NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay I have a question. What does the 3rd point mean? Does it mean that the government can allow humans to wed animals or does it mean that the government can use the first two points to allow animals to mate.
I want to know this so I know which way to vote.
thanks.

Unless the definition of "marriage" by the UN includes various kinds of group marriages, my nation will not endorse, but keep our own local laws and customs.

Unless the definition of "marriage" by the UN includes various kinds of group marriages, my nation will not endorse, but keep our own local laws and customs.

How about endorsing, then expanding the definition in your nation to include various group marriages? That way, you are completely covered.

Okay I have a question. What does the 3rd point mean? Does it mean that the government can allow humans to wed animals or does it mean that the government can use the first two points to allow animals to mate.
I want to know this so I know which way to vote.
thanks.

Uhm... that makes no sense. Marriage is a legal state, it has nothing to do with mating.

To be crude, a man could "have relations" with a chicken, it doesn't mean they are married. It means the chicken will need therapy. ;)

Okay I have a question. What does the 3rd point mean? Does it mean that the government can allow humans to wed animals or does it mean that the government can use the first two points to allow animals to mate.
I want to know this so I know which way to vote.
thanks.

At a guess it is to (for want of a better word) placate those nations that have beings other than human in them. (My nation is made up of Elves, Dwarves and Humans for example). It is not necessary, as my people have accepted "human being" to apply to all three races, but I in this case I do appriciate the gesture :}

I was wondering when this topic would come up... But I like how no one's raised the issues of gay marriage yet. Quick GBLTQ plug: www.priderainbowproject.com just check it out. :)

Unless the definition of "marriage" by the UN includes various kinds of group marriages, my nation will not endorse, but keep our own local laws and customs.

Although it does not explicitly mention the issue of group marriage, I think it would be covered, at least in some fashion.

DEFINES marriage as the civil joining of a member of any nation with any other member of any nation, regardless of sex, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, color, or any other characteristic, with the exception of age;

You note that it does not, in its current wording, reject the possibility of one person having more than one marriage - effectively, a group marriage.

"marriage as the civil joining of a member of any nation with any other member of any nation" Member is not plural.....

As many cultures allow and encourage mutiple wives and/or husbands, article one should be expanded. Zalaxteria allows for group marriage, ao long as paternity is established. This is so that we do not have siblings or first cousins marry. Such partnering is outlawed. We feel this may lead to genetic issues in our population. Marriage is under the provision of government solely to establish rapid tranfer of assets in the event of death or divorce.

Marriage should be between man and woman not man and man and woman and woman. God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve or Bev and Eve

I agree. It's "any member" with "any other member" - in effect, only two people.

Besides, this proposal stinks. If you're allowed to have two men or two women marrying eachother, why not more people in the same marriage? And why no mention of people who are biologically or socially related who want to get married?

It's a very weak (i.e. 'pathetic') proposal that should have been deleted, because it's been done to death before (with the exception of the animals). The writer should have made the animal marriage the focus of the proposal, rather than an "afterthought", or widened the definition of marriage to also include the two groups I mentioned earlier.

I agree. It's "any member" with "any other member" - in effect, only two people.

Besides, this proposal stinks. If you're allowed to have two men or two women marrying eachother, why not more people in the same marriage? And why no mention of people who are biologically or socially related who want to get married?

It's a very weak (i.e. 'pathetic') proposal that should have been deleted, because it's been done to death before (with the exception of the animals). The writer should have made the animal marriage the focus of the proposal, rather than an "afterthought", or widened the definition of marriage to also include the two groups I mentioned earlier.

No international law currently exists with in the NSUN to protect hetrosexual marriage. This would.

It also does not say that one person can only marry one other person. It would be quite possible under this proposal for me to marry again (I have no plans to, but that is not the point) and again and again.

I am not sure what socially related means, but I have no issue with people who are biologically related getting married. If you trace back through the whole of history, I am pretty sure that everyone is related to someone by some biological link, even if it is only .01% of the blood. So if you ban that then you would have to ban marriage altogether.

And as for strength of the proposal, I think this says more in a lot less space than others do to say a lot less. (Which was a coherent thought in my head, but apparently not so much on the page).

God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve or Bev and Eve
This has to be one of the lamest arguments against this concept that I've ever seen. Not only is it a dumb soundbite, but it has nothing to do with the proposal or the law.

No one is asking GOD to recognize these marriages, they're asking the State to recognize them. Equality under the law has nothing at all to do with religious belief or religious concepts of the word marriage.

It's your church, and your church members can decide what they consider marriage without my interference. However, it's my State, not just yours; and one of the rules is Equality under the law. If you want your own rights of equality, then you have to grant them to everyone. It's a civil rights argument, not a religious argument.

I was wondering when this topic would come up... But I like how no one's raised the issues of gay marriage yet.
To rip of Komokom; that's because it's already legal and protected by the UN.

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

God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve or Bev and Eve

Wow, I thought people who say things like these only existed on Ricky Lake.

Unless the definition of "marriage" by the UN includes various kinds of group marriages, my nation will not endorse, but keep our own local laws and customs.

The literal translation of this resolution means that any marriage that is good or valid in any other UN nation must be recognized in yours.

That means if Man A marries Woman B in Country A, that country B must also recognize that union.

But it also means that if Man A also marries Man B in Country C, that countries A and B also have to recognize that union too.

There is no limit placed on the number of marriages. The only restriction is that you can't marry children, but there is no clause about consent either, which is a significant loophole that was brought up during the draft debate.

As for supporting polygamy, my region discussed the issue and found that the instances of this are rare enough and the legal frameworks for dealing with next of kin would be capable of meeting most new demands placed on governments.

That means if Man A is dying, while his husband, Man B, and his wife, Woman B, both might want to see him ... it is still up to local laws on how those rights associated with spouse(s) and family are handled.

What wasn't clear to my region is why the word consent wasn't added to this resolution after several nations brought it up. :(

{OOC: In the real UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16 deals with marriage.

Article 16
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitations due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at is dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

So for those of you that are actually interested in real international politics, the way the UN handles marriage is a bit different. The significant thing that the real UN did, but wasn't handled really is the consent issue in Article 16, paragraph 2. But fundamentally the two issues are pretty similar.
/OOC}


Right now I'm undecided. The biggest question I'd like answered isn't raised above, as my government has no issues with polygamy or non-traditional families and agrees that it is a fundamental human right. What my government is more curious is hearing is during the previous resolution debate many people argued that the reason to vote against the resolution was that it was redundant. With the passage of that resolution, I honestly feel this resolution is now redundant.

Now, I did not argue against the previous resolution (as I didn't want to trap my government into having to vote against this resolution), but perhaps I'm missing something that makes this situation different. I'm inclined to believe that this resolution is much more direct, as it focuses just on marriage and nothing more, hence it feels like a better document. And perhaps that is the "difference" that should encourage nations to support this proposal. (Do not worry, I will not be voting no against this resolution ... I'm just fence sitting on abstain or not right now.) :)

As many cultures allow and encourage mutiple wives and/or husbands, article one should be expanded. Zalaxteria allows for group marriage, ao long as paternity is established. This is so that we do not have siblings or first cousins marry. Such partnering is outlawed. We feel this may lead to genetic issues in our population. Marriage is under the provision of government solely to establish rapid tranfer of assets in the event of death or divorce.

You can vote for this proposal in good faith.

It doesn't force your government to issue multiple marriages, but you must recognize what is legal in other countries. In other words it neither restricts or limits polygamy, thus it logically follows these cultures can continue to allow multiple spouses.

My government feels this is the real strong point of the resolution.

The statements made earlier about "any" and "any" were misleading. "Any" can be one or more. If the authors wanted to outlaw polygamy, they would have been more clear and wrote: "a single member" with "a single member" or something else that implies a limit.

The issue of polygamy was discussed while this resolution was in draft form and most of those nations felt comfortable with leaving that issue vague.

Although Haravikkslair recognises the rights of individuals to marry, it strongly objects to other nations being given the right to commit bestiality through legalising marriage which goes "beyond species borders".

The population feels that this a disgusting addition to what was otherwise a perfectly agreeable United Nations bill. I trust that other nations who feel the same way will vote against this bill until a revised version is made available!

Definition of Marriage
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Vastiva

Description: Description: IN VIEW of the Universal Bill of Human Rights, and the Gay Rights resolution;

The UN HEREBY :

DEFINES marriage as the civil joining of a member of any nation with any other member of any nation, regardless of sex, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, color, or any other characteristic, with the exception of age;

RECOGNIZES age of the individual(s) as a just reason for not recognizing marriage, as per Article One of the Child Protection Act;

FURTHER RECOGNIZES all nation's right to expand this definition beyond species borders as the individual governments see fit.

Voting Ends: Thu Nov 25 2004

Although Haravikkslair recognises the rights of individuals to marry, it strongly objects to other nations being given the right to commit bestiality through legalising marriage which goes "beyond species borders".


You are talking about the third clause of the resolution text. The resolution is not forcing your nation to recognize human - elf marriages. I'm assuming that human - elf marriages in Mikitivity should however be recognized by your government as being a legal union in the CCSM, and an elven woman should retain the same rights that a human woman would with respect to her human husband.

I think that clause was added for the benefit of nations like mine where elves still mingle with human populations.

Although Haravikkslair recognises the rights of individuals to marry, it strongly objects to other nations being given the right to commit bestiality through legalising marriage which goes "beyond species borders".

The population feels that this a disgusting addition to what was otherwise a perfectly agreeable United Nations bill. I trust that other nations who feel the same way will vote against this bill until a revised version is made available!

You don't have to legalise anything. The last part is within the control of the nation, rather than the UN. So if you don't want to legalise it, you don't legalise it. Simple as that.

Okay I have a question. What does the 3rd point mean? Does it mean that the government can allow humans to wed animals or does it mean that the government can use the first two points to allow animals to mate.
I want to know this so I know which way to vote.
thanks.

It's allowing the government to decide whether it will allow humans and sentient nonhumans (note the lack of the "sentient" attachment to humans) to marry. Marrying a housecat falls under animal cruelty.

Marriage should be between man and woman not man and man and woman and woman. God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve or Bev and Eve

In some versions of that tale, Adam coupled with animals before Eve was created. So there is the possibility that Adam's sexual preferences don't even extend to humans and he only coupled with Eve to get God to shut up about producing children. And let's not forget that, if you have heard the Lilith tales, there is a possibility Adam was actually divorced once as well. Adam is not what I would call a role model.

Note that God never gave Adam a choice. If God had put a man and a woman there, then your point would be valid. But since the Bible mostly ignores how often people had sex and with whom, and since Adam only had one choice, there is no evidence to say whether or not Adam actually was a homosexual. For all we know, Adam and Abel may have been having some happy time in the bedroom and Cain got jealous that he wasn't his father's playtoy.

Keep in mind that evidence of sexual preferences in the OT is mostly missing.

Also, if you are a UN member you already allow gay marriage. Either suck it up, try to get a repeal passed, or leave the UN.

Besides, this proposal stinks. If you're allowed to have two men or two women marrying eachother, why not more people in the same marriage? And why no mention of people who are biologically or socially related who want to get married?

Biological relations among humans has a tendency to produce genetic abominations, but not in all groups. More genetically advanced species sometimes breed this problem out, but it is still enough of a social stigma by that point they don't attempt it. Besides, species advance through genetic diversity.

It's a very weak (i.e. 'pathetic') proposal that should have been deleted, because it's been done to death before (with the exception of the animals). The writer should have made the animal marriage the focus of the proposal, rather than an "afterthought", or widened the definition of marriage to also include the two groups I mentioned earlier.

Not a single member of my nation is human. They evolved from humans and view humans as much the same way humans view apes. Physically, they appear to be abnormally tall humans. Genetically, there is a 0.7% genetic difference between them and humanity. That makes the two incapable of interbreeding.

The author intended this to have the possibility to extend to nonhumans, such as the Sarkarasetans of my nation, raptors and burmecians of Siesatia, and a few others as well. Nowhere does he say they have to marry nonsentient animals or that it is intended to extend to them.

Although Haravikkslair recognises the rights of individuals to marry, it strongly objects to other nations being given the right to commit bestiality through legalising marriage which goes "beyond species borders".

So if a human wants to marry an elf, that is beastiality?

As I read it, the third point gives individual nations the right of whether or not to legalize inter-species marriage; it's not being mandated.

Personally, I don't think this resolution is necessary, since there are currently 2 resolutions on record (UNR 12, UNR 26) that protect the other aspects of the resolution. If the author was intending to focus on interspecies marriage, he should have made that the sole focus of the resolution.

Terenia would like to note that it is in posession, for some time now, of fully recognized "humandog" individuals. Which is to say that our national animal, the human, has mated with those of the canine persuasion to produce lupine humanoids.

It is these idividuals which I, the High Priest of the Church of Terensque, may His wrath address you all in due time, believe are protected under this last clause.

I must say that breeding between people who posess genetic similarity is a sin in the eyes of Terensque, however, group weddings are not neccessarily so.

In conclusion, I believe that this resolution is servicable as such, and may be amended in the future when certain aspects are found to be lacking.

As I read it, the third point gives individual nations the right of whether or not to legalize inter-species marriage; it's not being mandated.

Personally, I don't think this resolution is necessary, since there are currently 2 resolutions on record (UNR 12, UNR 26) that protect the other aspects of the resolution. If the author was intending to focus on interspecies marriage, he should have made that the sole focus of the resolution.

If I recall correctly, this resolution came about mostly as yet another safe-guard against abolition of the "Gay Rights" resolution. If this one passes, the rights of gays will just be even more protected, which is a sad comment in and of itself that they need this much protection. :\

As I read it, the third point gives individual nations the right of whether or not to legalize inter-species marriage; it's not being mandated.

Personally, I don't think this resolution is necessary, since there are currently 2 resolutions on record (UNR 12, UNR 26) that protect the other aspects of the resolution. If the author was intending to focus on interspecies marriage, he should have made that the sole focus of the resolution.

Where is heterosexual marriage defended under UN law? I can't find a single ruling that would prevent my nation from banning the marriage between a man and a woman.

I think this proposal would do just that. Which makes it worth while.

As I read it, the third point gives individual nations the right of whether or not to legalize inter-species marriage; it's not being mandated.

A proposal that would allow this is considered unethical by the peoples of Haravikkslair. If this proposal goes ahead then there is nothing to stop a country legalising the conversion of zoos into brothels, the marriage of a lonely farmer to a defenceless sheep and so-on. If such countries are allowed to be present within the UN then I fear for the United Nations as a whole.
We would punish sexual abuse of our Evil Genuises by a human with death in Haravikkslair if such crimes were possible to commit in the first place. We abhor the idea of a nation being granted the 'right' to do something so blatantly wrong.

Why did this resolution even pass the proposal stage? Gay marriage is already legal in every UN member state. This was legalized with Resolution 12. Why are re-legalizing something that is already in the books?

Why did this resolution even pass the proposal stage? Gay marriage is already legal in every UN member state. This was legalized with Resolution 12. Why are re-legalizing something that is already in the books?

Because straight marriage is not protected. Group marriage is not protected. It's possible that interacial marriage is not protected either.

Surely these three things are worth protecting under UN law.

A proposal that would allow this is considered unethical by the peoples of Haravikkslair. If this proposal goes ahead then there is nothing to stop a country legalising the conversion of zoos into brothels, the marriage of a lonely farmer to a defenceless sheep and so-on. If such countries are allowed to be present within the UN then I fear for the United Nations as a whole.

Every resolution ever passed so far has allowed beastiality. And um, we allow marriages in Adam Island to animals, cars, cheese sandwiches and anything you want.

Every resolution ever passed so far has allowed beastiality. And um, we allow marriages in Adam Island to animals, cars, cheese sandwiches and anything you want.

Cheese sandwiches? Really? Does it matter what type of cheese? Or the age of it?

(lots of other comments sprung to mind, but they are not suitable for anything other than an x-rated board, which I am guessing this isn't :})

Just curious - why does the resolution state "With the exception of age" - because the person writing the resolution doesn't approve of it? Now, I'm not in favor of paedophilia or paederast or anything of the sort, but the resolution A) Doesn't create any age of consent, and B) Seems to be tailored to the likings of the writer's political views.

