NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Okay. I just hope you have a good arguement that is valid and that people will listen to. I already voted for it myself, but my legal system states sentience is a requirement of marriage. There is a genetic stigma against incest and a social stigma against interbreeding with humans (who are both genetically inferior and incompatible) or most other races.

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.

1) The NSUN has no charter.
2) Marriage is not necessarily sacred. Sacred implies a religious wedding. There are an extreme number of nonreligious weddings and the fact secular governments regulate marriage (mine counts as secular, as my country's leader wasn't made by any god, but by production line in a fully automated factory).
3) The UN already has redefined it. This just allows for it to stretch across species barriers to allow certain nations to have humans and elves marrying.
4) Infringing on your rights is the UN's job.

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.

Nope. This is fully in line with the standard UN proposal. It is fully in line with the previous proposals. All it does is cover an additional topic that hasn't been already. I expect one on incest by the end of the month.

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:



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.

So you're discriminating against other sentient beings? Keep in mind your nation, under this, sets the regulations of how far into that you are willing to go. You can keep it at just humans if you wish.

And it is not just a human thing. Marriage tends to be one of those universals among sentient humanoids. This includes elves, dwarves, trolls, Sarkarasetans, etc.

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.

If you allow it to expand that far in your nation, it's your own damn fault if that happens. Try reading exactly what it says instead of part and just assuming.

So you're discriminating against other sentient beings? Keep in mind your nation, under this, sets the regulations of how far into that you are willing to go. You can keep it at just humans if you wish.

And it is not just a human thing. Marriage tends to be one of those universals among sentient humanoids. This includes elves, dwarves, trolls, Sarkarasetans, etc.

Although I enjoy fantasy and science fiction books and stories, this is the simulation of the world, a parallel world if you will, I see no reason to believe that there are other spieces other than homo sapians, i.e. elves, dwarves..., are the only reasoning beings in this, our parallel world. If you wish to live in Middle Earth then I suggest you find a different "world" to play "ruler of a country" in.

If you allow it to expand that far in your nation, it's your own damn fault if that happens. Try reading exactly what it says instead of part and just assuming.

And you should try reading the WHOLE response and take a breath before responding. Please re-read the first sentence:

I, my country and my people will not be part of a Res that allows beastiality.

It makes no difference that I can make this pratice illegal in my country, the fact is that by approving this resolution, the UN is ALLOWING the pratice of beastiality in the world. Even condoning it. That is why I have voted against it.

Although I enjoy fantasy and science fiction books and stories, this is the simulation of the world, a parallel world if you will, I see no reason to believe that there are other spieces other than homo sapians, i.e. elves, dwarves..., are the only reasoning beings in this, our parallel world. If you wish to live in Middle Earth then I suggest you find a different "world" to play "ruler of a country" in.



And you should try reading the WHOLE response and take a breath before responding. Please re-read the first sentence:



It makes no difference that I can make this pratice illegal in my country, the fact is that by approving this resolution, the UN is ALLOWING the pratice of beastiality in the world. Even condoning it. That is why I have voted against it.

You're a nominal modern-tech nation... But Future Tech, Magical, and what not have been here longer than many of us posting here... It's not merely going to change on your whim.

Although I enjoy fantasy and science fiction books and stories, this is the simulation of the world, a parallel world if you will, I see no reason to believe that there are other spieces other than homo sapians, i.e. elves, dwarves..., are the only reasoning beings in this, our parallel world. If you wish to live in Middle Earth then I suggest you find a different "world" to play "ruler of a country" in.

Uh huh. You do realize that NS includes, at last count, 7 Earths and hundreds of other colonized worlds? Even on the main simulated Earth you have velociraptors interfering with the politics of other nations, nations that can and will use magic as a weapon, nations with the capacity to travel to different periods of time, nations that only use spears and nothing else, and nations such as myself that travel thousands of lightyears in a matter of a week just because I like to trade with a few nations there. You might want to examine the reality of your fictional world before applying your version of it to someone who has been around here far longer and is far more experienced on the boards than you are. If your world is the one you are talking about, you're not talking about the same Earth the majority of the nations are on.

To get an idea, with my previous nation I was already around a month when the ban on biological weapons came up, and I voted in favor of it, so don't think you can compare the age of your nation with the age of my current one to try to prove yourself older.

And you should try reading the WHOLE response and take a breath before responding. Please re-read the first sentence:

I was pointing out why I do not see that as a problem. Try thinking about it and what I am saying before just replying.

It makes no difference that I can make this pratice illegal in my country, the fact is that by approving this resolution, the UN is ALLOWING the pratice of beastiality in the world. Even condoning it. That is why I have voted against it.

It was to allow sentient beings to intermarry between species. Everyone admits it could be better worded. And even before this it wasn't illegal, so this actually doesn't change the legallity of it. Many nations made it legal long before this. Or did you forget the daily issue that deals with 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...

Since nobody else has pointed this out I should just say that, IMHO, this isn't redundant because it defines a key word used in previous resolutions, esp. resolution 12 (I know we're not supposed to use just numbers but everyone and his dog who's read half of this thread should know what I mean by now). Without a definition then nations that oppose gay marriage could just say "OK, we'll allow gay marriage. Oh, BTW, marriage in our nation means eating pancakes together."

Oh, and it also protects heterosexual and iterracial marriage.

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.

1) Emotional well-being is a valid purpose, and completely "natural". All species do so.
2) Natural selection selects for a certain number of many species to have the potential for homosexuality. It is my belief it is a method of population control in one sense.
3) However, that's invalid now as science allows one to manipulate genes. Eventually, two homosexuals (male or female) will be able to undergo gamete manipulation to form a viable fetus. Whether the artificial womb ("a womb with a view") will happen anytime soon is mostly irrelevant, as money is always a loudspeaker.
4) Are you looking at one set of genes, or the overall family of genes? Those which have homosexual members have a greater chance of spread.

I've been relaying the comments of this UN floor debate to the CCSM Council of Mayors, whom have been following this particular debate with interest since the subject of marriage is something of a human rights, but also a domestic issue.

On the previous resolution my government abstained from voting due to the conflict of interests, however, it is clear to my government that this particular resolution is in fact a logical extension of ideas and concepts introduced in prior UN resolutions.

Furthermore, my government brought up the question about the nature of consent with respect to marriage, most notably the absence of the term. The nature of consent, while something my government holds dear, is something that could easily fall into cultural definitions and ambugities related to how consent can be effectively measured.

It was pointed out to my government by the author of this resolution that since it is not directly stated, that the interpetation of consent is still a domestic issue ... which falls in line with my governments long established request that "international problems are best solved with general international direction and very specific local solutions". In other words, this resolution does in fact represent a good balance between trying to standardize and protect some basic human rights, while allowing our nations to retain some sovereign say on this issue.

As it now currently stands, when visitors come to Mikitivity (especially in the winter ski season, I would say the fall harvest, but unfortunately the necromancers are very active around Samhain and tend to *keep* visitors -- late October is perhaps the worst time to visit) a marriage that is recognized in another nation is something we recognize in our nation for one very fundamental reason ... we'd like other nations to respect our cultural and sanctioned unions when our citizens visit their countries too. The reality is visitors do enjoy many projections under CCSM law, but recognizing another societies civil unions is really a trival matter.

The arguments coming from many nations are disingenous. Humans and elves aren't going to run off and marry cows and chickens. If there is any merit to this arguments I'd like to now call that bluff and demand that the ambassadors who would like to mislead us provide this body with evidence supporting that this is even a remote possibility (i.e. post a link to a SINGLE case where somebody has really tried to do this -- that'll keep ya twerps busy on google). :p

The arguments about the bible are subject to interpetation at best. But again, for those of you claiming this is against YOUR religion, you should provide specific citations why. (Hint: don't touch Leviticus, unless you don't eat pork, shrimp, nor cut your hair ... like ever.)

Finally to those of you whom have often cited the dangers of anal sex, I find your comments to be sexist, in that you are often focusing on male-male sexual relations, and ignoring female-female pairings, which may or may not play out the same way. In any event, I do believe there is something of a double standard that is perhaps based on ignorance that is present in many of the arguments my government has seen.

There are certainly some good arguments, and the issue of consent and to a lesser degree polygamy are issues that my government raised earlier, however, I hope those of you voting against this proposal for those reasons will look at my government and see that we recognize that there is still flexibility in this resolution, and that these two issues can be dealt with or defined on an international level in the future if your domestic concerns are not addressed. I firmly believe there is a great strength in flexibility, and I've come to recognize it in this resolution.

Please consider joining the Confederated City States of Mikitivity in making a statement of support for the efforts of the authors and sponsors of this resolution.

I actuallt approved this proposal; but am voting no.... not because I disagree with it; but because that was the direction the Region decided... but, oh well...

1) Emotional well-being is a valid purpose, and completely "natural". All species do so.
2) Natural selection selects for a certain number of many species to have the potential for homosexuality. It is my belief it is a method of population control in one sense.
3) However, that's invalid now as science allows one to manipulate genes. Eventually, two homosexuals (male or female) will be able to undergo gamete manipulation to form a viable fetus. Whether the artificial womb ("a womb with a view") will happen anytime soon is mostly irrelevant, as money is always a loudspeaker.
4) Are you looking at one set of genes, or the overall family of genes? Those which have homosexual members have a greater chance of spread.

1) Have not encountered any published papers that lay creedence to this claim that all species do so for emotional well being. Valid purpose yes, but is a strength of will and convictions to stay together as in the statement.

2) Agreed. However, point still stands that gay marriage would not be in accordance with natural marriage, as it is a population control measure.

3) Correct, money turns a blind eye to ethics.

4) With time, the gene would be breeded out, resufacing under stress of overpopulation.

Agree with you on homosexuality being an overpopulation control measure (surprised there are not scholarly papers on that possibiity, or none that I know of anyway). Also agree with you about money. However, with a host egg, the resulting organism would not be comprised entirely of the two male fathers dna, as contamination occurs. However, this is possible for women.

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.

1) If this is the way the UN wants to work, dismissing all memberstates whom disagree with it, it will no longer retain any international power and clapse, the essense of the UN is to have nations of different views working together to get the job done without violating the sovereignty of these nations

2) I apologize that I had yet to read this. I only joined a matter of days ago and feel in no way accountable for resolutions passed long before I joined especially resolutions as illegal as the one passed last May. If it were put up to vote today I would go against it and I am currently attempting to have it repealed.

3) As a matter of fact I do seeing as we are doing a mock world Jembabwe is a devout nation of Jemantalism, which, at the current momment is practiced only in a few nations.

4) I realize this, however I am roleplaying as I am supposed to. As a religious nation I must point out the fact that it is a violation of my national sovereignty to force my nation to recognize the unionship of two members of the same sex, religion is of no matter, merely the rights of nation vrs. international community.

5)Thank you for this, I could not have phrased it better. If a nation is in favour of the unionship of two members of the same sex it is their position to preach and attempt to convince other nations to accept this unionship however it is not thier position to force people to accept this unionship. If the people of The Most Serene Republic of DemonLordEnigma wish to have their homosexuals marry eachother by all means let them, however the people of the Holy Republic of Jembabwe do not want this and should not have it forcced down their throats by organizations such as the UN.

I will now read all of the resolutions passed to the current date by the NSUN however I would ask that in return all other nations read the UN Charter (the real UN Charter, the NSUN does not have a charter because the real one already existed for the same purpose). After reading this you will realize that this resolution is outstepping the UN's reach.

