NationStates Jolt Archive

Nations of the World:

It is the position of the Nation of South Arctica that a Legal Marriage (Civil Union) is essentially a CONTRACT, which our laws define as binding only in cases wherein the involved parties are Adult Human Beings, defined in our Constitution as one above the age of informed consent (18 years) and posessing the mental capacity to give such consent.


IT IS OUR POSITION that nonhuman animals are incapable of understanding the human concept of Marriage and incapable of giving definitive consent to enter into a legal contract of any sort.

FURTHERMORE, we take the philisophical position that in a pseudo-marriage between human and animal, it is impossible for a truly equal partnership to exist. Animals are inherently incapable of making informed decisions in a human society and must always assume an essentially submissive role in any successful relationship with a human being.

FINALLY, we take the moral position that a sexual relationship between human and animal is inherently abusive, due to the inability of an animal to give informed consent to the relationship.


While this resolution allows for the practice of pseudo-marriages between humans and animals in member nations, such "marriages" will have no legal status in South Arctica. We will not recognize any such union involving our citizens at home or abroad, nor will we recognize such a union involving foreign nationals within our borders. The language of the resolution permits us, as a soveriegn nation, to take this stance.

It is the opinion of the Nation of South Arctica that this resolution should be repealed, and in its place a proposal should be drafted that defines Legal Marriage (Civil Unions) as an institution to be reserved solely for human beings able to give informed consent to such a contractual agreement. The government of South Arctica is willing to draft such a proposal. We hold that any "Marriage" involving a nonwilling participant (or one incapable of expressing one's will) is a barbaric, undignified, and unworthy concept.


Sincerely,

The Duly Elected First Citizen of South Arctica


BULLETIN: In a stunning development on the floor of the South Arctica Legislature, a successful filibuster by noted philosopher Eugene Q. Hugo has caused the government of South Arctica to CHANGE ITS ORIGINAL POSITION on this matter. For an excerpt of that argument, see post #18 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7601663&postcount=18) of this thread.
______________________________________________________

The text of Resolution #81 follows:

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.

Votes For: 11,904
Votes Against: 7,473


Implemented: Thu Nov 25 2004

Nations of the World:

It is the position of the Nation of South Arctica that a Legal Marriage (Civil Union) is essentially a CONTRACT, which our laws define as binding only in cases wherein the involved parties are Adult Human Beings, defined in our Constitution as one above the age of informed consent (18 years) and posessing the mental capacity to give such consent.


IT IS OUR POSITION that nonhuman animals are incapable of understanding the human concept of Marriage and incapable of giving definitive consent to enter into a legal contract of any sort.

FURTHERMORE, we take the philisophical position that in a pseudo-marriage between human and animal, it is impossible for a truly equal partnership to exist. Animals are inherently incapable of making informed decisions in a human society and must always assume an essentially submissive role in any successful relationship with a human being.

FINALLY, we take the moral position that a sexual relationship between human and animal is inherently abusive, due to the inability of an animal to give informed consent to the relationship.


While this resolution allows for the practice of pseudo-marriages between humans and animals in member nations, such "marriages" will have no legal status in South Arctica. We will not recognize any such union involving our citizens at home or abroad, nor will we recognize such a union involving foreign nationals within our borders. The language of the resolution permits us, as a soveriegn nation, to take this stance.

It is the opinion of the Nation of South Arctica that this resolution should be repealed, and in its place a proposal should be drafted that defines Legal Marriage (Civil Unions) as an institution to be reserved solely for human beings able to give informed consent to such a contractual agreement. The government of South Arctica is willing to draft such a proposal. We hold that any "Marriage" involving a nonwilling participant (or one incapable of expressing one's will) is a barbaric, undignified, and unworthy concept.


Sincerely,

The Duly Elected First Citizen of South Arctica

______________________________________________________

The text of Resolution #81 follows:

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.

Votes For: 11,904
Votes Against: 7,473


Implemented: Thu Nov 25 2004

The species argument was covered in the initial draft dicussion, and through the proposal and vote stages. It deals with intermarriages between different intelligent and sentient species, such as aliens/AI/elvels/dwarves and such.

The species argument was covered in the initial draft dicussion, and through the proposal and vote stages. It deals with intermarriages between different intelligent and sentient species, such as aliens/AI/elvels/dwarves and such.