People rightly argue that incestuous marriages and the like do harm to the gene pool of their communities, but they don't note that gay marriage has no net benefit to the gene pool, whereas interracial marriages actually do. Certain nations have even included the rights of offspring of beastility - but gay marriage cannot produce any offspring - has the UN just decided to work for "whatever's possible, we allow", and not solely for the benefit of its member nations?

Hey - it's just like the real UN, except not as corrupt!

I have to agree here; this bill should be voted AGAINST; it allows for pedophiles and bestiality. It is just not right; morally or otherwise.

The age of legal consent is spelled out on the passed resolution 'The Child Protection Act' that the author makes reference to here.

The act of pedopholia is outlawed by resolution named 'Outlaw Pedophilia' and therefore can not be permitted by this proposal.

At this time, I see nothing which prevents marriage of closely blood-related people (for lack of a better term: incest).

Just curious - why does the resolution state "With the exception of age" - because the person writing the resolution doesn't approve of it? Now, I'm not in favor of paedophilia or paederast or anything of the sort, but the resolution A) Doesn't create any age of consent, and B) Seems to be tailored to the likings of the writer's political views.

A) Already covered.
B) They all are.

People rightly argue that incestuous marriages and the like do harm to the gene pool of their communities, but they don't note that gay marriage has no net benefit to the gene pool, whereas interracial marriages actually do. Certain nations have even included the rights of offspring of beastility - but gay marriage cannot produce any offspring - has the UN just decided to work for "whatever's possible, we allow", and not solely for the benefit of its member nations?

Hey - it's just like the real UN, except not as corrupt!

Been over this already. Also, incest has not been shown to consistantly cause genetic problems.

I have to agree here; this bill should be voted AGAINST; it allows for pedophiles and bestiality. It is just not right; morally or otherwise.

We've covered this. If you can't read the rest of the damn posts, then don't bother posting.

this bill specifically allows any marriage at all to exist, namely between cats and humans etc.


I'M ALL FOR IT!!!!

Also, incest has not been shown to consistantly cause genetic problems.[/QUOTE]

Sigh. Closely-related entities that mate are sharing their similar genes and thus are more likely to lessen the effects of other genes which could be beneficial.

There is a species of cheetah in Africa, for example. which was found to mate with closely-related cheetahs. These cheetahs are thus predisposed to be strong and weak to the same thing. A single virus could wipe out the entire population, and it is the same with humans. Lessening the amounts of alleles is a surefire way to ask for trouble.

People rightly argue that incestuous marriages and the like do harm to the gene pool of their communities, but they don't note that gay marriage has no net benefit to the gene pool, whereas interracial marriages actually do. Certain nations have even included the rights of offspring of beastility - but gay marriage cannot produce any offspring - has the UN just decided to work for "whatever's possible, we allow", and not solely for the benefit of its member nations?


Marriage does not equal sex, and certainly does not equal children. Plenty of married couples don't have children - obviously they are not contributing to the gene pool, but no one seems to be complaining about it.

Gay couples can adopt children, and give a home to orphans who would live the rest of their lives as wards of the state. You don't think that could be considered as "contributing to the gene pool", albeit in an indirect manner?

Correct.

Genetically, inbreeding does limit the genetics pool, allowing for certain recessive and weak characteristics to make their way to the surface and affect the generation. So yes, incest among closely blood-related persons can begin to see these effects within the first generation, but more likely as generations continue to inbreed.

Marriage does not equal sex, and certainly does not equal children. Plenty of married couples don't have children - obviously they are not contributing to the gene pool, but no one seems to be complaining about it.

Gay couples can adopt children, and give a home to orphans who would live the rest of their lives as wards of the state. You don't think that could be considered as "contributing to the gene pool", albeit in an indirect manner?

A) If you think people aren't complaining about it, then I'm sorry. At one point, marriage did equal sex - it was a way for those who decided to help the survival of the species avoid discrimination. Thanks to the progressive community for stifling this movement.

B) No, that would not be contributing to the gene pool, as none of the genes are shared between parent and child, hence the contribution to the gene pool. This would be like saying someone's sterile step-father could contribute to the gene pool.

C) I never said I was against Gay Adoption. I believe that it can be helpful to a society where adoption is prevalent. It's certainly a better alternative than abortion, but that's a debate for another thread.

But that would assume that incest, indeed any type of sex, always ends in children. Which obviously isn't the case as the various types of birth control would suggest.

But that would assume that incest, indeed any type of sex, always ends in children. Which obviously isn't the case as the various types of birth control would suggest.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the meaning of the exact statement here. Birth control is supposed to be used to prevent families from having a larger number of children than they can support (usually 2 to 4 in today's society), and prevent couples from having children before they can support a child.

A) If you think people aren't complaining about it, then I'm sorry. At one point, marriage did equal sex - it was a way for those who decided to help the survival of the species avoid discrimination. Thanks to the progressive community for stifling this movement.


I would say a big thanks to the progressive community. The idea that people can have children without getting married, or can live together in wedded bliss without being forced (by society, not by actual co-ercion) to have children is one of the better things in recent times.


B) No, that would not be contributing to the gene pool, as none of the genes are shared between parent and child, hence the contribution to the gene pool. This would be like saying someone's sterile step-father could contribute to the gene pool.


Ok - contributing to society. Which is way more important than the gene-pool in my view :}


C) I never said I was against Gay Adoption. I believe that it can be helpful to a society where adoption is prevalent. It's certainly a better alternative than abortion, but that's a debate for another thread.

I didn't mean to imply you were - sorry if I gave any offence with that :}

The people and government of Raxanadon-X, already alarmed and offended by the recently passed resolution, find this new resolution intolerable.

This is a matter best left to the wishes of individual countries. You seek to disallow the Raxananikoan religion, to which nearly all the people of Raxanadon-X belong. This is ridiculous. Our nation cannot support this resolution, and if it is passed, will NOT uphold it by any means.

Signed,
The Council of Raxanadon-X

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the meaning of the exact statement here. Birth control is supposed to be used to prevent families from having a larger number of children than they can support (usually 2 to 4 in today's society), and prevent couples from having children before they can support a child.

The meaning of the statement is that two people can have sex without it ending in the creation of a child. So that should a brother/sister chose to be intimate (for whatever reason they chose) then it would not necessarily have any adverse affect, since they could avoid the outcome of pregnancy.

(And I admit, when it was in my head it was a well formed thought, but it came out as total rubbish when I wrote it. Sorry!)

The people and government of Raxanadon-X, already alarmed and offended by the recently passed resolution, find this new resolution intolerable.

This is a matter best left to the wishes of individual countries. You seek to disallow the Raxananikoan religion, to which nearly all the people of Raxanadon-X belong. This is ridiculous. Our nation cannot support this resolution, and if it is passed, will NOT uphold it by any means.

Signed,
The Council of Raxanadon-X

I am sorry, but why would this disallow your religion?

The meaning of the statement is that two people can have sex without it ending in the creation of a child. So that should a brother/sister chose to be intimate (for whatever reason they chose) then it would not necessarily have any adverse affect, since they could avoid the outcome of pregnancy.

(And I admit, when it was in my head it was a well formed thought, but it came out as total rubbish when I wrote it. Sorry!)

Ah yes. That puts it much more succintly and nicely.

However, avoiding the outcome of pregnancy is never an assured thing (despite what my Roman Catholic Church would lead us to believe) - you could also allow a man to marry a box turtle or even a cardboard box if he wanted to.

Also, since this is resolution comes later than the previous resolutions, it would take precedence over previous resolutions, such as "Outlawing Pedophilia", "Age of Consent", and such.

As stated previously by others, this resolution still does not deal with Polygamy, which today tends to be found in relatively backwards communities - I wonder why that is...

Sigh. Closely-related entities that mate are sharing their similar genes and thus are more likely to lessen the effects of other genes which could be beneficial.

I am not disputing that, just pointing out it is not consistant. Incest for just one generation does not always result in any genetic anomalies or problems. I just wouldn't advise it because of the risk.

The birth-control one I was going to bring up, but someone beat me to it.

There is a species of cheetah in Africa, for example. which was found to mate with closely-related cheetahs. These cheetahs are thus predisposed to be strong and weak to the same thing. A single virus could wipe out the entire population, and it is the same with humans. Lessening the amounts of alleles is a surefire way to ask for trouble.

This is why I don't advise it.

While the debate about the topic at hand is definately notable, the Republic of Granbia would like to bring up a very disturbing legal issue. In being redundant with the topics of marriage that have already been covered in past UN Resolutions, the current resolution completely restricts any further debate on the topic.

It will now be impossible to even bring about a proposal to repeal Gay Marriage in any form, if the UN were ever to need to consider it. Resolution #12 (Gay Rights) will be protected under the current resolution, and vice versa. You also cannot repeal two resolutions at the same time. Therefore, this issue will be indefinately forced upon member nations without consideration of the future. If one issue is already provided for specifically under a resolution, it should not be included in another. This resolution should already have been deleted and rendered void for this simple fact. If other parts of marriage need to be debated, then only include them.


Respectfully

President Brandon J Yad

Im beginning to wonder if perhaps both the "gay rights" resolution and this "definition of marriage" resolution should both be non-existent and we try again to write a sensible, well-covered resolution that does what both resolutions are attempting to do.

Though Im not wholly comfortable "defining" marriage, I do think that it should be allowed between any 2 consenting adults who love each other. Yes, I frown on the government allowing for civil union with multiple partners. There are legal aspects to this that are a bureucratic nightmare. If those multiple marriages have no legal implication, and are simply a recognition of multiple partners loving and committing to each other for life, thats one thing. Figuring out which of Steve's 4 wives has medical consent status while he lays comatose with no hope of recovery is a whole other issue.

I do not feel it would be wise to allow for 'inter-species' marriage; then again, my nation deals only in the events of an earthbound society. I dont think humans should be marrying animals, but I guess I wouldnt see a problem with them marrying 'aliens', so long as both species are genetically compatible. That means if you have to cook the egg and sperm up in a lab in order to get them to breed, they shouldnt.

Homosexual marriage is wrong. Not only is it against my morals it's just gross. I'm not sorry about my beliefs, but you can kiss my "YES" vote goodbye!

Homosexual marriage is wrong. Not only is it against my morals it's just gross. I'm not sorry about my beliefs, but you can kiss my "YES" vote goodbye!

If you are a member of the UN, you already condone it. Read the passed resolutions sometime. It'll save you embarassment.

Newsflash Scottsbrund (and anyone else who wants to argue gay marriages):

Gay marriage has already been secured by resolution 12, which has been in implimentation since May 3rd, 2003 with a vote of 12,705 to 7,734.

Supporting or not supporting this resolution will have NO impact on homosexuals getting married.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! NO NO NO NO! I have no problem with gay marriage or anything...but CROSS SPECIES BOUNDERIES?

No. I'm sorry. I will not have my farmers marrying their cows and pigs. :sniper: We'll end up seeing all kinds of wrongness on the internet like, "Farmer Bill and his wife Lulu the cow take it all off just for you." or some other paint-my-ceiling-red type of thing. I mean COME ON! I have a nation to run here, not a glorified Fun Farm.

We had an incident where a man married our national animal, a Razorback Succubus. While this creature has very human features, it is still not considered human because of it's complete lack of language. They also have no form social groupings, much less a society. The incident was deplored and the liscence was revoked and considered null and void.

I was talking to my region's delegate and they brought up a good point. If other species can be considered equals when it comes to marriage, can they be considered equals when it comes to paying taxes and having jobs and serving in the Militery? Or even better yet. What about Jury Duty? Are you going to let a bandy legged raccoon decide whether you are guilty or innocent of a crime?

Juror 1- So Juror 2, what do you think?
Juror 2- Meep! *washes hands in water jug and chews a hole in Juror 5's lunch bag*
Juror 4- Um
Juror 1- Yeah.... that means yes.

Point made

Gay marriage is already accepted in my nation and it will stay that way. So Booyah! DOWN WITH HORSE LOVE! :upyours:

Sincerely,
Sumpreme Ruler of the Rogue Nation of Wada-Wada Luca
Lady Xiporah

The Third point is out of the question as it allows two separate spiecies to be married. Quite simply this means one of my citizens could marry a goat. An interesting proposition to be sure. . . but this point must be eliminated to warrant the support of my not so humble nation. Additionally if gay marriage has already been secured then what, if any, is the point of this proposition? Cross-boarder marriages?

Consider this before voting, though it appears that most do not...

Okay I have a question. What does the 3rd point mean? Does it mean that the government can allow humans to wed animals or does it mean that the government can use the first two points to allow animals to mate.
I want to know this so I know which way to vote.
thanks.

Both, and much more.

The "THIRD RIGHT" is the real goal of this latest Socialist Conspiracy by Koffee Anonymous. (Meanwhile, where does his favorite [exposed bribe-taker] son work today? Where do his other 13+ illegitimate "children" work? What % of world AIDS is spread by his "family"? Why do US taxpayers waste our money on these commie-terroristSupporting-crooks?)

Expell the UN from NYC, and empound their cars that have unpaid tickets. Make the UN Terrorist-Spy "Diplomats" hold their cell-meetings in France or Libya.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! NO NO NO NO! I have no problem with gay marriage or anything...but CROSS SPECIES BOUNDERIES?

Yes. As in a human and an elf can marry. Or a Sarkarasetan or a human (though why a Sarkarasetan would want to marry a species genetically inferior to them is beyond me).

No. I'm sorry. I will not have my farmers marrying their cows and pigs. :sniper: We'll end up seeing all kinds of wrongness on the internet like, "Farmer Bill and his wife Lulu the cow take it all off just for you." or some other paint-my-ceiling-red type of thing. I mean COME ON! I have a nation to run here, not a glorified Fun Farm.

Christ, why do you curse me so?

1) This does not affect the Real nations of Earth.
2) You won't see that, as it is against forum rules.
3) This is intended to allow sentient species to marry if they fall in love.
4) That porn already exists, regardless of legality. And this stuff isn't an urban legend, either.

We had an incident where a man married our national animal, a Razorback Succubus. While this creature has very human features, it is still not considered human because of it's complete lack of language. They also have no form social groupings, much less a society. The incident was deplored and the liscence was revoked and considered null and void.

Language skills? So people who cannot speak in your nation are not considered human? Also, marriage doesn't mean sex. I'm quite able to get sex without marriage, and even have a child with a woman and raise it without marriage.

Humanity is a genetic thing. My own people speak in human tongues, but that's to deal with humans. Genetically, they are almost a different from humanity as humans are from chimps (despite their appearance).

I was talking to my region's delegate and they brought up a good point. If other species can be considered equals when it comes to marriage, can they be considered equals when it comes to paying taxes and having jobs and serving in the Militery? Or even better yet. What about Jury Duty? Are you going to let a bandy legged raccoon decide whether you are guilty or innocent of a crime?

Not necessarily. It depends on the local laws, as some nations have age requirements for those things. I would think most would require a person to be above a certain age for military duty. That's a case of, while you can get married in the US at the age of 14, you can't serve in the military yet.

Juror 1- So Juror 2, what do you think?
Juror 2- Meep! *washes hands in water jug and chews a hole in Juror 5's lunch bag*
Juror 4- Um
Juror 1- Yeah.... that means yes.

Point made

Point not made. See above. Also, the racoon would open the bag, take the lunch out, unwrap it, and then wash the food in water before eating it.

Gay marriage is already accepted in my nation and it will stay that way. So Booyah! DOWN WITH HORSE LOVE! :upyours:

Sincerely,
Sumpreme Ruler of the Rogue Nation of Wada-Wada Luca
Lady Xiporah

You have no choice but to accept it. Welcome to the UN.

The Third point is out of the question as it allows two separate spiecies to be married. Quite simply this means one of my citizens could marry a goat. An interesting proposition to be sure. . . but this point must be eliminated to warrant the support of my not so humble nation. Additionally if gay marriage has already been secured then what, if any, is the point of this proposition? Cross-boarder marriages?

Consider this before voting, though it appears that most do not...

Actually, we do consider it. Most of us have enough common sense to realize it was intended to apply to sentient species, such as Sarkarasetans and Elves.

The government of the Democratic States of Zanshi implore all member nations to the United Nations to please, Please, PLEASE read through all of the proposals and resolutions before submitting a proposal. The redundancy of some member nations is astounding. We do NOT need another marraige resolution to support previous ones.

Both, and much more.