1) Have not encountered any published papers that lay creedence to this claim that all species do so for emotional well being. Valid purpose yes, but is a strength of will and convictions to stay together as in the statement.


Read more papers on monkeys, particularly in studies where they were allowed to, and denied the ability to. Species without emotions obviously do not count.



2) Agreed. However, point still stands that gay marriage would not be in accordance with natural marriage, as it is a population control measure.

"Marriage" is not natural. Therefore, invalid.



3) Correct, money turns a blind eye to ethics.

No, only to morals.

If I may define: Morality is from external sources (Bible, Church, Parents) where Ethics are internally defined. For purposes of our discussions, if you will adhere to those? Thank you.



4) With time, the gene would be breeded out, resufacing under stress of overpopulation.

Wanna bet?



Agree with you on homosexuality being an overpopulation control measure (surprised there are not scholarly papers on that possibiity, or none that I know of anyway).

Sheep in New Zealand studies come to mind.



Also agree with you about money. However, with a host egg, the resulting organism would not be comprised entirely of the two male fathers dna, as contamination occurs. However, this is possible for women.

Wanna bet? I'll give "Within 50 years, you can make your own zygotes and do not need a "host egg"."

Considering I hunted down a science professor over an erroneous statement ("We will never be able to see atoms") 20 years afterwards just to rub his nose in it (and win a bet made way back then), I'm perfectly willing to give 50 on this.

1) If this is the way the UN wants to work, dismissing all memberstates whom disagree with it, it will no longer retain any international power and clapse, the essense of the UN is to have nations of different views working together to get the job done without violating the sovereignty of these nations

2) I apologize that I had yet to read this. I only joined a matter of days ago and feel in no way accountable for resolutions passed long before I joined especially resolutions as illegal as the one passed last May. If it were put up to vote today I would go against it and I am currently attempting to have it repealed.

3) As a matter of fact I do seeing as we are doing a mock world Jembabwe is a devout nation of Jemantalism, which, at the current momment is practiced only in a few nations.

4) I realize this, however I am roleplaying as I am supposed to. As a religious nation I must point out the fact that it is a violation of my national sovereignty to force my nation to recognize the unionship of two members of the same sex, religion is of no matter, merely the rights of nation vrs. international community.

5)Thank you for this, I could not have phrased it better. If a nation is in favour of the unionship of two members of the same sex it is their position to preach and attempt to convince other nations to accept this unionship however it is not thier position to force people to accept this unionship. If the people of The Most Serene Republic of DemonLordEnigma wish to have their homosexuals marry eachother by all means let them, however the people of the Holy Republic of Jembabwe do not want this and should not have it forcced down their throats by organizations such as the UN.

I will now read all of the resolutions passed to the current date by the NSUN however I would ask that in return all other nations read the UN Charter (the real UN Charter, the NSUN does not have a charter because the real one already existed for the same purpose). After reading this you will realize that this resolution is outstepping the UN's reach.

Repeat after me.

The Nation States United Nations Is NOT The Real World United Nations

The UN Charter does not affect or relate to the NSUN in any way, shape, or form.

Furthermore, you have NO CHOICE as a UN Member but to accept and enforce all UN Resolutions in your country.

You clicked the "Join UN" button, you accepted all the UN Resolutions voluntarilly.

Including:



UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #12

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


Thank you, and good day.

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.

Intelligence is a genetic trait.


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.

Thank you, and I apologize to platonic. A moment of silence for a great philosopher. Included emotional since a limited number of species, ourselves and doves for example, will enter into relationships, and forego other possible relationships after the passing of a mate. Main point is that a steady relationship involves more than physical relations.

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.

Have often thought of your second point, but since nobody ever agreed with me, or presented it, figured I was imagining that possibility. Well taken and agreed.

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.

Morality is a product of sentience. Moral argument require justification. Justification rests on validity and soundness. Science aid in validity. In either event, sentience is a product of genetics.

For instance, altruism is a highly debated moral concept, at the heart of Marx and Engels Manifesto. They claimed atlruism to be the dominant trait in nature. Behavorial ecology says otherwise, unless the groups expressing altruism are highly related. Main point, science is becoming a major component of moral philosphy-even Kant stated practical reason does not trump natural laws.

1) If this is the way the UN wants to work, dismissing all memberstates whom disagree with it, it will no longer retain any international power and clapse, the essense of the UN is to have nations of different views working together to get the job done without violating the sovereignty of these nations

No, that's the standard response to people who threaten to leave. Also, this UN's purpose is to openly violate sovereignity without a care as to whether the members like it or not.

2) I apologize that I had yet to read this. I only joined a matter of days ago and feel in no way accountable for resolutions passed long before I joined especially resolutions as illegal as the one passed last May. If it were put up to vote today I would go against it and I am currently attempting to have it repealed.

It's not illegal under this UN. And by joining, you agreed to it. Ignorance is no excuse in this case. The resolutions are not exactly hidden away from you.

3) As a matter of fact I do seeing as we are doing a mock world Jembabwe is a devout nation of Jemantalism, which, at the current momment is practiced only in a few nations.

Oh. Well, I have egg on my face. Most of the people who post here and bring up religion are Christians. Natural assumption. In this case, ignorance on my part is no excuse.

4) I realize this, however I am roleplaying as I am supposed to. As a religious nation I must point out the fact that it is a violation of my national sovereignty to force my nation to recognize the unionship of two members of the same sex, religion is of no matter, merely the rights of nation vrs. international community.

Unfortunately, the job of the UN is to do that violation. That's part of why I only recently regained a nation in the UN.

5)Thank you for this, I could not have phrased it better. If a nation is in favour of the unionship of two members of the same sex it is their position to preach and attempt to convince other nations to accept this unionship however it is not thier position to force people to accept this unionship. If the people of The Most Serene Republic of DemonLordEnigma wish to have their homosexuals marry eachother by all means let them, however the people of the Holy Republic of Jembabwe do not want this and should not have it forcced down their throats by organizations such as the UN.

Actually, #5 was from a Christian perspective, so it doesn't apply against you. I do not know the tenets of your nation's religion and, as such, cannot use it as an arguement against you.

Actually, my nation has no regulations on marriage beyond limiting it to sentient creatures. The rest are inherent stigmas. So it doesn't actually matter to me one way or the other. I argue it from this side because I find it rare to meet an opposition armed enough to support the opposite.

I will now read all of the resolutions passed to the current date by the NSUN however I would ask that in return all other nations read the UN Charter (the real UN Charter, the NSUN does not have a charter because the real one already existed for the same purpose). After reading this you will realize that this resolution is outstepping the UN's reach.

I have read it. Sadly, it does not apply to this UN because of how this one was designed. This one was designed to have a different feel on purpose.

Mikitivity,

I read your arguments but I still have issues that I don't feel have been addressed, namely:

1) 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.

2) 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.

3) 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.

4) 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.

Note, none of these are resolved by having consent as a domestic issue. 3) is a procedural issue in no way related to consent. Of the rest 1) relates to a possible conflict with another resolution, 2) is an issue regarding the wording of the current resolution and 4) relates to the problem of recognising other nations marriages for the purpose of citizenship (a common practice). They would all be resolved by including consent as a requirement, though.

Oh, and regarding the quest for links, I think you underestimated the lunacy of human beings:
http://www.broomfieldnews.com/livingarts/pettem/25phist1.html

Christ, there's even a company dedicated to the process:
http://www.marryyourpet.com/

If I make a comittment to one person or three and I want it to have some legal protection, other than a binding contract, marriage is the only way. The UN Proposal does say "a member", but it does not say "only" one marriage. There is no reason (based on what I read) that I couldn't be married to Joan and then Joan married to Jeff and the Jeff married to Susan and then Susan married to me and then, and then.

This nation state is not concerned about any nation's morality code and I don't believe that is a factor in this proposal. What I do read here, is that if a nation wishes to make other rules, they may. It is just too bad there are so many people with concepts that are archaic.

Slender Goddess

Mikitivity,

I read your arguments but I still have issues that I don't feel have been addressed, namely:

1) 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.

As "purchase" is illegal, this is already illegal in "End Slavery" AND "Ban Trafficking in Persons".

Note this passage:


'Trafficking in persons' shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation.

The "consent issue" is put as - you can oppress all your people (no consent allowed) or allow consent for all people, but there is no middle ground. That puts it to National Soverignty.



2) 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.


This is defined in article one of the Child Protection Act as physical age.
See also the "Outlaw Pedophilia" resolution.

Also, have a look at Universal Freedom of Choice:


5b) The legal guardian of any minor or physically or mentally incapable individual, the latter as defined in the Resolution "Fair Treatment of Mentally-Ill", remains responsible to make informed choices and decisions on their behalf, in accordance with any applicable rights and health and safety legislation laid down by the State,



3) 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.

So?



4) 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.

Please reread what I wrote in the proposal.


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;

And you should look at the age issue and ask how many animals live to 18 chronological years.



Note, none of these are resolved by having consent as a domestic issue. 3) is a procedural issue in no way related to consent. Of the rest 1) relates to a possible conflict with another resolution, 2) is an issue regarding the wording of the current resolution and 4) relates to the problem of recognising other nations marriages for the purpose of citizenship (a common practice). They would all be resolved by including consent as a requirement, though.

Oh, and regarding the quest for links, I think you underestimated the lunacy of human beings:
http://www.broomfieldnews.com/livingarts/pettem/25phist1.html

Christ, there's even a company dedicated to the process:
http://www.marryyourpet.com/

No, consent was left as a National Soverignty issue. I am not and was not going to attempt to outlaw arranged marriages: however, equality was maintained. Either everyone has arranged, or no one, due to the Universal Bill of Human Rights.

Thank you for your time.

If you marry soley for for emotional reasons, it is plutonic
::has sudden vision of homosexuals kidnapping their future spouses, taking them to the Underworld, and causing the seasons to come into being::

What? That's what Pluto did...

sorry, bad joke.

::has sudden vision of homosexuals kidnapping their future spouses, taking them to the Underworld, and causing the seasons to come into being::

What? That's what Pluto did...

sorry, bad joke.

Now you're picking on the dwarves? :p

Read more papers on monkeys, particularly in studies where they were allowed to, and denied the ability to. Species without emotions obviously do not count.




"Marriage" is not natural. Therefore, invalid.




No, only to morals.

If I may define: Morality is from external sources (Bible, Church, Parents) where Ethics are internally defined. For purposes of our discussions, if you will adhere to those? Thank you.




Wanna bet?




Sheep in New Zealand studies come to mind.




Wanna bet? I'll give "Within 50 years, you can make your own zygotes and do not need a "host egg"."

Considering I hunted down a science professor over an erroneous statement ("We will never be able to see atoms") 20 years afterwards just to rub his nose in it (and win a bet made way back then), I'm perfectly willing to give 50 on this.

Obviously? We both said all species! Not all species with emotions.:)

Substitute mating pairs for marriage.

Agree with the terms. I am sure money turns a blind eye to both, although I develop my own ethics, they are not without outside influences.

With an adequate amount of time (however long that is), and no population stress, it would become nonexistant, or perhaps non-coding dna. Such is evolution. However, there appear to be some humans that still seem more like monkeys than persons, so it could be awhile.

With respect to zygotes, that would be an intersting bet to lose on my part; suprised I had not considered the ability to make our own in the Brave New World. Make it a reasonable amount, and I should be able to pay it in 50 yrs (plan on retiring at around seventy, and should have some saved up.) No inflation though. A 5 dollar bet today will be a 5 dollar bet in the future.:)

Obviously? We both said all species! Not all species with emotions.:)

Substitute mating pairs for marriage.

