

This IS the major problem with the NSUN, and all inclusive governments, Democratic or otherwise. My fellow Persians are so different from North Pacificans that any intervention on our part in their lives would be silly. Who are you to tell others how to live their lives? Do you think that you know enough about the Land Pirates to tell us how we should act? What moral system do you have that is soooo superior to ours? And more importantly, can you prove it?


Point Two> Every person here who used cannabalism as an example of horrible crimes that would be permitted under the vague wording of this Resolution (see my 3rd point plz.) is ignoring the FACT that in many cannabalistic societies, the "victim" is considered to have undergone a transformation to the spiritual realm, become a greater part of the tribe, etc. and has not been violated by this. Many CBS' (Cannabalistic Societies) consider being eaten a great honor. If it's ok with them, why should it be outlawed? True, some tribes eat their enemies after combat/war, but under ritualized circumstances. Any judeo/christian culture is familiar with martyrdom. What is different between a man being killed for his God, and a man being killed and eaten for his god?

Point 3>
QUOTE=Adam Island]No belief is more right than another eh.... if this becomes official UN Law, then the belief of the people on my island that there is a loophole in the Human Rights Resolution allowing us to kill and rape anyone we please for fun is not any less right than your belief that we would be violated UN Law.....

Open the floodgates now

This resolution is far to vague and under-researched to be admitted under any circumstances. I have 20 Mil.+- and I did the research. You can too, buddy. It Ain't hard.

Point 4> Even if EVERYBODY was "Created Equal", and there weren't discernable genetic differences, the second you are out of the womb you are beginning o be different from almost everybody else you will ever meet. To continue to use this ever-so-convenient train of thought; Cannabalism may be the only way of population control on a small island, and their bodies may have adapted to human flesh fo a reason others could not detect, (Vitamin defeciency, etc.) Plus, if you hav ever left your house, you have met somebody who you thought you were better than. Why would you question your own judgement on this? If you have reasons to consider yourself superior to another, do so. They certainly will. I do. I am better than Playas and Gangstas, and you all believe that you are as well. Don't deny it.

Point 5> Don't lump religion in with race and sex. You choose your religion, not your genetic makeup or natural born gender, (even if you don't like it, are not comfortable with it) The jury is still out on Sexual Preference with me, but I could see it either way. If you want to believe that all religions are equal, go ahead, but this is so obviously incorrect that I won't say any more about it.

Point 6> ENOUGH ABOUT EQUALITY ALREADY!! NO ONE IS THE SAME!! I apologive for gratuitious capitals, but this is my main point. Those who can succeed will. Those who will not/can not, won't. Some people are born and raised to take higher stations in life than others. Some are just born that way and have to battle a poor childhood or other factors, not the least of which being this movement for "equality", which consists of tearing doen the successful to give what they have to those who (A) Don't know what to do with it and waste what they are given due to incompetance, and (B) Don't deserve it. If you don't have something, you don't deserve it. PERIOD. This goes for life as well. If you don't survive, you didn't deserve to survive. THis doesn't mean that the disabled/elderly etc. don't deserve to live. I'll say this now so that you morons out there won't jump off the world screaming baout how bad a peson I am. (I am a bad person BTW) I love my grandmother. She has been kind to me and cared for my existance. I repay that kindness in turn, and help her survive. She earned my respect, and I will help her if she needs it. If you have people who cae about you, you have done something to earn that, and that is part of survival. If you are a bitter jerk who lost his kidneys in the war, and take it out on anyone near you, you will not live long if you need that help of others. You didn't earn it, you don't deserve it.

I'm done for now. Sorry for the length, but maybe I've headed off ten o so inane posts, so I'll consider it a public service. The Bill Is In The Mail


Skulenn BoNeZ, Captain of the LPS Derogotory.

I'm sorry, most of that"quote" by Tekania is actually mine, not theirs. The macro must have messed up. My Bad. Didn't mean to put words into anyones mouth. Sorry again Tek. All of the Point #> 's are mine.

BoneZ

I find it hard to beleive that the United Nations would take on such an invasive policy, one which would punish religious groups... An action that they work to prevent!

What about relegions around our world which make an obvious difference between sex and class? What about those religions which clearly define the idea of marriage and beleive consumation is not possible with sodomy? There are many theocracies based on these religions - The UN should not work to invalidate those religious tenets. If this resolution is passed, this would be a slap in the face of any devoutly religious nation - and it would make more sense to drop them from the UN rolls since we're going to impose sanctions on their faith without thought.

I'm sorry, most of that"quote" by Tekania is actually mine, not theirs. The macro must have messed up. My Bad. Didn't mean to put words into anyones mouth. Sorry again Tek. All of the Point #> 's are mine.

BoneZ

S'ok, I think people could figure it out...

As for my point, it is because a large segment of the vocality of the UN supports democracy, and direct democracy at that... My point begin, however, is that direct democracy, and one lacking in-vote "significant majority" procedures, tend to degrade very rapidly into a mess (as exampled from this resolution)... and become heavily inefficient. (A Constitutional Republic or Imperial Republic tends to take much longer to corrupt and degrade, since the system is in itself checked so that mere majority is not enough)... For example, in the GEDRA alliance, additions to the treaty require 100% consensus from all members, actions by the council require a 2/3rds majority... The more people required to be in consensus for the passage of legislation or action, the less likely the activities or legislation would be redundant and/or inefficient.... Or in the example of a pure republic, where the representative(s) [Philosopher King(s)] making the decions on behalf of the populace must meet higher standards.

Of course, none of my ideals can be implimented within this game through forced resolution, but they are still my ideals, and ones by which my Republic runs.

Something that keeps coming up, and is bugging me, is that people are reading "equal" as "identical" and freaking out about that fact.

Am I the only person who can accept that men, women, elves, dwarves and all other beings in this world can be viewed as equal, even if they are not identical.

Take my husband and I. We are not the same. Firstly - he is male. And an elf. And a year old than me. Where as I am female, human and a year younger than him (although you could have figured out that last bit on your own I guess).

But we are treated as equals - I am not more favoured because I am female, any more than he is because he is male. We are both equal in the eyes of our people, The Powers and The Lords, and - I would hope - all other nations.

(I admit I tend to get a tad more respect, being President and all, but that is just because of the position, and not because of who I am!).

So why can't anyone accept the phrase "we are all equal under the law" without reading it as "we are all identical". Equality does not equate to being identical, but to being treated the same way.

And religion. The majority, if not all, of our nation believe in The Powers That Be and The Lords Of Order. But that's it. We don't think those who believe in a Christian God are going to go to Morana, or those who believe in Islam are going to Encana. But (and this is mostly guess work) I suspect belief in The Powers and The Lords is not identical to beliefin "God" or "Allah". They are different. Not the same. Distinct. Not identical. But they can still be seen as equal in the eyes of the world.

Or am I missing something important here?

What's funny is that the proposal allows for a homosexual's right to love one of his/her same sex, but not for a heterosexual's right to love one of the opposite sex. Under this resolution, a country could, although I can't imagine why, ban heterosexuality.

What's funny is that the proposal allows for a homosexual's right to love one of his/her same sex, but not for a heterosexual's right to love one of the opposite sex. Under this resolution, a country could, although I can't imagine why, ban heterosexuality.

Nope. This proposal does not propose anything new and that is already covered in a different proposal.