The "THIRD RIGHT" is the real goal of this latest Socialist Conspiracy by Koffee Anonymous. (Meanwhile, where does his favorite [exposed bribe-taker] son work today? Where do his other 13+ illegitimate "children" work? What % of world AIDS is spread by his "family"? Why do US taxpayers waste our money on these commie-terroristSupporting-crooks?)

Expell the UN from NYC, and empound their cars that have unpaid tickets. Make the UN Terrorist-Spy "Diplomats" hold their cell-meetings in France or Libya.

1) That was barely coherent. Slow down next time.
2) This is not the real UN. This is not the real UN. This is not the real UN. This is not the real UN. This is not the real UN.
3) The US doesn't exist in NS. Most examples of it come from outside.
4) This is not the real UN.

As a nation which prides itself on high morals and principles, my nation has decided not to endorse the latest UN resolution, and urge all member nations to examine the wording carefully prior to voting.

God Bless

1) That was barely coherent. Slow down next time.
2) This is not the real UN. This is not the real UN. This is not the real UN. This is not the real UN. This is not the real UN.
3) The US doesn't exist in NS. Most examples of it come from outside.
4) This is not the real UN.

1) T-H-I-S !!! I-S !!! Y-O-U-R !!! S-L-O-W-D-O-W-N !!! B-R-E-A-K !!! Now, gear up.

2) The UN is real (and 60% paid for by the US), and this forum is a reflection of world opinions (except for alien gamers, who fortunately forget to vote).

3) In case you have not noticed, the NS UN votes in lock-step with the "REAL" (corrupt) UN. The "Real UN" pays no rent in NYC, and sends hundreds of terrorist spys to NYC, who commit thousands of crimes per year, with "Diplomatic Immunity".

2) The UN is real (and 60% paid for by the US), and this forum is a reflection of world opinions (except for alien gamers, who fortunately forget to vote).

3) In case you have not noticed, the NS UN votes in lock-step with the "REAL" (corrupt) UN. The "Real UN" pays no rent in NYC, and sends hundreds of terrorist spys to NYC, who commit thousands of crimes per year, with "Diplomatic Immunity".

#1) The US was a major player in the formation and charter of the "Real UN".

#2) The US is bound by constitutional law (Constitutional Law, that's that damn thing that all people in government are supposed to be bound to, and which superceeds ANY legislative law imposed by congress or the president) to uphold the "Real UN" charter, to which it helped write, and to which it is a signatory to.

#3) The US insisted on the UN Complex being here, and GRANTED the land to the UN for its use... It is not US soil anymore, so I could give a fuck about your lame, stupid "rent" argument.

#4) This is not the Real UN here, so I could give a fuck (sorry, not changing that) about what you "Think" about it... or how you relate to it, because this is the NSUN, operating under NSUN rules, and NSUN procedures, developed by the game designer (TO WHICH YOU AGREED TO WHEN YOU JOINED). But I find no surprise, that criminals such as yourself, cannot stick by your own word... Because the lot of you are nothing but dishonest little liars.

#5) If you do not like it, the door is over there ----> Don't let it hit you in the ass on the way out.

1) T-H-I-S !!! I-S !!! Y-O-U-R !!! S-L-O-W-D-O-W-N !!! B-R-E-A-K !!! Now, gear up.

2) The UN is real (and 60% paid for by the US), and this forum is a reflection of world opinions (except for alien gamers, who fortunately forget to vote).

3) In case you have not noticed, the NS UN votes in lock-step with the "REAL" (corrupt) UN. The "Real UN" pays no rent in NYC, and sends hundreds of terrorist spys to NYC, who commit thousands of crimes per year, with "Diplomatic Immunity".

Do any Faster "Superior Gamers" care to reply, during this "SlowDown Break"?

The "Third Right" was added for the benefit of Magic-Based nations, and Future Tech nations incorporating aliens...

It was added under the complaint of a member that the resolution would forbid the intermarriage between eleves and humans, dwaves and humans, etc.

1) T-H-I-S !!! I-S !!! Y-O-U-R !!! S-L-O-W-D-O-W-N !!! B-R-E-A-K !!! Now, gear up.

I meant for you to slow down and take your time with typing, not to be a mejnot and type that.

2) The UN is real (and 60% paid for by the US), and this forum is a reflection of world opinions (except for alien gamers, who fortunately forget to vote).

1) That is the real UN, not the NSUN. There is a difference.
2) This forum is a reflection of the views of the people who play the game and their worlds. I say worlds because not everyon in the UN is from Earth and those that are don't necessarily come from the same Earth.
3) Aliens do vote. People from outside the US in reality vote all the time, and people inside the game from other planets vote.

3) In case you have not noticed, the NS UN votes in lock-step with the "REAL" (corrupt) UN. The "Real UN" pays no rent in NYC, and sends hundreds of terrorist spys to NYC, who commit thousands of crimes per year, with "Diplomatic Immunity".

1) The NS UN doesn't vote with the real UN. They have different issues, different powers, and different effects.
2) I don't give a damn about the real UN. This is for the NSUN. Keep that in mind.

Also to restate the difference between rightists and libertarians... Rightists spend alot of time TALKing about freedom; libertarians actually BELIEVE in it.

Also to restate the difference between rightists and libertarians... Rightists spend alot of time TALKing about freedom; libertarians actually BELIEVE in it.

That's why I'm a dictator. When I talk, people listen. And then follow my suggestions.

That's why I'm a dictator. When I talk, people listen. And then follow my suggestions.

Agreed... however, the difference between you and a rightist, is a rightist talks about freedom, while acting like dictators, and you are just an honest dictator... At least you don't spend 24hrs a day lying to yourself

#1) The US was a major player in the formation and charter of the "Real UN".

#2) The US is bound by constitutional law (Constitutional Law, that's that damn thing that all people in government are supposed to be bound to, and which superceeds ANY legislative law imposed by congress or the president) to uphold the "Real UN" charter, to which it helped write, and to which it is a signatory to.

#3) The US insisted on the UN Complex being here, and GRANTED the land to the UN for its use... It is not US soil anymore, so I could give a fuck about your lame, stupid "rent" argument.

#4) This is not the Real UN here, so I could give a fuck (sorry, not changing that) about what you "Think" about it... or how you relate to it, because this is the NSUN, operating under NSUN rules, and NSUN procedures, developed by the game designer (TO WHICH YOU AGREED TO WHEN YOU JOINED). But I find no surprise, that criminals such as yourself, cannot stick by your own word... Because the lot of you are nothing but dishonest little liars.

#5) If you do not like it, the door is over there ----> Don't let it hit you in the ass on the way out.

POINT-BY-POINT to TekAnalIA (who is hiding near the CIA and FBI in Virginia).

#1) Correct. (Formally, but the Koffee UN does not follow the charter; and the bulk of meaningless voting dictatorships don't object, if their check clear.)

#2) Wrong. (The US Constitution "forgot" to mention the UN, but IT DID ALLOW WITHDRAWING FROM BASTARDIZED AGREEMENTS.)

#3) Your language is offensive, and will be reported to the Mods. Also, the US was in no position to "insist", and Paris was another option (they deserve it, with all of the expenses, and "visiting" terrorists. The bankrupt UN took advantage of a Rockefeller "Gift". US individuals, no matter how rich, cannot give US land to terrorists.

#4) Flagrant, and repeted use of offensive language. Supposedly showing "sincerity", but proving lack of facts. Let's let the rational people decide who are the "CRIMINAL DISHONEST LITTLE LIARS". (By the way, each of those 4 words have ACTUAL MEANINGS. Please elaborate on each of your baseless charges, except #2="LITTLE", because I also apply that to you, in all respects.)

#5) You seem to know where the door is. Go for it, BIG BOY.

1) T-H-I-S !!! I-S !!! Y-O-U-R !!! S-L-O-W-D-O-W-N !!! B-R-E-A-K !!! Now, gear up.

2) The UN is real (and 60% paid for by the US), and this forum is a reflection of world opinions (except for alien gamers, who fortunately forget to vote).

3) In case you have not noticed, the NS UN votes in lock-step with the "REAL" (corrupt) UN. The "Real UN" pays no rent in NYC, and sends hundreds of terrorist spys to NYC, who commit thousands of crimes per year, with "Diplomatic Immunity".


1)Moron
2)Yet the US doesn't pay it's UN dues. How does your silly little figure, that I bet is made up, coexist with the truth?
3)How could it vote in lock-step when there are completely different proposals? You are either a troll or a brainwashed little loser locked in a basement by your parents, because they feared for your safety in a world of rational, but irritable people.

You are a sad, sad, person, who deserves whatever is coming to you.

I meant for you to slow down and take your time with typing, not to be a mejnot and type that.



1) That is the real UN, not the NSUN. There is a difference.
2) This forum is a reflection of the views of the people who play the game and their worlds. I say worlds because not everyon in the UN is from Earth and those that are don't necessarily come from the same Earth.
3) Aliens do vote. People from outside the US in reality vote all the time, and people inside the game from other planets vote.



1) The NS UN doesn't vote with the real UN. They have different issues, different powers, and different effects.
2) I don't give a damn about the real UN. This is for the NSUN. Keep that in mind.

Your hired. You proved my point. Pick up your salary check at the Welfare Office on December 2, 2004.

1)Moron
2)Yet the US doesn't pay it's UN dues. How does your silly little figure, that I bet is made up, coexist with the truth?
3)How could it vote in lock-step when there are completely different proposals? You are either a troll or a brainwashed little loser locked in a basement by your parents, because they feared for your safety in a world of rational, but irritable people.

You are a sad, sad, person, who deserves whatever is coming to you.

Again. Point-by-meaningless-point.

1) Correct spelling. Zero credit for meaning.

2) Wrong. Look it up. Believe it or not (and I object to this), the US pays more than 50%, and gives those spys free rent (but we have it wired).

3) Wrong. Check the votes.

4) MUCH TIME IS WASTED ON THIS KIND OF UNINFORMED COMMENT. Is there a way to Upgrade this forum. (e.g., current events testing before you post to the "MEANINGFUL COMMENT" forum?)

The people and government of Raxanadon-X, already alarmed and offended by the recently passed resolution, find this new resolution intolerable.

This is a matter best left to the wishes of individual countries. You seek to disallow the Raxananikoan religion, to which nearly all the people of Raxanadon-X belong. This is ridiculous. Our nation cannot support this resolution, and if it is passed, will NOT uphold it by any means.

Signed,
The Council of Raxanadon-X

If you're in the UN, you have no choice in the matter.

See the FAQ.

#1) Correct. (Formally, but the Koffee UN does not follow the charter; and the bulk of meaningless voting dictatorships don't object, if their check clear.)
Koffee?


#2) Wrong. (The US Constitution "forgot" to mention the UN, but IT DID ALLOW WITHDRAWING FROM BASTARDIZED AGREEMENTS.)

Article VI


#3) Your language is offensive, and will be reported to the Mods. Also, the US was in no position to "insist", and Paris was another option (they deserve it, with all of the expenses, and "visiting" terrorists. The bankrupt UN took advantage of a Rockefeller "Gift". US individuals, no matter how rich, cannot give US land to terrorists.

3 of the orginals wanted it here, the US was a part of it... And it was in a definite position to do alot of insisting at the time, despite your complete lack of historical perspective. US does not OWN any land except the 10 square miles composing the District of Columbia... In fact, the US is not allowed to OWN ANY LAND EXCEPT THAT... All other land in "US" 'possession' is by lease.


#4) Flagrant, and repeted use of offensive language. Supposedly showing "sincerity", but proving lack of facts. Let's let the rational people decide who are the "CRIMINAL DISHONEST LITTLE LIARS". (By the way, each of those 4 words have ACTUAL MEANINGS. Please elaborate on each of your baseless charges, except #2="LITTLE", because I also apply that to you, in all respects.)

Read previous posts...


#5) You seem to know where the door is. Go for it, BIG BOY.

I don't have plans on leaving. Nor a desire to... Nor do I spend all my time confusing the "Real United Nations" with the "Nation States United Nations"... much like your ignorant self.

This Nation States United Nations is governed by operations, scopes and authorites, provided for open viewing by all of the international body (UN or not) and therefore available for review. All to which you have agreed to (and still do by virtue of being a member) and to which you do nothing but ignore, and spit meaningless disconnected diatribe about... As such, my position of your DISHONESTY and status as a LIAR, because of your dishonesty, as the fact you made an agreement, to which you have no intention to side by, now, not in original intent... That is called DISHONESTY and LYING, contrary to your rightist self-deception... You JOINED this organization VOLUNTARILY, and AGREED to maintain its precepts, and side by its procedures... Would you like me to supply the definition of "Lie" and "dishonesty" for you?

And "hiding"? pfft... (Like I am scared of your teen hind-end).

The "Third Right" was added for the benefit of Magic-Based nations, and Future Tech nations incorporating aliens...

It was added under the complaint of a member that the resolution would forbid the intermarriage between elves and humans, dwaves and humans, etc.

Gosh, someone remembers! :)

Your hired. You proved my point. Pick up your salary check at the Welfare Office on December 2, 2004.

Do you work for Kerry? Quote ME, not YOUR OWN pointless dribble, when you respond to ME, --OR ANYONE--. Your games do not work anymore.

Gosh, someone remembers! :)

Get back in your ship and fix your GPS. You have obviously mistaken Earth for a planet that "cares".

Get back in your ship and fix your GPS. You have obviously mistaken Earth for a planet that "cares".

Actually, judging by the content of this thread, you are the one who needs to take that little morsel of advice yourself.

Gosh, someone remembers! :)

Unlike some people in here suffering from a severe case of analocuphelia... I remember things, and look back to see what has been done before entering agreements.

Your hired. You proved my point. Pick up your salary check at the Welfare Office on December 2, 2004.

WTF? What the hell does that have to do with my arguement? I was also pointing out the reality of NationStates. If you can't accept it, you don't have to play the game.

Do you work for Kerry? Quote ME, not YOUR OWN pointless dribble, when you respond to ME, --OR ANYONE--. Your games do not work anymore.

Okay, this tells me everything I need to know. Everything.

WTF? What the hell does that have to do with my arguement? I was also pointing out the reality of NationStates. If you can't accept it, you don't have to play the game.



Okay, this tells me everything I need to know. Everything.

You quoted my objection, NOT MY POINT, thus, supporting (but not yet dis-proving) my point. You have a little more time to learn how to debate.

WTF? What the hell does that have to do with my arguement? I was also pointing out the reality of NationStates. If you can't accept it, you don't have to play the game.



Okay, this tells me everything I need to know. Everything.

"The REALITY of the GAME"! I hope you forgot to vote in the "FAKE" election "game".

You quoted my objection, NOT MY POINT, thus, supporting (but not yet dis-proving) my point. You have a little more time to learn how to debate.

I know how to debate...



I meant for you to slow down and take your time with typing, not to be a mejnot and type that.



1) That is the real UN, not the NSUN. There is a difference.
2) This forum is a reflection of the views of the people who play the game and their worlds. I say worlds because not everyon in the UN is from Earth and those that are don't necessarily come from the same Earth.
3) Aliens do vote. People from outside the US in reality vote all the time, and people inside the game from other planets vote.



1) The NS UN doesn't vote with the real UN. They have different issues, different powers, and different effects.
2) I don't give a damn about the real UN. This is for the NSUN. Keep that in mind.



Your hired. You proved my point. Pick up your salary check at the Welfare Office on December 2, 2004.

A fish has a longer memory span than you, KZZYZX.

You quoted my objection, NOT MY POINT, thus, supporting (but not yet dis-proving) my point. You have a little more time to learn how to debate.

I'm not the one in need of lessons. I quoted what was directed at me, not at others, and even the crap directed at others has no impact on my arguement. Your supposed "point" does not exist in any of your posts. I have no choice but to conclude you are posting flamebait and actually have no point beyond trying to get people to flame you. And I will deal with this now.

"The REALITY of the GAME"! I hope you forgot to vote in the "FAKE" election "game".

Little secrets:

1) NS is a game. Every part of it is. The stuff that happens off of here are only brought up for illustrating points that do not have examples in game.

WTF? What the hell does that have to do with my arguement? I was also pointing out the reality of NationStates. If you can't accept it, you don't have to play the game.



Okay, this tells me everything I need to know. Everything.

By the way, the correct spelling is ARGUMENT. Try to be a better example for your aliens.

By the way, the correct spelling is ARGUMENT. Try to be a better example for your aliens.

More flamebait. Keep digging.

#1) This is the Nation States United Nation

#2) The "United States of America", "The United Kingdom", "The People's Republic of China", etc. do not exist here...