If the resolution stated that its terms applied only to sentient species, then we would support it. As written, it applies to any and all animal species. Therefore we cannot support the resolution. The history behind the drafting of a law, and the discussions that took place during its creation, are meaningless if the results are not written into the law itself.

If the resolution stated that its terms applied only to sentient species, then we would support it. As written, it applies to any and all animal species. Therefore we cannot support the resolution. The history behind the drafting of a law, and the discussions that took place during its creation, are meaningless if the results are not written into the law itself.


What business is it of yours? This resolution doesn't force you to recognize it or to allow it and it doesn't ban you from allowing and recognizing it - something that is true even without the resolution in place. The repeal of the resolution would do nothing to alleviate your concerns, and would do away with all the other parts of it you agree with.

Seriously, there is no reason for you to want to get rid of this resolution.

If the resolution stated that its terms applied only to sentient species, then we would support it. As written, it applies to any and all animal species. Therefore we cannot support the resolution. The history behind the drafting of a law, and the discussions that took place during its creation, are meaningless if the results are not written into the law itself.

The results are written into the law, assuming you are capable of basic reading comprehension...

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.

So, unless you are going to define non-sentient, unintelligent animals as members of your nation (and thereby possessing all rights, privilidges and powers of sentient, intelligent species), it does not. Not to mention the furtherment clause exists in the relm of sovereignty(allowing nations to expand the definition further), and not establishment clauses of mandate.

I'm sorry, sir... By the rules of language; your argument is unfounded within the context of this resolution.

What business is it of yours? This resolution doesn't force you to recognize it or to allow it and it doesn't ban you from allowing and recognizing it - something that is true even without the resolution in place. The repeal of the resolution would do nothing to alleviate your concerns, and would do away with all the other parts of it you agree with.

Seriously, there is no reason for you to want to get rid of this resolution.

The Citizens of South Arctica are also Citizens of the World, and we have a vested interest in what goes on in the rest of the world - if we didn't, we wouldn't have joined the UN in the first place. By arguing against this resolution, we wish to help lead the rest of the world into a more enlightened way of life. It is our opinion that allowing marriage between humans and nonsentient animals is harmful to the world as a whole. We also do not hold with accepting otherwise unacceptable provisions in a resolution simply because other parts are more agreeable.

By your argument, it makes no sense to propose resolutions in the first place, as we should all be content to live in separate cocoons, never taking the slightest interest in each others' activities. So I put the question to you: if this is your position, why are you bothering me about it? If it makes no difference whether this resolution exists or not, why are you involving yourself in this discussion?

The Most Serene Republic of Kwangaska agrees that this resolution should be repealed, but for different reasons. However, as a new member of the UN and the only nation in our region (thus far) we cannot file a formal protest, and must thus rely on this forum.

Our reason for repealing this resolution is thus:

Whereas, the definition of marriage varies from culture to culture, and

Whereas, there are many nations with a wide variety of cultures who are part of the UN,

Therefore, it is not the right of the UN, but rather of individual nations, to define marriage.

The United Nations has overstepped its authority in this matter and I stand with the peaceful and harmonious citizens of Kwangaska in asking the UN to repeal this resolution.

Thus saith Her Sacredness, the Most Serene and Pleasant Ruler of Kwangaska

Definitions of marriage vary from culture to culture. The United Nations has overstepped its authority in this matter. It is the right of individual nations, not the UN to define marriage based on each nation's moral and cultural standards.

The peaceful and harmonious citizens of Kwangaska request that this definition be repealed.

The Most Serene Republic of Kwangaska agrees that this resolution should be repealed, but for different reasons. However, as a new member of the UN and the only nation in our region (thus far) we cannot file a formal protest, and must thus rely on this forum.

Our reason for repealing this resolution is thus:

Whereas, the definition of marriage varies from culture to culture, and

Whereas, there are many nations with a wide variety of cultures who are part of the UN,

Therefore, it is not the right of the UN, but rather of individual nations, to define marriage.

The United Nations has overstepped its authority in this matter and I stand with the peaceful and harmonious citizens of Kwangaska in asking the UN to repeal this resolution.

Thus saith Her Sacredness, the Most Serene and Pleasant Ruler of Kwangaska

Arguments of sovereignty are invalid; as all nations who have submitted into membership of the UN have given up their absolute sovereignty over their territory and culture (the exception being their ability to resign from the body; and thereby re-instate their absolute sovereignty).