We guess that after eleven pages all have been said that could be said against that stupid resolution. So I will refrain from add anymore. Just let it be known that the Holy Empire of Tarnak-talaan has voted AGAINST this resolution, not that it will do much good anymore :(

Maybe there would be a chance, if -like OURselves- every nation in disfavor of that resolution could convince their regional delegates to vote AGAINST, even if they have already voted FOR. Some delegates are quite sensible, you know. Give it a try. Still there is some time. ;)

What's funny is that the proposal allows for a homosexual's right to love one of his/her same sex, but not for a heterosexual's right to love one of the opposite sex. Under this resolution, a country could, although I can't imagine why, ban heterosexuality.

It is a sad indictment on the majority of our nations that most people don't even think that hetrosexual rights need protecting.

Quote:
The Goodness Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights


Category: Human Rights Stregth: Strong

Description:The UN should recognise that goodness is good.

ARTICLE I- People, like, should be friends and stuff.

ARTICLE II- Don't be a meany. That's bad.

ARTICLE III- Wars make bady Jesus cry. Don't make baby Jesus cry.

ARTICLE IV- I want a pony.



Unfortunately, the way resolutions are running this one isn't that far fetched.

:shakes head:

sheesh..

Lord Delandou

I think it is more like:
I) All is equal
II) All is good

Im flabbergasted with the number of people who are opposing this thing that it still is passing. Therefore I say that as my first support of a repeal effort will be in this resolution, should it pass.

Im hoping to MY GODDESS that it doesnt, and while I still can I recognize that MY Goddess is better than your God. :p

What sucks ab o ut this resolution is that it severely limits the decisions that current and future members can make regarding religious/civil rights issues in the future.

Don't get me wrong- I'm all about equal protection under the law for all my citizens, but not everyone wants that for their country, which I respect. And pesonally I've got a big problem with the last part of the resolution, with the same sex marriage stuff. No, I'm not homophobic, but I'd personally like to run my government the way I want to and make my own civil rights decisions.

Let us all choose for ourselves what stance our government adopts and leave more important things for UN voting. This resolution is a waste of time and everyone should vote against it.

it allows the marriage of gays and lesbians, for those of who us who do not allow gay marriage in the nation will have soe major issues, and many nations are religious and would not allow gay marriage

it allows the marriage of gays and lesbians, for those of who us who do not allow gay marriage in the nation will have soe major issues, and many nations are religious and would not allow gay marriage

Could this be a world record for having to point the same thing out over, and over, and - say - OVER again?

The "Gay Rights" resolution legalised gay marriage in every UN member nation. If you are a member of the UN, your citizens have the right to gay marriage, wheter you want them to or not. This proposal is not the cause of that - so whether it passes or fails you will still have gay marriage.

Just so you know :}

So then really all this resolution does is force us to accept that everyone's viewpoint is equal and carries equal weight.

What utter stupidity!
If my viewpoint is that I can stick a blade into your ribs, and take what I want from your dead body, does that have equal weight to your viewpoint, that you'd rather keep your liver and your coin-purse?
This resolution may not be quite that extreme, but it does bear extreme consequences - it gives equal standing to peaceful religions/cultures, and religions/cultures that wage war on those which are not their own, using terrorist or conventional methods.

Let the records show that Arach-Tinilth, the ruling body of the Underground City of Spider Queen Lolth, stands against this resolution, and offers its not inconsiderable support to all who wish to repeal this resolution when it inevitably passes. We also call upon all peoples of all nations to read and think this resolution through fully, before voting simply on the weight of the title.

And the record will continue to increase, since it seems that the new players cant be bothered to read the resolutions already passed, or even the posts previously made within a thread.

Is reading really that difficult? Im trying really hard to understand it, but Im just not able to. *frown*

So then really all this resolution does is force us to accept that everyone's viewpoint is equal and carries equal weight.

What utter stupidity!
If my viewpoint is that I can stick a blade into your ribs, and take what I want from your dead body, does that have equal weight to your viewpoint, that you'd rather keep your liver and your coin-purse?
This resolution may not be quite that extreme, but it does bear extreme consequences - it gives equal standing to peaceful religions/cultures, and religions/cultures that wage war on those which are not their own, using terrorist or conventional methods.

Let the records show that Arach-Tinilth, the ruling body of the Underground City of Spider Queen Lolth, stands against this resolution, and offers its not inconsiderable support to all who wish to repeal this resolution when it inevitably passes. We also call upon all peoples of all nations to read and think this resolution through fully, before voting simply on the weight of the title.

I would also agree to support anyone who would want to repeal this (should it pass) but not for the reasons you have listed :}

Could I also ask all nations NOT to submit multiple repeals against this should it pass? However much you might dislike the proposal, and like it even less as a resolution, I think that the needs of those who would repeal it would be best served by not having seven thousand "repeal this resolution" proposals - instead just having one well written one.

Perhaps those interested in a repeal should go ahead and begin their campaign and planning now, by discussing what the repealed version should look like, delegate who will run the TG campaign, ect,ect.

That way, its ready to be repealed AS SOON as it passes.
*weg*

it allows the marriage of gays and lesbians, for those of who us who do not allow gay marriage in the nation will have soe major issues, and many nations are religious and would not allow gay marriage

----- Reply Generated by the n00b-o-matic 8000™©º -----
Within the scope of already existing resolutions.

Namely NSUN Resolution #12 "Gay 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


Gay marriage is already a protected right in all NSUN member nations.

ºn00b-o-matic, the number 8000, and your ass are all properties of n00bish Industries, Federal District of Yorktown, Constitutional Republic of Tekania, and protected under trademark and copywrite.
----------------------------------------------------------

----- Reply Generated by the n00b-o-matic 8000™©º -----
Within the scope of already existing resolutions.

Namely NSUN Resolution #12 "Gay Rights":


Gay marriage is already a protected right in all NSUN member nations.

ºn00b-o-matic, the number 8000, and your ass are all properties of n00bish Industries, Federal District of Yorktown, Constitutional Republic of Tekania, and protected under trademark and copywrite.
----------------------------------------------------------

Since the next resolution due up (either Saturday afternoon or Sunday) will be the definition of marriage (a very similar topic), my government will be interested in seeing how the UN forum and UN itself respond to two similar back-to-back resolutions.

This of course has happened before, as recently as last month when the Good Samaritan Laws resolution was followed by the Epidemic Prevention Protocols resolution, both of which focused on slightly different aspects related to the risks associated with international travel and the IRCO's role in protecting nations.

The Democratic States of Zanshi opposes this resolution and ask that the UN keep in mind that if they look at the measure carefully, it is riddled with idealism. Reality states that no two people are exactly alike, and thus are unequal in every way. The goverment of this nation DEMANDS sovereignty on domestic issues, and may propose a resolution soon. This nation will, however, abide by globally accepted human rights issues.

The nation of Tsung Tzu would like to point out that this resolution is poorly written, and would have dramatically bad effects, were it to be put into place.

The specific problem stems from Article 3, which states, "Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another."

This is simply un-true, for rather obvious reasons. Some beliefs are obviously more correct than others: Suppose that I held the belief that I didn't need to eat to survive. Obviously, this belief would not be as benefitial to me (at least pragmatically speaking) as would the belief that I require food of some sort to continue living.

If one does not want to use pramaticism as the method by which the value of beliefs are judged, then another example could be created. Regardless, It is rather apparent that the claim "no one belief is better than any other belief" is ludicrious at best (as well as being self-referentially incoherient).

As such, the delegate from Tsung Tzu moves that this Resolution not be passed by any means.

In order to express my disapointment, I'd need a slide whisle.

Actually I've been trying to dream up an "international" justification for something akin to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which I think is one of the US laws that more real world countries are in desparate need of. During my travels in continental Europe, I've observed that if you have a serious disability, there appear to be fewer services or means for a non-native to move around (England may very well be an exception to this, as my experiences with the British is that they are kind almost to a fault!). ;)

But if you think this should be done and have your own ideas, make the proposal. I'd love to see the NS UN at the very least talk about the subject, as I hate to say it ... but it seems -- to me -- a lot more important of a human right than gay marriage (because we've talked that subject to DEATH and have passed plenty of resolutions dancing around the subject) or prostitution.