#3) The Constitutional Republic of Tekania, The Most Serene Republic of DemonLordEnigma, The Most Serene Republic of TilEnca, The Paganistic Elysium of Whited Fields, etc. do exist here.

#4) We do not serve 'Koffee' here, though I hear the Lounge makes a nice cup of Earl Grey.

1) That was barely coherent. Slow down next time.
2) This is not the real UN. This is not the real UN. This is not the real UN. This is not the real UN. This is not the real UN.
3) The US doesn't exist in NS. Most examples of it come from outside.
4) This is not the real UN.

WAS THIS YOUR REAL POINT?

It's allowing the government to decide whether it will allow humans and sentient nonhumans (note the lack of the "sentient" attachment to humans) to marry. Marrying a housecat falls under animal cruelty.



In some versions of that tale, Adam coupled with animals before Eve was created. So there is the possibility that Adam's sexual preferences don't even extend to humans and he only coupled with Eve to get God to shut up about producing children. And let's not forget that, if you have heard the Lilith tales, there is a possibility Adam was actually divorced once as well. Adam is not what I would call a role model.

Note that God never gave Adam a choice. If God had put a man and a woman there, then your point would be valid. But since the Bible mostly ignores how often people had sex and with whom, and since Adam only had one choice, there is no evidence to say whether or not Adam actually was a homosexual. For all we know, Adam and Abel may have been having some happy time in the bedroom and Cain got jealous that he wasn't his father's playtoy.

Keep in mind that evidence of sexual preferences in the OT is mostly missing.

Also, if you are a UN member you already allow gay marriage. Either suck it up, try to get a repeal passed, or leave the UN.



Biological relations among humans has a tendency to produce genetic abominations, but not in all groups. More genetically advanced species sometimes breed this problem out, but it is still enough of a social stigma by that point they don't attempt it. Besides, species advance through genetic diversity.



Not a single member of my nation is human. They evolved from humans and view humans as much the same way humans view apes. Physically, they appear to be abnormally tall humans. Genetically, there is a 0.7% genetic difference between them and humanity. That makes the two incapable of interbreeding.

The author intended this to have the possibility to extend to nonhumans, such as the Sarkarasetans of my nation, raptors and burmecians of Siesatia, and a few others as well. Nowhere does he say they have to marry nonsentient animals or that it is intended to extend to them.



So if a human wants to marry an elf, that is beastiality?

Or, was THIS your REAL POINT? What is your POINT?

By the way, the correct spelling is ARGUMENT. Try to be a better example for your aliens.

Arguement is correct too....

color/colour, flavor/flavour, neighbor/neighbour, analog/analogue.... shall I continue?

Tekania, don't. Delete that post. Trust me on this.

I'm not the one in need of lessons. I quoted what was directed at me, not at others, and even the crap directed at others has no impact on my arguement. Your supposed "point" does not exist in any of your posts. I have no choice but to conclude you are posting flamebait and actually have no point beyond trying to get people to flame you. And I will deal with this now.



Little secrets:

1) NS is a game. Every part of it is. The stuff that happens off of here are only brought up for illustrating points that do not have examples in game.

Please explain.

Tekania, don't. Delete that post. Trust me on this.

Do BOTH of you guys work fo NS censorship division.

Do BOTH of you guys work fo NS censorship division.

(cough)(cough)(cough)

Should I provide a quote?

For our part, we fail to see the significance of this issue to international diplomacy, or to human rights.

Farthingsworth holds a more or less conventional view of the institution of marriage, as defined by Western standards. We recognise that other cultures hold their traditions just as sacred as we hold ours. We additionally recognise that marriage is, in many cultures, not a mere convention of convenience, but an ordinance of various religious institutions. We not only fail to understand why the United Nations would see fit to meddle in the cultural and spiritual lives of it's member nations, we stand in staunch objection to the idea.

The passage of this resolution would set a precedent for United Nations manipulation of other aspects of member nations' cultural affairs. Where would such meddling cease? A resolution on what is considered proper attire for a wedding? The correct order of flatware at a reception?

We strongly urge the United Nations to abandon this rediculous resolution, and return to the noble efforts involved in the pursuit of the resolution of international disputes, and the dream of world peace.

Arguement is correct too, of course, your ignorant hind-end would not know that....

color/colour, flavor/flavour, neighbor/neighbour, analog/analogue.... shall I continue?

Sounds like "FAMING" (correct spelling) to me. Who is tha guy that I should inform?

Please explain.

We are STILL WAITING for the explanation.

<insert long, thought-out, well-written post here>

Normally I just use "blah" several times for long posts I don't want to quote the whole of, but you caught me in a rare mood.

The UN on NS pretty much regulates everything it can. It already has regulations on marriages, what weapons you can have, whether or not people can vote in your nations... So this is actually pretty much not that far out of line of the UN norm.

Sounds like "FAMING" (correct spelling) to me. Who is tha guy that I should inform?

"Ignorant" : Unaware or uninformed.


By the way, the correct spelling is ARGUMENT.

Arguement is correct too, under the English spelling.

Since you claim it isn't, then you are "unaware" and "uninformed" that it was correct... Therefore...

"Ignorant" : Unaware or uninformed.



Arguement is correct too, under the English spelling.

Since you claim it isn't, then you are "unaware" and "uninformed" that it was correct... Therefore...

Please provide more explanation.

Tekania, check your TGs.

Personally, while Tediouspath does allow marraige of all sorts in its borders, it likes the fact that it has options.

By forcing marriage issues in other nations, the UN is going to cause more hatred towards certain groups and will, of course, be butting its nose in where it doesn't belong.

Please provide more explanation.

More explanation?

Argument is US standard english.... Arguement is UK standard english... BOTH are valid under grammar rules as long as the spelling is held consistent (either all UK standard, or US standard)...

What does the spelling of arguEment have to do with the defination of marraige?

I got up to page 5 and got tired of reading.

I am voting AGAINST this resolution because this bill forces your nation to recognize a brother and sister marrying each other, without limitations to them marrying individuals of the same sex in other states, which perhaps could even be animals, at which point all would be related to individuals in your own state, and possibly citizens as you would have to recognize these marriages. This is appalling.

Nations will be forced to recognize marriages (where, beforehand, a nation might not have recognized marriage)
Nations will be forced to recognize global marriages (polygamy or monogamy is not stated here, so it is considerable that polygamy is possible here)
Nations will be forced to recognize homosexual marriages (this is against some religious nations' stances)
Nations will be forced to recognize interracial marriages (not bad)
Nations will be forced to recognize cross-religion marriages (this is against some religious nations' stances)

Nations may not have to recognize the marriages of "underage" individuals, wherein "underage" is undefined.

Nations optionally may allow interspecies marriages - this is worded VERY LOOSELY. A horse and a man can get married under this premise. As much as I think horses are sexy, I don't want other countries, especially not my own, allowing horse-human marriages.

I quote Haravikkslair:
The population feels that this a disgusting addition to what was otherwise a perfectly agreeable United Nations bill. I trust that other nations who feel the same way will vote against this bill until a revised version is made available!

I quote what Mikitivity quoted, thankfully, from the real UN's article on marriage:
Article 16
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitations due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at is dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Now, back to my point.
Consent is not stated. I can marry someone without their consent.
Also, this resolution does not address.

This resolution is just disgusting. It is a 5-minute type job. If this resolution passes I will work very hard to repeal it. It even makes me want to leave the UN.

My nation has no stance on gay marriage currently. However, I feel it is a global injustice to force other nations to recognize gay marriage.

Too many people think that this is a very simple gay rights bill. It is not. It is a very simple atrocity. It is also redunant.
Please, vote against this bill, and lobby the individual that composed it to make a better bill.

What does the spelling of arguEment have to do with the defination of marraige?

We Agrue.

Corrosades,

All NSUN member nations, under Resolution #12 "Gay Rights" already recognize and endorse homosexual marriage.

Normally I just use "blah" several times for long posts I don't want to quote the whole of, but you caught me in a rare mood.

The UN on NS pretty much regulates everything it can. It already has regulations on marriages, what weapons you can have, whether or not people can vote in your nations... So this is actually pretty much not that far out of line of the UN norm.

And your point is _______?

The NSUN resolutions are absolute in authority, and enforced within your nation by little magic gnomes who rewrite all your laws to conform with resolution. Unlike the "Real UN" you cannot ignore resolutions, whether you agree with them or not, they are enforced. However, unlike the "Real UN" this UN's membership is completely voluntary, and one can resign without penalty.

(cough)(cough)(cough)

Should I provide a quote?

You seem to be in charge here. What is the problem? What rules are being violated? Please, I am being serious.

You seem to be in charge here. What is the problem? What rules are being violated? Please, I am being serious.

:LOL:

I shall refrain from comment.

The NSUN resolutions are absolute in authority, and enforced within your nation by little magic gnomes who rewrite all your laws to conform with resolution. Unlike the "Real UN" you cannot ignore resolutions, whether you agree with them or not, they are enforced. However, unlike the "Real UN" this UN's membership is completely voluntary, and one can resign without penalty.

Does this actually have an effect on things like Civil Rights, Economy, and the such, or what type of government you have, or is this like a role-playing thing?

:LOL:

I shall refrain from comment.

Why? I am still serious.

Does this actually have an effect on things like Civil Rights, Economy, and the such, or what type of government you have, or is this like a role-playing thing?

Yes, it actually impact the three category values, and as such and impact upon your UN Category... However, the impact can be easy or hard to be seen, as it's a combination of effect between UN resolution and your already existing policies...

Why? I am still serious.

Perhapse you should just re-read the thread...

Yes, it actually impact the three category values, and as such and impact upon your UN Category... However, the impact can be easy or hard to be seen, as it's a combination of effect between UN resolution and your already existing policies...

Seriously, and not to be gratuitous, you are meaningfully moderating this UN resolution. Please put my request in second-place.

Okay, that's just about enough. Everyone needs to chill out, especially you, KZZYZX. I don't want to see any more flamebaiting or flaming in this topic, or I'm going to start handing out forum bans (which will, conveniently, last at least as long as this proposal is up for vote).

Also, please keep in mind that the NSUN does not equal the real world UN, and bringing up the real UN, or complaining about who's paying for what is a pointless argument and one that is better suited for the General forum.

- The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

This "Definition of Marriage" proposal is ridiculous. First, I believe that if a parent wants their child to wed, as is done in some cultures, and their church agrees, then so be it. It is none of the gov'ts business (I believe this was covered in an earlier resolution). Second, How can you allow inter-species to wed? Is there someone out there, that I need to know about, who can ask and/or explain what marriage is, to anything other than another human being?! Unless there is, then any inter-species marriage would be entered in to unwillingly or unknowingly. How could that be valid? And Finally, Gov't should only validate (for tax purposes, entitlements, etc.) a church sanctioned marriage with a civil union. Marriage is a religous term. And should stay there!

VOTE AGAINST!!

Okay, that's just about enough. Everyone needs to chill out, especially you, KZZYZX. I don't want to see any more flamebaiting or flaming in this topic, or I'm going to start handing out forum bans (which will, conveniently, last at least as long as this proposal is up for vote).

Also, please keep in mind that the NSUN does not equal the real world UN, and bringing up the real UN, or complaining about who's paying for what is a pointless argument and one that is better suited for the General forum.

- The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

Ok, "Let's Roll" over there to a new site called "What's wrong with the UN?". I'll open it, if no-one else has the guts. The UN mods are invited to play, BUT ONLY AS EQUALS.

I got up to page 5 and got tired of reading.

I am voting AGAINST this resolution because this bill forces your nation to recognize a brother and sister marrying each other, without limitations to them marrying individuals of the same sex in other states, which perhaps could even be animals, at which point all would be related to individuals in your own state, and possibly citizens as you would have to recognize these marriages. This is appalling.


I quote what Mikitivity quoted, thankfully, from the real UN's article on marriage:
Article 16
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitations due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at is dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.


Now, back to my point.
Consent is not stated. I can marry someone without their consent.
Also, this resolution does not address.



Though I pointed out what the real UN has done with respect to this issue, I don't think that should be used as a reason to vote against this proposal for two reasons:

(1) Nothing here forces your nation to not adopt regulations requiring that domestic marriages (i.e. marriages that your government issues) needing to have consent.

(2) If you feel that consent is necessary (which I'll agree with, but I'm not sure how strongly I want to force this opinion on other nations), then you may always draft a new resolution. This resolution adds to previous ones, and future resolutions may do the same to this document.


If you find that most of what you see here you agree with, but are not pleased with this one issue, then at very least I'd like to ask that you consider abstaining.

Right now the vote is 2:1 in favour. I honestly think this trend will continue, and the PUNN has already made its projection for a similar outcome. While it could be argued that there is no need for me to appeal to nations that are sitting on the fence (even my own is, but the other side yes or abstain), it is the opinion of my government that the document put forth represents a good faith attempt to reach a compromise (as witnessed by the third operating clause).

Right now, in other countries elves and humans are getting married. Your governments have little say in this ... but the question I ask you is, if when these citizens of another country travel and visit your country, is it not your custom to recognize and honor the marriages and unions from other societies? The same can be said of arranged marriages.

Ok, "Let's Roll" over there to a new site called "What's wrong with the UN?". I'll open it, if no-one else has the guts. The UN mods are invited to play, BUT ONLY AS EQUALS.
What on earth are you talking about? I don't care what you do on another site, nor do I comprehend why it takes "guts" to post an anti-UN site. A quick google search tells me: "Results 1 - 10 of about 482 for "i hate the un". (0.47 seconds)" Seems a pretty popular passtime.

Just keep it civil, and on topic, over here, okay?

Although the resolution provides a definition for the state of marriage, it does not establish that state in nations where such a state does not exist. As the Republic of Skredtch does not recognize marriage as a legal state, there is no reason for us to vote on this resolution.

If you're allowed to marry, I dunno, cacti... then why can't you marry a 5 year old? It's not like the cacti consented to be married to you or anything... The proposal is rather stupid as it's not giving freedom in the right fields... I mean, you can marry monkey embryo but you can't marry a 5 year old??? The proposal makes no sense to me... Hear me out and vote against it as it obviously hasn't been written properly... If you are to marry an animal, they should consent the marriage, or as my Economics Teacher says "The two parties must have a capacity to enter the contract"...

P.S-I have no intention in marrying 5 year olds...

I for one think this is a totally stupid proposal. My country has BANNED all marriages except those between a man and a woman. Therefore if this resolution passes we will either ignore it (I wanna ignore it) or leave the UN (dont really want to). Who else is with me?

OOC: Sorry for gay folks out there. Im not against gay marriages in real life.

If you're allowed to marry, I dunno, cacti... then why can't you marry a 5 year old? It's not like the cacti consented to be married to you or anything... The proposal is rather stupid as it's not giving freedom in the right fields... I mean, you can marry monkey embryo but you can't marry a 5 year old??? The proposal makes no sense to me... Hear me out and vote against it as it obviously hasn't been written properly... If you are to marry an animal, they should consent the marriage, or as my Economics Teacher says "The two parties must have a capacity to enter the contract"...

P.S-I have no intention in marrying 5 year olds...

Reread the prior resolutions. Particularly this one.



UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #25

The Child Protection Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
<snip>

ARTICLE 1

For the purposes of the present resolution, a minor means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless, under the law applicable to the minor, majority is attained earlier.



As for...



I for one think this is a totally stupid proposal. My country has BANNED all marriages except those between a man and a woman. Therefore if this resolution passes we will either ignore it (I wanna ignore it) or leave the UN (dont really want to). Who else is with me?

OOC: Sorry for gay folks out there. Im not against gay marriages in real life.


Sorry, but your country already has gay marriages whether you like it or not.



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


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kundu

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

The consent issue was left to National Soverignty - and due to yet anther resolution, either you have everyone consent, or no one. But this proposal leaves it to you which to do. I have no problem with a nation which forces arranged marriages on all its members.

Finally, if you are so hell bent to say that this - or any other - proposal is "badly written", "badly thought out", or whatever other complaint you have, please do tell me - why isn't your name up there on a proposal?

Complaining after the fact is easy. So is whining. If you are so knowledgeable, then write it up.

Hmmmm...