As such, the NSUN is incapable of overstepping its authority in relation to its own members, since its authority is absolute. Opposition should be based on logical extrapolation of why some other form is better; or why it should be left to individual nations (outside of the argument of culture or sovereignty, since neither possess any weight in lieu of membership).

The DoM is a declaration of individual rights, and as such, is a valid legislative order in the furtherment of individual liberties, culture be damned.

The results are written into the law, assuming you are capable of basic reading comprehension...

There is no reason to be insulting. We pride ourselves on being a nation of educated folks who read real good. (Deciphering your second paragraph, quoted below, remains beyond our capabilities; however, we have one of our cabinet members working on it with the help of a large volume entitled "Webster's Unabridged Dictionary of Incoherence and Confusion").

So, unless you are going to define non-sentient, unintelligent animals as members of your nation (and thereby possessing all rights, privilidges and powers of sentient, intelligent species), it does not. Not to mention the furtherment clause exists in the relm of sovereignty(allowing nations to expand the definition further), and not establishment clauses of mandate.

You seem to restate one of my own points, which is that South Arctica does not need to recognize the third section of the resolution. We are pleased with this state of affairs. This does not change the fact that we feel it is not in the interests of the world for any nation to be able to recognize a binding contract wherein one of the participants is incapable of giving consent. While the spirit of the law may apply only to sentient species, it is the letter of the law with which we are concerned; and the fact remains that this resolution, as written, DOES allow nations to recognize mosquitos as marriageable material.

Insofar as allowing nations their sovereignity, I submit that nearly any meaningful UN resolution will have some effect on that. If the third clause in Resolution #81 simply states that the UN has no position on the matter, then the clause is redundant and should still be removed for the sake of clarity.

There is no reason to be insulting. We pride ourselves on being a nation of educated folks who read real good. (Deciphering your second paragraph, quoted below, remains beyond our capabilities; however, we have one of our cabinet members working on it with the help of a large volume entitled "Webster's Unabridged Dictionary of Incoherence and Confusion").

You seem to restate one of my own points, which is that South Arctica does not need to recognize the third section of the resolution. We are pleased with this state of affairs. This does not change the fact that we feel it is not in the interests of the world for any nation to be able to recognize a binding contract wherein one of the participants is incapable of giving consent. While the spirit of the law may apply only to sentient species, it is the letter of the law with which we are concerned; and the fact remains that this resolution, as written, DOES allow nations to recognize mosquitos as marriageable material.

Insofar as allowing nations their sovereignity, I submit that nearly any meaningful UN resolution will have some effect on that. If the third clause in Resolution #81 simply states that the UN has no position on the matter, then the clause is redundant and should still be removed for the sake of clarity.

You are missing the point, the last clause is expantionary on the previously established definition.... MEMBER OF ANY NATION with any other MEMBER OF ANY NATION. It is impossible for non-intelligent "animals" to be members of a nation. And therefore, establishing that the expationary clause, allows the marriage to non-intelligent animals, is ignoring the already established context... being, the ones marrying need to be "members" (sic. participants) of a nation.

You are missing the point, the last clause is expantionary on the previously established definition.... MEMBER OF ANY NATION with any other MEMBER OF ANY NATION. It is impossible for non-intelligent "animals" to be members of a nation. And therefore, establishing that the expationary clause, allows the marriage to non-intelligent animals, is ignoring the already established context... being, the ones marrying need to be "members" (sic. participants) of a nation.

I must have missed the resolution that stated that no nation can define a non-intelligent animal as a member. A likely explanation is that such a resolution DOESN'T EXIST.

Show me where it says that nations must define their members as sentient beings, and I'll meekly fade into the background.

I must have missed the resolution that stated that no nation can define a non-intelligent animal as a member. A likely explanation is that such a resolution DOESN'T EXIST.

Show me where it says that nations must define their members as sentient beings, and I'll meekly fade into the background.

Alright, Sparky, just for that I'll submit one that says so.

And if your Delegates name is not on it, you're a fink and a snot to boot. Fair enough?

Alright, Sparky, just for that I'll submit one that says so.

And if your Delegates name is not on it, you're a fink and a snot to boot. Fair enough?

If my delegate won't endorse it, I'll find one who will. Fair enough. :cool:

Will you permit a representative of South Arctica to assist in the drafting of the resolution?

Already Drafted - I move quick. See UN Bill Of Human Rights (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7595534#post7595534)

I even made it a clicky. Aren't I special?

