NationStates Jolt Archive

i strongly urge all regional delegates to endorse the same sex couples on adoption proposal for the UN to vote. this would make the world a strong and more united place and give so many young people the chance of a better life.

The President of the Democratic Republic of Cosmia

Please post the proposal here. We're too lazy to search for it and, frankly, you should have done that anyway.

Eh - I was bored


Same Sex Couples on Adoption

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Cosmia

Description: 1) Allow same sex couples the same right as hetrosexual couples to adopt or foster child.

2) The inclusion of both of the couples name (if they so wish) on the documents relating to right to be guardian(s).

3) The same tax rates and benfits to be give to same sex parents as to hetrosexual parents.

Approvals: 22 (Hessen Nassau, No Breaks, Thatlandia, Lries, Dafidutopia, Prosophia, Liberal Robenia, JS Nijmegen, Melmond, Baribeau, Tzimiscie, Steenia, Andorista, Coolet, WZ Forums, Sargonastan, Simeonia, Docekaheedron, Sticks and Dirt, Infinityx, Tekania, Smegmatic Llamas)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 124 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Wed Dec 22 2004


It's brave. And bold. And quite a good move for equal rights.

Whether this is covered by another resolution (gay rights, maybe definition of marriage?) I am not sure, but if it isn't then I think this should be implemented poste-haste.

One warning - the right wing of the NSUN (if there is such a thing) are going to have a problem with this :}

I'll support it.

I absolutely refuse to state my opinion on this resolution in this forum!

Eh - I was bored



It's brave. And bold. And quite a good move for equal rights.

Whether this is covered by another resolution (gay rights, maybe definition of marriage?) I am not sure, but if it isn't then I think this should be implemented poste-haste.

One warning - the right wing of the NSUN (if there is such a thing) are going to have a problem with this :}

No replicable research exists on the effects of children adopted and raised in a homosexual household. However, a mountain of accepted research exists on the negative psycholigical impacts of children raised without the continued and systemic presence of parents of both sexes. A child whose parents are of the same sex does not provide an environment that provides the presence of both male and female parents. Therefore, a child raised in that environment is not provided the opportunity to develop in an environment with the capacity to support full psychological development.

As such, this is more a matter of mental health and safety than it is of human rights.

Acutally, since we have the Gay Rights resolution among others which already guarentee equal rights/treatment for gays, wouldn't this be redundant?

Maybe, but the extra stab at those who oppose gay rights is worth it.

Gay and Lesbian parents are just as capabule as Heterosexual parents at rasing childern. Let them adopit.

No replicable research exists on the effects of children adopted and raised in a homosexual household. However, a mountain of accepted research exists on the negative psycholigical impacts of children raised without the continued and systemic presence of parents of both sexes. A child whose parents are of the same sex does not provide an environment that provides the presence of both male and female parents. Therefore, a child raised in that environment is not provided the opportunity to develop in an environment with the capacity to support full psychological development.

As such, this is more a matter of mental health and safety than it is of human rights.

Which would be nice if it were applicable to this. Pretty much all of that research is on single-parent households.

Which would be nice if it were applicable to this. Pretty much all of that research is on single-parent households.

The effect to the child is inadequate development with respect to being able to interact with one sex, or people in general, because it was raised by a single gender. Studies also include children raised by single parents in gorup living environments, i.e a group of single fathers or single mothers sharing a dwelling unit. So, it is relevant.

Acutally, since we have the Gay Rights resolution among others which already guarentee equal rights/treatment for gays, wouldn't this be redundant?

Normally I would agree. However, being able to adopt is not a right. There are criteria. Considered is the ability to provide an environment that is conducive for physical, mental, and emotional growth and development.

If analyzed from that vantage point, then a homosexual couples should not be considered as viable as a heterosexual couple when adopting a child, and heterosexuals should be given priority. Or, perhaps, not allowed to at all if it is determined that foster care, or being under the care of the state, where both sexes provide the roles of parenting is preferred because the system provides a better venue for socialization.

The effect to the child is inadequate development with respect to being able to interact with one sex, or people in general, because it was raised by a single gender. Studies also include children raised by single parents in gorup living environments, i.e a group of single fathers or single mothers sharing a dwelling unit. So, it is relevant.

Key words: Single parents.

No, gender of the parents in the dwelling unit. Single Gender.

All indepth study, to-date, has shown little difference, and sometimes even more benefitial aspects to same-sex parents vice heterosexual parents.

Most studies involving single-parent situations, which are then falsely applied to same-sex couples as parents. are inherantly flawed.

Most problems in single parent homes, which filters down to the children, has little to do with whether both genders are present.. But specifically areas which lack, inherantly in single parent homes, that is:

1. Not us much direct parental involvement by the parent.
2. Not as much socially interactive examples, provided by loving couples (as opposed to single parents).

Most gay males in coupled relationships, with children, have shown to have more involvement with the upbringing of their children than their heterosexual counterparts. Encouraging more discipline in the child enviroment, more interaction and involvement of the child in the family. And are more concerned with social interaction.

On the same tone, lesbian couples are shown to provide the same rearing skills.

The error by the opposition, is their assumption (which they are, by reason, forced to admit it is), that the reason for these problems is based upon the presence of seperate sexual roles. (The presence of communal studies of opposite sex persons living in a communal enviroment presenting similar problems as single-parent situations, refutes this).

Out of the 300 studies, to date, none of them have shown any problems in relation to gender identity beyond that experienced by children from heterosexual households. And in fact, it has been seen that boys and girls are less sexual permiscuous, but still show inquisitiveness towards sex, and are more open to the topic; in fact handling the situation much more responsibly.

Alot of this is likely due to the hyper-active role views entering society, where husbands are becoming less and less involved with the rearing of children... While at the same time mothers are spending more time out-side the house, leaving children to raise themselves.

Such divisiveness has not occured in the present same-sex studies, likely from the stigma preventing most same-sex couples to persue parenting.

So while the same-sex couples are providing more and more parenting, the heterosexual studies are showing less and less. This is a trend that will need to be stopped, assuming anything effective in the area of child rearing, can take place.

No, gender of the parents in the dwelling unit. Single Gender.

False application again... For someone who claims using reasoning for morality you make alot of assumptions, using inapplicably studies, to non-matching situations, for your own benefit...

I honestly don't see the point in supporting it.

Don't bite my head off - but I thought all the other equal rights and whatnot legislation covered things like these.

False application again... For someone who claims using reasoning for morality you make alot of assumptions, using inapplicably studies, to non-matching situations, for your own benefit...

No, we are looking at the effect of allowing a child to be raised by same sex individuals. Studies on children raised in dwelling units with adults all of the same sex, sharing responsibility apply. They include same sex single parents living together, and single parents sharing a dwelling unit with another of the same sex-a friend/a sibling/another parent/their parent who shares the responsibilities associated with a child being present. They illustrate negative impacts of such an environment. As such, they are applicable.