Still not true. They might mate in pairs, but not all species remain in pairs. See also lions, for example.



Agree with the terms. I am sure money turns a blind eye to both, although I develop my own ethics, they are not without outside influences.

With an adequate amount of time (however long that is), and no population stress, it would become nonexistant, or perhaps non-coding dna. Such is evolution. However, there appear to be some humans that still seem more like monkeys than persons, so it could be awhile.

With respect to zygotes, that would be an intersting bet to lose on my part; suprised I had not considered the ability to make our own in the Brave New World. Make it a reasonable amount, and I should be able to pay it in 50 yrs (plan on retiring at around seventy, and should have some saved up.) No inflation though. A 5 dollar bet today will be a 5 dollar bet in the future.:)

A round of drinks, bought in the country of the winner by the loser. Travel arrangements or sending of cheque (or equivalent) to be determined later, both acceptable. Deal?

I have seen a few nations mention the idea of homosexuality as a genetic condition. Is this accepted as fact in NSUN?

Admittedly, I believe myself to be flagrently hetrosexual, but am I? If we are going to define homosexuality as a genetic condition, then that means I am homosexual whether or not I have actually engaged in a homosexual act. Therefore no one could acurately actually call themselves "gay" without a DNA test. It then follows that anyone claiming discrimination would have to prove their status.

Generally speaking, and only for myself and my nation, a homosexual is defined as a person who engages in sexual activity with a person of the same sex. As aa UN member nation, we are obliged to recognise homosexual marriage. However, we are also obliged to take the happy couple's word for it that they are, indeed, engaged in the requisite activity. We currently don't make the same supposition with heterosexual couples because heterosexuality is not currently defined by any governing body.

Sorry if this wanders too far off topic, but as it was brought up, I thought I would raise a few issues here.

I have seen a few nations mention the idea of homosexuality as a genetic condition. Is this accepted as fact in NSUN?

Admittedly, I believe myself to be flagrently hetrosexual, but am I? If we are going to define homosexuality as a genetic condition, then that means I am homosexual whether or not I have actually engaged in a homosexual act. Therefore no one could acurately actually call themselves "gay" without a DNA test. It then follows that anyone claiming discrimination would have to prove their status.

Generally speaking, and only for myself and my nation, a homosexual is defined as a person who engages in sexual activity with a person of the same sex. As aa UN member nation, we are obliged to recognise homosexual marriage. However, we are also obliged to take the happy couple's word for it that they are, indeed, engaged in the requisite activity. We currently don't make the same supposition with heterosexual couples because heterosexuality is not currently defined by any governing body.

Sorry if this wanders too far off topic, but as it was brought up, I thought I would raise a few issues here.

Yet another reason to pass the resolution at vote.

A round of drinks, bought in the country of the winner by the loser. Travel arrangements or sending of cheque (or equivalent) to be determined later, both acceptable. Deal?

Agreed, Emphaticly even.

Will TM an email if possible, or you can TM AP with one. I'll place the bet in the email.

Reside in CA,

et tu Vastiva?

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.


So you don't think that stealing someone's pet would be considered a crime in the first place then?

I will now read all of the resolutions passed to the current date by the NSUN however I would ask that in return all other nations read the UN Charter (the real UN Charter, the NSUN does not have a charter because the real one already existed for the same purpose). After reading this you will realize that this resolution is outstepping the UN's reach.

No. The NSUN doesn't have a charter because the game-creators didn't write one. And since this is a game, and not the real world, the NSUN still doesn't have a charter, and it does NOT abide by the real UN charter, and any attempts to argue that it does will most likely be ignored.

The UN has a few rules, and this proposal falls inside all of them. Otherwise it would not have made it to the floor let alone be supported as much as it is.

Depends on whether the government makes consent a requisite to marriage.
How can a dog consent to marriage?
If it cannot, why would a government extend marriage to the species?

I have seen a few nations mention the idea of homosexuality as a genetic condition. Is this accepted as fact in NSUN?

Admittedly, I believe myself to be flagrently hetrosexual, but am I? If we are going to define homosexuality as a genetic condition, then that means I am homosexual whether or not I have actually engaged in a homosexual act. Therefore no one could acurately actually call themselves "gay" without a DNA test. It then follows that anyone claiming discrimination would have to prove their status.

Generally speaking, and only for myself and my nation, a homosexual is defined as a person who engages in sexual activity with a person of the same sex. As aa UN member nation, we are obliged to recognise homosexual marriage. However, we are also obliged to take the happy couple's word for it that they are, indeed, engaged in the requisite activity. We currently don't make the same supposition with heterosexual couples because heterosexuality is not currently defined by any governing body.

Sorry if this wanders too far off topic, but as it was brought up, I thought I would raise a few issues here.

But being short-sighted, or blonde, or short or tall are all genetic conditions. But I am not going to claim I am blonde, because it's quite obvious I am not.

People know if they are gay or not, in the same way they know if they are blonde or not.

Depends on whether the government makes consent a requisite to marriage.
How can a dog consent to marriage?
If it cannot, why would a government extend marriage to the species?

*sigh*

If the Government says "you have to consent", and a dog can't, people can't marry their dogs unless the government expands and extends, via part three of the proposal.

*sigh*

If the Government says "you have to consent", and a dog can't, people can't marry their dogs unless the government expands and extends, via part three of the proposal.
*Harvey Birdman sigh*

Even if it was extended, if the government says you have to consent, dogs can not consent, therefore they still would not be able to marry. Thus why extend marriage to a species that would still be incapable of marriage via the NationStates laws?

Now, if dogs could consent, no problem. If they are capable of consent that shows the ability to reason, and weigh the consequences of its decision. In which case, beastiality would not really be a problem... well... except for the whole inter-species aspect.

*Harvey Birdman sigh*

Even if it was extended, if the government says you have to consent, dogs can not consent, therefore they still would not be able to marry. Thus why extend marriage to a species that would still be incapable of marriage via the NationStates laws?

Now, if dogs could consent, no problem. If they are capable of consent that shows the ability to reason, and weigh the consequences of its decision. In which case, beastiality would not really be a problem... well... except for the whole inter-species aspect.

The flip side of this is a Dictatorship - no consent laws, the Dictator decides who you marry. And she decides anyone can marry anyone or anything.

So you get to marry your kudzu vine, which is well over 18 years old.

Back to the first - can you marry your AI? Sure, once its over 18 years old. We'll leave it to the nation to decide how you figure out how old an AI is.

But being short-sighted, or blonde, or short or tall are all genetic conditions. But I am not going to claim I am blonde, because it's quite obvious I am not.

People know if they are gay or not, in the same way they know if they are blonde or not.

The problem is that people are claiming discrimination based on something, if I may use your term, they know they are or are not. Once you start claiming that you are being treated in an unfair manner because of something you are, you put yourself in a position to prove that you are, indeed, part of the group that is experiencing this discrimination. Even more to the point, you have to prove that someone else thought you were part of that group, and were treating you in a discriminatory manner because of it.

This is easy enough to prove in the case of marriage.

Or is it?

Suppose I want to marry another man, but I insist I am not homosexual? I merely want the right to extend my health insurance, citizenship, et cetera, to my very good, very close, but very platonic friend. This is currently not protected by the NSUN, unless we don't mention that we are heterosexual. As long as the government representative thinks I am gay, I can procede. If I get caught looking at a woman in a manner that indicates interest, the State is no longer obligated to allow the union. At that point, where do I turn for legal redress? How do I convince the courts that I should be allowed to marry this man? If we break our rule and engage in sexual activity, is that enough? Will one time do it? Do we have to prove intent to continue having sex?

Under the new resolution, we do not. It reduces marriage to a legal agreement of convenience, regardless of the desires of the member nations. This resolution, as I have said in the past, goes beyond the level of reasonable protection of human/elvish/dwarvish/(insert race here) rights, and into the realm of meddling in the cultural affairs of the majority of the world. Farthingsworth became a member of the NSUN in order to beter further the noble causes of human rights and peaceful coexistance with our fellow nations, not so that our cherished traditions and culture could be cast aside like a pair of polyester bell-bottom slacks, no longer considered fashionable by the "enlightened world community"!

We strongly urge ...

No, we demand that the NSUN turn away from this meddlesome course it has taken as of late, and return to the noble and significant duties, for which it has gained the respect and admiration of the world(s).

:gundge:
BESTIALITY IS WRONG!
All those who agree should vote against this resolution.

:gundge:
BESTIALITY IS WRONG!
All those who agree should vote against this resolution.

This resolution has nothing to do with it. It leaves it up to individual nations to decide on the matter, and does because several nations have citizens who are not human, such as elves, dwarves and whatnot.

So, if you don't like bestiality, fine. Whatever. This resolution has nothing to do with that, though.

:gundge:
BESTIALITY IS WRONG!
Your argument is enormously enhanced by the totally irrelevant slime-slinging smiley. Color me sold!

The nation of PIcaRDMPCia, one of the freeest nations of the world, is wholeheartedly for this resolution. The United Nations has our full support here.

Wait wait wait, we're talking about interspecies marriage here people. I don't agree with the man on man marriage, but I understand the argument. However, people don't need to be marrying Fluffy and screwing the damn cat, be serious here. Not in my F'ing country

:gundge:
BESTIALITY IS WRONG!
All those who agree should vote against this resolution.

Many nations have agreed that this resolution has nothing to do with this subject, but I'd like to recommend that if you feel this seriously (referencing to your emote-icon-thingie), why don't you draft your own proposal. Restricting Bestiality would be a fine moral decency category proposal.

As for support, save this thread and telegram every nation that has raised the same objection and ask that they contact their delegate to endorse your proposal.

As "purchase" is illegal, this is already illegal in "End Slavery" AND "Ban Trafficking in Persons".

The "consent issue" is put as - you can oppress all your people (no consent allowed) or allow consent for all people, but there is no middle ground. That puts it to National Soverignty.

Right, and I allow consent for all people. But other nations may not. My worry is that those nations that may not may be able to use the current law to circumvent the laws set down in "End Slavery" AND "Ban Trafficking in Persons". It's not, as far as I can see, sufficiently clear which resolutions takes priority.

If it's ES and BTiP then consent becomes a non-issue here, at least as far as people are concerned, since arranged marriages could well be construed as violating BTiP's banning of "the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation" (thanks for the heads up, BTW).

If, on the other hand, this resolution takes priotity then arranged marriages are exempt from the above clause and so a pretty large loop-hole emerges.


This is defined in article one of the Child Protection Act as physical age.
See also the "Outlaw Pedophilia" resolution.

Also, have a look at Universal Freedom of Choice:


But, like I said, the Universal Freedom of Choice can be seen as irrelevant due to the "or any other characteristic, with the exception of age" element of the current proposal. In fact if, as you assert, age is defined as physical age then I cannot see how UFoC has a bearing.


So?


So it sets a dangerous precedent. In the current climate it seems unlikely that a repugnant (that is repugnant to you or I) act could pass once, let alone be reinforced by a later resolution, but that may change. By not indicating clearly that the clause regarding sex/gender stands or falls with Res 12 this proposal doubles the difficulty in getting homosexual marriage off the books. It'll probably never happen either way, anyhow.

This really isn't a major issue, TBH, mostly I was thinking out loud. Making mental notes for any proposals I may draft in the future.


Please reread what I wrote in the proposal.

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;


I may be being dense here but I don't see how this resolves to the issue at hand.

And you should look at the age issue and ask how many animals live to 18 chronological years.