(yes, that was an opening. Take advantage of it now, it won't last long)

By your argument, it makes no sense to propose resolutions in the first place, as we should all be content to live in separate cocoons, never taking the slightest interest in each others' activities. So I put the question to you: if this is your position, why are you bothering me about it? If it makes no difference whether this resolution exists or not, why are you involving yourself in this discussion?

It makes no difference if this resolution exists or not when it comes to your biggest beef with it. All the other parts of it make a large difference.

I still see no reason how it affects you and how it becomes your business what other countries do when you can simply elect not to acknowledge it. If you were forced to recognize it, then you'd have a case, but as it is now, you're just saying "It's icky to us, so no one should be allowed to do it, despite the fact that it doesn't have anything to do with us at all". Rejecting this whole resolution on basis on something as vacuous as that would be just silly.

It makes no difference if this resolution exists or not when it comes to your biggest beef with it. All the other parts of it make a large difference.

I still see no reason how it affects you and how it becomes your business what other countries do when you can simply elect not to acknowledge it. If you were forced to recognize it, then you'd have a case, but as it is now, you're just saying "It's icky to us, so no one should be allowed to do it, despite the fact that it doesn't have anything to do with us at all". Rejecting this whole resolution on basis on something as vacuous as that would be just silly.

Re-read my first paragraph above, the one you didn't bother to quote. There are my answers to your arguments. I see no need to repeat myself.

The Citizens of South Arctica are also Citizens of the World, and we have a vested interest in what goes on in the rest of the world - if we didn't, we wouldn't have joined the UN in the first place. By arguing against this resolution, we wish to help lead the rest of the world into a more enlightened way of life. It is our opinion that allowing marriage between humans and nonsentient animals is harmful to the world as a whole. We also do not hold with accepting otherwise unacceptable provisions in a resolution simply because other parts are more agreeable.

In that you are trying to lead the world to a less enlightened way of life. If you were more enlightened, you would realize that it is up to the individual to advance as they will and only the less enlightened try to limit the choices a person has in its development. You are also ignoring the nonhumans species, which includes my entire empire, and the sentient animal nations (I can introduce you to one that has sentient penguines).

Whether or not it is harmful to the world doesn't matter. Whether or not it is harmful to the advancement of the species does, and repealing this is harmful to the species.

In any case, there is no enlightened logical reason you should try to repeal this resolution. Present one, which you have failed to do so far, and maybe I'll reconsider. Your arguements are a mixture of a morality that not everyone shares and invalid emotionality combined with the occasional case of obviously forced misinterpretation.

Perhaps the real problem here is that the so-called "Definition of Marriage" resolution doesn't actually define marriage at all; it just defines who can get married. As an example, I present the following definition:

It will be the policy of this nation that the institution of Gleeb Fogo is reserved only for one man and one woman.

That having been said, does anyone now have the slightest idea what Gleeb Fogo is? It could be the sharing of a ham sandwich, for all the information above tells us. It certainly describes who may enter into a Gleeb Fogo relationship, but doesn't do a damn thing to actually define it. This seems to be the case with pretty much every so-called "Definition of Marriage" that has yet come down the pike.

In the absence of resolutions stating otherwise, seems to be up to individual nations to determine what a Marriage actually is. One nation might define a marriage as a mutually loving and cooperative relationship between a man and a woman, the intention of which is to form a family unit and possibly raise children. Another might define it as any number of people, elves, sheep, or three-headed aliens sharing a post office box. A third may determine that marriage is a situation wherein four people get drunk on Everclear, play a game of parcheesi, and then shoot each other with nine-millimeter Glocks. One can see that the moral implications of just who can get married evaporate in the absence of a clear idea of what it means to get married.

Sure, it could be pointed out that we all know what Marriage is, but if that were true then why would we need to define it? In addition, I was once pretty certain of the "fact" that elves and mermaids don't exist, so that shows where unwarranted assumptions can get you.

Therefore, we must CHANGE OUR EARLIER POSITION. This piece of legislation shouldn't be overturned because of any moral qualms about beastiality; it should be overturned because it is entirely meaningless. It claims to be a Definition of Marriage, when in reality it does nothing of the sort - it just describes who can become Gleeb Fogoed - er, married.