Proffer how that is a false application.

Nor have I mentioned gender identity. No long term, in depth, replicable studies on the socialization of children raised by homosexual parents have been conducted or accepted by the scientific community. They are divided on the issue, as there is insufficient data to draw a conclusion. Studies on socialization of children raised by single parents, alone, or with assistance from a same sex parent, friend, their parent, or other parent, show social dissorders.

You assumed my viewpoint, again, inaccurately. A trend that also needs to stop.

No, gender of the parents in the dwelling unit. Single Gender.

KEY WORDS: SINGLE PARENTS

These are studies of single parents, no matter how you slice it. You example is not a study of a gay couple, but of two single parents who only have a relationship of living together, possible friendship, and the fact they have kids. It is not the relationship of two people who actually love each other and live together as a true couple.

Your example is illogical and not applicable.

KEY WORDS: SINGLE PARENTS

These are studies of single parents, no matter how you slice it. You example is not a study of a gay couple, but of two single parents who only have a relationship of living together, possible friendship, and the fact they have kids. It is not the relationship of two people who actually love each other and live together as a true couple.

Your example is illogical and not applicable.

Nor have I mentioned gender identity. No long term, in depth, replicable studies on the socialization of children raised by homosexual parents have been conducted or accepted by the scientific community. They are divided on the issue, as there is insufficient data to draw a conclusion. Studies on socialization of children raised by single parents, alone, or with assistance from a same sex parent, friend, their parent, or other parent, show social dissorders.


Love is not limited to legal partnerships or mates. Nor is a mutual acceptance of responsibility. What do you consider a true couple? How does it differ from other couples?

Love is not limited to legal partnerships or mates. Nor is a mutual acceptance of responsibility. What do you consider a true couple? How does it differ from other couples?

I'll be back on tomorrow for this. I just got done with my NSWiki page and, frankly, have typed enough for one night.

Excuses aside, fine. Keep in mind I would rather we set up an adoptions guidelines resolution as opposed to making a decision such as this based on equality.

Where there is evidence of problems associated with children raised by a single gender, it makes no sense to assume homosexual couples would be any different than other single sex couplings. Especially when there is no accepted conclusion on the effects of homosexuality with respect to socialization that leads to a belief otherwise.

No excuse on my part as to why I am not typing up an arguement. When you type this much (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/DemonLordEnigma) in a single night, you tend to get tired. And it's not even actually done yet.

LOL, Man... You may have cramps tomorrow :)

Heh. That's part of the reason I'm being hesitant about getting off. It's now linked in my sig, along with my technology thread, so others can read it. I like this form better than the old thread anyway.

I believe its a great idea since orphanages are filling up more with parentless children. I SUPPORT IT!
-Bictor (^_^)

Personally, I am against Gay Marriage in the 1st place, but as long as Gay Marriage is allowed then those couples *should* also be allowed to adopt as well.

No replicable research exists on the effects of children adopted and raised in a homosexual household.

OOC: Do you read Swedish? Because there's this huge review of this so-called "non-existent" research over at the Swedish government's website - a review conducted before Sweden passed a non-discriminatory adoption law.

It's called "SOU (Statens Offentliga Undersökningar) 2001:10 - Barn i homosexuella familjer", which roughly translates to "GPI (The Government's Public Investigations) 2001:10 - Children in Homosexual Families".

*thumbs up* I support this.

OOC: Replicable studies at a sufficient number to draw a conclusion that is accepted by the scientific community. Sweden is a country responsible in part for my incorporating such a stance, as past experience leads to skepticism of swedish research, because using swedish research to draw a conclusion on various matters has come back to bite me in the rear end on several occasions, in CA nonetheless. So much that I redflag anything from that country. Sorry. Even if it was reputable by that nations standards, I would wait for several accepted outside reviews before changing my stance because of a swedish study.

Why allow past experience to rule in this scenario? The non-discriminatory adoption law was made to keep up with the changing dynamics of family life in sweden. As children whose parents divorce for same sex relationships would be left to the other parent, despite having lived with the same sex partner for an extended period of time, after the biological parent in the same-sex relationship died. This is quite different than a homosexual couple, without any kids, adopting a child. Opponents of the bill included government agencies such as the National Board of Health and Welfare and the National Board for Intercountry Adoptions, and organisations such as the Swedish Medical Society, the Swedish Society of Psychologists, Save the Children Sweden, the Children’s Ombudsman, the Swedish Society for International Child Welfare, and the Association of Adopted Koreans. The bills having passed is remarkable, given that the law was passed by a parliamentary majority in defiance of a majority of the referral bodies. Thus most political representatives were in favour of the proposals while most of the psychological and legal experts consulted beforehand were against. So, I am skeptical of the report, as it is not in line with the views of the Swedish scientific community.

Therefore, I am cautious in giving homosexual couples the same level standing for adoption as heterosexual couples also wanting to adopt, all else being equal, because I can not be sure it is equally beneficial to the child which home he or she grows up in.

OOC: Due to several cases of investigations into who paid for it leading to a study being automatically classified as invalid due to bias, I pretty much redflag all studies, but always ask who paid for it first from those in the US. Often, the payer of the study automatically causes it to become invalid. An example is a study that showed cow's milk is essential for human diets, which turned out to be paid for by the Dairy Industry.

OOC: Due to several cases of investigations into who paid for it leading to a study being automatically classified as invalid due to bias, I pretty much redflag all studies, but always ask who paid for it first from those in the US. Often, the payer of the study automatically causes it to become invalid. An example is a study that showed cow's milk is essential for human diets, which turned out to be paid for by the Dairy Industry.

OOC: Hey, were it not for private donations to public research groups, we would be lacking in scientific knowledge. Being a graduate in part of the UC Davis College of Agricultural and Environmental studies, I resent innuendo of its being influenced by funding from the Dairy Council;). Just kidding I see your point. The problem is when public entities use private donations to conduct research. Should It be allowed, do not know. If it was not, all we would have is private research on severall matters. And privately funded public research is not always consistent with private research results.

God, i never realised how much debate this would bring up. Thank you to all of you how have already supported this proposal.
To all those who believe this is a bad move - would you rather have children living in care homes and not being shown the love and support a child needs when they are growing up - care homes are full and each child doesn't get individual attention. There are also may children in care homes and other facilities similar who face the daily agony of bullying by other children in the care homes.

This proposal is just about giving a child a chance to lead a happy childhood and receive love, care and attention. it is as much about the child as it is about the couple!

Time is ticking away for this proposal - please members rally your regional delegates to support this proposal - we still need 120 or so endorsements before all UN members can vote to make this a resolution! Voting ends tomorrow - plesae all those who support this try and drum up delegates support!!!