Doesn't apply, though. As the CPA states:

For the purposes of the present resolution, a minor means every human being below the age of eighteen years



No, consent was left as a National Soverignty issue. I am not and was not going to attempt to outlaw arranged marriages: however, equality was maintained. Either everyone has arranged, or no one, due to the Universal Bill of Human Rights.


Whilst I understand this, consent could still have been resolved without banning arranged marriages. For example:

Consent is defined as the free expression of agreement, without duress, by both parties or any individuals given legal jurisdiction over said parties as per the laws of individual states (unless the individual in question is a party in the marriage).

Horribly inelegant and convoluted, I know, but it's a quick attempt off the top of my head.

This would have gone some way to resolving most, if not all, of the problems I have.


Thank you for your time.

Thanks for the response. I really, really want to vote for this proposal, BTW, it's a breath of fresh air after the last heap of junk. The problems I have do not reflect on the proposal, more the complexity of both the issue of marriage and its ramifcations and NS international law. I just wish I could be reassured that the problems I raised are not serious, especially the first two.

The flip side of this is a Dictatorship - no consent laws, the Dictator decides who you marry. And she decides anyone can marry anyone or anything.

He, in my nation. Despite the naturalness of the leader, the android is definitely a he.

So you get to marry your kudzu vine, which is well over 18 years old.

I'm almost tempted to allow that as an exception to the sentience rule just to see how it would work out.

Back to the first - can you marry your AI? Sure, once its over 18 years old. We'll leave it to the nation to decide how you figure out how old an AI is.

In my nation? With one exception, no. That one exception is the ruler himself. The reason it is no is the nation itself is not producing androids yet, meaning the AIs are trapped in large computers. Most of them are just presentient knowbots anyway.

I have already voiced my concern of this resolution overlapping Resolution 12 "Gay Rights" and making it impossible to repeal either of them in the future, however i was wondering......

This resolution defines marriage, but does not say that it must be allowed in all circumstances. The previous resolution says that everyone has equal rights. Resolution 12 states that gay marriages must be PROTECTED and ENDORSED. I see no law that says that my country must allow gay marriages to take place. Granbia protects gay marriages that have happened in another country, and also endorses the rights to freedom. However, and maybe it's a loophole, we are not allowing new gay marriages. Why were our laws changed to allow gay marriages to take place when it seems that they're only protected??????

Apologies for my reply being so far from the question I had computer troubles:

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


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

I don't think allowing for elves is very realistic let alone aliens. In that case it should be definaed as a sentiant being. Apart from the fact that marriage between human and animal is just plain wrong this proposal could also be seen to contradicting something else which I think has already been passed although I don't have the time to search for the quote now.

Basically it comes down to the fact that Marriage has to involve two willing parties and if one party involved is not sentiant how are they meant to express their consent or objection?

I don't think allowing for elves is very realistic let alone aliens. In that case it should be definaed as a sentiant being. Apart from the fact that marriage between human and animal is just plain wrong this proposal could also be seen to contradicting something else which I think has already been passed although I don't have the time to search for the quote now.

Neither is the fact NS has, at my last count, 7 different Earths, enough nations to fill over two dozen Earths, and enough people to require an entire galaxy. Realism went out the window a long time ago.

Basically it comes down to the fact that Marriage has to involve two willing parties and if one party involved is not sentiant how are they meant to express their consent or objection?

Let's use logic for a moment instead of simply assuming: Where, in this proposal, do you see it stating the partners do not have to be willing? Where do you see any contradictions with previous resolutions? The answer is nowhere.

This UN is more like a large Confederacy, rather than an alliance like the Real UN. We are free to come and go from the "UN Government" but we, at the same time, are bound by it's passed laws; and are represented in the governments.... There is alot of differences, though... Much like a Legislature we each have equal voting power as members; though delegates have abit more in lieu of having one more vote for each endorsement in their region. So, it's sort of like mixing a Lower House/Upper House legislative system into a single Legislative house.. (With representation based on Equal say (members) and "population"(Or rather Regional Endorsement)(Delegates)...

That is how the system is designed, so operation in the system, should be an act like a Confederation of States, as opposed to an Alliance of Nations (where some of the people here fail).

It reduces marriage to a legal agreement of convenience, regardless of the desires of the member nations.


Erm - that's all it is. You can dress it up as much as you want with stupid robes and fancy phrases, but at it's heart marriage is a legal agreement.

Why else would nations require divorce lawyers?

Marriage needs to stay out of government control, whether it be local, state, or federal. Proposals such as this take the rights away from SOMEONE, no matter which way you look. If this proposal is passed, Freedom of Religion will be taken away because it forces people who believe in a preserved sacredness in marriage to marry people who they believe God does not want married. However, restricting marriage takes the rights of the gays, especially since they also ban civil unions.

Marriage needs to stay out of government control, whether it be local, state, or federal. Proposals such as this take the rights away from SOMEONE, no matter which way you look. If this proposal is passed, Freedom of Religion will be taken away because it forces people who believe in a preserved sacredness in marriage to marry people who they believe God does not want married. However, restricting marriage takes the rights of the gays, especially since they also ban civil unions.

We've been over this and over this and over this and over this and over this and over this and over this and over this and over this and over this. Please read the previous posts.

Ignore the trolls, just makes more mess for me to clear up.

There is an important point which I believe many nations are forgetting an important issue to address about this resolution. The DRA has been an adamant supporter of the rights of same-sex couples to marry. In fact the DRA believe that the definition of marriage is the union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.

That being said, the DRA is adamantly opposed to polygamy and bestiality. It is the opinion of the government and experts in child psychology in the DRA, that children develop best in a structured home of one or two parents, hetrosexual or homosexual, and with a proper national childcare and early education program.

It is our belief, that by allowing polygamous marriages, the structure of the home is greatly changed as now a child could have 5 or 10 "parents". One could argue that this is a good thing as there would be more attention to the child, however, it is the belief of this government that this situation would be detrimental to the child. The child would be surrounded by more adult figures, but there are two key problems with this. The first problem, which will be addressed later, is how women are devalued to a form of sexual object and baby-making machine in many polygamous relationships. The second problem which will be addressed now, is that while a child may have more parents, it would receieve a limited amount of attention from all of those parents and will be unable to form a proper bond to one or two loving parents in a structured household.

It is the belief of experts in child psychology in the DRA, that the bond between parent and child is a paramount part of a child's early psychological development. Indeed, it is their belief and the position of this government, that in order to maintain this important phase of a child's development, marraige should continue to be defined as: the union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.

In order to encourage the continuance of these recommended structured families, the DRA offers certain benefits under the federal tax code. Should polygamous and bestial marriages be allowed, it would destroy these tax benefits for parents who are trying to maintain the family structure so critical for a child's development. Again, the DRA stresses that homosexual and hetrosexual families are not the issue, experts in the DRA have found no evidence that a homosexual couple adopting children causes any psychological, developmental, or sexual implications for the child as they grow up. However, in order to allow for the loving bonds to be made from parent to child and the focused attention of one or two parents on their children is seen as the best way to promote the development of the child.

The DRA is adamantly against allowing humans to marry animals and is currently drafting a resolution to repeal the current one up for a vote should this current resolution proceed. The DRA does not believe that the definition of marriage under civil law should extend past people marrying. The view of the DRA is that marriage, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual, is for two purposes. First to create a good home for child (whether procreated or adopted) should the couple desire children, and secondly as a clause in the tax code which gives benefits to people who pledge to share their lives together.

Also, the DRA is very concerned about the possibility of the half human half animal children coming out of bestiality if that is possible (the government of the DRA has never thought of or touched upon this issue and it is waiting on an emergency report requested from experts in regards to this issue). The DRA fears that this could present a whole new set of problems to society and could cause a complete restructuring of government programs from healthcare to education to social welfare. Governments would have to completely adjust for each new type of species of human/child. Again I must stress that the DRA is not aware for sure if this is possible but if it was, these are the serious concerns that this and other social democracies would be facing.

In regards to the second problem with polygamous relationships, the DRA believes that polygamous relationships (real life example being some Mormon communities in Utah) are demeaning to women. I have stated women because generally polygamous relationships contain many women and one man. The DRA believes that this dehumanizes and devalues women to a role of baby machines and pleasing their husband's sexual desires. The DRA believes that the UN should stand up for both genders and not allowing dehumanizing practices such as these to occur. Some would argue that not allowing polygamous marriages are a violation of human rights, the DRA argues that polygamous relationships as have been currently seen are a violation of women's rights. Just as the DRA is opposed (though forced to comply with) to legalized prostitution as it is the belief of this government that it causes a gender imbalance which is completely unacceptable, the DRA is opposed to polygamous relationships which devalue women and men into objects of sexual satisfication instead of human beings.

Again, the DRA reminds nations to consider the child's role in the family if this resolution is passed. The DRA believes that this resolution will cause grave consequences for the development of the child and is adamantly opposed to this resolution.

I had posted before but this time I am posting entirely differently. Instead of why this resolution is not legal under UN mandate I would like to point out how this resolution does not achieve its goals.

1) Not all nations give benefits to married couples, if a state does not give benefits then marriage is not a legal issue.

2) It leaves room for a recognation of certain types of marriage without the presentation of benefits,

3) Room is left for arranged marriages, forced marriages, interfamily marriage,

4) By opening up the right for arranged and forced marriages it violates the 16th article of the declaration of human rights which states;

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

5) Using the loophole stated above, if this resolution is passed the Holy Republic of Jembabwe will recognize the marriage of homosexuals and all other illegal forms which will now become legal however only marriages between a man and a woman whom are not members of the same family will be eligible for benefits. This is perfectly legal under the regulation set forth by the resolution "Definition of Marriage" yet does not change from the current situation except for an empty reconginition.

Upon re-reading the proposed resolution, it has become apparent the DRA has mis-interpreted a part of this resolution. The DRA therefore withdraws its remarks on polygamous marriages.

However, the DRA's adamant opposition to this resolution will continue and the comments made on bestiality are still part of this government's position and will be kept on the record.

Lets get the government out of "marriage" completely. Its a religious institution. Lets leave it all up to our respective churches as far as uniting people spiritually and socially. As far as creating public links to each others property,relatives, and health matters etc.....why don't we just create "domestic partnership contracts" to be had by any two people who would like to select each other as mutual gaurdian. Anyone could do this because it doesn't necessarily mean they are in a love relationship. For example, two brothers who are moving out on thier own together could be domestic partners if they choose until one or each take wives and then transfer that status to the wife (if they want) Any party could get out of the partnership at will. Children are domestically partnered with thier parents at birth and may transfer thier partnership to whom they choose from 18 forward. A man and a woman wishing to begin a family could apply for a domestic partnership"type 2"(or something) that allows them to expand thier household.(They would have to pass a parenting course and financial and psychological counciling)

Lets get the government out of "marriage" completely. Its a religious institution. Lets leave it all up to our respective churches as far as uniting people spiritually and socially. As far as creating public links to each others property,relatives, and health matters etc.....why don't we just create "domestic partnership contracts" to be had by any two people who would like to select each other as mutual gaurdian. Anyone could do this because it doesn't necessarily mean they are in a love relationship. For example, two brothers who are moving out on thier own together could be domestic partners if they choose until one or each take wives and then transfer that status to the wife (if they want) Any party could get out of the partnership at will. Children are domestically partnered with thier parents at birth and may transfer thier partnership to whom they choose from 18 forward. A man and a woman wishing to begin a family could apply for a domestic partnership"type 2"(or something) that allows them to expand thier household.(They would have to pass a parenting course and financial and psychological counciling)

*Harvey Birdman sigh*

Even if it was extended, if the government says you have to consent, dogs can not consent, therefore they still would not be able to marry. Thus why extend marriage to a species that would still be incapable of marriage via the NationStates laws?