I'm sitting on the fence here too, somewhat. Whilst I don't agree with the arguements that this proposal is redundant, given the fact that it is more precise and wider in scope than previous resolutions, I do have a couple of problems with it, namely:

The consent issue. This raises a couple of problems with regards to Res #6 "End slavery". It may be construed as allowing through the back door a violation of "The outlawing of the selling or purchasing of people." by permitting sexual slavery via dowry payments. Note "may be construed", though. I'm not sure which resolution takes primacy here.

Related to this is the issue of mental deficiency. By explicitly stating that marriage is independent "or any other characteristic, with the exception of age" but not defining whether or not it means physical or mental age we're left with the question of how do we deal with those not considered to be mentally capable of making their own rational choices but above the age of majority. Without an explicit definition of consent this is left unaddressed.

The duality issue. As Granbia pointed out this makes repealing gay marriage considerably harder. Our nation has no interest in pursuing such a repeal but supports the rights of others so to do. A clear statement of subsidiarity would have helped resolve this issue.

The species issue. I know why it was implemented, that's fine. The slight problem is what do I do in the hypothetical scenario of a citizen from my nation marrying a sheep in another nation then requesting citizenship for the sheep? Under our current immigration laws we would be forced to permit it. Of course I could re-draft the laws, but it would be pretty tricky to do so without violating this resolution. This is another issue which could have been resolved by adding consent to the proposal.

I'm tempted to abstain because together these problems would cause a headache for my government, but they are relatively minor procedural issues (with the exception of the duality issue which in this instance is not a problem for my government) which wouldn't result in disastrous problems.

A quick recap for those UN nations joining the debate, by the way:

Homosexual marriages are already legal in your nation, as per resolution #12 "Gay Rights". Opposition to this proposal on the basis of disapproving of such marriages is invalid.

Your nation would not have to endorse cross-species marriages. This is clearly set out in the proposal where it states:
FURTHER RECOGNIZES all nation's right to expand this definition beyond species borders as the individual governments see fit

This proposal does not endorse underage marriage. It clearly states that it:

RECOGNIZES age of the individual(s) as a just reason for not recognizing marriage, as per Article One of the Child Protection Act

For reference, here is Article One of the Child Protection Act:

For the purposes of the present resolution, a minor means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless, under the law applicable to the minor, majority is attained earlier.

Any other complaints are valid, but don't bother with these as they don't apply to the current proposal.

It's an outrage! We can't allow gay marriage, because it is anti-natural. If this proposal will pass the UN the nations are dammed to count with it. But I don't want to do that. We can't allow this just because this world is unreal. It is still a real society behind those computers, and gay marriage is bad in nationstates as well as in the real life.

This proposal is preposterous, this allows for marriage between a dog and a man! This needs to be reworded, I'm all for allowing gay marriages and inter species (I believe there are elves etc in some countries?) But what needs to be in this proposal is the word consensual. And also inter species (whereby its consensual ie. an intelligent life form able to make conscious decisions) marriage, should not be optional based on the government, that means that governments can discriminate on the basis of species. Therefore I propose that the last statement be scrapped. Something like this:

Description: Description: IN VIEW of the Universal Bill of Human Rights, and the Gay Rights resolution;

The UN HEREBY :

DEFINES marriage as the CONSENSUAL civil joining of a member of any nation with any other member of any nation, regardless of sex, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, color, or any other characteristic, with the exception of age;

RECOGNIZES age of the individual(s) as a just reason for not recognizing marriage, as per Article One of the Child Protection Act;

This way it includes ALL intelligent beings so that no one can be discriminated against and makes sure that all marriages are consensual.

I agree with Southern Puff on this one. To those of you who are saying that gay marriage is bad, welcome to the twenty-first century.
CONSENSUAL is the issue, I agree

so me and my two husbands and three wives can all collectivly marry that group of anthromorphic thylacine people i saw next to the nuclear powerplant in the middle of the rainforest? cool!

It's an outrage! We can't allow gay marriage, because it is anti-natural. If this proposal will pass the UN the nations are dammed to count with it. But I don't want to do that. We can't allow this just because this world is unreal. It is still a real society behind those computers, and gay marriage is bad in nationstates as well as in the real life.

1) Read several of the articles on here about that for the arguement against it.
2) Read the post just before yours. You already allow gay marriages.

This proposal is preposterous, this allows for marriage between a dog and a man! This needs to be reworded, I'm all for allowing gay marriages and inter species (I believe there are elves etc in some countries?) But what needs to be in this proposal is the word consensual. And also inter species (whereby its consensual ie. an intelligent life form able to make conscious decisions) marriage, should not be optional based on the government, that means that governments can discriminate on the basis of species. Therefore I propose that the last statement be scrapped. Something like this:



This way it includes ALL intelligent beings so that no one can be discriminated against and makes sure that all marriages are consensual.

This is actually a good idea. I had suggested using the words "sentient being" on one topic to deal with a similar issue.

so me and my two husbands and three wives can all collectivly marry that group of anthromorphic thylacine people i saw next to the nuclear powerplant in the middle of the rainforest? cool!

If this is passed, then yes.

DONT LET IT PASS!!!
gay mariage is wrong in so many ways!
i refuse to have my region infested with gay married couples...
:sniper:
grrrrr
-CB

STRONGLY AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL

Similar referenda were on the docket in maybe 15 states, and in each state gay marriage was voted down in a landslide.

By definition, marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

Marriage is a function of the Bible. The Bible defined it. You don't go to Webster's dictionary and tell them to change the definition a word.. and expect them to do it. If you want to "marry" gay people, call it something else, because it isn't marriage.

Ok, "Let's Roll" over there to a new site called "What's wrong with the UN?". I'll open it, if no-one else has the guts. The UN mods are invited to play, BUT ONLY AS EQUALS.

Moderators need to have greater power and respect in the forums otherwise they could hardly facilitate actual moderation. Every game has rules. Blindly decrying them is rarely productive.

Grr. Argh.

Blackord: Homosexual marriage is ALREADY legal in ALL UN nations. In fact, it has been since May of 2003.

Frangland: This is NationStates. This is NOT America.


Sorry for the excessive use of bold, but I'm really sick of seeing the same arguments over and over again, especially when they're completely irrelevent, as people would know if they read the FAQ and read the previous Resolutions.

Sigh.

I voted agaisnt the proposal on the grounds of not believing in interspecies marriage. A man should not be able to marry his dog to get tax reductions. You have to draw the line somewhere...............

I for one think this is a totally stupid proposal. My country has BANNED all marriages except those between a man and a woman. Therefore if this resolution passes we will either ignore it (I wanna ignore it) or leave the UN (dont really want to). Who else is with me?

OOC: Sorry for gay folks out there. Im not against gay marriages in real life.

#1) Gay marriage is not banned in your nation (Res #12:"Gay Rights").

#2) In the NSUN it is physically impossible for you to ignore resolutions; they are enforced, beyond your own capability.

#3) Goodbye.

It's an outrage! We can't allow gay marriage, because it is anti-natural. If this proposal will pass the UN the nations are dammed to count with it. But I don't want to do that. We can't allow this just because this world is unreal. It is still a real society behind those computers, and gay marriage is bad in nationstates as well as in the real life.

We already allow gay-marriage, NSUN Resolution #12... Non-issue in relation to this Proposal.

The Empire of Nicod is adamantly opposed to this resolution for the following reasons:

1) Nicodians, in great numbers, believe that the word 'marriage' connotes the joining of male and female - the two complementary and obviously different sexes - into one greater entity - from which new human life naturally is created, and in which new human life is best raised;

2) Nicodians reject turning the word marriage into something else, which they do not believe it is;

3) Nicodians reject using the word marriage to apply to people who engage in homofecal sodomy and other disgusting and unnatural acts - which involve the use of the sexual organs in a way that neither nature nor God intends;

4) Nicodians do not wish government sanction to be given to those acts;

5) Nicodians do not wish their children to learn about such acts, nor to have them promulgated as normal (they're not), healthy (they're not), Godly (they're not), etc. Nicodians consider society's teaching their children about sodomitic acts to be a form of child abuse;

6) Nicodians understand that once marriage is taken to mean whatever any group wants it to mean (sodomitic couplings, three people, whatever), it will have lost all true meaning.

The Emperor of Nicod

STRONGLY AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL

Similar referenda were on the docket in maybe 15 states, and in each state gay marriage was voted down in a landslide.

By definition, marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

Marriage is a function of the Bible. The Bible defined it. You don't go to Webster's dictionary and tell them to change the definition a word.. and expect them to do it. If you want to "marry" gay people, call it something else, because it isn't marriage.

"Marriage" was an old nautical term, borrowed, as illusionary, for husband-wife unions, about 7 to 8 hundred years ago... Neither "Religion" nor any particular governments has rights to the world... and it is valid in applicable standing to apply to any form of contratural bond, civil, state, or otherwise.

The Empire of Nicod is adamantly opposed to this resolution for the following reasons:

Which, as any other member, you have full right to do.


1) Nicodians, in great numbers, believe that the word 'marriage' connotes the joining of male and female - the two complementary and obviously different sexes - into one greater entity - from which new human life naturally is created, and in which new human life is best raised;

I could care less, you do not have exclusivity of ownership of this language; however, the illusionary capacity of its etymological descent, makes it as grammatically valid when applied to any other form of contractural union.


2) Nicodians reject turning the word marriage into something else, which they do not believe it is;

Except, etymologically, WE haven't.... YOU have.


3) Nicodians reject using the word marriage to apply to people who engage in homofecal sodomy and other disgusting and unnatural acts - which involve the use of the sexual organs in a way that neither nature nor God intends;

As per United Nations Resolution #12, "Gay Rights" you protect and endorse its use.... end of discusion on that point.


4) Nicodians do not wish government sanction to be given to those acts;


And you are mose free to WISH that all you want; however, as per NSUN Resolution #12, your government is already "sanctioning those acts"


5) Nicodians do not wish their children to learn about such acts, nor to have them promulgated as normal (they're not), healthy (they're not), Godly (they're not), etc. Nicodians consider society's teaching their children about sodomitic acts to be a form of child abuse;


Which you are free to "wish" all you want... however, it's not going to happen.


6) Nicodians understand that once marriage is taken to mean whatever any group wants it to mean (sodomitic couplings, three people, whatever), it will have lost all true meaning.

Listening to your previous ditribe, your nation already practices polygamy, you just don't realize it. See, you follow the Matrimonium as created by Caesar Augustus; state controled; state sanctioned marriage... which mean, MARRIAGES IN YOUR NATIONS ARE BETWEEN "THREE PERSONS" YOU, YOUR SPOUSE and THE STATE!.. sic. "polygamy".... Of course, we Tekanians have no problem, since we abandoned the Matrimonium for Common Law (and a hell of alot of other headaches).


The Emperor of Nicod

The President of the Constitutional Republic of Tekania

Hey, I wonder how all the heathens get married! Heck, people got married even before Jesus' time. So what gives eh?

Anyhoo, Southwest Ohio's only concern is whether this resolution will allow cousins and siblings to wed another. You see, it's a rather common thing around these here parts, but previously it's been hush-hush. People want to "come out" of their pick-up trucks... I mean, closet, and be proud of the fact that they're emulating Adam and Eve, and their children--who doubtlessly would have had to resort to incest to populate the world. Hyuk hyuk.

Hey, I wonder how all the heathens get married! Heck, people got married even before Jesus' time. So what gives eh?

Anyhoo, Southwest Ohio's only concern is whether this resolution will allow cousins and siblings to wed another. You see, it's a rather common thing around these here parts, but previously it's been hush-hush. People want to "come out" of their pick-up trucks... I mean, closet, and be proud of the fact that they're emulating Adam and Eve, and their children--who doubtlessly would have had to resort to incest to populate the world. Hyuk hyuk.

The question of where marriage originated before Jesus's time (for christians anyway) is answered in the second part of your post. I think most Christians believe it to have been enacted in Adam and Eve's days.

*signs out to play "spin-the-bottle", family reunion style*

What about polygamous/polyandrous relationships?

And why not use the more neutral term 'civil union' instead of 'marriage', stipulating that both must carry equal rights and responsibilities?

Marriage began as familial, and progressed in that manner (including amongst the Hebrews). The first person to turn marriage into a state, or civil "authorotative" concept, was Caesar Augustus, sometime in the 1st Century AD... That was the form, function and operation of the Roman law and state of Matrimonium.. which remained in force, and inhereted through Roman Imperial Law, by the Roman Catholic Church and the Holy Roman Empire in its fall. From its fall, it was then engrafted into the new kingdoms of europes laws...

That suffered no significant change till in England, with the signing of the Magna Carta, Common Law superceeded and replaced all old Romish laws, and Feudalism; which was then inhereted into the American States during the Revolution, as well as adopted by the French Republic: Common Law, went back to the original precept, and ruled Marriage as a private institution, which lies outside of state interference, in lieu of it existing before government existed...

It has only been recently that states have been reapplying the old Romish System, and overturning the Common Law in favor of state sanctioned and operated polygamy (whereby the state becomes a party to all marriages).

Even now, only a few of us recognize and operate under the fairness and equality of Common Law.

On a side note, if this resolution passes, could a nation possibly dodge it by not having the very concept of 'marriage' in its laws, and using the term 'civil union' instead? After all, it defines 'marriage', and does not list any specific rights or obligations partners get with it; if there are none (as per our law, which only recognizes civil unions), than its definition is simply outside of government's jurisdiction, and cannot be legislated or enforced.

On a side note, if this resolution passes, could a nation possibly dodge it by not having the very concept of 'marriage' in its laws, and using the term 'civil union' instead? After all, it defines 'marriage', and does not list any specific rights or obligations partners get with it; if there are none (as per our law, which only recognizes civil unions), than its definition is simply outside of government's jurisdiction, and cannot be legislated or enforced.

Some of us don't have "marriage" in our laws at all. We only recognize Common Law Contract, which can take the form of many things; including marriages.

i really cant stop homosexuality even though its an insult to gods creation. and what im doing is defending Marriage. if gays want to be together in a union, fine. but its not a marriage

i really cant stop homosexuality even though its an insult to gods creation. and what im doing is defending Marriage. if gays want to be together in a union, fine. but its not a marriage

By etymological descent, it is just as much "marriage" as any othe semi-permanate binding contract. (Reffer to Common Law)

I do not see any church have ownership, control or authority over language; not any government.

I'm sure that most nations are just voting for any old topic just because it has made it as a proposal. Members should actually read what's written in the proposal. The proposal's down right immoral. You have to take into consideration animal rights. How are you to know if your neighbour's dog is attracted to you? There is no possible way of finding out and anyway, why the hell do we need inter-species "marriages"? I have 'pets' who belong to me and that's as good as a marriage. I care for them and they provide me with something to talk to when I'm bored. So why the hell do people now need to get married to animals? The rest of the proposal I'm alright with...

I'm sure that most nations are just voting for any old topic just because it has made it as a proposal. Members should actually read what's written in the proposal. The proposal's down right immoral. You have to take into consideration animal rights. How are you to know if your neighbour's dog is attracted to you? There is no possible way of finding out and anyway, why the hell do we need inter-species "marriages"? I have 'pets' who belong to me and that's as good as a marriage. I care for them and they provide me with something to talk to when I'm bored. So why the hell do people now need to get married to animals? The rest of the proposal I'm alright with...

As discussed BEFORE, OVER AND OVER AGAIN; which would be apparent to anyone who has read the entire thread; inter-species was added for the benefit of FT and Magic nations; to allow intermarriage of aliens and the intermarriage of humans/eleves humans/dwarves, etc.

1. Marriage is a union between two people which GRANTS governmental rights between those people. It is a legal matter, SECURED by government, and dissolved only by government.

Ok, on the first part of that sentence I can agree with. It is a union between two people.... however, where the chain continues in that a union between two people grants the government ANYTHING, seems to fail... There is no logical connection to a private contract granting the government any rights what-so-ever over said contract.

2. There is already a thread on this issue. Please keep your comments regarding this issue there.[/QUOTE]

Which is why I moved it here...

Ok, on the first part of that sentence I can agree with. It is a union between two people.... however, where the chain continues in that a union between two people grants the government ANYTHING, seems to fail... There is no logical connection to a private contract granting the government any rights what-so-ever over said contract.

How about a nice, lovely thing you seem to be ignoring called marriage laws?

How about a nice, lovely thing you seem to be ignoring called marriage laws?

Assuming there are... However, the principle of some government law is outside the scope of the statement... A private contract grants the government nothing.