Cosmia

Why allow past experience to rule in this scenario? The non-discriminatory adoption law was made to keep up with the changing dynamics of family life in sweden. As children whose parents divorce for same sex relationships would be left to the other parent, despite having lived with the same sex partner for an extended period of time, after the biological parent in the same-sex relationship died. This is quite different than a homosexual couple, without any kids, adopting a child.

OOC: Actually, that's not the main and only reason the law came into being. It is true that the law makes those kinds of adoptions legal, it also came about because of the fact that Sweden had allowed singles to adopt before (homosexual or otherwise) and because of the growing number of children to lesbian couples born due to insemination. Equal protection to children of homosexuals was the main reason the law came about.

Opponents of the bill included government agencies such as the National Board of Health and Welfare and the National Board for Intercountry Adoptions, and organisations such as the Swedish Medical Society, the Swedish Society of Psychologists, Save the Children Sweden, the Children’s Ombudsman, the Swedish Society for International Child Welfare, and the Association of Adopted Koreans. The bills having passed is remarkable, given that the law was passed by a parliamentary majority in defiance of a majority of the referral bodies. Thus most political representatives were in favour of the proposals while most of the psychological and legal experts consulted beforehand were against. So, I am skeptical of the report, as it is not in line with the views of the Swedish scientific community.

Actually it was because of the fact that it was in line with what the scientific community thought, that it passed. All of those instances you mentioned had no, I repeat, no experience in dealing with children who had homosexual parents and nothing to support their negative stances. All of the experts who had experience in the field were positive to the new law - something that did not elude parliament. All relevant studies quoted in SOU 2001:10 that dealt with children who had grown up with homosexual parents showed no significant difference between them and their counterparts with heterosexual parents. In light of that, it is not very surprising the law passed.

IC: It is interesting to see that your main opposition to the proposal is "there are no studies, so I can't support it, so there can be no studies, so that I can support it". It basically denies the right to be tried as a prospective adoptive parent because of a denied right to be tried as a prospective adoptive parent.

Approved, and good luck.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

Time is ticking away for this proposal - please members rally your regional delegates to support this proposal
I'm not supporting this proposal. It seems an unneccessarily specialised attempt to address a problem that really shouldn't exist based on current law. While I'll grant the real-world need and appeal, this isn't necessary in the NSUN, where rights of all marriages are already extremely well defined.

It's not a bad idea, it's just bad law.

IC: It is interesting to see that your main opposition to the proposal is "there are no studies, so I can't support it, so there can be no studies, so that I can support it". It basically denies the right to be tried as a prospective adoptive parent because of a denied right to be tried as a prospective adoptive parent.

IC:No, I have not said that. If this resolution does not pass it does not mean there will be no such research. It means, hold of until a conclusion is reached, or allow it in limited circumstances. For instance, I said all else equal give heterosexual couples priority until a conclusion is reached on the psychological effects of homosexual couples rearing children.

OOC: I agree if one is the parent, then the partner should be allowed to be a guardian, as homosexual unions are allowed in Sweden. This is different than single sex couples niether of which is the parent. If they allow singles to adopt, then, yeah, they should also allow homosexuals. As that is consistent with respect to not addressing the problem of being raised by a single gender.

However, It is suspect when psychological and child welfare specialists/professionals, can all, review an assessment, and disagree with the conclusion. They are qualified to do so. As they are capable of reviewing the research and assessing its validity. So, it seems the bill was adopted for consistency by parliament, with an added emphasis on homosexual parents and their partners. There was one assessment showing no difference, with which several psychological and child welfare associations disagree, however there are homosexual parents with partners, and singles are allowed to adopt. So, it appears the report was only one of the factors determining the vote: as out of the 57 governmental body to whom the bill was referred with supporting documentation, only 11 were in favor. Unusual when dealing with government agency assesments of government research.

An analysis of the debacle I cam across from Sweden SE: The debate involved two principal approaches. Those in favor saw the law as an instrument for eliminating discrimination and a logical extension of the Registered Partnerships Act from 1995. Those against argue that the principle of the best interests of the child has had to take a back seat under the new law, which may harm both the children involved and Sweden’s prospects for adoption in the future. With a report in suspect, this is what would drive a parliamentary vote, they are a body of representatives, not social scientists.

Each resolution protecting these rights is one more obstacle in the way of those who would repeal them. I support it, and would endorse it were I a delegate.

I will not support this proposal, and will urge all nations I can to vote against it should it reach the UN floor.

Love is not limited to legal partnerships or mates. Nor is a mutual acceptance of responsibility. What do you consider a true couple? How does it differ from other couples?

A true couple? Considering DLE laws on the subject, two or more people who love and deal with each other as life partners and are willing to devote both time and sufficient resources to helping raise children primarily. Not everyone married is a true couple and not every true couple is married, something reflected in real life in the US anymore.

I support this one. I'm Pro-Gay Rights.

I have absolutely no problem with homosexual couples adopting children, so long as they are held to the same basic standards of care that heterosexual couples are held to. However, I will be voting against this if it reaches quorum, as I do almost every resolution.

Isn't it how all these "conservatives" turn into socialists so quickly when they can use such principles to back their moral stances?

Hypocracy runs as rampant in the right, as it does the left...

I started work on an Issue submission about this last week, because I believe that's where this one belongs - on a national level. Yes, I know it's a tired argument, but my belief is that the UN should leave moral issues on a national level in order to respect diverse cultures.

Obviously, I would vote against this proposal, on the grounds of morality and national sovereignty.

1. Give me one good reason, outside of any religious argument, or moral dictate (even if by majority consensus); that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.

2. Give me one good reason, outside of any religious argument, or moral dictate (even if by majority consensus); that monogamous homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt, if held to the same standards as heterosexual couples.

I started work on an Issue submission about this last week, because I believe that's where this one belongs - on a national level. Yes, I know it's a tired argument, but my belief is that the UN should leave moral issues on a national level in order to respect diverse cultures.

Obviously, I would vote against this proposal, on the grounds of morality and national sovereignty.

"moral issue" vague, non-existant term invented by rightists. As such, dismissed.

"National Sovereignty" does not exist, the NSUN is a confederation of states, whereby sovereignty rests, by agreement of the members, in the UN. "State Sovereignty" is the issue, not national sovereignty. The applicable level of state sovereignty and choice lies in the people. Therefore that, as well, is dismissed. The only applicable function of ultimate state sovereignty, is the removal of the state, by the people, from the UN, thereby granting the state status, again, as a nation, and therefore in full power of National Sovereignty. As long as one remains in the NSUN, you possess no, technical, sovereignty as a nation; except where the nation (that is the NationStates United Nations) has not decided upon rulings for.

The entire system is fair, and functional; and in the end, acts as a preventative for tyranical regimes, from oppressing segments of their population; for little to no reason what-so-ever.

1. Give me one good reason, outside of any religious argument, or moral dictate (even if by majority consensus); that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.