_____________________________________________________________

(The above was taken from a transcript of a successful filibuster delivered by Eugene Q. Hugo, the Official State Philosopher of South Arctica, before he returned to his isolated ice-cave dwelling amid the thundering applause of the entire 101-member legislature. Shortly following this speech, the First Citizen of South Arctica issued a formal apology to all UN member nations for getting his panties in such a wad over nothing.)

Perhaps the real problem here is that the so-called "Definition of Marriage" resolution doesn't actually define marriage at all; it just defines who can get married. As an example, I present the following definition:

Read the following, from a real-world dictionary.

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 (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

What does that do? Define who can get married. In other words, you have no case, as the definition of marriage does include who can get married. The two are inseperable.

It will be the policy of this nation that the institution of Gleeb Fogo is reserved only for one man and one woman.

That having been said, does anyone now have the slightest idea what Gleeb Fogo is? It could be the sharing of a ham sandwich, for all the information above tells us. It certainly describes who may enter into a Gleeb Fogo relationship, but doesn't do a damn thing to actually define it. This seems to be the case with pretty much every so-called "Definition of Marriage" that has yet come down the pike.

The problem is even real world dictionaries define it to include who can and cannot get married. Until reality changes, you have no case.

In the absence of resolutions stating otherwise, seems to be up to individual nations to determine what a Marriage actually is. One nation might define a marriage as a mutually loving and cooperative relationship between a man and a woman, the intention of which is to form a family unit and possibly raise children. Another might define it as any number of people, elves, sheep, or three-headed aliens sharing a post office box. A third may determine that marriage is a situation wherein four people get drunk on Everclear, play a game of parcheesi, and then shoot each other with nine-millimeter Glocks. One can see that the moral implications of just who can get married evaporate in the absence of a clear idea of what it means to get married.

Now you're just being silly.

Marriage is defined by its usage, but unless said otherwise on here the common definition and the real world definition matched. So, someone changed the definition.

Sure, it could be pointed out that we all know what Marriage is, but if that were true then why would we need to define it? In addition, I was once pretty certain of the "fact" that elves and mermaids don't exist, so that shows where unwarranted assumptions can get you.

We didn't need to define it. Then again, we also don't really need to be surrounded by oxygen (the resulting death is just a nasty side-effect) so that is not that good of a point.

Therefore, we must CHANGE OUR EARLIER POSITION. This piece of legislation shouldn't be overturned because of any moral qualms about beastiality; it should be overturned because it is entirely meaningless. It claims to be a Definition of Marriage, when in reality it does nothing of the sort - it just describes who can become Gleeb Fogoed - er, married.

Which is part of the definition of marriage IRL.

Read the following, from a real-world dictionary.

...Marriage is defined by its usage, but unless said otherwise on here the common definition and the real world definition matched. So, someone changed the definition.

If we're going with real-world definitions, then my original argument stands. In the real world, there are no sentient species besides human beings. A nonintelligent creature cannot enter into a contract; therefore, a marriage between a human and a nonhuman is a contradiction in terms, and the legislation should be repealed.

If we accept that the world of NationStates is not the real world, then we must take into account that there are, in fact, other sentient species and that an Elvish man could conceivably enter into a contract with a Human woman. The Webster definition of "Marriage" would be insufficient to cover such circumstances that it was never otherwise intended to cover. It would therefore be necessary to change the defintion of Marriage. Resolution #81 would seem to accept the existence of other intelligent species, which might indeed have wildly differing opinions on what a marriage is, completely out of sync with our human definition. Resolution #81 is therefore inadequate, and should still be repealed.


In the nation of South Arctica, the government does not recognize "Marriage" as a legal state, reserving the word for those who wish to describe their relationship in emotional or spiritual terms. We recognize "Mergings", which are a form of civil union, rigidly defined under our Constitution. Two adult citizens (of any gender, race, or creed) may choose to Merge for whatever purpose they see fit, and thus enjoy certain benefits, legal rights and responsibilities that, in other nations, might be provided to married couples. Due to the possible legal confusion that might result from overcomplicating the issue, it is the position of South Arctica that any Merging can consist of two and only two people, that one may not Merge with another until an existing Merging is dissolved, and that Merging cannot take place if there is an existing legally recognized familial relationship.

If we're going with real-world definitions, then my original argument stands. In the real world, there are no sentient species besides human beings. A nonintelligent creature cannot enter into a contract; therefore, a marriage between a human and a nonhuman is a contradiction in terms, and the legislation should be repealed.