The Sad thing is that the ADA act is being strangulated by courts intohardly anything through it at least supposedly gives one legal avenues to receitify things.

Other Sad thing is in the USa 60's-70's civil rights times disabled were much overlooked in the Womens rights and Black rights movement, it took about 30 years before ADA.

And yet it isn't fully enabled, the point of ADA would be to give disabled equality, many can do jobs, but their being in a wheelchair or other things are looked at yet a person who say sits at a desk doing desk work doesn't need to walk, I could go on but point is it isn't usually thought of when normal people think of rights, they thing so much of so many "rights" yet often overlook such as this, the author of the discussed resolution has that Blinder... wrote a Rights of MINORITIES and ignored the BIGGEST minority!

Buggers me such I am assuming normal author has no clue what Minorities there are... People think too easy of minority meaning black or women or gay..or hispanic or other more or less normal people groups considered minorities and it probably occurs in other nations that the bigger minority that crosses all others (Gay,women,black,hispanics etc can also have a disability
is ignored by so many.

That is why this resolution is poorly thought out and INCOMPENTENT written

How many more groups would you like to add to this Gay-Socialists Wish List? The UN is corrupt, ineffectual, and broke. A meaningful confederation of Responsible-United-SelfSupporting-Honest countries [RUSH Nations] should be established. One of its first jobs should be the trial of the UN for Corruption, and Failure to Enforce its own (few legal) resolutions.


Gay-socialist?

Disabled cut across all areas, all races, religions, etc yet in many nations their given the short striff and ignored, my point is the resolution was written by a person who has such blinders on , My own stat in its bill of rights has besides race,religion,sex HANDICAP , etc.

USA is at least a bit ahead in areas on some things, but it is still lacking and other nations lack even more in protecting the actually BIGGEST minority.


Get real

The Confederated Soviet East Pacific, in Congress Assembled is proud to announce that it has lodged 420 votes against this proposal.

This would be a silly resolution in the Empire of Nicod, because men are men, and women are women, and both know the difference between the two, and both understand that the other is made to complement the other.

The Emperor of Nicod

The Confederated Soviet East Pacific, in Congress Assembled is proud to announce that it has lodged 420 votes against this proposal.

It is great to see the East Pacific represented here! :)

The Sad thing is that the ADA act is being strangulated by courts intohardly anything through it at least supposedly gives one legal avenues to receitify things.

Other Sad thing is in the USa 60's-70's civil rights times disabled were much overlooked in the Womens rights and Black rights movement, it took about 30 years before ADA.

That is why this resolution is poorly thought out and INCOMPENTENT written

Well, the courts might be changing ADA provisions, I just don't know.

But I can tell you that local and state level governments (some of 'em) take ADA very seriously, even to the point that we do not provide services for the general public at times, because they'd be "unequal". Here I'm talking about data systems with image maps ... though it is possible we've provided alternative sites for the data, and switched back to the maps.

But Americans with disabilities (in this case visual disabilities) are certainly thought about in some circles.


Now in the author's defense: first, not everybody is exposed to people with disabilities, and out of sight = out of mind.

Second, this resolution does not prevent a UN Disability Act. But I'd argue that if we do one, it should have an international focus. There are ways to do this, and if we do a draft process instead of shot in the dark, I'm confident we can "rock" NationStates with a good resolution on a very important issue.

The other thing ... disabilities do create special needs. In order to provide equal access, sometimes you need to make extra care to provide additional services, while a general principal on "equal rights" doesn't have that real world "cost". The cost is just social ... locked in people's heads.

So I agree that I'd love to see a serious attempt made towards improving the services provided to people with disabilities (a good social justice topic perhaps), I am not offended here -- not that I should be, but I like to think I keep an open mind about these things.

It is great to see the East Pacific represented here! :)


Yeah we have kinda abstained from the UN for a while, and now are beginnignto do a bit more, now that we have a new UN Liason (even though I have had to put up the last three polls).

The Confederated Soviet East Pacific, in Congress Assembled is proud to announce that it has lodged 420 votes against this proposal.

*Cheers uproarously*

*Realizes he's supposed to be sleeping*

"Zzzzzzzz"

The people of New Hamilton think this resolution is a natural...DUH!

To think otherwise is beneath us.


So just if you're wondering...The Republic of New Hamilton looks down on everyone who votes against this proposal.

Why? What threat is it against you?

Unless of course you are a Nation full of Minority Women...well...then...

You wouldn't be a Minority, now would you...

Strongly YES!

Why? What threat is it against you?


As UN Resolutions become stagnant in purpose and degrade in content, the power of the UN dissolves, and membership becomes unappealing. So, it is not so much so that such resolutions hurt individual NS as they hurt the UN itself.

The people of the Holy Empire of the Marsh Peeps take a very negative view to this resolution.

This resolution may seem reasonable, but it is an attempt to force the view of a scant few upon the many. It is oppression disguised as social liberalism, a further attempt to rip the soveriegn rights of member-states away.

The Holy Empire is voting no.

I was for it, untill I read the part of the same sex affection... So i voted no... i will not allow Same sex relations in my Country. You will be deported. Final.

I was for it, untill I read the part of the same sex affection... So i voted no... i will not allow Same sex relations in my Country. You will be deported. Final.

May I refer you to plenty of previous comments that say they are part of your nation already.

my girlfriend is blackand bi so watch it

Guys, guys calm down will you... what the hell is this whole forum for. Everyone seems to know that this resolution is completly irrelevant. Unfornatly more people are voting for instead of against this. I voted against this if you wanted to know. I guess the only reason this peice of crap might pass is because people are only reading the "More Civil Rights" part then skipping the whle resolution and voting for.
:headbang:

May I refer you to plenty of previous comments that say they are part of your nation already.


While I understand your reasoning behind the statement, it is possible that they are deported.

The UN resolution allowing gay marriages says that we must recognise them and protect them. It says nothing about nations housing them following marriage. Like many others, the resolution is vague.

Could this be a world record for having to point the same thing out over, and over, and - say - OVER again?

The "Gay Rights" resolution legalised gay marriage in every UN member nation. If you are a member of the UN, your citizens have the right to gay marriage, wheter you want them to or not. This proposal is not the cause of that - so whether it passes or fails you will still have gay marriage.

Just so you know :}

The Empire of Nicod is a member of the UN, so that it may contribute to debates therein (which was the whole purpose of the UN to begin with) - and with the hope of helping prevent nations from going to war.

However, UN resolutions, as per Nicod law, are worth no more legally than the paper they're written on (if that much).

In Nicod, we don't let outsiders and those who do not share our beliefs or values tell us how to run our country. Deviant sexual acts, such as homofecalsodomy, are not something that we promote in Nicod. Nicodians believe that the promotion and government sanction of such is immensely harmful to children (as well as to those who engage in such perverse acts). Such acts are also counter to our sincerely held religious beliefs. (For we believe that a loving God does not encourage such sexual perversities - and that that loving God created sex for the bonding of a man and woman in life-long marriage, in order to bring forth the next generation of human life, and to raise that new human life in the best and most loving situation for it.)

So sorry. We choose to completely ignore this resolution.

The Emperor of Nicod

While I understand your reasoning behind the statement, it is possible that they are deported.

The UN resolution allowing gay marriages says that we must recognise them and protect them. It says nothing about nations housing them following marriage. Like many others, the resolution is vague.