Just as the "Gay Rights" resolution granted nothing in my nation the people did not already have out of the purity of individual freedom, thanks to Common Law.

The point is, the existance of a private contract, of itself, grants no specific or authoritative right to government... Which is where the logical failure was at.

Merely from the fact that contract was drafted between two people in this Republic, in no way grants this Republic any say over the contract, unless the contract, in dispute, is brought by the signatoriess, to the government for arbitration. The contracts existance itself is no reason for governmental intervention, nor can it grant rights by its existance, unless it itself stipulates the passage of that authority to such.

I have 'pets' who belong to me and that's as good as a marriage. I care for them and they provide me with something to talk to when I'm bored. So why the hell do people now need to get married to animals?

Well, Tekania told you why, but I'd just like to say that this doesn't guarentee the right to marry your pet, because it says "FURTHER RECOGNIZES all nation's right." That means including interspecies relationships is left up to individual nations. In any case, you usually wouldn't be able to marry your dog because dogs have no legal standing and can't consent to a marriage contract.

Marriage should be one man, one woman, for all time. Anything else is an abomination and unnatural.

Marriage should be one man, one woman, for all time. Anything else is an abomination and unnatural.

Read the entire thread before you post.

If this doesn't constitute the UN intruding into domestic jurisdiction I don't know what does.

If this doesn't constitute the UN intruding into domestic jurisdiction I don't know what does.

You don't know what does. The UN has intruded far more than this resolution does.

I fail to see how anything stated in previous posts will have any sway as to the official stance of The Armed Republic of Platte River Valley. A marriage in our nation is defined as one man, one woman, for all time. Anyone who does not believe this to be a truth is not welcome within our borders and will be dealt with accordingly if they do enter our country.

I fail to see how anything stated in previous posts will have any sway as to the official stance of The Armed Republic of Platte River Valley. A marriage in our nation is defined as one man, one woman, for all time. Anyone who does not believe this to be a truth is not welcome within our borders and will be dealt with accordingly.

If you are in the UN, this is not true. If this is passed and you are still in the UN, it becomes even less true. Try reading past resolutions.

I fail to see how anything stated in previous posts will have any sway as to the official stance of The Armed Republic of Platte River Valley. A marriage in our nation is defined as one man, one woman, for all time. Anyone who does not believe this to be a truth is not welcome within our borders and will be dealt with accordingly if they do enter our country.

Really? Not according to NSUN resolution #12, to which you became applicable under the moment you finalized you membership in this body.

Although we have applied for UN membership, we have yet to be approved. Until that time, we will not change our stance on this subject. However, once approved, we may see fit to ammend out laws to be more in line with the UN stance on marriage. That said, our government may officially acknowledge this resolution if it comes to be, but rest assured that the average Platte River Valley citizen will NOT accept it and anyone that chooses to invoke the resolution and marry whomever or whatever they please, will face great personal turmoil and prejudice within our borders.

This is a nation's issue, stop infringing upon our sovereignty!

Although we have applied for UN membership, we have yet to be approved. Until that time, we will not change our stance on this subject. However, once approved, we may see fit to ammend out laws to be more in line with the UN stance on marriage. That said, our government may officially acknowledge this resolution if it comes to be, but rest assured that the average Platte River Valley citizen will NOT accept it and anyone that chooses to invoke the resolution and marry whomever or whatever they please, will face great personal turmoil and prejudice within our borders.

Once approved, you will, no "fit" about it. Your laws will be brought into compliance, because you have agreed to it.

NSUN Resolution #12 already protects and legalizes gay marriage; regardless of the status of this one.

While marriages to anyone or anything may be legal according to the UN, all marriages in our Republic are performed by religious bodies. These bodies have very strict canon laws developed by their respective ecclesiastical authority that dictates what constitutes a marriage. While the Republic can accept UN mandate, the churches will not do so. They cannot be compelled by the government to perform such marriages.

While marriages to anyone or anything may be legal according to the UN, all marriages in our Republic are performed by religious bodies. These bodies have very strict canon laws developed by their respective ecclesiastical authority that dictates what constitutes a marriage. While the Republic can accept UN mandate, the churches will not do so. They cannot be compelled by the government to perform such marriages.

Given, there are, however, churches which do... So there is still fairness.

However, how you honestly impliment such a strategy is beyond me. And if this one passes (which it likely will) you will need to add to your strategy. Though at present, the Republic cannot see how you handle foreigners entering your land, who are married.

The positive aspect of this present resolution; is that all NSUN member nations will be forced to recognize Common Law contract.

I'm against it, simply because I don't want humans marrying chickens for tax benefits.

What the heck? This has to be one of the dumbest proposals I have ever seen. Since when does the government have the authority to define ANY word at all? Its stupid. My government isnt involved in marriage at all in the first place, only tax benefits for civil unions. Marriage is left up to the churches. This proposal completely screws up my nation into imposing on individuals rights and beliefs.

Does anyone else here think marrying your sibling is just plain gross? because that's what will happen if this resolution gets passed.

Zanshi this resolution states the the resolution on the rights of the child takes precedence here in regards to dealing with children so I don't believeyou have a case.

That being said, the DRA will not support this motion. The DRA is staunchly for same-sex marriage rights and the rights of any human to marry any other human anywhere in the world regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, etc. The DRA will not support inter-species marrying or polygamy. Now Tekania I believe that in your nation where you have elves and dwarves as well the current resolutions do nothing to inhibit elves to marry humans, etc.

To the DRA, marriage is a union under civil law which entitles people to certain benefits under the federal tax code. If this resolution goes through, this would mean that the DRA would be giving tax benefits to humans marrying birds, dogs, etc. Not to mention 4 or 5 humans marrying each other. The DRA respects the rights of all people but the tax codes of a nation can only extend so far, should we pass this resolution, nations likethe DRA would have to disband the marriage benefits entrenched within the tax system which would severely hurt many families who rely on these tax breaks. The DRA believes that the current resolutions in place are enough to give rights to same-sex couples and that this resolution is not necessary. The DRA will vote this down and urges other to as well.

Did I mention that this, like so many of these resolutions of later, is redundant? We already have several marraige resolutions enacted.

The Nation of South Arctica hereby calls upon UN member nations to vote NO on the upcoming UN resolution concerning the definition of marriage.

We the People of South Arctica feel that the institution of marriage, including the concept of a civil union, is one that sould be entered into solely on a voluntary basis of mutual consent. It is for this reason that we object to the third paragraph of this resolution.

Since it is impossible for an animal to give informed consent on a matter such as this, marriage between human and animal is (by definition) also impossible.

In order to protect the right of the people to enter into intimate relationships only when both parties have the chance to affirm or deny the state of marriage, this resolution must be voted down.

As a footnote, the People of South Arctica, in the interest of promoting human dignity and freedom, support the first two paragraphs of this resolution.

Sincerely,

Sullivan "Doc" Jones
First Citizen's Advisor on Human Rights and Freedoms
South Arctica

It's an outrage! We can't allow gay marriage, because it is anti-natural. If this proposal will pass the UN the nations are dammed to count with it. But I don't want to do that. We can't allow this just because this world is unreal. It is still a real society behind those computers, and gay marriage is bad in nationstates as well as in the real life.

*sigh* You already allow them if you're in the UN.

*checks*
Kurzeme-Zemgale (UN DELEGATE)

Yep, you're in the UN. Please read the prior Resolutions before going off about what is being added - you already support "Gay Marriage", and it is already legal in your nation.

This proposal is preposterous, this allows for marriage between a dog and a man! This needs to be reworded, I'm all for allowing gay marriages and inter species (I believe there are elves etc in some countries?) But what needs to be in this proposal is the word consensual. And also inter species (whereby its consensual ie. an intelligent life form able to make conscious decisions) marriage, should not be optional based on the government, that means that governments can discriminate on the basis of species. Therefore I propose that the last statement be scrapped. Something like this:

Description: Description: IN VIEW of the Universal Bill of Human Rights, and the Gay Rights resolution;

The UN HEREBY :

DEFINES marriage as the CONSENSUAL civil joining of a member of any nation with any other member of any nation, regardless of sex, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, color, or any other characteristic, with the exception of age;

RECOGNIZES age of the individual(s) as a just reason for not recognizing marriage, as per Article One of the Child Protection Act;

This way it includes ALL intelligent beings so that no one can be discriminated against and makes sure that all marriages are consensual.

That version was submitted, exactly as you just wrote it.
It failed to make quorum.

Just so you know, other ideas were tried.

DONT LET IT PASS!!!
gay mariage is wrong in so many ways!
i refuse to have my region infested with gay married couples...
:sniper:
grrrrr
-CB

Sorry, you already legally have gay marriage and gay married couples. Why? Because you decided of your own free will to join the UN and thereby abide by all prior resolutions, including #12.

So like it or not, so long as you belong to the UN, you have a "region with gay married couples". And I'm glad. :D

STRONGLY AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL

Similar referenda were on the docket in maybe 15 states, and in each state gay marriage was voted down in a landslide.

By definition, marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

Marriage is a function of the Bible. The Bible defined it. You don't go to Webster's dictionary and tell them to change the definition a word.. and expect them to do it. If you want to "marry" gay people, call it something else, because it isn't marriage.

Finally, someone who isn't a UN member complaining.

Our nation doesn't have "states". Furthermore, if it did, those states would have little to nothing to do with the rest of the world.

We are sorry, but the backwoods is not our problem.

And "marriage" is a civil circumstance in this century - the church does not have the right to refuse to issue the license. At least in our nation.

We could go into how "separate but equal" was finally seen as laughable after the civil rights era, but that's enough time on this one.

The Empire of Nicod is adamantly opposed to this resolution for the following reasons:

1) Nicodians, in great numbers, believe that the word 'marriage' connotes the joining of male and female - the two complementary and obviously different sexes - into one greater entity - from which new human life naturally is created, and in which new human life is best raised;

2) Nicodians reject turning the word marriage into something else, which they do not believe it is;

3) Nicodians reject using the word marriage to apply to people who engage in homofecal sodomy and other disgusting and unnatural acts - which involve the use of the sexual organs in a way that neither nature nor God intends;

4) Nicodians do not wish government sanction to be given to those acts;

5) Nicodians do not wish their children to learn about such acts, nor to have them promulgated as normal (they're not), healthy (they're not), Godly (they're not), etc. Nicodians consider society's teaching their children about sodomitic acts to be a form of child abuse;

6) Nicodians understand that once marriage is taken to mean whatever any group wants it to mean (sodomitic couplings, three people, whatever), it will have lost all true meaning.

The Emperor of Nicod

Nicod = UN Member

All UN Members... oh, forget it. Read Resolution #12. And all the rest of them your country operates under, like it or not.

Hey, I wonder how all the heathens get married! Heck, people got married even before Jesus' time. So what gives eh?

Anyhoo, Southwest Ohio's only concern is whether this resolution will allow cousins and siblings to wed another. You see, it's a rather common thing around these here parts, but previously it's been hush-hush. People want to "come out" of their pick-up trucks... I mean, closet, and be proud of the fact that they're emulating Adam and Eve, and their children--who doubtlessly would have had to resort to incest to populate the world. Hyuk hyuk.

So make a proposal stating members of the same family never come of age when it comes to marriage.

And good luck getting it passed. Its harder then you think.

i really cant stop homosexuality even though its an insult to gods creation. and what im doing is defending Marriage. if gays want to be together in a union, fine. but its not a marriage

*ahem*

God supposedly made all things, right? So therefore, can't be an insult as it is part of.

We could continue into the "but Satan" arguement, but I'm sure you already know that Satan (or whatever you call it) was supposedly created by God, whom - being perfect - already knew what was going to happen, so must have known everything was going to happen this way, and rather liked the idea or it wouldn't be this way.

Nuff on that.

Personally ... i am not homophobic ... it is to all ends the personal business of individuals to their prefered sexual preferance ... but i do not believe Marrige is an institution that any law can trifle with ... Marrige is to all ends a religious formality between a man and woman ... this has been the law of marrige in the christian world as well as that of muslim world ... Shariah law ... in fact ... every religious defenition that i can recall (quite a few) ... details that marrige is a between a man and woman ...

This has been a religious value over man different peoples and cultures around our Earth ... and people ... before debating whether homosexuals should have the right to marry themselves ... or people should be able to marry animals (WTF!!!) ... should first realise that Marrige is a religious institution ... not a legal one ...

El Monte :sniper:

Although we have applied for UN membership, we have yet to be approved. Until that time, we will not change our stance on this subject. However, once approved, we may see fit to ammend out laws to be more in line with the UN stance on marriage. That said, our government may officially acknowledge this resolution if it comes to be, but rest assured that the average Platte River Valley citizen will NOT accept it and anyone that chooses to invoke the resolution and marry whomever or whatever they please, will face great personal turmoil and prejudice within our borders.

....which you then have to protect them from. See resolution #12.

Personally ... i am not homophobic ... it is to all ends the personal business of individuals to their prefered sexual preferance ... but i do not believe Marrige is an institution that any law can trifle with ... Marrige is to all ends a religious formality between a man and woman ... this has been the law of marrige in the christian world as well as that of muslim world ... Shariah law ... in fact ... every religious defenition that i can recall (quite a few) ... details that marrige is a between a man and woman ...

This has been a religious value over man different peoples and cultures around our Earth ... and people ... before debating whether homosexuals should have the right to marry themselves ... or people should be able to marry animals (WTF!!!) ... should first realise that Marrige is a religious institution ... not a legal one ...

El Monte :sniper:

Strange... married folk seem to have to apply for a marriage license from the STATE in most places... and if it has no legal standing, why does Divorce have its own court? :rolleyes:

:headbang:

Well, I disagree with this proposal because it completely ignores the whole issue of the various cultures. I mean, it's easy for us to say what's right and wrong and then impose it on somebody else on the other side of the world, but imagine the vice-versa. What if instead of the us changing, say, Saudi Arabia, they changed us? With the whole "women must cover up in most places or die" law and the "lets have public beheadings," a lot of us might be shocked. But you see, when we impose our culture on them, they feel the exact same shock.

I urge you all to support my proposal in anticipation of the current issue's declared victory. It's called "World Cultures and Marriage," if you care to search for it, and I'm sure you'll be quite pleased.

Basically, instead of enforcing one law on everybody, the various nations would still be able to pick their own marriage laws. However, any person wanting to be married but can't will be provided transportation to a country willing to give them citizenship and legalize their marriage. This way, everybody is happy and no cultures are violated. Seems logical to me.

So if you agree, look up my proposal the next time you're at the U.N. page and give it your support! Cool!

And if you don't...

:sniper:

Well, I disagree with this proposal because it completely ignores the whole issue of the various cultures. I mean, it's easy for us to say what's right and wrong and then impose it on somebody else on the other side of the world, but imagine the vice-versa. What if instead of the us changing, say, Saudi Arabia, they changed us? With the whole "women must cover up in most places or die" law and the "lets have public beheadings," a lot of us might be shocked. But you see, when we impose our culture on them, they feel the exact same shock.

I urge you all to support my proposal in anticipation of the current issue's declared victory. It's called "World Cultures and Marriage," if you care to search for it, and I'm sure you'll be quite pleased.

Basically, instead of enforcing one law on everybody, the various nations would still be able to pick their own marriage laws. However, any person wanting to be married but can't will be provided transportation to a country willing to give them citizenship and legalize their marriage. This way, everybody is happy and no cultures are violated. Seems logical to me.

So if you agree, look up my proposal the next time you're at the U.N. page and give it your support! Cool!

And if you don't...

:sniper:

If this resolution passes (which it likely will) your proposal becomes illegal.

I believe the Definition of Marriage is mostly good. I do find the last part a bit ...

Messed up.

I find it a bit offensive to level interracial or same sex relationships to bestiality .

I find it simpleton.

I find it to be an irrational response to a logical basic freedom (the freedom to love).


But I do understand that the basic fact of being highbrow, and progressive, I must allow others to define that for themselves.

So I support the proposal.

With misgivings.

I believe the Definition of Marriage is mostly good. I do find the last part a bit ...

Messed up.

I find it a bit offensive to level interracial or same sex relationships to bestiality .

I find it simpleton.

I find it to be an irrational response to a logical basic freedom (the freedom to love).


But I do understand that the basic fact of being highbrow, and progressive, I must allow others to define that for themselves.

So I support the proposal.

With misgivings.

Thank you for your support.