2. Give me one good reason, outside of any religious argument, or moral dictate (even if by majority consensus); that monogamous homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt, if held to the same standards as heterosexual couples.

I'll try number one, just for kicks. Bear with me, as this is a new argument, and I have not examined it for fallacies.

Do people have an actual, definable "right" to marriage or whatever it is called in your nation? Does marriage or its equivalent truly protect any "right", regardless of orientation? If not, since homosexuals and heterosexuals have no "right" to marriage, the government, whose job it is to protect "rights" has no business performing marriages.

What do you think? :confused:

I can only support adoption by gay couples for those children that might not otherwise find a family, whether they be special-needs, behavior-disordered (aka bad-parent disorder) or otherwise not likely to be adopted.

Society's basic unit is the family, with the nuclear family as its core, that of a father, mother and child(ren). In a loving and stable family, a child has its best chance at success in life. Anything less than this (and I include here a gay couple) is less than ideal.

Anything less than this (and I include here a gay couple) is less than ideal.
Damn, I guess I better get knocked up and fast.

To bad, I really didn't want to have a child…

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

Damn, I guess I better get knocked up and fast.

To bad, I really didn't want to have a child…

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

Lady Desdemona, I am at your service.

Lady Desdemona, I am at your cervix.
You cad!

You cad!

Heh. I was going to wait awhile before getting to the cervix. Buy her dinner, take some long walks on the beach... :)

I'll try number one, just for kicks. Bear with me, as this is a new argument, and I have not examined it for fallacies.

Do people have an actual, definable "right" to marriage or whatever it is called in your nation? Does marriage or its equivalent truly protect any "right", regardless of orientation? If not, since homosexuals and heterosexuals have no "right" to marriage, the government, whose job it is to protect "rights" has no business performing marriages.

What do you think? :confused:

Well, several problems:

Your conclusion, in regards to governments then having no "business" in performing marriages. Such could well be quantifyable. Of course then, it would make it perfectly legal justication for the NSUN to rule upon what governments can and cannot do in relation to marriage. Since the governments have no business performing marriage, then it lies in the hands of individual citizens; and therefore NSUN legislation legalizing gay marriage, cannot overstep this so-called "National Sovereignty" since they are themselves over-stepping these bounds in performing marriages. Of course, this would also apply to other governments, including the ecclesiastical; therefore making marriage a private institution only applicable to individual people, to which, no one else can become involved with outside of the parties directly involved. Therefore, in the end, making gay marriage a perfectly recognizable private contract. It then becomes a perfectly valid stance for two people to enter into whatever private relationship they wish to, with any other consenting individual; without religious or governmental interference on the part of the state, or UN government. In the end, still validating UN declaration that nationstates in this body must recognize these private relationships, since the states themselves never possessed the right or authority to refuse recognition. :D And in the end, your entire argument against my point; affirms my point. And Common Law, in its ultimate superiority, stands! :D Marriage has been, and always shall be, an ultimately legal, private institution upon which no government may rule on, therefore justifying the ability of homosexuals to enter into perfectly recognizable private marriage contracts :D, and that acts, by governments, to thwart people from the entrance of this institution, was illegal usurpation of powers, they have never officially had, in lieu of nature, in that this institution, being private and social, pre-dates, government, and therefore superceeds its authority :D.

Don't ya just love Common Law...... It's no wonder the moronic Conservatives cannot stand its ultimate perfection!

Well, several problems:

Ok. That certainly answers that question. It would be wrong to outlaw gay marraiges. However...in a somewhat related question...

Marriage has been, and always shall be, an ultimately legal, private institution upon which no government may rule on, therefore justifying the ability of homosexuals to enter into perfectly recognizable private marriage contracts :D, and that acts, by governments, to thwart people from the entrance of this institution, was illegal usurpation of powers, they have never officially had, in lieu of nature, in that this institution, being private and social, pre-dates, government, and therefore superceeds its authority :D.

Is it appropriate for the government to perform marraige ceremonies, in addition to recognizing the private contract between consenting individuals?

Don't ya just love Common Law...... It's no wonder the moronic Conservatives cannot stand its ultimate perfection!

I don't know much about Common Law, so I can't really speak to that.

Ok. That certainly answers that question. It would be wrong to outlaw gay marraiges. However...in a somewhat related question...

Is it appropriate for the government to perform marraige ceremonies, in addition to recognizing the private contract between consenting individuals?

Ahh... the clencher.... It is appropriate? Since marriage, as already established is private, therefore the only people who can determine appropriateness of ceremonial aspects to the "marriage" are those entering involvement in this contract. Therefore, if the persons choose to have this done through a priest, relgious figure, or government, or maybe just in the presence of a few witnesses... It is all appropriate, if that is what the contractees wish. As far as recognization. If your government operates in civil and common suit, then by lieu of aribtration, any private written contract must be recognized in court, as long as it bears the requirements of Common Law, that is, at least 2 contract parties, and at least 2 witnesses to the contract. (ever wonder why the official marriage license asks for 2 witnesses? Because it is a contract... And therefore exists in Common Law, and backs up my assertion of this being in fact a Common Law principle).

So, is it appropriate? Yes, if it is the will of the parties involved. Must governments recognize such marriage contracts? Yes, as long as they are proper Common Law contracts.

In the end, the only perfect NSUN legislation would be one worded as such.

No government; international, national, state, or otherwise; whether by secular or ecclesiastical in nature; may legislate upon the private institution of marriage.

Don't ya just love Common Law...... It's no wonder the moronic Conservatives cannot stand its ultimate perfection!

Tekania, you do not love common law, as it is the ultimate expression of the moral relativism which you despised yesterday. Doublethink, or, are you unfamiliar with how that works also?;)

if i can find a way to support it..... (meaning put my name in on the part where i accept the thing), I would gladly accept

1. Give me one good reason, outside of any religious argument, or moral dictate (even if by majority consensus); that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.

In a state where the power of the government rests with the people, the government exists so long as it is able to maintain a viable population. Its power and ability to provide services grows with its population. Therefore, the governments ability to grow is directly related to its population size. If the government decides to grow and increase programs, then it must provide an incentive for its populace to reproduce. If this is done through providing incentives to couples that make it financially feasible to have a child, i.e lower tax rates for couples who marry, or more social benefits for couples who marry, then what reason does it have to provide those same benefits to homosexual couples? None, as they can not reproduce, and therefore the government has no reason to provide them the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

In a state where the power of the government rests with the people, the government exists so long as it is able to maintain a viable population. Its power and ability to provide services grows with its population. Therefore, the governments ability to grow is directly related to its population size. If the government decides to grow and increase programs, then it must provide an incentive for its populace to reproduce. If this is done through providing incentives to couples that make it financially feasible to have a child, i.e lower tax rates for couples who marry, or more social benefits for couples who marry, then what reason does it have to provide those same benefits to homosexual couples? None, as they can not reproduce, and therefore the government has no reason to provide them the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

coughartificialinseminationcough

coughsurrogatemothercough

I'm terribly sorry. I have a bit of a cold. :D

Very good try at an argument, though. Much better than mine. :(

coughartificialinseminationcough

coughsurrogatemothercough

I'm terribly sorry. I have a bit of a cold. :D

Very good try at an argument, though. Much better than mine. :(

LOL, yes, I thought of that. Dealing in couples. Processes of Artificial insemination and surrogate mothers involve members of the couple providing the sperm and egg, and having the zygote implanted in the womb of the mother, or surrogate. Homosexual couples can not provide both sperm and egg for either process.