Actually, it says "protect" and "endorse". And also follows the laws enacting in your nation to "protect people from discrimination".

The Empire of Nicod is a member of the UN, so that it may contribute to debates therein (which was the whole purpose of the UN to begin with) - and with the hope of helping prevent nations from going to war.

However, UN resolutions, as per Nicod law, are worth no more legally than the paper they're written on (if that much).

In Nicod, we don't let outsiders and those who do not share our beliefs or values tell us how to run our country. Deviant sexual acts, such as homofecalsodomy, are not something that we promote in Nicod. Nicodians believe that the promotion and government sanction of such is immensely harmful to children (as well as to those who engage in such perverse acts). Such acts are also counter to our sincerely held religious beliefs. (For we believe that a loving God does not encourage such sexual perversities - and that that loving God created sex for the bonding of a man and woman in life-long marriage, in order to bring forth the next generation of human life, and to raise that new human life in the best and most loving situation for it.)

So sorry. We choose to completely ignore this resolution.

The Emperor of Nicod

Sorry, you apparently are confusing this UN with that other, dream UN people keep talking about where nations are capable of ignoring resolutions... No, I'm sorry, in this one, whenever a resolution is enacted, little gnomes come in and magically change all your laws overnight to conform to the new resolution. You gave up the ability of complete autonomy, and more importantly, AGREED to surrender your complete autonomy as a state the moment you accepted the invitational message send to you applied for membership.

This is how I see it.

You can very well protect a homosexual marriage by moving them from your nation. This is particularly true IF you have a highly religious state that does not condone the actions of such a marriage.

I look at like this.
You would protect an african american from discrimenation by moving them out of a predominantly white supremist neighborhood. While idealistically you wouldnt want to endorse a white supremacy party, and legally you mustnt allow a white supremacy group to exclude a black person from living in their neighborhood, its still not the safest way to ensure their life to endorse them living in such an area.

You can pass all the laws you want, but laws do not equal beliefs. Some people carry on their beliefs, ragardless of law.

Sorry, you apparently are confusing this UN with that other, dream UN people keep talking about where nations are capable of ignoring resolutions... No, I'm sorry, in this one, whenever a resolution is enacted, little gnomes come in and magically change all your laws overnight to conform to the new resolution. You gave up the ability of complete autonomy, and more importantly, AGREED to surrender your complete autonomy as a state the moment you accepted the invitational message send to you applied for membership.

So, let me get this straight. You will listen to no one, to no country, to no other - if said country does not agree to abide by the tyranny of the other nations. For you, the price of freedom of discussion is freedom itself.

So, let's say, the majority of your UN nations agrees to nuke some countries. We're supposed to go along with that? Never!

The Holy Empire of Nicod will reconsider its participation in this wholly unrealistic and tyrannical world government.

(And the gnomes don't scare us...!!!)

[Seriously, why not think about making it more realistic. In the real world, many nations will not hand over their sovereignty to a corrupt organization like the United Nations, which is partly controlled by abusive, totalitarian, politically correct nations. It would be insane. However, in the real world, each nation strives to 'use' the United Nations to its ends. Right?]

Yours most sincerely,

The Holy Emperor of Nicod

So, let me get this straight. You will listen to no one, to no country, to no other - if said country does not agree to abide by the tyranny of the other nations. For you, the price of freedom of discussion is freedom itself.

So, let's say, the majority of your UN nations agrees to nuke some countries. We're supposed to go along with that? Never!

The Holy Empire of Nicod will reconsider its participation in this wholly unrealistic and tyrannical world government.

(And the gnomes don't scare us...!!!)

[Seriously, why not think about making it more realistic. In the real world, many nations will not hand over their sovereignty to a corrupt organization like the United Nations, which is partly controlled by abusive, totalitarian, politically correct nations. It would be insane. However, in the real world, each nation strives to 'use' the United Nations to its ends. Right?]

Yours most sincerely,

The Holy Emperor of Nicod

The UN has no power to order anyone to war. It is not a world government. It is a collective body of nations who have agreed to work together. It is not compulsary and you can quit at any time. It is a democractic body in which every nation has an equal voice.

[Seriously, why not think about making it more realistic. In the real world, many nations will not hand over their sovereignty to a corrupt organization like the United Nations, which is partly controlled by abusive, totalitarian, politically correct nations. It would be insane. However, in the real world, each nation strives to 'use' the United Nations to its ends. Right?]
You are not the first to suggest this. You are not even the first this week to suggest this. It's been discussed a blue million times before, and every time it rolls back to the same answer from mods, admins, and players:

"This is the way the game was designed. It's not going to be changed."

Learn to work within the rules as they currently exist, or quit the UN. No acrimony there, just your only two realistic choices. They ain't changing the way the UN works in NationStates, and that's the end of that story.

The UN can't be compared to any existing politic system, even from an extremely participating democracy. The way it is designed destines it to be terrible. If they don't want to improve this, they've got to explain why they want to keep it - because it is probably the thing in this game that differs the more from reality. Even before the fact that the player is the all-powerful dictator of a democracy and the absence of war.

So, let me get this straight. You will listen to no one, to no country, to no other - if said country does not agree to abide by the tyranny of the other nations. For you, the price of freedom of discussion is freedom itself.

So, let's say, the majority of your UN nations agrees to nuke some countries. We're supposed to go along with that? Never!

The Holy Empire of Nicod will reconsider its participation in this wholly unrealistic and tyrannical world government.

(And the gnomes don't scare us...!!!)

[Seriously, why not think about making it more realistic. In the real world, many nations will not hand over their sovereignty to a corrupt organization like the United Nations, which is partly controlled by abusive, totalitarian, politically correct nations. It would be insane. However, in the real world, each nation strives to 'use' the United Nations to its ends. Right?]

Yours most sincerely,

The Holy Emperor of Nicod

I would rather it be more in line with the real world, I would rather that there be a "significant-majority" rule in votes. All those are game mechanics issues, and as such can't be changed unless by the whim of the Game Organizational Director (G.O.D.), Max.

The UN can't be compared to any existing politic system, even from an extremely participating democracy. The way it is designed destines it to be terrible. If they don't want to improve this, they've got to explain why they want to keep it - because it is probably the thing in this game that differs the more from reality. Even before the fact that the player is the all-powerful dictator of a democracy and the absence of war.

Indeed, it's just a fanciful little silliness. Too bad it couldn't be made more real, so that it's players could get more of a real understanding of how the world works.

In the real world, no country would trade their sovereignty away (except maybe the Canadians!) - especially to a pitiful and corrupt and gutless organization like the UN.

I hope they rethink. Or somebody will put up a more realistic site and draw many away.

Best,

The Emperor of Nicod

I wanted to make public my SUPPORT for this resolution, despite the fact that I am forced to vote against it.

The Constitution of the West Pacific states the Delegate (me) must vote the will of the people. So of all the residents of the West Pacific that have contacted me or participated in our poll - it failed by a large margine. I'm therefor forced to vote against this resolution which I would otherwise vote FOR.

I'm very sorry to see that but I am gladened by the fact is will likely pass regardless. I don't think the other Pacific Delegates have voted yet, so try to influence their decisions if you can.

Wow! Two pacific delegates in one thread. This is very unusual for the U.N. forum.

Sadly, if this passes, Tsung Tzu might consider withdrawing from the UN completely.

The UN can't be compared to any existing politic system, even from an extremely participating democracy. The way it is designed destines it to be terrible. If they don't want to improve this, they've got to explain why they want to keep it - because it is probably the thing in this game that differs the more from reality. Even before the fact that the player is the all-powerful dictator of a democracy and the absence of war.