Now, if dogs could consent, no problem. If they are capable of consent that shows the ability to reason, and weigh the consequences of its decision. In which case, beastiality would not really be a problem... well... except for the whole inter-species aspect.

Pass a nationwide law saying a lack of consent must be verbalized.

Now dogs consent, no?

Though you are still limited to dogs 18 chronological years or older...

*brain hurts* Gah, AP, and I had to be thinking about this all day...

The problem is that people are claiming discrimination based on something, if I may use your term, they know they are or are not. Once you start claiming that you are being treated in an unfair manner because of something you are, you put yourself in a position to prove that you are, indeed, part of the group that is experiencing this discrimination. Even more to the point, you have to prove that someone else thought you were part of that group, and were treating you in a discriminatory manner because of it.

This is easy enough to prove in the case of marriage.

Or is it?

Suppose I want to marry another man, but I insist I am not homosexual? I merely want the right to extend my health insurance, citizenship, et cetera, to my very good, very close, but very platonic friend. This is currently not protected by the NSUN, unless we don't mention that we are heterosexual. As long as the government representative thinks I am gay, I can procede. If I get caught looking at a woman in a manner that indicates interest, the State is no longer obligated to allow the union. At that point, where do I turn for legal redress? How do I convince the courts that I should be allowed to marry this man? If we break our rule and engage in sexual activity, is that enough? Will one time do it? Do we have to prove intent to continue having sex?

Under the new resolution, we do not. It reduces marriage to a legal agreement of convenience, regardless of the desires of the member nations. This resolution, as I have said in the past, goes beyond the level of reasonable protection of human/elvish/dwarvish/(insert race here) rights, and into the realm of meddling in the cultural affairs of the majority of the world. Farthingsworth became a member of the NSUN in order to beter further the noble causes of human rights and peaceful coexistance with our fellow nations, not so that our cherished traditions and culture could be cast aside like a pair of polyester bell-bottom slacks, no longer considered fashionable by the "enlightened world community"!

We strongly urge ...

No, we demand that the NSUN turn away from this meddlesome course it has taken as of late, and return to the noble and significant duties, for which it has gained the respect and admiration of the world(s).


The weird thing here is your arguements are in favor of the resolution, not against it.

And all the rules governing marriage are up to you. The UN law already says Gay Marriages are allowed. (Resoluton #12) So, as soon as you pressed that "Join UN" button - the UN Gnomes got busy on your nation.

Finally - who cares why you got married? You wanted it, you got it. Enjoy it. Open marriages exist already, sanctioned or not. Why does preference have anything to do with it?

We would support this legislation were it not for the final clause, extending marriage rights to non-humans. Imagine, your daughter coming home for the approaching Thanksgiving holiday and saying, "Dad/Mom, I'd like you to meet your new son-in-law: Fido!" You wouldn't like that. It's foolish to support legislation that you yourself would not want to see followed. We have voted against this resolution and suggest all free nations of the world do the same.

:gundge:
BESTIALITY IS WRONG!
All those who agree should vote against this resolution.

I hate idiots who argue with the third part of the proposal (soon to be a resolution in a UN near you!) without having - oh, I dunno - read the rest of this thread.

No, I'm not advocating bestiality. However, if some dictator decides to force it on everyone, so be it - National Soverignty Issue.

First, that section is to allow Human-Elf and such pairings. If you have sentient chipmunks and want to intermarry, go for it. If the dolphin-people want to marry the tree-people, so be it.

Secondly, IT IS ONLY IF YOU SANCTION IT. If you don't want, don't sanction. Duh.

Third, if your country requires consent (Bill of Rights - either everyone consents or no one, no inequality) you might note that *animals cannot consent*. Another duh.

Fourth, by the age requirement (18 years old, found in the referenced acts) your "animal lover" would have to be 18. How many domestic animals live that long?

Good lord, at least think about what you're writing. Or better yet - read the thread.

I have already voiced my concern of this resolution overlapping Resolution 12 "Gay Rights" and making it impossible to repeal either of them in the future, however i was wondering......

This resolution defines marriage, but does not say that it must be allowed in all circumstances. The previous resolution says that everyone has equal rights. Resolution 12 states that gay marriages must be PROTECTED and ENDORSED. I see no law that says that my country must allow gay marriages to take place. Granbia protects gay marriages that have happened in another country, and also endorses the rights to freedom. However, and maybe it's a loophole, we are not allowing new gay marriages. Why were our laws changed to allow gay marriages to take place when it seems that they're only protected??????

You can prevent ALL new marriages from taking place, but you cannot discriminate. Choosing to prevent only gay marriages from not taking place would be discrimination.

Does that clear things up?

Third, if your country requires consent (Bill of Rights - either everyone consents or no one, no inequality) you might note that *animals cannot consent*. Another duh.

This idea is removed my the reolution itself, the resolution clearly states that the only fealable reason of not allowing a marriage is age, consent, which I might add is in article 16 of the declaration of human rights, is no longer valid.

(really long post, mostly well thought out)


Here's a simple idea.

Draft a proposal against beastiality. Provided you state that beasts are "nonsentient", you shouldn't run into the problems of "But I'm a nation of elves/dwarves/AIs/robots/trees" protesting.

Theres alot of them. Trust me. I have the telegrams to prove it.

Then pass a law in your country stating everyone gets one and only one active marriage at any time.

Tah dah, problem solved.

Now vote for the proposal. :D

ok this is completely gay. really. marrage is between adam and eve, not adam and steve :fluffle:
thats just screwed up.

I had posted before but this time I am posting entirely differently. Instead of why this resolution is not legal under UN mandate I would like to point out how this resolution does not achieve its goals.

1) Not all nations give benefits to married couples, if a state does not give benefits then marriage is not a legal issue.


So where is the problem? If you don't have marriage at all, no problem.



2) It leaves room for a recognation of certain types of marriage without the presentation of benefits,

Redundant, and "benefits" was not involved here. That's National Soverignty and I'm not touching it with a ten meter cattle prod.



3) Room is left for arranged marriages, forced marriages, interfamily marriage,


So? It is not my job to play moral judge of the universe.



4) By opening up the right for arranged and forced marriages it violates the 16th article of the declaration of human rights which states;

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


Doesn't exist in the NSUN. You did read the FAQ before clicking "Join UN", didn't you???

I suppose no one told him about the wolverines either...



5) Using the loophole stated above, if this resolution is passed the Holy Republic of Jembabwe will recognize the marriage of homosexuals and all other illegal forms which will now become legal however only marriages between a man and a woman whom are not members of the same family will be eligible for benefits. This is perfectly legal under the regulation set forth by the resolution "Definition of Marriage" yet does not change from the current situation except for an empty reconginition.

However, thats not legal under the UN Bill of Human Rights resolution. So sorry, thank you for playing. You cannot discriminate, the UN Gnomes get mad and alter your laws if you try.

Upon re-reading the proposed resolution, it has become apparent the DRA has mis-interpreted a part of this resolution. The DRA therefore withdraws its remarks on polygamous marriages.

However, the DRA's adamant opposition to this resolution will continue and the comments made on bestiality are still part of this government's position and will be kept on the record.

Ok, I'll give you back half of the respect you lost for your earlier comments.

Now earn back the other half; read the thread.

This idea is removed my the reolution itself, the resolution clearly states that the only fealable reason of not allowing a marriage is age, consent, which I might add is in article 16 of the declaration of human rights, is no longer valid.


*sigh*

I'll spare you the embarrasment of pointing out yet again you havent figured out the NSUN is not the Real Life UN. So here's the resolution again:



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.

You're arguing that "Consent" is a characteristic of a member of your nation.

We'll be mailing you dictionaries in the morning.

I wonder if I've got the award for the longest thread about a proposition yet.
Anyone happen to know?

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law


You -all- better change to vote against it...

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

Plus, this is saying that marriage w/ animals is fine =\

Ok, I'll give you back half of the respect you lost for your earlier comments.

Now earn back the other half; read the thread.

Well considering you said my post was reasonably well thought out I don't think I lost *too* much respect :P

On a more serious note, the DRA has considered the point brought forward by the honourable representative from Vastiva. However, as this resolution is likely to pass by a 60-40 margin or greated, the DRA will vote against the resolution as a symbol of its protest to the final clause. The government of the Democratic Republic of Arturistania is currently drafting a repeal resolution which would seek to redefine the final clause as containing all sentient life and exclude animals such as chickens and dogs. The DRA believes strongly in the rights of homosexuals couples to marry and believes that current resolutions already allow for this. The final clause of this resolution, however, is deeply troubling to this government and we will be submitting either a repeal or a definition resolution which will seek to define clause 3. The DRA would be willing to discuss such a definition resolution with Vastiva and would welcome the opportunity to co-draft such a resolution if that Vastivan government approves.

You can prevent ALL new marriages from taking place, but you cannot discriminate. Choosing to prevent only gay marriages from not taking place would be discrimination.

Does that clear things up?

Actually, Granbia has always allowed for civil unions, which grant all the political and legal rights as marriage, whether homosexual or not, but leaves the term marriage for those joined in the church, from which Granbia has been founded and continuously relies upon. The Granbian Senate actually sat down and TALKED an issue out and found a good compromise that offends everyone the least and benefits everyone the most, INSTEAD of mindlessly throwing insults at the end of each debated article. The voices of all men and women of all orientations was heard.

Please do not be so presumptuous in calling others discriminatory, especially after they have worked so hard to have peace in their country, unlike this UN.

Respectfully submitted

Brandon J Yad
President of Granbia

I wonder if I've got the award for the longest thread about a proposition yet.
Anyone happen to know?
Not even close. Ban the Death Penalty (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=334553) and EQUALITY FOR ALL (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=290111) (both of which failed) tied at 536 responses in the primary topics. Abortion Rights (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=330813) had 350 and Ban Nuclear Weapons (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=371293) (also failed) came in at 345.

You're number two in passed resolutions. I guess you can still cheer.

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law


You -all- better change to vote against it...

Or?

Or?
He'll kick your half-elven married dog's ass, buddy. Better watch it.

Well considering you said my post was reasonably well thought out I don't think I lost *too* much respect :P

On a more serious note, the DRA has considered the point brought forward by the honourable representative from Vastiva. However, as this resolution is likely to pass by a 60-40 margin or greated, the DRA will vote against the resolution as a symbol of its protest to the final clause. The government of the Democratic Republic of Arturistania is currently drafting a repeal resolution which would seek to redefine the final clause as containing all sentient life and exclude animals such as chickens and dogs. The DRA believes strongly in the rights of homosexuals couples to marry and believes that current resolutions already allow for this. The final clause of this resolution, however, is deeply troubling to this government and we will be submitting either a repeal or a definition resolution which will seek to define clause 3. The DRA would be willing to discuss such a definition resolution with Vastiva and would welcome the opportunity to co-draft such a resolution if that Vastivan government approves.

All you have to do is what Vastiva already does (national law) - All marriages must be entered into consensually, with all parties communicating their consent in a nationally recognized manner prior to the contract being validated.

I repeat the age arguement - how many chickens are over 18?

Here's a definitional proposal for you - "The UN hereby states that in all cases where "human" or "human being" is mentioned within a resolution, it shall be understood that the words "human being" apply equally to all beings able to demonstrate sentience to at least one member states satisfaction".