Or, if it is a government that lacks those processes, it is only interested in providing benefits to those couple capable of reproducing.

LOL, yes, I thought of that. Dealing in couples. Processes of Artificial insemination and surrogate mothers involve members of the couple providing the sperm and egg, and having the zygote implanted in the womb of the mother, or surrogate. Homosexual couples can not provide sperm and egg for either process.

Actually, most cases of artificial insemination have the mother and father not knowing each other at all.

Oh, and egg donation is not unheard of either.

LOL, yes, I thought of that. Dealing in couples. Processes of Artificial insemination and surrogate mothers involve members of the couple providing the sperm and egg, and having the zygote implanted in the womb of the mother, or surrogate. Homosexual couples can not provide sperm and egg for either process.

So? If I have a male homosexual couple, and a heterosexual couple where the women is unable to produce eggs, we have to keep both couples from marrying, regardless of their orientation, because one of the individuals cannot produce an egg?

As this argument was proffered to be void of moral considerations... yes.

Tekania, you do not love common law, as it is the ultimate expression of the moral relativism which you despised yesterday. Doublethink, or, are you unfamiliar with how that works also?;)

Ha, this is where you are wrong, my pasty old crooning friend.

Common Law places relative moral thought where it belongs, in the hands of private citizens, leaving government to rule on ethics. This is where those morons like Kant messed up, scewing the relationship between morality and ethics, into relativism put forth through power and tyrany, as opposed to the operation of logic and reason. And creating a framework for governments to abuse their power, by relying on moral relativism in the usurpation of private independent thought, through power of cooersion and force (this is the "goal" of the tyrants).

Common Law pulls morality away from law, and places it in the hands of the people. Where it belongs, amongst their private operations with one another. Government, only, to step in, when conflict arrises between involved parties.

At the core of the gay-rights issue, is one group not involved making declatory statements in the violation of other parties who are. No third party can bring suit against a contract to which they are not involved, or party to. Only parties to the contract can bring suit in relation to the contract. As such, all legislation, violating the private contract of individuals, is unauthorized legislation, by invalid, unauthorized governmental bodies, usurping the power of the people power granted to them before the existance of government. Marriage lays amongst the social institutions which pre-date government. Therefore, governmental usurpation of that institution, is not valid or defendable, since government was never granted the authority to rule upon this instutitution by the authorotative power of this institution (that is the INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE in this private institution). As such, since the beginning, in recognizing the truth of institutional descent..... The Republic refuses to fall into the error and tyrany of other nations, to legislalate marriage... Since any legislation of it, is outside the rights, power, or authority of any governing body.

As such, as homosexual marriages are equal to heterosexual marriages, all existing under the principles of the common law of mankind. And to which are private instiutions.... Adoption shall not be denied homosexual couples based souly upon their sexual orientation. And this Republic will act in any way neccessary to correct the injustices, to which these nations have commited wrong against the common law, by all appropriate resolution.

The Constitutional Republic of Tekania; through the determination of the Senate, and House of Delegates, has determined full, and absolute support of this Resolution, to bring all NSUN nations into compliance with Common Law.

As this argument was proffered to be void of moral considerations... yes.

Fair enough. Since that is the case, would you mind rephrasing your argument such that only "fertile" heterosexual couples can be married?

As this argument was proffered to be void of moral considerations... yes.

Why should that be so? Modern technology allows us to go beyond it and you don't need marriage for reproduction.

Actually, most cases of artificial insemination have the mother and father not knowing each other at all.


Well if the government is interested in couples reproducing, then that is not relevant. As two people with no contact or knowledge of one another is not a married couple.

Add physically and psychologically fit environment so as to provide maximum capacity to produce healthy future citizens. Brave new worldish government or what have you.

In a state where the power of the government rests with the people, the government exists so long as it is able to maintain a viable population. Its power and ability to provide services grows with its population. Therefore, the governments ability to grow is directly related to its population size. If the government decides to grow and increase programs, then it must provide an incentive for its populace to reproduce. If this is done through providing incentives to couples that make it financially feasible to have a child, i.e lower tax rates for couples who marry, or more social benefits for couples who marry, then what reason does it have to provide those same benefits to homosexual couples? None, as they can not reproduce, and therefore the government has no reason to provide them the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

So, you test all of your potential marriage contractees, for their reproductive abilities? And so deny the right to merry to anyone incapable of reproduction, dur to medical or other reasons?

So those possessing Turner's Syndrome, an ailment, where a child lacks the last chromosome set, and thereby, is neither technically male or female, but developed naturally as a female, while being sterile, is not allowed rights to marry?

Women with uterine deformations, or who have been forced, due to past medical reasons, to undergo a hysterectomy, and men, who have had to go through vesectomy also are prevented from marriage?

As well as any of the plethora of other ailments that can lead to the inability of people to reproduce.

:: Throws darts at a picture Kant :: YES! Right one the forehead!

Why should that be so? Modern technology allows us to go beyond it and you don't need marriage for reproduction.

Not all nations have "modern" technology. That's the one reason I'm willing to accept Phari's argument with the modification I suggested. For his nation, anyway. Not mine.

So, you test all of your potential marriage contractees, for their reproductive abilities? And so deny the right to merry to anyone incapable of reproduction, dur to medical or other reasons?

So those possessing Turner's Syndrome, an ailment, where a child lacks the last chromosome set, and thereby, is neither technically male or female, but developed naturally as a female, while being sterile, is not allowed rights to marry?

Women with uterine deformations, or who have been forced, due to past medical reasons, to undergo a hysterectomy, and men, who have had to go through vesectomy also are prevented from marriage?

As well as any of the plethora of other ailments that can lead to the inability of people to reproduce.

:: Throws darts at a picture Kant :: YES! Right one the forehead!

You said no moral bs. So, I do not care if it is not morally desirable to you. Your acting like the Kantian, common law loving, treat everyone morally right under the law, moral relativist.

Why should that be so? Modern technology allows us to go beyond it and you don't need marriage for reproduction.

What Texan said, and that Tekania did not want such: if technology is available it ought to be allowed moral arguments. Despite his response being a moral one.

You said no moral bs. So, I do not care if it is not morally desirable to you. Your acting like the Kantian, common law loving, treat everyone morally right under the law, moral relativist.