Game = fiction. Fun. Not real.
Reality = real. Sometimes fun. Not fiction.

I don't want this game to be realistic - I want it to be fun. If I wanted it to be realistic I would run for government.

Sadly, if this passes, Tsung Tzu might consider withdrawing from the UN completely.

May I politely suggest you don't, as the more nations the UN has in it, the greater difference in opinions will be represented, and the more can be acomplished with in it.

May I politely suggest you don't, as the more nations the UN has in it, the greater difference in opinions will be represented, and the more can be acomplished with in it.

Are differences of opinion permitted in this game - even if one doesn't agree with past resolutions?

If they are, the Empire of Nicod will stay. If they are not, there's no ostensible purpose to this game (except to all have fun agreeing with each other).

The Emperor of Nicod

Are differences of opinion permitted in this game - even if one doesn't agree with past resolutions?

If they are, the Empire of Nicod will stay. If they are not, there's no ostensible purpose to this game (except to all have fun agreeing with each other).

The Emperor of Nicod

That would depend on your perspective.

You can disagree with the previous resolutions, but in the same way that if a law is passed in your nation that you don't agree with, you are still bound by them.

However this forum is a clear indication of the range of feeling members have on the various resolutions. Members of the UN speak with not with one voice, but with many. And sometimes agreement is found, othertimes it isn't. And since the UN is a democracy, the majority vote wins, whether each member agrees with it or not.

The UN is not a dictatorship that says everyone has to think the same. But once a law is passed, you have to obey it even if you don't agree with it.

On the other hand - that is what repeals are for!

It appears that much of the resistance to this measure is regarding article IV, which clearly means a sanctioning of homosexual marriage.

I understand the resistance to homosexual marriage.

Still, I'd like to present some information that may be of value.

Homosexuality is neither genetic/gestational in origin or a conscious choice/indoctrination.

State-of-the-art human neuropsychology has recently determined that homosexuality is idiosyncratically engendered unconsciously as a function of socialization in one's family-of-origin during one's first five years of life when the brain is still forming. Homosexuality is engendered in no other way. In addition, the sexual orientation of the parents and others involved in the engendering socialization process has been determined to be irrelevant, and that means that two homosexual parents have no more likelihood of engendering homosexuality in a child than do two heterosexual parents.

This means that once a person reaches roughly the age of five, his or her social sexuality is solidly set when the initial brain development completes. No amount of externally inculcated "reprogramming" measures thereafter are of any effect or value to the homosexual in compelling the homosexual to heterosexuality. Only a type of therapy called "regression therapy" has been shown to have an effect of merely lessening the sexual conflict and tension in people of either orientation, and only when the focus is on other matters of issue from one's family-of-origin experience.

Because homosexuality occurs quite infrequently and in people whose genetalia is complete and functionally able to perform in a heterosexual manner, homosexuality is considered an aberration. Aberrations orienting environmentally from one's unconscious responses to idiosyncratic situations of relationship in one's family-of-origin are also considered to be neuropsychological dysfunctions.

However, though the effects of most family-of-origin dysfunctions can be lessened with thereapy and sometimes even eliminated thereby, there is no known psychotherapeutic or medicinal "cure" for homosexuality, nor is such a "cure" likely to be derived, given the link of brain-forming sexual socialization to the genetically firm foundational nature of human sexuality. Though prevention of homosexuality, as with the prevention of addiction, IQ pathology, and many other family-of-origin inculcated dysfuntions is possible for future would-be sufferers by applying psychotherapy to their prospective parents long before they become parents, so as to eliminate the parental dysfunctions that cause dysfunctions in children, there is nothing that can be done to reverse homosexuality once a person has finished their first five years of life.

Indeed, like homosexuality, addiction and IQ pathology appear among the small list of dysfunctions that are not relievable. The phrase "once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic" is very true, and analogously also applies to homosexuality. This doesn't mean that the alcoholic can't stop drinking, it only means that the compulsion to do so will always be "driving the alcoholic to drink". Likewise, no matter what some may claim, and despite abstinancy and contrived heterosexual behavior, homosexuals never lose their homosexuality drive, and they never experience a drive toward heterosexuality.

There is no relationship or marriage discrimination that can be justified with regard to dysfunction. Drugees and alcoholics are free to associate and marry other drugees and alcoholics, and indeed, they do so frequently. This is as expected. People are healthily attracted to people of similar intelligence, and there is no valid argument to compel otherwise. Likewise, homosexuals are going to seek homosexual partners. We should expect this, and, we should support it. Homosexuals are not going to gain relationship pleasure from a heterosexual relationship. There is no reason to deny them the enjoyment in this, their one and only life, that we heterosexuals can experience in a loving and healthy marriage, merely because of their dysfunction. We don't prevent the permanently dysfunctional, the drugees, alcoholics, the low-IQed, etc from marrying and marrying whom they wish. It would be wrong to do so.

Likewise, in the name of compassionate social justice, we must allow homosexuals as well to choose freely their partners and to marry them with full marriage benefits if they so choose.

If homosexuality bothers you, I strongly suggest you explore why it does. You may find the process revealing.

If preventing homosexuality, along with preventing alcoholism, drug addiction, IQ pathology, etc. is important to you, I also suggest that you submit to your own psychotherapy, if you have not already done so, whether you "think" you need it or not, and work on relieving your own family-of-origin engendered dysfunctions that are relievable, as it is your dysfunctions that will create dysfunctions in your children, different dysfunctions and sometimes the same dysfunctions. If you have not yet become a parent, working your own family-of-origin recovery program will go a long way to preventing your child from suffering dysfunctions such as the aforementioned. Regardless, whether you are a parent or not, if you have not worked your family-of-origin recovery -- and every one of us has suffered dysfunction to some degree in our family-of-origin -- I strongly suggest that you improve the quality of your own life through psychotherapy.

Without comment on the rest of the previous post, I do not understand the resistance to homosexual marriage, as it is already law in the UN and no nation can refuse to allow it.

[QUOTE=True Heart]It appears that much of the resistance to this measure is regarding article IV, which clearly means a sanctioning of homosexual marriage.

I understand the resistance to homosexual marriage.

Still, I'd like to present some information that may be of value.

Homosexuality is neither genetic/gestational in origin or a conscious choice/indoctrination.

State-of-the-art human neuropsychology has recently determined that homosexuality is idiosyncratically engendered unconsciously as a function of socialization in one's family-of-origin during one's first five years of life when the brain is still forming. Homosexuality is engendered in no other way. In addition, the sexual orientation of the parents and others involved in the engendering socialization process has been determined to be irrelevant, and that means that two homosexual parents have no more likelihood of engendering homosexuality in a child than do two heterosexual parents.

This means that once a person reaches roughly the age of five, his or her social sexuality is solidly set when the initial brain development completes. No amount of externally inculcated "reprogramming" measures thereafter are of any effect or value to the homosexual in compelling the homosexual to heterosexuality. Only a type of therapy called "regression therapy" has been shown to have an effect of merely lessening the sexual conflict and tension in people of either orientation, and only when the focus is on other matters of issue from one's family-of-origin experience.
QUOTE]

This is complete bunkum.

Homosexuality (for men) is most highly correlated with 1) an unloving relationship with the father and 2) homosexual molestation when young or as a teen and 3) early exposure to homosexual pornography.

Many people (such as in the recent study performed by Dr. Eliot Spitzer of Columbia University) have successfully left the homosexual life and have married and had children.

The average homosexual male lives a vastly shortened life, carries multiple venereal diseases, has scores of sexual partners, many of them anonymous, and does not stay faithful to his current sexual partner for any great length of time. Homosexual acts, such as fecal sodomy, are injurious to the person who engages in them, spread disease and harm the body.