Logical fallacy. The real world definition does not state it has to be just humans. Want an example? People hold official ceremonies to marry two dogs. So, the real world definition can be applied to NS with no changes.

Also, you have to keep in mind that in the real world it is currently questioned whether or not humanity is a sentient species, making your arguement potentially being against marriage as a whole.

If we accept that the world of NationStates is not the real world, then we must take into account that there are, in fact, other sentient species and that an Elvish man could conceivably enter into a contract with a Human woman. The Webster definition of "Marriage" would be insufficient to cover such circumstances that it was never otherwise intended to cover. It would therefore be necessary to change the defintion of Marriage. Resolution #81 would seem to accept the existence of other intelligent species, which might indeed have wildly differing opinions on what a marriage is, completely out of sync with our human definition. Resolution #81 is therefore inadequate, and should still be repealed.

The Webster definition does not limit marriage to humans. I want an exact quote of where it does. It does discriminate against species that do not have the male/female separation, but the majority of sentient species in NS have that separation.

In the nation of South Arctica, the government does not recognize "Marriage" as a legal state, reserving the word for those who wish to describe their relationship in emotional or spiritual terms. We recognize "Mergings", which are a form of civil union, rigidly defined under our Constitution. Two adult citizens (of any gender, race, or creed) may choose to Merge for whatever purpose they see fit, and thus enjoy certain benefits, legal rights and responsibilities that, in other nations, might be provided to married couples. Due to the possible legal confusion that might result from overcomplicating the issue, it is the position of South Arctica that any Merging can consist of two and only two people, that one may not Merge with another until an existing Merging is dissolved, and that Merging cannot take place if there is an existing legally recognized familial relationship.

A minority example that gets trampled over. It happens, sadly.

Logical fallacy. The real world definition does not state it has to be just humans...

...The Webster definition does not limit marriage to humans. I want an exact quote of where it does.

You just need to read a little further...

Definition of "Man": an individual human; especially : an adult male human

Definition of "Woman": an adult female person

Definition of "Person" (there were several, so I chose the most relevant) one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties.

Taken from the Online edition. It certainly would seem that a marriage that doesn't involve humans is invalidated, according to your favorite source.

Marriages between dogs as you mention above, are certainly not recognized legally by any nation on Earth. I suspect you're being facetious, but it points out one of the failings of Resolution #81, which is that it would make such a union potentially legal.

You just need to read a little further...

Definition of "Man": an individual human; especially : an adult male human

Definition of "Woman": an adult female person

So my nonhuman species must use separate terms to refer to themselves? You'll find those terms have changed on NSUN in their usage to include nonhumans.

Definition of "Person" (there were several, so I chose the most relevant) one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties.

Also changed to include nonhumans on NSUN.

Taken from the Online edition. It certainly would seem that a marriage that doesn't involve humans is invalidated, according to your favorite source.

My favorite source is only valid when dealing with terms whose common meanings have not changed in NSUN. Man, woman, person, people, and a few others have changed to include nonhumans, including a surprising number of nonhumanoids. While marriage has not changed, what it applies to has. Context is everything.

Marriages between dogs as you mention above, are certainly not recognized legally by any nation on Earth. I suspect you're being facetious, but it points out one of the failings of Resolution #81, which is that it would make such a union potentially legal.

Uh, actually I was being serious and talking about in the United States. I've actually attended a doggy marriage. It is still a marriage, under the second definition of the word.

Actually, that is where the resolution gains strength. It allows sentient nonhumans, such as the velociraptors of Siesatia, to be accounted for under the definition of it if they get married.

So my nonhuman species must use separate terms to refer to themselves? You'll find those terms have changed on NSUN in their usage to include nonhumans.

You need to make up your mind insofar as what rules you're going to follow. You asked me where Webster's defined something, not where NSUN defined it. If you can't be self-consistent then I'm through arguing with you.

You need to make up your mind insofar as what rules you're going to follow. You asked me where Webster's defined something, not where NSUN defined it. If you can't be self-consistent then I'm through arguing with you.

I am being self-consistant. I didn't ask you Webster's definition, just pointed out a case where a word has not changed definition from the real world to NS. In fact, I said:

Marriage is defined by its usage, but unless said otherwise on here the common definition and the real world definition matched. So, someone changed the definition.

Now, use logic and ask yourself this: Why would I include the bolded person unless some words, besides the one we were talking about, had changed definition?