There, I even wrote it for you. Human Rights, Mild.

Now get busy, telegramming takes lots of time.

And again, we ask for your vote, this time as your reservations can be addressed simply, democratically, and by you.

*sigh*


You can prevent ALL new marriages from taking place, but you cannot discriminate. Choosing to prevent only gay marriages from not taking place would be discrimination.

Does that clear things up?


Actually, Granbia has always allowed for civil unions, which grant all the political and legal rights as marriage, whether homosexual or not, but leaves the term marriage for those joined in the church, from which Granbia has been founded and continuously relies upon. The Granbian Senate actually sat down and TALKED an issue out and found a good compromise that offends everyone the least and benefits everyone the most, INSTEAD of mindlessly throwing insults at the end of each debated article. The voices of all men and women of all orientations was heard.

Please do not be so presumptuous in calling others discriminatory, especially after they have worked so hard to have peace in their country, unlike this UN.

Respectfully submitted

Brandon J Yad
President of Granbia

"You can have sad marriages but not happy ones" - discriminatory.
"You can have homosexual marriages but not heterosexual marriages" - discriminatory.

That's not an insult. Its a statement.

And "marriage" is about to be redefined in Granbia. Perhaps you might alter the terminology a touch? Those joined in the church have a "sacred" or "sanctified" marriage, while those who don't marry in the church have a "civil marriage".

Wait. Anyone who has been married knows they aren't all that civil... ;)

The DRA thanks the representative for their advice and counsel on this matter and are grateful for the suggestion of a new proposal. At this time the government is reconsidering its vote on the current resolution and will submit a draft resolution of the definition of clause 3 tomorrow to the assembly.

The DRA thanks the representative for their advice and counsel on this matter and are grateful for the suggestion of a new proposal. At this time the government is reconsidering its vote on the current resolution and will submit a draft resolution of the definition of clause 3 tomorrow to the assembly.

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

National Soverignty issue here - be VERY careful. The UN gets touchy when you touch its ns too much.

And attempting to define "clause three of the Definition of Marriage resolution" - that'll glass over people's eyes in a hurry.

(edit) What part are you planning to define? Nations rights to marry trees if they want? If someone wants to marry the bacteria they get injected with, and their nation says "yep, that's marriage" ok fine sure whatever.

All clause three is is a recognition of each Nations right to go hog wild if it wants to do so.

Coffee good. Must find more coffee.

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law


You -all- better change to vote against it...

Why? Because of a dictionary definition? We're voting to change that, so it doesn't apply. You wish to press the implied threat, let me know.

To the comment about having to gice your consent for marriage - they have to repeat the vows and of course say "I do" or " I will". Obviously animals cant say this except perhaps parrots.

I repeat the age arguement - how many chickens are over 18?


And I repeat my point, the CPA does not apply to animals since it clearly states in article one that a minor is defined as a human being.

Did you not read my post or are you simply being disingenuous?

And I repeat my point, the CPA does not apply to animals since it clearly states in article one that a minor is defined as a human being.

Did you not read my post or are you simply being disingenuous?

Animal Protection Act someone came up with will eliminate that arguement.

And I repeat my point, the CPA does not apply to animals since it clearly states in article one that a minor is defined as a human being.

Did you not read my post or are you simply being disingenuous?

Read your post. Someone else is drafting a proposal about broadening the definition of "human". And a nation is free to make laws about areas not covered by the resolutions.

So? It is not my job to play moral judge of the universe. However it is the UN's job. As a collective body we must work to be the moral judges of the universe.

Doesn't exist in the NSUN. You did read the FAQ before clicking "Join UN", didn't you???

I suppose no one told him about the wolverines either...
I have just reread the FAQ and other sections on the website and have yet to see anything that says that the NSUN is anything but a model of the real-life UN, if this is true than all resolutions from real UN apply, especially the Charter and Declaration of Human Rights.

However, thats not legal under the UN Bill of Human Rights resolution. So sorry, thank you for playing. You cannot discriminate, the UN Gnomes get mad and alter your laws if you try.
Wait, didn't you just say that the UN Bill of Human Rights (Declaration of Human Rights) doesn't apply in the NSUN? It can't be both ways, Jembabwe feels that as stated in the UN homosexuals deserve equal rights and that marriage should be determined by the state. If you feel that the real UN should not be brought up then don't bring it up.

This idea is removed my the reolution itself, the resolution clearly states that the only fealable reason of not allowing a marriage is age, consent, which I might add is in article 16 of the declaration of human rights, is no longer valid.
*sigh*

I'll spare you the embarrasment of pointing out yet again you havent figured out the NSUN is not the Real Life UN.
But I have yet to see a source that says it does not follow the laws set forth.

So here's the resolution again:



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.


You're arguing that "Consent" is a characteristic of a member of your nation.
Huh? The fact is, the resolution defines marriage and does not state anything reffering to consent. You claim that the laws past in the UN are not valid so therefor it lets arranged, forced, and same-family marriage be legal. The should be another clause reffering to consent.

We'll be mailing you dictionaries in the morning.
Thank you for your maturity.

I have just reread the FAQ and other sections on the website and have yet to see anything that says that the NSUN is anything but a model of the real-life UN, if this is true than all resolutions from real UN apply, especially the Charter and Declaration of Human Rights.
There's nothing in the FAQ saying the NSUN doesn't observe the US Bill of Rights either. Should we therefore conclude that all US Constitutional law applies here?

Your argument is bizarre and illogical. The NationStates UN upholds only those resolutions passed by the NationStates UN.

I voted against this resolution, simply because the UN cannot enact or enforce a law, especially in regards to marriage, when multiple Nations, with differing beliefs and standards, are included in the committee. This is a unique proposal that will only work with one Nation (where the majority of the nation agrees upon a concrete form of morals and standards) at any given time. The fact that this is even a resolution is odd. However, I assume the majority of individuals here currently reside in the United States, whereas a slim minority resides in other countries. This issue, as far as the United States is concerned, will be finalized in the near future, with homosexual marriages being abolished. That's why I find it odd that this resolution is passing, while in reality it's failing. Furthermore, if we are in fact conducting an abstract form of reality, then Tumwater, as a country that believes in marrying at a young age, refuses to abide by the rules of said resolution if it indeed, and will no doubt pass.

I voted against this resolution, simply because the UN cannot enact or enforce a law, especially in regards to marriage, when multiple Nations, with differing beliefs and standards, are included in the committee. This is a unique proposal that will only work with one Nation (where the majority of the nation agrees upon a concrete form of morals and standards) at any given time. The fact that this is even a resolution is odd. However, I assume the majority of individuals here currently reside in the United States, whereas a slim minority resides in other countries. This issue, as far as the United States is concerned, will be finalized in the near future, with homosexual marriages being abolished. That's why I find it odd that this resolution is passing, while in reality it's failing. Furthermore, if we are in fact conducting an abstract form of reality, then Tumwater, as a country that believes in marrying at a young age, refuses to abide by the rules of said resolution if it indeed, and will no doubt pass.

1) This UN can.
2) This is not the real UN.
3) The US does not exist here.
4) You have no choice. The UN is bigger, badder, and has termination squads that know where you live.
5) No one here cares about your nationality on the forums.
6) We're known liberals. You can read the passed resolutions to see that.
7) This was all answered by page 7. This is page 23.
8) UN membership is not a requirement.

<snip> the UN cannot enact or enforce a law, especially in regards to marriage, when multiple Nations, with differing beliefs and standards, are included in the committee.<snip>

This is an interesting point. Suppose The NSUN passes this rediculous piece of invasive tripe (and I mean that in the nicest possible way). If a nation refuses to recognise a polygamous marriage, what will the NSUN do? If a woman decides to marry her widowed mother, in order to gain the benefits that our nation recognises as appropriate for married couples, and Farthingsworth is reluctant to allow this union, what punative action will be taken by the NSUN?

Farthingsworth has a deep and cherished respect for the diversity of our neighbour nations. We would not dream, even after eating pepperoni pizza just before bedtime, of holding other nations to our values in regards to their social traditions. We fully recognise the near-infinite variety of marriage customs in our world(s), and believe that it would be arrogance of the highest order to refuse recognition of a union that has been recognised by the members' home nation. But once again, we strongly resent the meddling nature of this resolution.

The NSUN is following a hazzardous trend with this legislation, which does not request our cooperation and understanding, but seeks to force our culture into a mold with an Iron Hammer. We frankly are fully prepared to accept the willing union of any sentient to any other sentient as long as it legal in their country of origin, but we strongly defend our right to protect the culture of our people.

It may be that the supporters of this legislation are unaware of marriage as anything more than a legal agreement of convenience between various parties. We regard this as shallow and closed-minded, but are prepared to accept even such contracts as these. But we hasten to remind these supporters that marriage in many nations, and in many sub-cultures, is more than a legal agreement, but a spiritual bond, and even a Sacrement to some. This ham-fisted approach, while well-intended, is not the answer to whatever international dispute it is intended to resolve. We plead with the author of this resolution to reconsider, and look with fresh eyes at whatever multi-national incident may have prompted this rash act, to see if a more sensible, less fascist approach can be taken.

(This did arise from some international incident, didn't it? Please don't tell me we are going through all this because the Good Idea Fairy tapped someone on the head with a magic wand. :rolleyes: )

So? It is not my job to play moral judge of the universe.

However it is the UN's job. As a collective body we must work to be the moral judges of the universe.

Nope. We don't "must" do anything.



Doesn't exist in the NSUN. You did read the FAQ before clicking "Join UN", didn't you???

I suppose no one told him about the wolverines either...


I have just reread the FAQ and other sections on the website and have yet to see anything that says that the NSUN is anything but a model of the real-life UN, if this is true than all resolutions from real UN apply, especially the Charter and Declaration of Human Rights.

Read them again. It's not. This part alone proves that:


The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations. In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

Your nation can join the UN, but it's not compulsory. As a non-member, you are unaffected by any UN decisions. So if you're happy looking after your nation and don't want to dabble in international politics, don't join up.


So does this:


The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

Nothing from the "real life" UN applies. At all. Except the name and the flag. Thats it. No charter, nothing else.




However, thats not legal under the UN Bill of Human Rights resolution. So sorry, thank you for playing. You cannot discriminate, the UN Gnomes get mad and alter your laws if you try.

Wait, didn't you just say that the UN Bill of Human Rights (Declaration of Human Rights) doesn't apply in the NSUN? It can't be both ways, Jembabwe feels that as stated in the UN homosexuals deserve equal rights and that marriage should be determined by the state. If you feel that the real UN should not be brought up then don't bring it up.

Have a look at the "UN Resolutions throughout History" on the UN page.
It lists "The Universal Bill of Rights". That's what I referenced. Mea Culpa for adding the word "Human", my apologies. You are correct, both do not apply: the "Real Life UNITED NATIONS DELARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS" does not exist in the NationStates world (worlds? universe?).

This is the NSUN, not the RLUN. Nothing the RLUN says or does has any effect on the NSUN, and vice versa (thank God).

This idea is removed my the reolution itself, the resolution clearly states that the only fealable reason of not allowing a marriage is age, consent, which I might add is in article 16 of the declaration of human rights, is no longer valid.


*sigh*

I'll spare you the embarrasment of pointing out yet again you havent figured out the NSUN is not the Real Life UN.


But I have yet to see a source that says it does not follow the laws set forth.


Its not, we don't. Ask around. If you really want a "source", go to the UN chat room (referenced above).