Personally ... i am not homophobic ... it is to all ends the personal business of individuals to their prefered sexual preferance ... but i do not believe Marrige is an institution that any law can trifle with ... Marrige is to all ends a religious formality between a man and woman ... this has been the law of marrige in the christian world as well as that of muslim world ... Shariah law ... in fact ... every religious defenition that i can recall (quite a few) ... details that marrige is a between a man and woman ...

This has been a religious value over man different peoples and cultures around our Earth ... and people ... before debating whether homosexuals should have the right to marry themselves ... or people should be able to marry animals (WTF!!!) ... should first realise that Marrige is a religious institution ... not a legal one ...

El Monte :sniper:


Although the widespread availability of CIVIL marriages, which have nothing to do with religion, undermines this point more than a little does it not?

CC

I'm surprised that this bill is before the U.N. and even more surprised it's passing, It is poorly writen it dose not add or clearify RES #12 and marry animals? better to write a beastality proposel then add marriage of animals.

I really don't see "Friztee" the german sheapard climming benifits when Steve his master/ husband passes away! I also don't see Shelly claiming that "Goldie" the cat was her Primary wage earner, com'on! this clause is ridiculace.

I will NOT! endorse this and I urge all delegates to vote against it and if you have voted for it to withdraw that vote. This is an Unassary perposel with a ludicrisis clause.

If you have an admenment to RES#12 and wish to put a beastility clause in it that would be another story as long as it is well written and makes the admenment clear, but, this perposel is not an admenment nor is it clear.

King Austin of Scythia Hyboria

It's your church, and your church members can decide what they consider marriage without my interference. However, it's my State, not just yours; and one of the rules is Equality under the law. If you want your own rights of equality, then you have to grant them to everyone. It's a civil rights argument, not a religious argument.

So why is the UN deciding, if it's my "Church". This should be left up to the country not the UN. They are not the church within the country. I will be dropping the UN membership. The UN is United Nations and it should not think it rules other nations. Yes a vote is there for the proposals however, the ideas that are proposed should be monitored and carefully defined.

OK, reposting this since the same old arguments are coming up again, and again, and again

A quick recap for those UN nations joining the debate

Homosexual marriages are already legal in your nation, as per resolution #12 "Gay Rights". Opposition to this proposal on the basis of disapproving of such marriages is invalid.

Your nation would not have to endorse cross-species marriages. This is clearly set out in the proposal where it states:


FURTHER RECOGNIZES all nation's right to expand this definition beyond species borders as the individual governments see fit


This proposal does not endorse underage marriage. It clearly states that it:


RECOGNIZES age of the individual(s) as a just reason for not recognizing marriage, as per Article One of the Child Protection Act


For reference, here is Article One of the Child Protection Act:


For the purposes of the present resolution, a minor means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless, under the law applicable to the minor, majority is attained earlier.


Any other complaints are valid, but don't bother with these as they don't apply to the current proposal.



FWIW, though, I'm still abstaining since, though I have no major quibbles with the propsal I still haven't seen an adequate answer to the issue of consent.

Someone said I didn't have a case when I brought up incest, but since it doesn't fall into the age category, I think I have a valid argument. Brother and sister (or bro and bro or sis and sis) can marry each other so long as they are over 18. That's just plain sick. Someone needs to point out where this resolution excludes incest.

Someone said I didn't have a case when I brought up incest, but since it doesn't fall into the age category, I think I have a valid argument. Brother and sister (or bro and bro or sis and sis) can marry each other so long as they are over 18. That's just plain sick. Someone needs to point out where this resolution excludes incest.

Or pull an Indiana, and raise the age of conscent on first cousins or closer, to 65.....

Someone said I didn't have a case when I brought up incest, but since it doesn't fall into the age category, I think I have a valid argument. Brother and sister (or bro and bro or sis and sis) can marry each other so long as they are over 18. That's just plain sick. Someone needs to point out where this resolution excludes incest.

Find a part in any UN marriage resolution makes it a point to exclude incest. Can't find any? Didn't think so.

You don't have a case in this matter because it has never been regulated in any previous resolution. If you wish to deal with it, make a proposal that does. Just keep in mind that not all species have genetic problems with incest.

OMG fuck you all that vote for this. You will all burn in hell!

OMG fuck you all that vote for this. You will all burn in hell!

"Hell" is a small spa and health club down the road from where I live.

Does this mean I am going to get sunburn when I go there? Oh my!!

(/sarcasm)

"Hell" is a small spa and health club down the road from where I live.

Does this mean I am going to get sunburn when I go there? Oh my!!

(/sarcasm)

And Heaven is a stip club down by the airport...

Find a part in any UN marriage resolution makes it a point to exclude incest. Can't find any? Didn't think so.

You don't have a case in this matter because it has never been regulated in any previous resolution. If you wish to deal with it, make a proposal that does. Just keep in mind that not all species have genetic problems with incest.

In a game where you can make up species I have to agree.
If you are a NS with humans, your scientists have discovered a mental disorder that manifests feelings of desire towards siblings, making them incapable of denying incestual urges. Since they are without judgement on the matter, make them legally unable to consent to marriage to a sibling at any age.

I don't understand how this issue is any of the UN's concern. I thought the UN was for security, protection of human rights, and to elevate 3rd world countries. Not to mention global cooperation.

To define the individual laws of the UN member nations is wrong. It's is on thing to ban land mines, nuclear weapons, mandate foreign aid policies, and other noble works, it is another to tell a country how it must define marriage.

Marriage is not an unalienable right. It is not a mandated civil right, it is quite frankly none of the UN's business. Marriage first and foremost is a relgious ceremony and the UN hasn't the ability to demand that the church recognize an unholy union such as gay marriage.

A more appropriate measure would have been requiring member nation to choose between legalizing gay marriage in their nation or civil unions. Civil unions are a government institution, marriage in it's original context is a religious one.

I don't understand how this issue is any of the UN's concern. I thought the UN was for security, protection of human rights, and to elevate 3rd world countries. Not to mention global cooperation.

To define the individual laws of the UN member nations is wrong. It's is on thing to ban land mines, nuclear weapons, mandate foreign aid policies, and other noble works, it is another to tell a country how it must define marriage.

Marriage is not an unalienable right. It is not a mandated civil right, it is quite frankly none of the UN's business. Marriage first and foremost is a relgious ceremony and the UN hasn't the ability to demand that the church recognize an unholy union such as gay marriage.

A more appropriate measure would have been requiring member nation to choose between legalizing gay marriage in their nation or civil unions. Civil unions are a government institution, marriage in it's original context is a religious one.

You're confusing UN's, That's the "Real UN"; the Nation States UN has the power to change member's laws, and dictate policy.

In fact, the only similarities between the NationStates UN and the "RealLife UN" is they have the same name, "United Nations" and the same flag.... past that; there is no similarity...

I don't understand how this issue is any of the UN's concern. I thought the UN was for security, protection of human rights, and to elevate 3rd world countries. Not to mention global cooperation.

To define the individual laws of the UN member nations is wrong. It's is on thing to ban land mines, nuclear weapons, mandate foreign aid policies, and other noble works, it is another to tell a country how it must define marriage.

Marriage is not an unalienable right. It is not a mandated civil right, it is quite frankly none of the UN's business. Marriage first and foremost is a relgious ceremony and the UN hasn't the ability to demand that the church recognize an unholy union such as gay marriage.

A more appropriate measure would have been requiring member nation to choose between legalizing gay marriage in their nation or civil unions. Civil unions are a government institution, marriage in it's original context is a religious one.

Why? Why is marriage outside the realm of the UN when nuclear weapons are in it? And if a nation has a right to define marriage, why can it not chose how to defend itself?
And if the UN can tell a nation how to spend it's foreign aid, why can it not tell it how to treat it's own people?

Resolutions are not created by some secret panel - they are put forward by members of the UN. So at least one person (or - at the moment - 8 thousand odd people) appear to think that marriage is the business of the UN.

Edit

I did not mean to imply the 8 thousand people were odd. I was just estimating without looking at the exact figure.
Sorry for any confusion!

It was added under the complaint of a member that the resolution would forbid the intermarriage between elves and humans, dwaves and humans, etc

If this is the case then I think it should be specified that the species boundary would only be removed between humanoid speices otherwise there'll be a load of wierdos wanting to marry their hampsters lol

If this is the case then I think it should be specified that the species boundary would only be removed between humanoid speices otherwise there'll be a load of wierdos wanting to marry their hampsters lol

But what about aliens that are in no way humanoid, but still should be treated as such?

Or even fully developed AI

Or even fully developed AI

Do you actually believe AI is possible?

Find a part in any UN marriage resolution makes it a point to exclude incest. Can't find any? Didn't think so.

You don't have a case in this matter because it has never been regulated in any previous resolution. If you wish to deal with it, make a proposal that does. Just keep in mind that not all species have genetic problems with incest.
You didn't have to be quite so rude about it. The fact is, if someone was against incest like they were with age in this matter, they would have included it, and I think they should have. Still, creating a proposal is a good idea in this case if the resolution passes.

Do you actually believe AI is possible?

Sure it is; we just need to get past AS first ;)

Sure it is; we just need to get past AS first ;)

There's nothing artificial about S. :D

Still, creating a proposal is a good idea in this case if the resolution passes.
Anytime someone says, "There oughta be a law!", my first inclination is to say, "Why? Who does it hurt? What business is it of yours?"

There are two primary aspects to incest - the genetic and the societal:

Frisbeeterian geneticists have determined that there is only an infinitesimal effect of a single-generation incestuous bond. It only becomes a factor when repeated breeding from within the same gene pool. What's more, even generational breeding tends to be self-correcting, due to the higher number of culls and miscarriages. If Frisbeeterian citizen-employees want to hire a geneticist to do a gene-scan looking for negative flags, those services are available for a fee. It's frankly not the government's business.

The societal, or "ewwww" factor we leave to the churches and parents. If children are raised in an environment where brother/sister mating is taboo, that's fine with us. Absent compelling health contra-indications that would affect our ability to provide adequate RBH-level heatlhcare, it's none of our business.

Now before you try to complicate the picture with parent/child incest, allow me to point out that the power/control aspects of it are covered by existing laws regarding rape, abuse of a minor, assault, and any number of other laws. We're protected there, so it's not relevant.

Long story short, we don't want your incest laws on the international stage. We've got our plans in order according to our own needs, and it works just fine. Nobody is stopping you from creating your own rules in your own nation, just as we did. Just don't go passing proposals off on the rest of us.

Anytime someone says, "There oughta be a law!", my first inclination is to say, "Why? Who does it hurt? What business is it of yours?"

There are two primary aspects to incest - the genetic and the societal:

Frisbeeterian geneticists have determined that there is only an infinitesimal effect of a single-generation incestuous bond. It only becomes a factor when repeated breeding from within the same gene pool. What's more, even generational breeding tends to be self-correcting, due to the higher number of culls and miscarriages. If Frisbeeterian citizen-employees want to hire a geneticist to do a gene-scan looking for negative flags, those services are available for a fee. It's frankly not the government's business.

The societal, or "ewwww" factor we leave to the churches and parents. If children are raised in an environment where brother/sister mating is taboo, that's fine with us. Absent compelling health contra-indications that would affect our ability to provide adequate RBH-level heatlhcare, it's none of our business.

Now before you try to complicate the picture with parent/child incest, allow me to point out that the power/control aspects of it are covered by existing laws regarding rape, abuse of a minor, assault, and any number of other laws. We're protected there, so it's not relevant.

Long story short, we don't want your incest laws on the international stage. We've got our plans in order according to our own needs, and it works just fine. Nobody is stopping you from creating your own rules in your own nation, just as we did. Just don't go passing proposals off on the rest of us.
I keep saying that about all of the other marraige resolutions. Let's repeal all of the marraige resolutions.

I keep saying that about all of the other marraige resolutions. Let's repeal all of the marraige resolutions.
There's a big difference between religious-based bias about a genetic non-event, and the granting of government rights and privileges due to the existence of a marriage license.

The first is an irrational taboo, the other is a matter of civil rights. There is no comparison.

Ah, but there IS. No one should be able to tell me what to do regarding marraige in my nation. The same applies to yours. It's not a human rights thing. Besides, until Resolution 80 is repealed, we're both right, as no two beliefs are wrong.

In a game where you can make up species I have to agree.
If you are a NS with humans, your scientists have discovered a mental disorder that manifests feelings of desire towards siblings, making them incapable of denying incestual urges. Since they are without judgement on the matter, make them legally unable to consent to marriage to a sibling at any age.

I'm an NS with people who evolved from humans, so they use some of the same rules. Incest is one of these, though due to their more-advanced genetic state the side-effects of incest would take generations to begin to manifest. It is not practiced due to a genetically-programmed stigma against it. People know it is wrong, but don't know why.

Why is any of the above important? It illustrates what you were saying with an example.

Or even fully developed AI

Do you actually believe AI is possible?

Actually, yes. The leader of my nation is an android with an AI so advanced it wasn't until someone stabbed him that anyone, including him, knew he was artificial. In our own world, right now it is possible to create an AI as sophisticated as your average human. Of course, this is because your average human lacks a mental sophistication beyond slightly more advanced than your average PC.

You have to realize that, contrary to the ego of humanity, most people are basically biological computers. They use a set of predetermined patterns for speaking and their actions. Like computers, they only know what they experience or are taught. And also like computers, most are actually not that capable of adaption.

To produce an AI capable of matching your average person, you only need four supercomputers and a bunch of people willing to do extreme amounts of typing and programming.

You didn't have to be quite so rude about it. The fact is, if someone was against incest like they were with age in this matter, they would have included it, and I think they should have. Still, creating a proposal is a good idea in this case if the resolution passes.

I wasn't being rude. When I'm rude, I say things far worse than that.

Actually, most people are against incest but don't create a proposal or include it in one because they assume everyone considers it wrong. Going by common sense, enough do on here that it is a nonissue. It's about like creating a proposal to state humans must be provided oxygen to live.

I wasn't being rude. When I'm rude, I say things far worse than that.

Actually, most people are against incest but don't create a proposal or include it in one because they assume everyone considers it wrong. Going by common sense, enough do on here that it is a nonissue. It's about like creating a proposal to state humans must be provided oxygen to live.

Sorry. It's sometimes hard to tell with lack of intonation. Anyway, thanks for the clarification. Regardless of one's beliefs on marraige, this resolution still shouldn't pass because it's glaringly redundant to several other resolutions.

Ah, but there IS. No one should be able to tell me what to do regarding marraige in my nation. The same applies to yours. It's not a human rights thing. Besides, until Resolution 80 is repealed, we're both right, as no two beliefs are wrong.

Resolution #12 already tells you what to do.

Resolution #12...

AAARRRRRRGGGGHHHH!

AAARRRRRRGGGGHHHH!

Yep, the dreaded Res #12....

I, of course, would preffer no marriage laws.... Since it would reflect well with my own nationstate (being Common Law), or merely a resolutions enforcing Full Faith and Credit... Merely protected persons in union's marriage accross state boarders.

Yep, the dreaded Res #12....
It's not the dreaded Resolution that's AAARRRGGGHH-worthy, it's the use of resolution numbers. Stop the madness before I release a number-eating bot into the UN code.

Repeat after me: No Numbered Resolutions!

It's not the dreaded Resolution that's AAARRRGGGHH-worthy, it's the use of resolution numbers. Stop the madness before I release a number-eating bot into the UN code.

Repeat after me: No Numbered Resolutions!

I got tired of writing out the name... it's just become easier to reffer to it by number (and maybe it would force them to actually LOOK at precisely what they have already agreed to in lieu of their membership).... After all, in lieu of this, and the previous resolution up to vote; I've refferenced it within replies more than 60 times.... and a few more it'll just become Res-12... then R.12 [though luckily the vote ends on this on Thursday]

I got tired of writing out the name... it's just become easier to reffer to it by number (and maybe it would force them to actually LOOK at precisely what they have already agreed to in lieu of their membership).... After all, in lieu of this, and the previous resolution up to vote; I've refferenced it within replies more than 60 times.... and a few more it'll just become Res-12... then R.12 [though luckily the vote ends on this on Thursday]

Yes, I was aware that resolution 12 already tells me what to do in regards to marraige, which is the biggest reason why I think this one up for vote is completely asinine. Again, it's redundant.

Yes, I was aware that resolution 12 already tells me what to do in regards to marraige, which is the biggest reason why I think this one up for vote is completely asinine. Again, it's redundant.