I didn't say morally desirable.... And you did not either affirm or deny anything.

I just said for you to be LOGICALLY CONSISTENT, you would need to.

Since you take offense to that, obviously, you do not. And therefore all your talk is nothing but a bag of crap. You have no consistency of operation, in logic, and you have no validity of operation. And all your arguments are flawed.

As such, the Republic will hear no more arguments from the invalid, unauthorized government of Anti Pharisaism. And will support any effort by its people, to overthrow their tyranical government.

Fine go ahead. There would be a screening system, as I told DLE, if they can not have children, they can not get married, despite technology, morality is not a factor. The question was answered before you asked it. Consistent, so stop crying about it, as I never denied screenings, because the answer could be inferred from previous posts. So, I just acknowledged the moral base of your what about those with ailments question. Just because you put a question mark at the end of a statement does not mean I will respond to it as such.

Wow, you believe so much in your fictional utopia it clouds your judgment. That, or you lie to yourself so frequently it becomes truth in your mind.

Any way, the common law is the present day court of equity a.k.a chancellory. Torts, contracts, and civil procedure are opinions made using moral arguments. Is it right to punish a negligent act as severely as an intentional one? If an act is negligent, is it right to hold the person accountable for all events that occur after the act? If one relies detrimentally on a promise made in gratuity, is it right to deny him a remedy? Would it be equitable to enjoin the activity of one because of its possible effects to others? All are moral questions addressed by Common Law courts. With a decision that is the moral opinion of the judge. Which can be reviewed by an appellate court.

As such AP will no longer listen to the ranting of a delusional republic ;)

Well if the government is interested in couples reproducing, then that is not relevant. As two people with no contact or knowledge of one another is not a married couple.

Illogical. It is relevant if said government wants to ensure a continously growing population. You want as many of your couples, whether straight or not, to have children.

Add physically and psychologically fit environment so as to provide maximum capacity to produce healthy future citizens. Brave new worldish government or what have you.

Brave New World didn't have couples raising kids. It grew them in vats.

One of your problems (soon to be confounded by the large amount of highly radioactive plasma I need to dump and the nice, pristine nation you have) is that you are not actually ensuring a surviving population. The result of this, due to ever-increasing rates of people being classified as having mental problems many nations should be facing, is that "healthy" can exclude up to 90% of your entire population. A 90% decline rate still takes a couple centuries to deplete a nation, but it shall be interesting to watch your population drop.

Not all nations have "modern" technology. That's the one reason I'm willing to accept Phari's argument with the modification I suggested. For his nation, anyway. Not mine.

I can easily provide that. I've been looking for a new business on Earth to expand into anyway and the fertility business is looking like a big, mostly-untapped market.

What Texan said, and that Tekania did not want such: if technology is available it ought to be allowed moral arguments. Despite his response being a moral one.

Technology is often independant of morality. Despite certain technologies being able to be programmed with moral standpoints, the fact remains it naturally has no morality and doesn't care how you use it.

Technology is being brought up to support a logical arguement. Morality is being used by a certain side due to said side being unable to logically back up their arguements beyond the basics, and even that logic can be used to disprove.

Fine go ahead. There would be a screening system, as I told DLE, if they can not have children, they can not get married, despite technology, morality is not a factor. The question was answered before you asked it. Consistent, so stop crying about it, as I never denied screenings, because the answer could be inferred from previous posts. So, I just acknowledged the moral base of your what about those with ailments question. Just because you put a question mark at the end of a statement does not mean I will respond to it as such.

The problem of your screenings that is about to pop up is the rather high number of people suffering from infertility due to radiation poisoning. Of course, the mysterious forest and city fires and the suddenly increased levels of highly radioactive gasses floating around your nation are just going to be mysteries.

Go ahead and do your screenings. I'll personally enjoy sitting back and watching the results.

If common law decisions were based entriely on logical reasoning, as opposed to Morality based on such reasoning, as you seem to be in the mindset of, there would be no appellate system. If the decision was logical and not moral, there would be no reason to review it. HOwever, if there is an equally valid moral opinion that could have ben reached, then appeal.

As such your reasoining is flawed, for your obvious ignorance of the system makes your ideology of common law unsound.

Since you take offense to that, obviously, you do not. And therefore all your talk is nothing but a bag of crap.

Great logic. If your going to continue you efforts to make logical inferences into my viewpoint, do it right. If my response is morality is bs, then screening would be emplored. It is self evident. As that morals would be the justification (equity) to allow such persons to marry.

Illogical. It is relevant if said government wants to ensure a continously growing population. You want as many of your couples, whether straight or not, to have children.

If statement DLE. It changes the construct of the type of population to grow. Anyway, homosexual couples can not reproduce as a mating pair, so they can not have children. This is not relating to adoption: Question 1.

Brave New World didn't have couples raising kids. It grew them in vats.

One of your problems (soon to be confounded by the large amount of highly radioactive plasma I need to dump and the nice, pristine nation you have) is that you are not actually ensuring a surviving population. The result of this, due to ever-increasing rates of people being classified as having mental problems many nations should be facing, is that "healthy" can exclude up to 90% of your entire population. A 90% decline rate still takes a couple centuries to deplete a nation, but it shall be interesting to watch your population drop.

Brave new worldish in that traits for parenting are now being analyzed and chosen.

Any, the point of the quote you used is to find an environment with the maximum capacity to produce a healthy individual. Capacity, not a statement that such a result will occur.

Technology is often independant of morality. Despite certain technologies being able to be programmed with moral standpoints, the fact remains it naturally has no morality and doesn't care how you use it.

Often does not denote devoid. Biotech is full of moral questions. What type of tech does fertility fall under I wonder?

Technology is being brought up to support a logical arguement. Morality is being used by a certain side due to said side being unable to logically back up their arguements beyond the basics, and even that logic can be used to disprove.

Like Texan said, the government may only be capable of the basics. Change the facts, of course the outcome changes.

Go ahead and do your screenings. I'll personally enjoy sitting back and watching the results.

Who said anyone is going to do this? This was a response to question one by Tekania. He wanted an argument not based on morality, he got one. Unless it is determined to be a moral one.

If common law decisions were based entriely on logical reasoning, as opposed to Morality based on such reasoning, as you seem to be in the mindset of, there would be no appellate system. If the decision was logical and not moral, there would be no reason to review it. HOwever, if there is an equally valid moral opinion that could have ben reached, then appeal.

Oh my.... No... Appelate exists because of logic and reason. If all decisions were based on moral order, there would be no appelate review. Since questions from the bench would not be arguable. (Such is proven, through history, all morality courts, were final, decisions rendered, were final, no review, no appeal).

Since you seem to lack all historical perspective on this issue, and reason from your own, lies and false revisionism. Further argument after this point is pointless.