What is this with some people needing everything spelled out in triplicate?



So here's the resolution again:

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.

You're arguing that "Consent" is a characteristic of a member of your nation.

Huh? The fact is, the resolution defines marriage and does not state anything reffering to consent. You claim that the laws past in the UN are not valid so therefor it lets arranged, forced, and same-family marriage be legal. The should be another clause reffering to consent.

No, there shouldn't be another clause.

Is arranged marriage allowed? Sure, you can do that in your country if you don't discriminate.
Is forced marriage allowed? Sure, you can do that in your country if you don't discriminate.
Is same-family marriage legal? Sure, you can do that in your country if you don't discriminate.

"Consent" is therefore covered. If you require it, you require it automatically of everyone. If you do not require it, you require it automatically of no one. Simple. Why? See the two referenced resolutions.

Once again, UN is not the morality police.



We'll be mailing you dictionaries in the morning.

Thank you for your maturity. .

Ah, alas, you do not understand. Our #1 industry is Book Publishing. We can afford to be generous with our wares. Perhaps you will buy?

This is an interesting point. Suppose The NSUN passes this rediculous piece of invasive tripe (and I mean that in the nicest possible way). If a nation refuses to recognise a polygamous marriage, what will the NSUN do? If a woman decides to marry her widowed mother, in order to gain the benefits that our nation recognises as appropriate for married couples, and Farthingsworth is reluctant to allow this union, what punative action will be taken by the NSUN?

At best you'll be forced (UN Gnomes are good that way). There isn't any other choice - the UN Gnomes win all challenges to their authority automatically. You joined, you gave up the choice not to listen.

As far as polygamy - which is nowhere in the proposal - pass a law in your nation of "only one marriage per person". Simple.



Farthingsworth has a deep and cherished respect for the diversity of our neighbour nations. We would not dream, even after eating pepperoni pizza just before bedtime, of holding other nations to our values in regards to their social traditions. We fully recognise the near-infinite variety of marriage customs in our world(s), and believe that it would be arrogance of the highest order to refuse recognition of a union that has been recognised by the members' home nation. But once again, we strongly resent the meddling nature of this resolution.

Reread the FAQ. This UN meddles. ALOT.



The NSUN is following a hazzardous trend with this legislation, which does not request our cooperation and understanding, but seeks to force our culture into a mold with an Iron Hammer. We frankly are fully prepared to accept the willing union of any sentient to any other sentient as long as it legal in their country of origin, but we strongly defend our right to protect the culture of our people.

Trend? This is the way things are done here. And you gave up your right to protect your culture by violating UN Resolutions when you clicked "Join UN".



It may be that the supporters of this legislation are unaware of marriage as anything more than a legal agreement of convenience between various parties. We regard this as shallow and closed-minded, but are prepared to accept even such contracts as these. But we hasten to remind these supporters that marriage in many nations, and in many sub-cultures, is more than a legal agreement, but a spiritual bond, and even a Sacrement to some. This ham-fisted approach, while well-intended, is not the answer to whatever international dispute it is intended to resolve. We plead with the author of this resolution to reconsider, and look with fresh eyes at whatever multi-national incident may have prompted this rash act, to see if a more sensible, less fascist approach can be taken.

It is way out of my hands now. The people have spoken.



(This did arise from some international incident, didn't it? Please don't tell me we are going through all this because the Good Idea Fairy tapped someone on the head with a magic wand. :rolleyes: )

Nope, it came to be because two UN members (me and AP) were bickering over various things and the lack of definition came up. I threw up something, made it a proposal... and there's the rest of the story.

Read your post. Someone else is drafting a proposal about broadening the definition of "human". And a nation is free to make laws about areas not covered by the resolutions.

Granted. My point, though, is that you can't argue that marrying a poodle is technically illegal on the basis that most poodles aren't 18 (as you were) since the 18 clause clearly only applies to humans.

Well, define animals as "property" or "chattel", and they're no longer members of your nation.

Problem solved, no?

<snip> ... it came to be because two UN members (me and AP) were bickering over various things and the lack of definition came up. I threw up something, made it a proposal... and there's the rest of the story.

Thank you for clearing this up. My courses of action are now more clearly defined.

So if the NSUN is, as indicated by this situation, and your statement that this is the common mode of operation, why does anyone remain a member? Why would a nation give up it's sovereignty in exchange for this sort of grandmotherly nit-picking? Are there substantial benefits?

You get to be in the UN, you get to make proposals.

There is also the whole business about region-crashing and defending, which you have to be a member of the UN to be involved with (cute trick that).

Well, define animals as "property" or "chattel", and they're no longer members of your nation.

Problem solved, no?

In my nation, yes (though we already permit both bestiality and marriage of animals, though without the usual tax benefits, in line with our proud heritage as a Left-Leaning College State). The issue I have is with regards to recognizing the marriages of other states as far as that relates to citizenship. Given that our immigration laws state that any non-citzen who is married to a citizen can, after proving that they have co-habited for 1 year, apply for citizenship. It seems that I am forced to recognise the marriage. If you argue that I can then still refuse citizenship on the grounds of species, what is to stop other nations from withdrawing other benefits of marriage on the grounds of sexual preference?

Note, I have no moral objections to any of this, but do you realise how hard it is to create sheep-friendly ballot papers?

There is no UN resolution concerning citizenship, insofar as I read.

And only UN nations are affected by UN resolutions.

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law


You -all- better change to vote against it...

mar·riage Audio pronunciation of "marriage" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

1. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.


So if you vote against it, then pinocle will be almost impossible to play!!

There is no UN resolution concerning citizenship, insofar as I read.

And only UN nations are affected by UN resolutions.

I'm not sure I see how either of these issues resolve the issue of what I should do as regards allowing citizenship on the basis of marriage.

Can you suggest how I go about limiting the marriage citizenship laws to humans (we're not currently in contact with any nations with non-human sentient species) without violating your proposal?

Hold on! I keep reading references to marriage between sentient species being protected under this proposal. Great if you want to protect the rights of an elves or other human-like species to marry other human-like species then by all means lets put together a bill that effectively and SPECIFICALLY does that. However, the vaugness of the current proposal leaves room for someone to twist the intent to provide for the right to marry a farm animal.

I've voted against this proposal and recommend that everybody do so. I have no problem with the intent of this proposal, just with the actual implementation. Let's knock this one down and draft a proposal that really means something.

If this resolution is passed, I'm resigning from the UN.

It is sick to authorize gay marriages, and I sincerely hope that this resolution is put down. I'm going to vote for the Banning on Gay Marriage resolution, if it ever comes up.

If this resolution is passed, I'm resigning from the UN.

It is sick to authorize gay marriages, and I sincerely hope that this resolution is put down. I'm going to vote for the Banning on Gay Marriage resolution, if it ever comes up.
Resign now.

You've had gay marriages in your nation since it was founded, thanks to previous resolutions you never bothered to read. Of course, that fact has been mentioned in this thread approximately three thousand times, so obviously reading comprehension is not high on your nation's list of priorities either.

Bye.

So help me god if this resolution passes I will resign of the UN. The UN has no right to impose an act such as this resolution is proposing. It is un-ethical. I believe that there should be a resolution difining what should be proposed and not proposed in a resolution.
I have also realized that the UN in Nation States is bios on the liberal side. So is the UN in the real world but they do not impose there liberal beliefes in the to rest of the UN members.

So if you vote against it, then pinocle will be almost impossible to play!!
You are such an idiot, only a ignorant liberal would think of a response like that.

You are such an idiot, only a ignorant liberal would think of a response like that.

It's something we call sarcasm. You learn to recognize it.

You guys want too much control of your countries. What's the point in joining the UN in the first place? To impose your beliefs on other members of the UN. You lose once to something you find immoral and you freak out about it? Then you shouldn't have joined the UN in the first place. You've got to learn sometime in life that you can't always get what you want.

You guys want too much control of your countries. What's the point in joining the UN in the first place? To impose your beliefs on other members of the UN. You lose once to something you find immoral and you freak out about it? Then you shouldn't have joined the UN in the first place. You've got to learn sometime in life that you can't always get what you want.

You, sir, shall go far. Very far. And I'm not being a smartass, either.

Thank you DemonLordEnigma. And just to add on to all the naysayers that are plotting to flame me or whatever, I surprisingly voted against the Marriage Resolution but you won't hear me freaking out when it is passed.

Sometimes you don't get what makes you happy, so you just have to be happy with what you get.

You are such an idiot, only a ignorant liberal would think of a response like that.

Someone gave me a defintion of "marriage" from a dictionary, and gave it me in such a way that it was the be-all and end-all of the debate.

So I found a definition of marriage that had very little to do with it, and used it as the be-all and end-all of the debate.

We don't all share the same language, or even the same dictionaries. So why should one dictionary define the whole policy for the UN, when there are plenty of others that disagree with it

And I kind of like pinochle :}

I'm not sure I see how either of these issues resolve the issue of what I should do as regards allowing citizenship on the basis of marriage.

Can you suggest how I go about limiting the marriage citizenship laws to humans (we're not currently in contact with any nations with non-human sentient species) without violating your proposal?

There is nothing stating the one you are married to is automatically a citizen, or has to be human.

Pass a law stating "All citizens are required to be human". Problem solved.

Hold on! I keep reading references to marriage between sentient species being protected under this proposal. Great if you want to protect the rights of an elves or other human-like species to marry other human-like species then by all means lets put together a bill that effectively and SPECIFICALLY does that. However, the vaugness of the current proposal leaves room for someone to twist the intent to provide for the right to marry a farm animal.

I've voted against this proposal and recommend that everybody do so. I have no problem with the intent of this proposal, just with the actual implementation. Let's knock this one down and draft a proposal that really means something.

"Look, Mom! It's another one who didn't read the thread before posting!"

If this resolution is passed, I'm resigning from the UN.

It is sick to authorize gay marriages, and I sincerely hope that this resolution is put down. I'm going to vote for the Banning on Gay Marriage resolution, if it ever comes up.

Read Resolution #12 "Gay Rights", which passed over a year before you came into existance as a UN Nation.

You already authorize "gay marriages" by UN Resolution.

Vastiva is going to get very rich selling McGuffey Readers to member states.

So help me god if this resolution passes I will resign of the UN. The UN has no right to impose an act such as this resolution is proposing. It is un-ethical. I believe that there should be a resolution difining what should be proposed and not proposed in a resolution.
I have also realized that the UN in Nation States is bios on the liberal side. So is the UN in the real world but they do not impose there liberal beliefes in the to rest of the UN members.

You've got about a day to go.

And go ahead and make that proposal if you want. We are all responsible for our own choices, and the consequences of those choices.

Do be sure to read the FAQs first.

You guys want too much control of your countries. What's the point in joining the UN in the first place? To impose your beliefs on other members of the UN. You lose once to something you find immoral and you freak out about it? Then you shouldn't have joined the UN in the first place. You've got to learn sometime in life that you can't always get what you want.

*Standing Ovation*

*puts Quitos on the list of "proposers who definitely get a read"*

Ladies, Gentlemen and other assorted diplomats - prepare for a flood of repeals.



It passed (hurrah!!!)

*cheers*

"You love me, you really love me!"

(expects to get stoned for the Streisand reference)

There is many things in this world and in our world of nations that we have to just accept. This topic of marriage I have voted for, and why not? God created adam and eve, big whoopty, if people are going to use that saying then don't go all biblical on me. People might be against prostitutes, vigilantes, gangs, and e.t.c but gay marriages, come on! what is there to accept? Two people love each other and want to get married therefore they have every right to proclaim their love like every other human on this earth. If we as united nation members or normal human beings have a problem with this then it's something we're just going to have to accept because they are entitled to their rights. I for one will support this bill all the way!