Hm, with this one on the books as well as "The Rights of Minorities and Women" (and several others securing rights and equalities), maybe someone will attempt to repeal "Gay Rights" as a redundancy, instead. After all, it isn't exactly the best written, most comprehensive proposal...

Now what the hell's a magic nation? I stand by my opinion that the people who have voted FOR this resolution are doing the wrong thing... Don't bother replying, I'm off this topic and I wish you people have fun with your elf mistresses...

Sorry. It's sometimes hard to tell with lack of intonation. Anyway, thanks for the clarification. Regardless of one's beliefs on marraige, this resolution still shouldn't pass because it's glaringly redundant to several other resolutions.

Considering the success of the last one, glaring redundancy is no longer that much of an issue. The majority has spoken and approved glaring redundancy. It seems to be a trend in resolutions.

Marriage itself should be banned. Simply because enormous devorce rates. Marriage is an outdated institution of pegan religions adopted by all the rest.

Now what the hell's a magic nation? I stand by my opinion that the people who have voted FOR this resolution are doing the wrong thing... Don't bother replying, I'm off this topic and I wish you people have fun with your elf mistresses...

Hmph!! My husband is an elf and I will ask you to keep your sarcasm to yourself about it.

(smirk)

On the topic of a proposal to ban incest does anyone else think that, while the "Sexual Freedom" resolution is still in effect, it's going to be very hard to do?

Considering the success of the last one, glaring redundancy is no longer that much of an issue. The majority has spoken and approved glaring redundancy. It seems to be a trend in resolutions.
Sad but true.

The UN HEREBY :

DEFINES marriage as the civil joining of a member of any nation with any other member of any nation, regardless of sex, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, color, or any other characteristic, with the exception of age;

RECOGNIZES age of the individual(s) as a just reason for not recognizing marriage, as per Article One of the Child Protection Act;

FURTHER RECOGNIZES all nation's right to expand this definition beyond species borders as the individual governments see fit.

Sel Appa has strictly banned homo, bi, tri, and pansexuality. We also have banned marriages with an age difference of over 10 years. Fianlly, humans must marry only humans. So, we have voted against the resolution. If passed, we will ignore this resolution as null and void.

On the topic of a proposal to ban incest does anyone else think that, while the "Sexual Freedom" resolution is still in effect, it's going to be very hard to do?
Actually, it may very well be.

Now what the hell's a magic nation? I stand by my opinion that the people who have voted FOR this resolution are doing the wrong thing... Don't bother replying, I'm off this topic and I wish you people have fun with your elf mistresses...

The Ministress of Defense in my nation is an elf (delayed mutation, so she's pissed at having to go through it twice) and extremely offended, I tried to talk her out of it, but...

I hope you're FT, because if not the orbital bombardment won't be a challenge.

[$5 says he takes me seriously].

Sel Appa has strictly banned homo, bi, tri, and pansexuality. We also have banned marriages with an age difference of over 10 years. Fianlly, humans must marry only humans. So, we have voted against the resolution. If passed, we will ignore this resolution as null and void.

You can't. The UN overrides your laws. You don't like it, quit the UN. As is, all of those are legal. Trying this course will, at best, get you laughed at and, at worst, ejected from the UN for violating its laws.

You can't. The UN overrides your laws. You don't like it, quit the UN. As is, all of those are legal. Trying this course will, at best, get you laughed at and, at worst, ejected from the UN for violating its laws.

Then, perhaps we do not need the UN either. I shall propose this to the House of Earls.

Sel Appa has strictly banned homo, bi, tri, and pansexuality. We also have banned marriages with an age difference of over 10 years. Fianlly, humans must marry only humans. So, we have voted against the resolution. If passed, we will ignore this resolution as null and void.


Let me check something here....

The Grand Duchy of Sel Appa, UN Member... ok


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


Hmhmmm....

Yep... I was right... You haven't banned gay marriage...

Then, perhaps we do not need the UN either. I shall propose this to the House of Earls.

It would help to read the UN passed proposals and rules before joining. I made the same mistake with Sarkaraseta.

The thing you have to remember about same sex marriage is that it is going against human nature.

Marriage has been recognised by many civilisations over thousands of years as a union between man and woman, there is a reason for that, and now some trendy liberals are wanting to butt in and change many years of tradition.
One of the main reasons for this is reproduction, which is obviously impossible in same sex marriage.
I think the answer to this problem is to introduce civil union, where anyone can can marry, while still preserving the traditional and true meaning of marriage.

The thing you have to remember about same sex marriage is that it is going against human nature.

Marriage has been recognised by many civilisations over thousands of years as a union between man and woman, there is a reason for that, and now some trendy liberals are wanting to butt in and change many years of tradition.
One of the main reasons for this is reproduction, which is obviously impossible in same sex marriage.
I think the answer to this problem is to introduce civil union, where anyone can can marry, while still preserving the traditional and true meaning of marriage.

Surely if it was going against human nature, humans would not want to do it?

And - as I have mentioned previously - these trendy liberals were responsible for a great many things, including the right for women to vote, the equal rights movements in most nations, the end of slavery and other such things.

And in regard to civil unions - compromise is not the same as surrender.

The thing you have to remember about same sex marriage is that it is going against human nature.

Marriage has been recognised by many civilisations over thousands of years as a union between man and woman, there is a reason for that, and now some trendy liberals are wanting to butt in and change many years of tradition.
One of the main reasons for this is reproduction, which is obviously impossible in same sex marriage.
I think the answer to this problem is to introduce civil union, where anyone can can marry, while still preserving the traditional and true meaning of marriage.

You didn't even bother to read a damn post before replying, did you?

1) It's not against human nature. There is plenty of evidence suggesting it is entirely natural and there are several civilizations in history that actually liked the idea of homosexuality.
2) Marriage wasn't defined under the current form of Western law until Rome.
3) The tradition was already changed. Try reading all of the UN passed resolutions before replying.
4) Not all of us are liberals, and some of us are Bible-thumpers who are supporting it anyway, despite our religious views.
5) Civil Unions have already been established as segregationalist and being discriminatory on at least three threads on here.
6) You don't even need to lose your virginity to become pregnant in this world. The miracles of modern medicine.
7) The meaning of marriage in the modern world is one that deals with being recognized by law, not by religion. Many marriages have no religion involved at all. This is merely officially changing the definition on NS to match the reality of it.

I have a problem with the content of the UN resolution:
"DEFINES marriage as the civil joining of a member of any nation with any other member of any nation, regardless of sex, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, color, or any other characteristic, with the exception of age"


....so I am allowed to marry animals? I just made my national animal full-members of my society, and gave them civil rights :/

Shouldnt there be somehting about animals in it? Or houseplants? I mean... this could get out of control @_o

I have a problem with the content of the UN resolution:
"DEFINES marriage as the civil joining of a member of any nation with any other member of any nation, regardless of sex, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, color, or any other characteristic, with the exception of age"


....so I am allowed to marry animals? I just made my national animal full-members of my society, and gave them civil rights :/

Shouldnt there be somehting about animals in it? Or houseplants? I mean... this could get out of control @_o

To play Lucy's advocate for a moment, if you have made your national animal equal to the (humans?) in your nation then by definition they should have the same rights.

But without that - it depends on you. The proposal says that you can extend it across species borders as you decide (or your government decides to). This was mostly put in for elves, dwarves and other such beings, but this is soley in your purview as to what you do with it.

And it will only get out of control if you let it.

A clarification of an earlier post; the use of which by others may have overstepped its application.

Homosexuality is genetic, or, at least, information and trends lead AP to that belief. However, it is not necessarily human nature. Human nature implies entering into relations for emotional and procreational purposes. If you marry soley for for emotional reasons, it is plutonic, and does nothing for the continuation of your genes. Therefore, it is not a coupling in the natural sense, but rather, a strength of wills and convictions to be together. Thus, there is no future or natural benefit from the relationship, as it does not aid in natural selection. Harsh sounding, yes, but should not be taken as such. When looking at the overall scheme of things, it pans out this way.

No no need to take this as a personal affront. State well thought out objections and AP will address them.

I read the past resolutions a bit after I posted that. As soon as I can, I will vote to repeal any resolutions permitting gay marriage. That's really the only thing conservative I support.

In a game where you can make up species I have to agree.
If you are a NS with humans, your scientists have discovered a mental disorder that manifests feelings of desire towards siblings, making them incapable of denying incestual urges. Since they are without judgement on the matter, make them legally unable to consent to marriage to a sibling at any age.

Problem is this could well fall foul of the "or any other characteristic" clause of the proposal.

A clarification of an earlier post; the use of which by others may have overstepped its application.

Homosexuality is genetic, or, at least, information and trends lead AP to that belief. However, it is not necessarily human nature. Human nature implies entering into relations for emotional and procreational purposes. If you marry soley for for emotional reasons, it is plutonic, and does nothing for the continuation of your genes. Therefore, it is not a coupling in the natural sense, but rather, a strength of wills and convictions to be together. Thus, there is no future or natural benefit from the relationship, as it does not aid in natural selection. Harsh sounding, yes, but should not be taken as such. When looking at the overall scheme of things, it pans out this way.

No no need to take this as a personal affront. State well thought out objections and AP will address them.

OK, a few points. You mention natural selection which isn't really valid as far as humans are concerned. Natural selection refers to species becoming genetically best suited to their environment. However, we've largely gone past selection on the basis of natural (ie external) stimuli to selection on the basis of human-originated stimuli. So we don't select on the basis of being able to outrun predators, we select on the basis of being able to buy a nice car.

Whether or not human nature "nature implies entering into relations for emotional and procreational purposes" is a debatable and highly complex question. I won't go into it here, sufficed to say it's by no means a given.

As for gay or platonic (not plutonic, this isn't a spelling flame, I just want to give a long dead Greek his dues instead of a cartoon dog) couples and whether they have a benefit, well, it really depends on how you define benefit. Even going from a narrow genetic perspective there's two points.

First, from a species-wide perspective it could be said they offer some benefit to society at large by being a stabilising force. Adoption would be the most obvious way but there's plenty of others. It's hard to argue convincingly, given the complexity of human society, but it's equally hard to argue against.

Second, from an individual perspective then an individual's genetic imperative is to pass on as much of their genetic information as possible. The maximal way to do this is to produce and raise a number of children to physical maturity who in turn are highly likely to produce and raise a number of children to physical maturity who in turn... You get the idea. However, it's not the only way. If you are unlikely to produce and raise such a child yourself but can, by other means, increase the likelyhood of those genetically similar to you doing so then that is also successfully passing on your genetic information. Non-reproducing animals, who sometimes exhibit homosexual traits, often perfom this task in societal species such as lions or chimpanzees. There's no reason to suppose the same can't be said of humans.

Final point, genetics is irrelevant, anyhow. I can't believe in this day and age we're still basing moral argumants on evolutionary justifications. Morality is a product of sentience, not genetics, and as such rationale on a genetic basis cannot be justified unless it is argued that ignoring genetics results in a negative moral situation. Nobody, to my mind, has done so yet.

A clarification of an earlier post; the use of which by others may have overstepped its application.

Clarification? Didn't think it was needed.

Homosexuality is genetic, or, at least, information and trends lead AP to that belief. However, it is not necessarily human nature. Human nature implies entering into relations for emotional and procreational purposes. If you marry soley for for emotional reasons, it is plutonic, and does nothing for the continuation of your genes. Therefore, it is not a coupling in the natural sense, but rather, a strength of wills and convictions to be together. Thus, there is no future or natural benefit from the relationship, as it does not aid in natural selection. Harsh sounding, yes, but should not be taken as such. When looking at the overall scheme of things, it pans out this way.

Actually, procreation has no affect on whether a relationship is plutonic or not. Plutonic is a thing of friends. When it comes to sex, that is usually far beyond friends while not necessarily meaning children must come of it. And there is a future and natural benefit, as it can be argued as a natural method of population control to help humanity from overpopulating and using up all of the resources. Sadly, religion and human adaptibility got in the way. It aids natural selection by ensuring the species won't kill itself off through overpopulation.

In the overall scheme of things, you must remember that humanity acts as an overpopulating prey species with a massive superiority complex. To get an idea, observe deer when their population gets too high. It's surprising at first, but then you adjust to it. Human nature is to look out for itself and seek its own pleasures, and no amount of science can change that.

No no need to take this as a personal affront. State well thought out objections and AP will address them.

Personal? I don't.

The Holy Republic of Jembabwe is disturbed by this resolution. If other nations wish to be heathenous, then by all means doom yourself and your people to an eternity of pain and torture, however it is a violation of the Holy Republic of Jembabwe's national sovereignty to have such biased laws as forcing the legality of homosexual marriage forced upon our people. The Holy Republic of Jembabwe would like to remind the other nations of the extent of the UN's power, which does not include forcing this type of law onto another nation. The Holy Republic of Jembabwe would never attempt to invade the national sovereignty of any other nation and is deeply disturbed with the number of nations who are attempting to violate the sovereignty of the Holy Republic of Jembabwe. If this resolution passes the UN will have gone far beyond its reach and will no longer be the respectable organization it currently is.

You didn't even bother to read a damn post before replying, did you?

1) It's not against human nature. There is plenty of evidence suggesting it is entirely natural and there are several civilizations in history that actually liked the idea of homosexuality.
2) Marriage wasn't defined under the current form of Western law until Rome.
3) The tradition was already changed. Try reading all of the UN passed resolutions before replying.
4) Not all of us are liberals, and some of us are Bible-thumpers who are supporting it anyway, despite our religious views.
5) Civil Unions have already been established as segregationalist and being discriminatory on at least three threads on here.
6) You don't even need to lose your virginity to become pregnant in this world. The miracles of modern medicine.
7) The meaning of marriage in the modern world is one that deals with being recognized by law, not by religion. Many marriages have no religion involved at all. This is merely officially changing the definition on NS to match the reality of it.
That's all well and good, and I will adhere to the will of the majority, but do we have to see it in 2,000 different resolutions? Inquiring minds and all that...

The Holy Republic of Jembabwe is disturbed by this resolution. If other nations wish to be heathenous, then by all means doom yourself and your people to an eternity of pain and torture, however it is a violation of the Holy Republic of Jembabwe's national sovereignty to have such biased laws as forcing the legality of homosexual marriage forced upon our people. The Holy Republic of Jembabwe would like to remind the other nations of the extent of the UN's power, which does not include forcing this type of law onto another nation. The Holy Republic of Jembabwe would never attempt to invade the national sovereignty of any other nation and is deeply disturbed with the number of nations who are attempting to violate the sovereignty of the Holy Republic of Jembabwe. If this resolution passes the UN will have gone far beyond its reach and will no longer be the respectable organization it currently is.

1) Feel free to slam the door on your way out.
2) While leaving take a gander at the resolution passed in May of last year that allows gay marriage.
3) Know that you do not represent all members of the faith.
4) Most people on here are not religious.
5) Stop shoving your beliefs down the throats of others. Your job is to preach, not to force people to follow you.

That's all well and good, and I will adhere to the will of the majority, but do we have to see it in 2,000 different resolutions? Inquiring minds and all that...

The only reason we see it so often is what Jembabwe just illustrated: Most people don't read the resolutions.

The Confederated Soviet East Pacific in Congress assembled
after much debate and polling has Democraticly Decided to
Vote Against the passage of this Resolution, and I have so lodged our regional vote.

We believe that the UN is overstepping its Bounds and Charter by even attempting to define something so saccred as Marrige, we also believe that the UN has dramaticly infringed upon our Regional and National Soverignity in this matter.

We also Believe that this Resolution should have been removed from even reaching the voting stages as it seems to be at odds with the Rules of our Simulated UN.

1 Infinite Loop
TEP.

As the Prime Minister of Forseral, I have instructed my UN Rep to vote against this Res. Not because of what others might think, but because of:

FURTHER RECOGNIZES all nation's right to expand this definition beyond species borders as the individual governments see fit.

I, my country and my people will not be part of a Res that allows beastiality. I am afraid that if this passes I will have to reconsider Forseral's membership in this organization. We feel very strongly that the institution of Marriage is a human institution, between consenting Human Beings.

Please read this resolution carefully and consider what my happen if this is passed. Just think, your pet could be abducted by someone who loves it, then because this resolution allows the definition of marriage to expand beyond spieces, marry it and takes possession of your pet. Whether your pet wanted to or not.

P.M. of Forseral