The condition is sad, life-shortening and compulsive.

It should never be presented as normal or healthy or good to children. Such is child abuse.

The Emperor of Nicod

This is complete bunkum.

Homosexuality (for men) is most highly correlated with 1) an unloving relationship with the father and 2) homosexual molestation when young or as a teen and 3) early exposure to homosexual pornography.

Many people (such as in the recent study performed by Dr. Eliot Spitzer of Columbia University) have successfully left the homosexual life and have married and had children.

The average homosexual male lives a vastly shortened life, carries multiple venereal diseases, has scores of sexual partners, many of them anonymous, and does not stay faithful to his current sexual partner for any great length of time. Homosexual acts, such as fecal sodomy, are injurious to the person who engages in them, spread disease and harm the body.

The condition is sad, life-shortening and compulsive.

It should never be presented as normal or healthy or good to children. Such is child abuse.

The Emperor of Nicod

(OOC. This is me, not Tori talking. I suspect she would say the same thing, if she wasn't so polite)

Congratulations - what ever respect you have gained from me has just been lost in one easy post. This is the most evil, bigotted, appalling load of homophobic bollocks I have ever had the displeasure to read. Given the general arguement that the UN is made up of intolerant people because they force gay marraige on people, I wonder how you have the balls to write such a load of intolerant rubbish and still claim the rest of us as the intolerant ones.

This is why I am fighting for gay rights and the right to marry. Not because I am gay (I am not, neither is Tori), and not because I have any close gay friends (as far as I know) but because the alternative is letting the world be run by people like you - people who really believe everything you just wrote.

I really can't believe anyone buys in to what you write, but if they do then it is a sad, sad outlook for humanity.

(OOC. This is me, not Tori talking. I suspect she would say the same thing, if she wasn't so polite)

Congratulations - what ever respect you have gained from me has just been lost in one easy post. This is the most evil, bigotted, appalling load of homophobic bollocks I have ever had the displeasure to read. Given the general arguement that the UN is made up of intolerant people because they force gay marraige on people, I wonder how you have the balls to write such a load of intolerant rubbish and still claim the rest of us as the intolerant ones.

This is why I am fighting for gay rights and the right to marry. Not because I am gay (I am not, neither is Tori), and not because I have any close gay friends (as far as I know) but because the alternative is letting the world be run by people like you - people who really believe everything you just wrote.

I really can't believe anyone buys in to what you write, but if they do then it is a sad, sad outlook for humanity.

It's not intolerant. People can engage in fecal sodomy if they wish. I have no say about that. I tolerate that just fine.

But the things I said are true.

1) Many people have left homosexuality (and are far happier for having done so);
2) Fecal, anal intercourse is damaging to the body (and soul) - and spreads disease (like AIDS) - and leads to things like anal cancer;
3) There are huge correlations between homosexuality and lack of love of the father and homosexual molestation;
4) Homosexual men, have on average (as per Center for Disease Control stats), multiple venereal diseases and a shortened life (by decades).

Etc. etc. etc.

Abandoning those to such is a form of unlove.

Teaching children that such is good, normal, healthy or Godly is a form of unlove.

The Emperor of Nicod

It's not intolerant. People can engage in fecal sodomy if they wish. I have no say about that. I tolerate that just fine.

But the things I said are true.

1) Many people have left homosexuality (and are far happier for having done so);
2) Fecal, anal intercourse is damaging to the body (and soul) - and spreads disease (like AIDS) - and leads to things like anal cancer;
3) There are huge correlations between homosexuality and lack of love of the father and homosexual molestation;
4) Homosexual men, have on average (as per Center for Disease Control stats), multiple venereal diseases and a shortened life (by decades).

Etc. etc. etc.

Abandoning those to such is a form of unlove.

Teaching children that such is good, normal, healthy or Godly is a form of unlove.

The Emperor of Nicod

(OOC)

And if I tell you that

1) Many men with women and children realise they are gay, leave their wife and children and get in to committed homosexual relationship.
2) Anal sex leads to those things even if you are straight. And cancer can kill people who are straight as well as gay.
3) There are a fair number of people who grow up without a father and are straight. And a fair number who grow up with a father and are gay.
4) Lots of straight people have diseases and a shortened life span

does that make me a liar? Or does it make me quite obviously a lunatic who won't accept facts?

Nothing you have said is particular to being gay, yet you presented it as such. That makes it intolerant and homophobic.


Forcing someone to go against what they are feeling - what they know to be true - is a far worse crime than letting them make up their own mind.

And it wasn't God who forbade homosexualtiy - it was man speaking for God. If you can't see the difference then I pity you.

From what is readily apparent in the debate, it appears that there are four major problems identified by the opponents of this resolution:

1- Article IV. A significant minority of dissenters object to the idea of allowing homosexual marriages or civil unions. Incidentally, this right is guaranteed in a more concrete fashion in a previous resolution. All this resolution declares is that "One should have the right to express their (sic) love for a member of the same sex". It does not outline appropriate methods of expressing love, nor does it outline appropriate venues for doing so. This article could be interpreted by different governments to protect the right to a firm handshake in your bedroom with the curtains drawn, or the right to copulation in the middle of a major thoroughfare. Resolution 7: Sexual Freedom does a better job of defining the expression of love and delineating appropriate venues for expressing it. Resolution 12: Gay Rights defines another form of expression of love and implies that it may be expressed anywhere.

2- Article III. The truth is that there are some beliefs, and even some religions, that are "better" than others, and no amount of legislation will change that. The intent of this article appears to be the protection of freedom of worship, which is also already protected in a more competent manner in Resolution 19: Religious Tolerance and again in Resolution 26: The Universal Bill of Rights.

3- Article II. This article poorly duplicates Article 4 of Resolution 26: The Universal Bill of Rights, which is reinforced in Resolution 69: The Sexes' Rights Law. Unlike Resolution 69, this resolution fails to specify how any sex should be treated, only that they should be treated equally. It also specifies that they should be treated equally "at home", which is unenforceable without government invasion of the privacy of citizens or aliens within their borders.

4- Lack of actual legislation. Half of the resolution simply affirms that no race, religion, or belief is "better" than another. It fails to define any benefits that should be stripped from races, religions, or beliefs that were previously presumed "better", nor does it indicate what hardships should be alleviated for other races, religions, or beliefs. The other half of the resolution states that two poorly-defined events "should" occur, without outlining a mechanism for insuring that they do occur. Essentially, the resolution lacks teeth. It's not even a lot of nothing like some redundant resolutions; it's merely a little bit of nothing.

As for the Republic of Skredtch... Our biggest objection to the passage of the resolution is Article III, as we stated on the first page of this debate thread. However, due to the general unenforceability and ineffectiveness of the resolution, we abstain from voting rather than voting against it, because it will have no effect on us even if it passes.

Homosexuality (for men) is most highly correlated with 1) an unloving relationship with the father, ...
Actually, until relatively recently, we thought that male homosexuality had some unconscious inculcation effected from a young boy's relationship with his mother when the mother exhibited typical male traits (gruff manner, raspy low voice, other "distancing" male idiosyncracies she may unconsciously idealistically immitate that belonged to her own father, etc.) which the boy experienced as "negative" in a female, strange-and-therefore-unsafe, and thus bond-hindering, while at the same time the boy would be, as compelled by insufficiency, actually attracted to the opposite and naturally feminine traits in his father (feminine traits the father exhibited codependently compensatorily in the father's relationship with the mother), traits that accompanied bonding between the boy and his father. This would cause the boy to socialize according to his parents' polemic-trait interaction with an understandable attraction to similar males (where he imagined, unconsciously, that unresolved bonding issues might be met) and an aversion to females, especially those with traits similar to his mother's.