Thanks for the compliment, Vastiva. I'll try not to let my ego grow too much. :p

Well THAT didn't take long (+30 minutes after approval telegram)


REPEAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Naval Snipers

Description: According to the resolution "Definition of Marriage," not only would gay marriage be allowed but also marriages across species.

The correct definition of marriage is the union of a man and woman as husband and wife. this definition does NOT include the titles of husband and husband, wife and wife, husband and goat, etc.

How is it possible for any animal, reptile, bird, etc. to willfully enter into marriage with a human being? To the best of my knowledge there is no translator who can interpret what any animal is saying.

If you allow the original resolution to be passed then what's to stop a father and his daughter from getting married? What is this world coming to?!

Approvals: 2 (The Marine Infantry, Sel Appa)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 139 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Nov 28 2004

And he didn't read Resolution #12 (Gay Rights) either... *sighs*

AND he submitted it as a proposal rather then a Repeal Proposal! :headbang:

*cheers*

"You love me, you really love me!"

(expects to get stoned for the Streisand reference)

Wasn't that Sally Field?

Wasn't that Sally Field?

Richard Nixon, right after getting elected.

This UN Law should be repealed, as it threatens the sanctity of holy marriage in the full view of God, as Marriage is defined as the holy union between a man and a woman.

Sorry, just my 2 cents.

This UN Law should be repealed, as it threatens the sanctity of holy marriage in the full view of God, as Marriage is defined as the holy union between a man and a woman.

Sorry, just my 2 cents.

This resolution doesn't change that. The Gay Rights one does. You're a year too late.

*sends a shipment of McGuffey Readers to Facist Nationalists, free of charge*

Last UN Decision

The resolution Definition of Marriage was passed 11,904 votes to 7,473, and implemented in all UN member nations.
Congratulations, Vastiva!

Congratulations, Vastiva!

Thank you, thank you - I think I've got the fastest attempt to repeal on it, but hey - my name is on it, its law, the good has been served.

What a thing to be thankful for today!

I just want to point out that not everyone shares the same religion, so unless marriage was only created by Christians, I don't see how this destroys any of your beliefs.

I for one, am a Christian myself. I do not agree with homosexuality. But at least I've learned to accept that there are somethings which you cannot or will not change.

If you believe in the Bible, you'll notice even God cast angels out of heaven. It's not like you have to convert everyone.

3 hours after the passing of this resolution, international lawyers in the department of Foreign Affairs began drafting a resolution to define clause 3 of this resolution in order to prevent states from sanctioning marriages between sentient and non-sentient life, the resolution should be revised and finalized for submission tomorrow morning to the UN body.

3 hours after the passing of this resolution, international lawyers in the department of Foreign Affairs began drafting a resolution to define clause 3 of this resolution in order to prevent states from sanctioning marriages between sentient and non-sentient life, the resolution should be revised and finalized for submission tomorrow morning to the UN body.

Good luck

"Originally Posted by Quitos
You guys want too much control of your countries. What's the point in joining the UN in the first place? To impose your beliefs on other members of the UN. You lose once to something you find immoral and you freak out about it? Then you shouldn't have joined the UN in the first place. You've got to learn sometime in life that you can't always get what you want."



Response:
You guys(Quitos, Vastivia,etc...) want too much control of OTHER PEOPLE'S countries. The point of joining the U.N. is for nations to unite, find common ground(there is much), and work for peace. It is not for YOU(Quitos, Vastivia...) to impose your SELF RIGHTEOUS beliefs on other members of the U.N. YOU force something(moral or imoral) on others who do not even consider it an issue and YOU LAUGH about how it was really lost a year ago? YOU shouldn't have joined in the first place. You have got to learn sometime in life that what YOU want is not always what OTHER people want, and SOMETIMES there is no black and white, only grey.

Due to the diverse religious groups in our nation, and due to the fact that we view marriage as a matter of culture and religion, only civil unions are recognized(between humans). This is an attack on national sovereignty and assumes that the nation's leaders are incapable of protecting minority rights in their own nations.

Feel free to laugh now because I probably didn't read some obscure post in which you already dealt with this. Remember the saying about ABSOLUTE POWER, and the one about MIGHT NOT MEANING RIGHT, and the one about noone having A MONOPOLY ON TRUTH. it applies to YOU too.

Today, you weakened a nation.

"Originally Posted by Quitos
You guys want too much control of your countries. What's the point in joining the UN in the first place? To impose your beliefs on other members of the UN. You lose once to something you find immoral and you freak out about it? Then you shouldn't have joined the UN in the first place. You've got to learn sometime in life that you can't always get what you want."



Response:
You guys(Quitos, Vastivia,etc...) want too much control of OTHER PEOPLE'S countries. The point of joining the U.N. is for nations to unite, find common ground(there is much), and work for peace. It is not for YOU(Quitos, Vastivia...) to impose your SELF RIGHTEOUS beliefs on other members of the U.N. YOU force something(moral or imoral) on others who do not even consider it an issue and YOU LAUGH about how it was really lost a year ago? YOU shouldn't have joined in the first place. You have got to learn sometime in life that what YOU want is not always what OTHER people want, and SOMETIMES there is no black and white, only grey.

Due to the diverse religious groups in our nation, and due to the fact that we view marriage as a matter of culture and religion, only civil unions are recognized(between humans). This is an attack on national sovereignty and assumes that the nation's leaders are incapable of protecting minority rights in their own nations.

Feel free to laugh now because I probably didn't read some obscure post in which you already dealt with this. Remember the saying about ABSOLUTE POWER, and the one about MIGHT NOT MEANING RIGHT, and the one about noone having A MONOPOLY ON TRUTH. it applies to YOU too.

Today, you weakened a nation.

Read the FAQs about the UN. Or read this thread from end to end.

Maybe then you'll understand why I'm laughing. No, it's not with you.

"Originally Posted by Quitos
You guys want too much control of your countries. What's the point in joining the UN in the first place? To impose your beliefs on other members of the UN. You lose once to something you find immoral and you freak out about it? Then you shouldn't have joined the UN in the first place. You've got to learn sometime in life that you can't always get what you want."



Response:
You guys(Quitos, Vastivia,etc...) want too much control of OTHER PEOPLE'S countries. The point of joining the U.N. is for nations to unite, find common ground(there is much), and work for peace. It is not for YOU(Quitos, Vastivia...) to impose your SELF RIGHTEOUS beliefs on other members of the U.N. YOU force something(moral or imoral) on others who do not even consider it an issue and YOU LAUGH about how it was really lost a year ago? YOU shouldn't have joined in the first place. You have got to learn sometime in life that what YOU want is not always what OTHER people want, and SOMETIMES there is no black and white, only grey.

Due to the diverse religious groups in our nation, and due to the fact that we view marriage as a matter of culture and religion, only civil unions are recognized(between humans). This is an attack on national sovereignty and assumes that the nation's leaders are incapable of protecting minority rights in their own nations.

Feel free to laugh now because I probably didn't read some obscure post in which you already dealt with this. Remember the saying about ABSOLUTE POWER, and the one about MIGHT NOT MEANING RIGHT, and the one about noone having A MONOPOLY ON TRUTH. it applies to YOU too.

Today, you weakened a nation.

Yes, I'm laughing. Why? Because of what Vastiva said. On the FAQs page they dispute your arguement.

God, I'm so happy I'm so popular!

Not even in the Resolutions section yet, and I've got three attempted repeals so far.

This should be good.



Repeal the Definition of Marri
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: The Titanian Democracy

Description: This Act will repeal the Definition of Marriage act recently passed by the U.N.

Approvals: 3 (Billa Bong, Ferdistan, Jolly People)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 138 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon Nov 29 2004

How is it the resolution was "Mild" and every "repeal" proposal submitted is "STRONG"?

I have to say I'm disgusted this resolution passed...


...with less of a majority than the last one. I mean, WTF? At least this one made sense and wasn't wholly redundant. Anyway, congrats Vastiva. FWIW even after my nit-picking I still put forward my vote to my regional delegate to vote for it. I mean, my quibbles shouldn't stymie what is a decent resolution all in all. Much better than some of the others that have come forward of late.

-_- As a matter of fact no I did not see that post about minors I have a life and thus do not sit reading through 50 pages of petty arguments I was simply giving an opinion. I am disapointed that it passed I would have hoped that a couple of things could have been changed about it before it was passed.

-_- As a matter of fact no I did not see that post about minors I have a life and thus do not sit reading through 50 pages of petty arguments I was simply giving an opinion. I am disapointed that it passed I would have hoped that a couple of things could have been changed about it before it was passed.

Actually, most of us on here have lives. I usually am busy on here at the same time I am going over proposals for ads to put on TV and billboards. Once off, time for the girlfriend (when I'm not dodging her) and other events. Today I have off, the girlfriend is out of town, and I just feel like lazing around after yesterday's meal. So, having a life is no excuse.

after all the debate, I think the governments of the world shouldn't recognize any form of marriage. All citizen's could get civil unions, but not get the tax benefits of marriage, giving more money to the government.

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 suppose you think that's clever, don't you? "Adam and Steve"...grow up.

after all the debate, I think the governments of the world shouldn't recognize any form of marriage. All citizen's could get civil unions, but not get the tax benefits of marriage, giving more money to the government.

Very well, write up a proposal, submit it, and watch it go down in flames.

after all the debate, I think the governments of the world shouldn't recognize any form of marriage. All citizen's could get civil unions, but not get the tax benefits of marriage, giving more money to the government.

I must agree with Vastiva that this idea would quickly die out, but not as the idea, but for the way it was written.

I would suggest that a porposal be made that repeals the Definition of Marriage proposal, then removes the word "marriage" from all forms of legal institution within a government. Thirdly it would than establish that a civil union would occur to confirm upon the individuals the legal benifits of such a state. And as a clincher, probably a fourth line that places the word and state of "marriage" strictly in the hands of the religious institutions to establish among themselves.

This last line allows the various churches to ban any type of marriage they want without forcing the govenment to take a stand for or against the issue. It would still uphold the the previous resolutions, as no true rights are removed. In all essence we take the debate away.

I must agree with Vastiva that this idea would quickly die out, but not as the idea, but for the way it was written.

I would suggest that a porposal be made that repeals the Definition of Marriage proposal, then removes the word "marriage" from all forms of legal institution within a government. Thirdly it would than establish that a civil union would occur to confirm upon the individuals the legal benifits of such a state. And as a clincher, probably a fourth line that places the word and state of "marriage" strictly in the hands of the religious institutions to establish among themselves.

This last line allows the various churches to ban any type of marriage they want without forcing the govenment to take a stand for or against the issue. It would still uphold the the previous resolutions, as no true rights are removed. In all essence we take the debate away.

*sigh*

You can't repeal AND make a new proposition in one proposal.

I feel like a broken record sometimes.

In order to do what you want to do, you have to repeal every resolution involved with marriage, then make your proposal.

Good luck, you'll need it.

*bumped because stupid people don't read and this may cut down the clutter*

*bumped because stupid people don't read and this may cut down the clutter*

Truely stupid people are incapable of reading. Ignorant people do not. :)

OOC: ARen't you supposed to be studying or something? ;)

OOC: ARen't you supposed to be studying or something? ;)

I am... I am... This is a reward for using study time efficiently :)

Mmmmhmmmm