NationStates Jolt Archive

For thousands of years marriage has been the cornerstone of a family unit. Overtime couples gained certain privileges not granted to other, equally needy groups. This could, a long time ago, be rationalized by saying pair of people was more fit than an individual to raise children, the future of society. However, as the population of the world soars beyond its capacity, this is no longer desirable. Thus, with no legitimate civil reason remaining for marriage, Arammanar moves that it be outlawed. Private organizations, such as houses of worship, casinos, and other non-governmental establishments could still perform marriages, however the government would not recognize them and could not discrimate between two people who were married and two people who were not. No financial incentives would be granted to married couples (or groups) as this would unfairly give tax money from non-married people to married people, when it is no longer desirable to do so.

Please support this resolution.

Marriage cannot, currently, be banned. The "Gay Rights" proposal states: "We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations." As long as Gay Rights mandates that homosexual marriages be "protected" by member nations, no proposal can seek to outlaw all marriage. "An End to Marriage" has been deleted.

I just love this proposal idea! Unfortunately...

National Sovereignty: It's Like That "Tolerance" Crap on a National Level

So if I added: "Oh, and repeal the Gay Rights resolution" at the bottom it would make it all okay?

So if I added: "Oh, and repeal the Gay Rights resolution" at the bottom it would make it all okay?

No. Unfortunately, under the current system, you have to make the repeal first, then go back and try to get your resolution passed.

Technically I believe you could outlaw heterosexual marriage, but I'd have to double check existing Resolutions.

No financial incentives would be granted to married couples (or groups) as this would unfairly give tax money from non-married people to married people, when it is no longer desirable to do so.

Depends on your tax system. If you tax combined household incomes then you are unfairly taxing individuals. Lets assume that before living towgether you had I1 and I2, (income 1 and 2 respectively). I1<I2 and I1+I2 =I3 (household income)>I2>I1
Let us say also that your tax system is progressive, because who wants everyone to pay equally for public goods, right? so you have three different tax groups, x,y,z. x<y<z, I1 corresponds to group x and so forth. Now, without a marriage or group benefit, both individuals earned incomes are being taxed at a rate higher rate, z, which decreases their overall disposable income. (Instead of I1(x) and I2(y) tax pmt to government you have created I3(z)=(I1+I2)(z)=(I1)(z)+(I2)(z) pmt to government and (I1)(z)>(I1)(x) and (I2)(z)>(I2)(y))

Now, you are taxing couples higher than non-couples. Which affects their ability to maintain a decent standard of living, housing, food, savings etc. This has a negative impact to your country in several ways. First it discourages couples from forming and joining assets. Which means less couples and more single dwelling units, more space. If couples do form, they spend less in the economy due to lower disposable income. And, lower disposable income after paying for taxes, housing, and food, means lower money saved. Which makes it difficult to purchase a home and mortgage, which fixes residency costs and allows for more disposable income and saving. And, if it is a burden for two people to support one another, and make a decent living, there is a disincentive to reproduce. Which means your population decreases ad infinitum until you change the system. A government likes a citizenry, see Italy's current population problems. It is more complex than this, but that is my two cents in two minutes. (All this occurs in a societly of rational individuals, not necessarily intellectuals, who are being outproduced to begin with, so you could be dumbing down your society's gene pool over time as well, as non educated persons are shown to reproduce at constant rates, irregardless of socio-economic standing)

No. Unfortunately, under the current system, you have to make the repeal first, then go back and try to get your resolution passed.
That's unbelievably stupid. There's no way a repeal of the Gay Rights resolution would ever pass in the UN, regardless of how clearly I stated my ultimate intent.

Make it a proposal to ban government recognized unions between beings.

At present gays a have a right to marriage in AP, which is the same marriage right everyone else has, the right to live together, thats it.
Multiple unrelated persons living together in apartments or house are required to enter into a marriage agreement, and create a marriage account, which is used to pay rental or mortgage costs associated with group living.

This is legitimate so long as marriage remains undefined. And accomplishes your ultimate goal.

Make it a proposal to ban government recognized unions between beings.

At present gays a have a right to marriage in AP, which is the same marriage right everyone else has, the right to live together, thats it.
Multiple unrelated persons living together in apartments or house are required to enter into a marriage agreement, and create a marriage account, which is used to pay rental or mortgage costs associated with group living.

This is legitimate so long as marriage remains undefined. And accomplishes your ultimate goal.

Precisely. Or make it so that it is worded to end government discrimination against those who have not joined together in religiously/culturally sanctioned pairings or groups (ie marriage), as government should respect the right of the individual to define her/his self as either an individual or part of a family and should neither promote nor punish one decision over another. Furthermore as marriage is defined in many nations it comes with the unwarrented assumption that wishing to form a social bond with someone forces a legal bond upon the pairing/grouping (hey- some people really don't want their spouse to decide what happens to them in cases that involve things like whether or not life support systems should be continued). Perhaps a proposed resolution could put forward keeping the religious and social aspects of "marriage" separate from the legal aspects in the name of giving all individuals a choice of which type(s) of union - if any- they wish for themselves instead of forcing all types of unions together as a package deal.