Appealate review was constructed in courts only in two places in history. By Aristotelian/Platonic ethical order, and then later, by the core Aristotelian ethical order of the Common Law.... All courts, outside of that, have been based, historically, upon moralism, and verdicts rendered were final. It was because of Aristotelian Ethical reasoning, that Appelate review was invented, because, logically, judges, being human, cannot be logically guranteed to render reasonable verdicts, and only by insuring review, could reasonable verdicts be maintained.

AP, it was your type, that is the moralists, who consider their renditions of justice absolute in your order, who fought the invention and emplacement of the appelate review. Usurpation by your kind, at this point, is pathetic; to attempt to revise history, so as to make it seem they were your idea.

It is amazing that the insane nut-cases who run the AP government, faltered enough to join these United Nations, so as to allow this most august body to remove from those in power of the AP government, those things which it is too incompitent to handle on its own. Though, we of the Republic, are grateful for this faltering on their part, as it acts to benefit the people under the AP government...

The True Origins of the Apellate Court

"Dude, judges can be wrong sometimes."

"That's so true, dude."

"We should make it so that you can like, get a second opinion. You know, like with the doctor dudes."

"Whoa. You rock. We are so doing that."


...and thus the apellate court was born.

Oh my.... No... Appelate exists because of logic and reason. If all decisions were based on moral order, there would be no appelate review. Since questions from the bench would not be arguable. (Such is proven, through history, all morality courts, were final, decisions rendered, were final, no review, no appeal).

Since you seem to lack all historical perspective on this issue, and reason from your own, lies and false revisionism. Further argument after this point is pointless.

Appealate review was constructed in courts only in two places in history. By Aristotelian/Platonic ethical order, and then later, by the core Aristotelian ethical order of the Common Law.... All courts, outside of that, have been based, historically, upon moralism, and verdicts rendered were final. It was because of Aristotelian Ethical reasoning, that Appelate review was invented, because, logically, judges, being human, cannot be logically guranteed to render reasonable verdicts, and only by insuring review, could reasonable verdicts be maintained.

AP, it was your type, that is the moralists, who consider their renditions of justice absolute in your order, who fought the invention and emplacement of the appelate review. Usurpation by your kind, at this point, is pathetic; to attempt to revise history, so as to make it seem they were your idea.

It is amazing that the insane nut-cases who run the AP government, faltered enough to join these United Nations, so as to allow this most august body to remove from those in power of the AP government, those things which it is too incompitent to handle on its own. Though, we of the Republic, are grateful for this faltering on their part, as it acts to benefit the people under the AP government...

Where do you come up with this it is my idea crap. Pick up a law book, your false beleif apellate review being deviod of morality is just that, false. That I understand the system does not mean I support it. I just consider it a duty not to let you delude yourself into thinking the judicial system is something it is not.

Again, logical reasoning can be used to create moral beliefs. Adoption of a standard of moral beliefs as a standard governing decisions is an ethic. Ethics can be used to create laws. Logical reasoning involves validity and soundness.

The courts render decisions based on legislative intent, or pure opinion if no statute exists. That opinion can be purely logical, moral, or both. Outline a court decision in common law deviod of moral analysis. From Aristotle to Rehnquist. You will find that logical moral arguments are presented, as logical reasoning was used to develop them.

The True Origins of the Apellate Court

"Dude, judges can be wrong sometimes."

"That's so true, dude."

"We should make it so that you can like, get a second opinion. You know, like with the doctor dudes."

"Whoa. You rock. We are so doing that."


...and thus the apellate court was born.

Translate to greek, and yes, you got it;)

If statement DLE. It changes the construct of the type of population to grow. Anyway, homosexual couples can not reproduce as a mating pair, so they can not have children. This is not relating to adoption: Question 1.

Hmm. Internally consistant with previous arguements along this line.

There is still the question of why should they have to?

Brave new worldish in that traits for parenting are now being analyzed and chosen.

Any, the point of the quote you used is to find an environment with the maximum capacity to produce a healthy individual. Capacity, not a statement that such a result will occur.

Ah! The Hitlerian Method. Why didn't you just say so?

Often does not denote devoid. Biotech is full of moral questions. What type of tech does fertility fall under I wonder?

Fertility falls under biotech. It is full of questions, but in this case you are not actually doing any genetic engineering. All you are doing is a practice people have been doing with flowers for hundreds of years: Matching sperm to egg.

Like Texan said, the government may only be capable of the basics. Change the facts, of course the outcome changes.

Not always. You have to deal with transtemporal probability equations as to whether the facts changed will actually result in an outcome change and the question of if the outcome is free-choice or destined, with the first meaning it can be changed and the second meaning it is something that is inevitable to happen anyway.

Who said anyone is going to do this? This was a response to question one by Tekania. He wanted an argument not based on morality, he got one. Unless it is determined to be a moral one.

Well, there goes the entire basis for my reason of arguing against you on this out the window. Good thing that threat was not intended to be backed up anyway.

Oh my.... No... Appelate exists because of logic and reason. If all decisions were based on moral order, there would be no appelate review. Since questions from the bench would not be arguable. (Such is proven, through history, all morality courts, were final, decisions rendered, were final, no review, no appeal)....


AP, it was your type, that is the moralists, who consider their renditions of justice absolute in your order, who fought the invention and emplacement of the appelate review. Usurpation by your kind, at this point, is pathetic; to attempt to revise history, so as to make it seem they were your idea.


You are missing a couple hundred years of history where 'morality courts' use an appelate system.

Also, if you were to say aristotlian review came before, at the same time, or after moralist appelate review, the important aspect is that it was implemented. How then did moralists stop its its use if reason would dictate that method? Would not philosopher kings adopt that method? Try logical reasoning. Perhaps it was not entirely what you believe it to have been.

Ah! The Hitlerian Method. Why didn't you just say so?

Because I do not agree with it, as even if it is logical and consistent, it is not moral.:)



Well, there goes the entire basis for my reason of arguing against you on this out the window. Good thing that threat was not intended to be backed up anyway.

Good, then I will re-enter your dimensional bane.

I`ll support it. It`s a good proposal for improving civil rights.

To end the squabbling with Tekania...



The dependence of morality on law is insisted upon in the closing pages of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, perhaps the most detailed treatise on the moral virtues in antiquity. It is recognized there that law is needed if the moral virtues described in the Ethics are to be nurtured.

In the Ethics: law is needed both to help habituate citizens to virtuous actions and to help maintain the salutary habits they acquire. These needs can be recognized even by those who are aware that the virtues generally fostered by law are not the highest. The opinions one may have about the good, the true, and the beautiful are a secondary concern of most laws. Still, it is well to keep in mind Aristotle's counsel that one who is "to listen intelligently to lectures about what is noble and just must have been brought up in good habits." For proper habituation, laws can be most useful, if not indispensable.

