NationStates Jolt Archive

The People's Republic of Chadchad has recently submitted a Proposal of Repeal of UN Resolution #81 'Definition of Marriage'.

The reason we have submitted it is simply our concern that Resolution #81 (1) not only condones inter-special marriage (such as marriage between a human and a monkey); but that it (2) may infact encourage that. It is our opinion that it is for the better of the global community if the ability for states to recognise such an act is withdrawn from UN law.

Many nations have displayed their dismay at Resolution #81, and this Proposal of Repeal covers clearly most causes of concern in the broad sense, without getting to particular or containing extensive content. It is simply worded with its intent clear and concise.

The Proposal can be found on page 39 of the United Nations Proposals pages.

It reads as follows:

"The basis for this proposal of repeal is the spirit of paragraph 3, UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #81 "Definition of Marriage", namely "FURTHER RECOGNIZES all nation's right to expand this definition beyond species borders as the individual governments see fit."

In particular, the phrase "beyond species borders":

breaches previously acceptable borders of relations between humans and animals; and

could suffice the encouragement of such practices as beastiality.

The motive for such a repeal is:

it is in the better interest of all member nations of the UN if the right for any one nation to make legal inter-special marriages (especially Human-Other Special marriages) is withdrawn from the abiding law of the United Nations."

The People's Republic of Chadchad strongly wishes that all nations who are behind this Proposal to go to the UN Proposals Page and submit their approval.

Don't they get it that this is around to stay yet?

The People's Republic of Chadchad has recently submitted a Proposal of Repeal of UN Resolution #81 'Definition of Marriage'.

You and 79 others.

The reason we have submitted it is simply our concern that Resolution #81 (1) not only condones inter-special marriage (such as marriage between a human and a monkey); but that it (2) may infact encourage that. It is our opinion that it is for the better of the global community if the ability for states to recognise such an act is withdrawn from UN law.

Actually, the intention was between human and elf. You don't have to allow it in your nation. I have yet to see an arguement for it being better for the community that does not include morality or misunderstanding it.

Many nations have displayed their dismay at Resolution #81, and this Proposal of Repeal covers clearly most causes of concern in the broad sense, without getting to particular or containing extensive content. It is simply worded with its intent clear and concise.

You'll need a pretty long arguement that is logical, does not depend on morality or emotions, and actually shows full understanding of it. Good luck.

The Proposal can be found on page 39 of the United Nations Proposals pages.

Page numbers don't matter. They move too rapidly.

It reads as follows:

"The basis for this proposal of repeal is the spirit of paragraph 3, UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #81 "Definition of Marriage", namely "FURTHER RECOGNIZES all nation's right to expand this definition beyond species borders as the individual governments see fit."

In particular, the phrase "beyond species borders":

breaches previously acceptable borders of relations between humans and animals; and

What about humans and sentient nonhumans? Bet ya forgot about them.

could suffice the encouragement of such practices as beastiality.

Or allow such things as humans and elves to get married.

The motive for such a repeal is:

it is in the better interest of all member nations of the UN if the right for any one nation to make legal inter-special marriages (especially Human-Other Special marriages) is withdrawn from the abiding law of the United Nations."

False. It is not for the betterment of people to limit choice. That much has been demonstrated repeatedly throughout history. Also, your logic is faulty. This resolution did not change anything. Nations could beforehand and nations can still choose not to now. All this did was recognize that fact.

The People's Republic of Chadchad strongly wishes that all nations who are behind this Proposal to go to the UN Proposals Page and submit their approval.

You have failed to provide a logical arguement that accounts for what the resolution does and does not allow in that you have chosen to limit it to just animals and ignore the fact the resolution does nothing new. In fact, you used the same tired arguement that failed when the resolution was up for vote.

My conclusion: Don't support this.

Yea, dude, read some of the debates on it first. The resolution explicitly says that nations have the authority to ban inter-species marriage.

Despite your rigorous reply to my argument I believe that you forget one simple element:

It does not depend on human and elf relations, nor human and non-sentient; but rather the SPIRIT of the Repeal is against the SPIRIT of the original Resolution.

It is not to say such relations are wrong, and brings in no question of morality or choice. It is a repeal against the SPIRIT of the Resolution that promotes bestiality. I see no reference in your reply to this whatsoever.

I believe that in this case, where the Repeal of the Resolution is passed, that a limitation of choice will broaden human rights globally. The conservatism displayed by many is not encompassed here, but rather a concern for the wellbeing of all humans globally. Resolution #81 does not premote such wellbeing.

Know what? I am so sick of every other thread being about this. Yeah. Fine. Let them screw apes.

Despite your rigorous reply to my argument I believe that you forget one simple element:

It does not depend on human and elf relations, nor human and non-sentient; but rather the SPIRIT of the Repeal is against the SPIRIT of the original Resolution.

The SPIRIT of the resolution was to allow marriage between sentient species. The SPIRIT of the repeal is against marriage between a sentient and nonsentient. Therefore, the spirit of the repeal does not argue against the spirit of the resolution.

It is not to say such relations are wrong, and brings in no question of morality or choice. It is a repeal against the SPIRIT of the Resolution that promotes bestiality. I see no reference in your reply to this whatsoever.

I didn't reference it because it is not the SPIRIT of the resolution allowing interspecies marriage. The whole reason interspecies marriage was included at all was to allow marriage between sentient species.

I believe that in this case, where the Repeal of the Resolution is passed, that a limitation of choice will broaden human rights globally. The conservatism displayed by many is not encompassed here, but rather a concern for the wellbeing of all humans globally. Resolution #81 does not premote such wellbeing.

You call limiting a person's choice increasing human rights? It's not. Limiting choice is limiting human rights. Also, repealing this does not actually limit it. I see no evidence this repeal promotes the wellbeing of humans or any other species.

does limiting the availability of guns available limit a person's coice?

does limiting the availability of guns limit the amount of murders and homocides in society, hence promote human wellbeing?

ignorance and intolerance create so many problems in todays society mate...

does limiting the availability of guns available limit a person's coice?

Yes.

does limiting the availability of guns limit the amount of murders and homocides in society, hence promote human wellbeing?

Depends on the country. If talking about the United States, then it does. It also does in several other nations as well. Reason? Criminals start using the limited weapons more often because it gives them an advantage.

ignorance and intolerance create so many problems in todays society mate...

True. Which is exactly why I am not going to support the repeal. It did not show knowledge of what the resolution actually changes (which is nothing) and is actually intolerant of allowing people a choice.