First, you said:
The Webster definition does not limit marriage to humans. I want an exact quote of where it does.
Then, you said:
I am being self-consistant. I didn't ask you Webster's definition, just pointed out a case where a word has not changed definition from the real world to NS.
Those are your words. I'm done.

Those are your words. I'm done.
Yay!

First, you said:

Then, you said:

Those are your words. I'm done.

You went beyond the definition of marriage to the definitions of other words in order to support your arguement. The Webster definition of marriage (note: this is the word I was asking for, not the definition of man) does not limit it to just humans.

You went beyond the definition of marriage to the definitions of other words in order to support your arguement. The Webster definition of marriage (note: this is the word I was asking for, not the definition of man) does not limit it to just humans.

:headbang: The dictionary used the word "man" in its definition of "marriage"! The one is dependant on the other.

:headbang: The dictionary used the word "man" in its definition of "marriage"! The one is dependant on the other.

The dictionary also used the word "to" in the definition, but that doesn't mean you should define the word "to" when making a point. The definitions of other words are not what I asked for.

The dictionary also used the word "to" in the definition, but that doesn't mean you should define the word "to" when making a point. The definitions of other words are not what I asked for.

Whether a "to" could get married wasn't the topic of discussion, was it?

Feel free to proceed with the last word on the subject if you wish, I'm not here to quibble endlessly over dictionary definitions. I've made as many points as I want to, and the decision insofar as who is right is in the people's hands now as far as I'm concerned.

Whether a "to" could get married wasn't the topic of discussion, was it?

No, but it is as important and applicable as the definition of "man" is. I don't remember asking "Where in the definition of marriage or any definitions of words in that definition does it say marriage is limited to humans?"

Feel free to proceed with the last word on the subject if you wish, I'm not here to quibble endlessly over dictionary definitions. I've made as many points as I want to, and the decision insofar as who is right is in the people's hands now as far as I'm concerned.

The people already voted and passed the resolution.

So you want dictionaries attached to every single resolution that is submitted so all terms are defined?

Great.

As Vastiva's #1 industry is Book Publishing, we'll be rich.

You, on the other hand, will still look ridiculous from actually putting forth that assertion.


Perhaps the real problem here is that the so-called "Definition of Marriage" resolution doesn't actually define marriage at all; it just defines who can get married. As an example, I present the following definition:

It will be the policy of this nation that the institution of Gleeb Fogo is reserved only for one man and one woman.

That having been said, does anyone now have the slightest idea what Gleeb Fogo is? It could be the sharing of a ham sandwich, for all the information above tells us. It certainly describes who may enter into a Gleeb Fogo relationship, but doesn't do a damn thing to actually define it. This seems to be the case with pretty much every so-called "Definition of Marriage" that has yet come down the pike.

In the absence of resolutions stating otherwise, seems to be up to individual nations to determine what a Marriage actually is. One nation might define a marriage as a mutually loving and cooperative relationship between a man and a woman, the intention of which is to form a family unit and possibly raise children. Another might define it as any number of people, elves, sheep, or three-headed aliens sharing a post office box. A third may determine that marriage is a situation wherein four people get drunk on Everclear, play a game of parcheesi, and then shoot each other with nine-millimeter Glocks. One can see that the moral implications of just who can get married evaporate in the absence of a clear idea of what it means to get married.

Sure, it could be pointed out that we all know what Marriage is, but if that were true then why would we need to define it? In addition, I was once pretty certain of the "fact" that elves and mermaids don't exist, so that shows where unwarranted assumptions can get you.

Therefore, we must CHANGE OUR EARLIER POSITION. This piece of legislation shouldn't be overturned because of any moral qualms about beastiality; it should be overturned because it is entirely meaningless. It claims to be a Definition of Marriage, when in reality it does nothing of the sort - it just describes who can become Gleeb Fogoed - er, married.

_____________________________________________________________

(The above was taken from a transcript of a successful filibuster delivered by Eugene Q. Hugo, the Official State Philosopher of South Arctica, before he returned to his isolated ice-cave dwelling amid the thundering applause of the entire 101-member legislature. Shortly following this speech, the First Citizen of South Arctica issued a formal apology to all UN member nations for getting his panties in such a wad over nothing.)

First, you said:

Then, you said:

Those are your words. I'm done.

GREAT! Then there will be no more posts from you after this point, as "done" means "finished", right?

No, apparently there are.

There goes your consistancy. :p And your arguement.

Next batter?