But today we realize there is much more going on in the unconscious sexual socialization process during the first five years of life that leads to homosexuality, and that the only prevalent theme seems to be a codependent relationship between the parents, though the existence of parental codependency does not, obviously, guarantee homosexuality in the offspring.


Many people (such as in the recent study performed by Dr. Eliot Spitzer of Columbia University) have successfully left the homosexual life and have married and had children.
Dr. Robert Spitzer's perspective refers to behavioral changes, not orientation changes. Also, it appears his behavioral changes were coercive in that his homosexuals were pressurably inculcated in the "study" to think that being gay was "bad" or "wrong".

Behavior is irrelevant within the context of orientation. As long as one's orientation remains homosexual, behaving in a heterosexual manner is unsatisfying and empty, despite the positively perceived benefits of traditional family relationships.

Sorry but this...

But today we realize there is much more going on in the unconscious sexual socialization process during the first five years of life that leads to homosexuality, and that the only prevalent theme seems to be a codependent relationship between the parents, though the existence of parental codependency does not, obviously, guarantee homosexuality in the offspring.

has an air of illusory scientific principles. Given the cognitive development of a child, basing future life associations on an unconscious aspect seems auspicious at best. Here is a simple paper on the concept of genetics and the role they play in sexual orientation: http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/RootWeb/npr_letters_on_the_biological_ba.htm

A search of univerisity's with animal genetics labs will yield papers on the gentic trait of homosexuality, you can also search online journals. Not surprisingly, characteristics of a being found to be genetic in origin to lesser animals are later determined to be genetic in humans as well. So, it is more logical to conclude genetics than methods of unconscious analyses being applied to children. Correlations are not causations, which is what studies of the type you mention hope to find. Genetics of an individual on the other hand, are.

Article III is a fairly indefensible clause, as the belief that "it is permissible to rape" is in fact a belief, while being demonstrably worse than many other beliefs.

In addition, there are beliefs (e.g. "The moon is made of green cheese") that are false.

Some people are more intelligent than others

Are you sure about that?

Indeed, it's just a fanciful little silliness. Too bad it couldn't be made more real, so that it's players could get more of a real understanding of how the world works.

In the real world, no country would trade their sovereignty away (except maybe the Canadians!) - especially to a pitiful and corrupt and gutless organization like the UN.

I hope they rethink. Or somebody will put up a more realistic site and draw many away.

Best,

The Emperor of Nicod

I agree with Nicod completely here. But why stop at the UN? I think the whole thing should be more realistic. Instead of just 2 (at most) issues a day I think we should have a more realistic number, say 3,000 or so. Furthermore there should be more issues devoted to budget questions, say, for example "your government needs to decide whether or not to finance state pensions by a diverified portfolio of blue chip stocks (please choose 50 from the below 25,000 international companies) or investment in commodities (please choose 10 commodities from the choice of 200. Make sure to read the full recent price trends in the following 8,000 nations)". Oh, and the issues are too easy to understand, they should be written in a more authentically civil-service stylee: "in line with policy directives emphasising the need for pan-regional diversification of an acheivable means-targeted orientation of directional policy-making you must decide whether to pursue an independent effectiveness overseeing directorate or maintain the internal efficiency maximising sub-committee with a specialised portfolio for local attitude stabalisation."

Otherwise someone'll just make a game with all these things in and I'm sure I'll be playing it.

Jeez, how did this end up being yet another "I hate the UN, it's not fair, NATIONAL SOVEREIGNITY!!!!!!!!11111oneoneone" thread? I've only been in the game for a few weeks and already I'm sick of them.

Sorry but this...



has an air of illusory scientific principles. Given the cognitive development of a child, basing future life associations on an unconscious aspect seems auspicious at best. Here is a simple paper on the concept of genetics and the role they play in sexual orientation: http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/RootWeb/npr_letters_on_the_biological_ba.htm

A search of univerisity's with animal genetics labs will yield papers on the gentic trait of homosexuality, you can also search online journals. Not surprisingly, characteristics of a being found to be genetic in origin to lesser animals are later determined to be genetic in humans as well. So, it is more logical to conclude genetics than methods of unconscious analyses being applied to children. Correlations are not causations, which is what studies of the type you mention hope to find. Genetics of an individual on the other hand, are.
Sometimes art is of greater value in coming to a truthful understanding of reality than science.

In this case, the art of psychology has been able to make determinations where the limitations of science simply require "more information".

The link you reference is an old paper that linked biochemical presence and function to statistical behavior. The paper omits stating the genesis of the biochemical relevancies. Are they nature or nurture in orientation; do they occur as they do because of genetics or post-conceptual environmental stimulation ... or both?

The paper doesn't answer that key question, which is why such biochemical-only papers have generally been considered lacking as a predictor of behavior. Indeed, the mice-genetic study failed to consider the socialization process of mice, as if such was irrelevant. Today we know better.

Finally, science has yet to discover a "gene" for homosexuality, that is, a gene that determines one will become homosexual. And, science never will -- such a gene does not exist.

So homosexuality is not genetic. But neither is it a learned, concscious behavior.

Neuropsychological studies have determined that the parts of the brain that have a size-shape correlation to those of adult heterosexual and homosexual brains develop during the first five years of life. Indeed, brain scans have found that the linear development of these brain areas can be affected, halting or increasing their growth, merely by changing a two-year-old's environment with regard to socialization factors (death of a sibling or parent, divorce, etc.), thus the final elimination of the genetic cause of homosexuality.

Reality is best experienced holistically. Science provides valuable information, albeit limited by thought discipline. Art provides information often feeling in nature, a realm where science dares not tread. Both are valuable together for complete comprehension. In this case a combination of understanding has recently lead to the discovery of a correlation between codependency -- an exclusively environmentally-oriented dysfunction -- and homosexuality.

Although not all offspring of codependents are homosexual, all homosexuals do orient from codependent parents. Statistical information on parents who suffered either very mild or no symptoms of codependency yielded almost no homosexual offspring, statistically.

There is no gene for codependency. There is no biochmical predictor of codependency. Codependency is strictly an environmentally engenered socialization dysfunction that is psychologically-emotionally contagious via the senses, a dysfunction that can actually alter the physical structure and biochemical balance of the brain during the first five years of life.

Codependency could not be isolated in pure scientific studies of biochemical and genetic predispositions -- it is a factor outside of the scientific disciplines of those studies. So science has theoretically jumped to conclusion, in effect, an erroneous theoretical conclusion arising from the lack of consideration of environmental brain-altering factors such as codependency. The lack of consideration for the codependent variable understandably, in restrospect, rendered those studies incomplete, and erroneous.

To everyone who opposes this proposal, I've started a thread so everyone can discuss drafting a repeal for when it (unfortunately) passes.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=374917

This resolution is important in that equality is a most wonderful thing, yet it is an arbitrary resolution because these rights are drilled into much of the educated part of society. We are brainwashed by the media and internet sites such as these to try to acheive the perfect Utopian city. The irony is that Utopia, which literally means "no place", failed to take place for a reason. I am quite surprised President Bush won the election with such a Right Wing view of political freedom...but I will save Bush vs. Kerry for another post.

Nevertheless, I'm not sure why we bother to reiterate the resolutions that have been passed before...except to just combine it to one?

I feel really bland and un-rebel-ic (Bush has rubbed off on me already), by supporting this resolution, but conservativeness will get us nowhere.

To everyone who opposes this proposal, I've started a thread so everyone can discuss drafting a repeal for when it (unfortunately) passes.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=374917

Which has now been locked. Gah.

