NationStates Jolt Archive

CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE : ALL UN MEMBERS/DELEGATES PLEASE READ

I request all UN Delegates, to approve the proposal titled:

Repeal "Definition of Marriage" proposed by myself (Bharata) located currently on Page 7 for the following reason:

Our current resolution defining marriage states this:

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

In other words, it states, that citizens can marry dogs, cats, snakes, rabbits, whales, sharks, ants...any thing... Well, how can the animal/insect or anything else someone wishes to marry consent? How do we know its consent? Forcing an animal/insect into "marriage" is morally wrong, and can create mass amounts of confusion.

My bill on page 7 therefore proposes to revoke this resolution, but also affirms peoples rights to have animal(s) for companionship (as long as they are not deemed a threat to society as determined by the local governments.

Nah what about UN nations with other sentient non-human citizens like Elves?

Nah what about UN nations with other sentient non-human citizens like Elves?

Perhaps it can be limited to those that can create a viable hybrid.

CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE : ALL UN MEMBERS/DELEGATES PLEASE READ

I request all UN Delegates, to approve the proposal titled:

Repeal "Definition of Marriage" proposed by myself (Bharata) located currently on Page 7 for the following reason:

Good for it. Now, let me get my scuttle torpedos ready.

Our current resolution defining marriage states this:

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

In other words, it states, that citizens can marry dogs, cats, snakes, rabbits, whales, sharks, ants...any thing... Well, how can the animal/insect or anything else someone wishes to marry consent? How do we know its consent? Forcing an animal/insect into "marriage" is morally wrong, and can create mass amounts of confusion.

Don't you guys get tired of that horse? It's not only dead, it's rotted down to the bones and those have long since been ground into dust.

Look, what you are saying is not original, not new, and not anything that'll convince us when saying it a hundred times already has failed.

Also, morality is a crutch of the weak who are unable to use logic to defend their arguement. It gets no respect from me or most of the regulars and actually counts against your arguement.

My bill on page 7 therefore proposes to revoke this resolution, but also affirms peoples rights to have animal(s) for companionship (as long as they are not deemed a threat to society as determined by the local governments.

Let me say this in a way you can understand, as you obviously did not read the FAQ.

YOU CANNOT USE A PROPOSAL TO REPEAL A RESOLUTION. YOU CANNOT USE A RESOLUTION TO CHANGE A PROPOSAL. YOU CANNOT USE A REPEAL TO MAKE SOMETHING A LAW. YOU CANNOT AMEND AN EXISTING RESOLUTION AT ALL.

Now, you want the reason that portion that concerns you is included? So humans can marry sentient nonhumans. It was due for revision, but you see how likely that is.

Oh, if you are undeserving of the above, THEN POST WHAT YOU ARE REFERING TO. I am not going to search through 18 pages searching for one proposal.

C'mon, DLE - it was important enough that the author took the time to post it three times in two different forums (at least so far). Surely that level of spam means it's a real concern, doesn't it?

C'mon, DLE - it was important enough that the author took the time to post it three times in two different forums (at least so far). Surely that level of spam means it's a real concern, doesn't it?

Wait, I forgot part in my tirade in big letters. Let me add it.

Nope. Not a concern. Just spam.

Congratulations, you just made the lists of "People who don't read the FAQs" and "People who don't read the threads". Very well done, sir, very well done!

What will you do for an encore?

Oh yes - and in case you didn't read it, that third section has the following words in it :

as the individual governments see fit.

That means you - the government - have to say its ok in your country before its ok in your country.

:rolleyes:



CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE : ALL UN MEMBERS/DELEGATES PLEASE READ

I request all UN Delegates, to approve the proposal titled:

Repeal "Definition of Marriage" proposed by myself (Bharata) located currently on Page 7 for the following reason:

Our current resolution defining marriage states this:

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

In other words, it states, that citizens can marry dogs, cats, snakes, rabbits, whales, sharks, ants...any thing... Well, how can the animal/insect or anything else someone wishes to marry consent? How do we know its consent? Forcing an animal/insect into "marriage" is morally wrong, and can create mass amounts of confusion.

My bill on page 7 therefore proposes to revoke this resolution, but also affirms peoples rights to have animal(s) for companionship (as long as they are not deemed a threat to society as determined by the local governments.

I dont think theres much to add at this point except "owned".