Duh, you can't repeal something which hasn't passed yet.

I admit I haven't been around for this debate, and it probably is too late, but I feel that this needs to be said.

ARTICLE III- Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another.

This is relativism, pure and simple.

The Council of Enn does not, and cannot, endorse any proposal which seeks to put relativism into law.

Duh, you can't repeal something which hasn't passed yet.

But:

a) it will pass. I think's that's a no brainer now.
b) I wanted to try to ensure there weren't 100s of different repeal motions after it passed.
c) I was talking about *drafting* a repeal, not putting a repeal forward.

There are two things that really annoy me about this resolution.

First, it doesn't actually *do* anything. It mentions two things which *should* be done, but gives no guidelines for implementation and goes to no real effort to even define what specific situations fall inside or outside the realm of what is acceptable. It also mentions two opinions but proposes no action relying upon them for justification.

Second, it's largely redundant. There are already two resolutions regarding gender equality (one of which mentions "all" sexes rather than specifying men and women, which is handy if another sex shows up), two that protect religious freedom (without making any judgements about whether any one religion or belief system is "better"), and two that protect homosexual marriage (which is the obvious purpose of Article IV, since heterosexual marriage is generally assumed to be acceptable). The only new issue is Article I, which is one of the two articles which simply asserts an opinion without proposing a course of action.

I really should be more upset about the mandate in Article II that men and women be treated equally in the privacy of their own home. Personally, I don't think the local Neighborhood Watch has any business dictating how I treat someone inside my own home, much less the UN. However, the article is laughably unenforceable in that respect unless the government in question already sticks its nose into its citizens' home life-- which Skredtch doesn't.

I agree with everything but Gay marriage hell no. Marriage is between a man and a women...

I agree with everything but Gay marriage hell no. Marriage is between a man and a women...

It's already legal for gays to marry in your nation due to previous resolutions. If you don't like it, remember the resolutions already passed and any future resolutions automatically override your nation's laws. Welcome to the NSUN.

I agree with everything but Gay marriage hell no. Marriage is between a man and a women...

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7512385&postcount=216

AGAIN.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7512385&postcount=216

AGAIN.

I'm not sure what is more redundant, this resolution, or the people in support and against it for moral ideals...

::Hands out n00b-o-matic 8000's from n00bish industries to all delegates and members who are forced to constantly repeat the same things, to people who keep posting drivel without reading the posts, and who also seem to all have posts < 10 (Which could in no way be connected to their post content).::

:NOTE: They need to add bbCode that allows us to make thread titles in 15 foot letters in cycling neon coloring.

:NOTE: They need to add bbCode that allows us to make thread titles in 15 foot letters in cycling neon coloring.

I like my idea better: Any nation that cannot be bothered to read the topics to see if it is already covered is automatically reset to day 1 and loses any endorsements.

There are two things that really annoy me about this resolution.

First, it doesn't actually *do* anything. It mentions two things which *should* be done, but gives no guidelines for implementation and goes to no real effort to even define what specific situations fall inside or outside the realm of what is acceptable. It also mentions two opinions but proposes no action relying upon them for justification.

Second, it's largely redundant. There are already two resolutions regarding gender equality (one of which mentions "all" sexes rather than specifying men and women, which is handy if another sex shows up), two that protect religious freedom (without making any judgements about whether any one religion or belief system is "better"), and two that protect homosexual marriage (which is the obvious purpose of Article IV, since heterosexual marriage is generally assumed to be acceptable). The only new issue is Article I, which is one of the two articles which simply asserts an opinion without proposing a course of action.

I really should be more upset about the mandate in Article II that men and women be treated equally in the privacy of their own home. Personally, I don't think the local Neighborhood Watch has any business dictating how I treat someone inside my own home, much less the UN. However, the article is laughably unenforceable in that respect unless the government in question already sticks its nose into its citizens' home life-- which Skredtch doesn't.

Hear hear, this resolution is a waste of time, it doesn't actually do anything, we could be voting on something much more important right now.

Right, the repeal is passed and we must now go with its consequences. Let rife rip through our nations like a fire through straw. What has become of us, anyway...I will now say the slightly edited words of Craig Charles

'Let the Repeals begin!'

It passed (feigned shock)

Right, the repeal is passed and we must now go with its consequences. Let rife rip through our nations like a fire through straw. What has become of us, anyway...I will now say the slightly edited words of Craig Charles

'Let the Repeals begin!'

It changes nothing. Each part of it was passed by the UN before it was even submitted. No actual changes to your nation are made. Now please read UN resolutions from the past or don't bother complaining.

I like my idea better: Any nation that cannot be bothered to read the topics to see if it is already covered is automatically reset to day 1 and loses any endorsements.


I like that. I really like that.

Additionally, I would like to see UN delegates lose their endorsement for submitting proposals that are duplicates of already passed proposals.

From the UN page:


Last UN Decision

The resolution Rights of Minorities and Women was passed 12,055 votes to 6,998, and implemented in all UN member nations.


UNA Facts:
The ratio of votes in favour to total votes was 0.63.

A total of 19,043 votes were cast, which is the highest number of votes in a UN resolution since the passage of the "Save the Forests of the World" Environmental Resolution on 2004.02.19, making this resolution the 14th highest vote getting resolution brought before the UN.

The mean support for Human Rights resolutions (including this one) is: 0.78, which puts this resolution in the second quartile for Human Rights support (the first quartile being the grouping of the lowest supported Human Rights resolutions).

Taking the main post from another thread, The Democratic States of Zanshi is moving to repeal the newly passed Resolution #80. The main reason is complete redundancy. If any nation has the power, please move to support a vote on the resolution's repeal. This nation thanks you all in advance. This nation also thanks the nation Stripe-lovers for a well thought out rebuttal to the newly passed resolution.

The proposal to repeal resolution 80 has been formally submitted.

If no one minds, I am going to start a new thread with a copy of the repeal. Mostly cause a) it's a different topic than this, and b) this thread is HUGE!

The Nation of The Confederacy of MillerLiteDrinkers has withdrawn from the UN and shall never subject it's citizens to be forced to allow queers to be considered equal.

The Nation of MillerLiteDrinkers suggest's all moral Nations leave the UN in mass. Leave those queers to rot and die of AIDS and MUTATED AIDS. The more they continue to partipate in this abhorrant abomination against natural conception of LIFE, and depend on medical research to save them from death, the more resistant the AIDS epidemic will become. They will exterminate themselves because they will not be able to breed anything other than disease. They will never be able to sustain life. It is better they kill themselves in their own land. May GOD have mercy on the CHILDREN that will perish from such greed of perverse nature.

If any moral Nation remains in the UN, it means THAT Nation MUST abide by this resolution, as well as the previous QUEER resolution. In other words. "If you Are A UN Member Nation at this moment, your Nation, your PEOPLE, MUST, provide equal medical care, equal employment in any job, equal access to CHILDREN, etc".

Will YOU, the Moral Nations, be so easily defeated? Will you accept this garbage until a repeal is submitted, mangled by the powers that be and then voted on? There is no guarantee a repeal will be successful in overturning this resolution.

The Nation of MillerLiteDrinkers invites all Moral Nations to visit the region of Ontapia, relax and enjoy a beverage and decide whether or not you will stand up and fight the seed of immorality that continues to be planted, or sit back and let it devour your CHILDREN.

*UN MEMBER NATIONS are NOT ALLOWED in Ontapia until such time that the people of Ontapia re-join the UN.*

The UN has their rules, We have OURS!

Incoming condescending post detected. Thorough annihilation of all points expected.

Resolution passed. Time to put this baby to bed.