One may not believe that morality depends on law, however, it is almost impossible for any regime that takes itself, and is to be taken, seriously not to shape its citizens with respect to morality. To deny that legislation of morality can or should take place does not eliminate such legislation; it merely conceals it, perhaps distorts it, and otherwise confuses and misleads rulers and ruled alike. (Here, as in physics, much that Aristotle noticed and relied upon is tacitly relied upon by us as well, but relied upon haphazardly because it is not properly noticed.)

It would be useful, therefore, to indicate how pervasive Aristotle understands the law to be with respect to morality in a community. When we see what law can mean, and how it works, we may better appreciate what the law does in the service of morality. To speak of the influence of the law is, we shall see, to speak of the many ways that the community forms the citizen and guides the human being. For us, however, the term law does tend to be limited to what "government" does, to the statutes and decrees that governments issue.

At the end of the Ethics, in which morality is dependent on law. The dependence of morals on law may also be seen in Book V of the Ethics, where justice is discussed at length. It is evident in the discussion there of justice as a particular virtue, the virtue that is intimately related to what is called fairness. Not only is law needed to secure justice among men, but law helps define or establish what precisely is fair in various circumstances. A concern for fairness and trust is reflected, for example, in a community's provision for a currency.

Justice is also presented in Book V as somehow encompassing all the virtues, at least insofar as those virtues bear upon one's relations with one's neighbors. The just in this sense is the lawful. Justice may be seen in the courage (or, at least, lack of cowardice) one is obliged by conscription and military laws to display on specified occasions or in the intemperance one is sometimes obliged by the law of crimes, of torts, and of marital relations to avoid. This role of the law anticipates what is said in the closing pages of the Ethics.

Now, you can see that aristotle based his ideals very much on virtue, a moral concept. Which is to be expected, as ethics is in part the study moral philosophy. This is because Aristotle believed in legislating morality.

Justice is a virtue he outlines as providing an outcome that is fair. Doubleplus use of morality. Fairness and equity are moral concepts that can be logically reasoned. As Aristotle sought to do through legality.

Now, who is the insane nutcase that lacks the ability to analyze history correctly;)

Or, shall we just go over the Nicomachean Ethics in its entirety, and hash out Aristotle's views on law and morality, point by point, so as to illustrate how the constitutional republic misinterprets it, and the concepts of morality and ethics and their application in debate on UN Resolutions?

Since there are evidently more than one end, and we choose some of these for the sake of something else, clearly not all ends are final ends; but the chief good is evidently something final. Therefore, if there is only one final end, this will be what we are seeking, and if there are more than one, the most final of these will be what we are seeking.

A moral argument by Aristotle, stating that there can be more than one end, and the final end sought is dependant upon those who seek it. Moral relativism to boot. Hmm, even fits with AP's statement on competing morals (that can both be logically reasoned) leading to the need for an apellate court. Interesting, very interesting. Or does its being a moral argument make it invalid and illogical?

Also note, that his book on ethics is composed of moral arguments, as an ethic is in part a set of moral principles.

Virtue ... is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean, i.e. the mean relative to us, this being determined by a rational principle, and by that principle by which the man of practical wisdom would determine it.

*******

Now it is thought to be the mark of a man of practical wisdom to be able to deliberate well about what is good and expedient for himself, not in some particular respect, e.g. about what sorts of thing conduce to health or to strength, but about what sorts of thing conduce to the good life in general.


More moral relativism and moral concepts.

Because I do not agree with it, as even if it is logical and consistent, it is not moral.:)

I think the guy who it is named after proved pretty well why it is not a logical system...

Since you seem to lack all historical perspective on this issue, and reason from your own, lies and false revisionism. Further argument after this point is pointless.

Appealate review was constructed in courts only in two places in history. By Aristotelian/Platonic ethical order, and then later, by the core Aristotelian ethical order of the Common Law.... All courts, outside of that, have been based, historically, upon moralism, and verdicts rendered were final. It was because of Aristotelian Ethical reasoning, that Appelate review was invented, because, logically, judges, being human, cannot be logically guranteed to render reasonable verdicts, and only by insuring review, could reasonable verdicts be maintained.


So, further argument was needed, based on Aristotle himself, as what is quoted above is pretty much a crock of horses..., and not worth the pixels displayed on. Historically inacurrate, and based on faulty analyses and differentiation. It appears that august body is fast entering the winter of its malcontempt.

Take Care, and the people of AP enjoyed Tekania's shriner parade up to their capitol steps, but regret having seen it get beat with a branch from the tree of knowledge before being forced to turn around and go home. But such is the fate of those who folly under the Emporer's watchful eye.

I think the guy who it is named after proved pretty well why it is not a logical system...

This is terrible, but, he took the logical steps consistent whith his ill concieved ideology to create his utopia. It was aplication of the steps where he faltered. As with most concieved utopias, no matter how morally just the believer considers the end to be, the steps required o get there are for the most part immoral.

Once again, AP, you scew the issue.

What is the basis of law? Morality, or ethics? Is it based upon consensus, or logical truth?

As of date, you have claimed to base law upon
1. Morality
2. Derivation of majority morality
3. Through pure will of power

In the end, a system of law based upon "might makes right". (which is very Thrasymachusian).

Even in such a system, you still loose, because the NSUN is mighter than you, and majority consensus has dermined morality for you, to which, being mightier, you must obey. Of course, from further language, in protest, you indicate you do not believe this... But rather, hold you individual morality as superior, for unknown reasons... Of course, at the same time, moralist opponents of yours, hold the exact same view Both of your cannot be right, by pure virture of logic. One must be wrong, or even both wrong.

I contend that both sides, and indeed the entire moral argument of this issue is wrong. And that logic should take place of individual opinions and emotional considerations for the creation of law.

Ex: Limitation of marriage to functional reproductive parters only bolsters population growth.

Q: How? Does such a limitation in any real way effect ultimate population growth?

A:This is of course false. Since ultimate population grows is dependant upon the individual wills of the people, and not government legislation. Pairing reproductive parters, in no way insures reproduction. And even Judeo-christian text, establishes marriage not upon reproduction, but upon partnership. As marriage was established before either 'the fall' or childbirth in order. And even establishes it as an institution before the existance of governmental establishment. (Confirmed in the Common Law).

Increasing the choice availability, and independance of the people, and increase the enviromental conditions of the people increases their likelihood of reproduction. Since homosexuals, which under the objectors position are non-reproductive, they are an added source of reproductive capacity of a free nation, in that they will seek out scenarios and procedures, which would not be available in the moralist nanny-state, to bear and raise children. Therefore bolstering the free-nations population, through the use of a sect of parental units, which are classified non-viable, and useless in the other.

Apart from basing their objection to homosexual unions upon the supernatural; there is no logical reason for a nationstate to deny the right of a person to enter into a marriage contract with another of the same-sex. Since this would neither increase, nor decrease, the presence of reproductive pairs in a society. But at the same time increase the number of marriage partners, who may seek to reproduce (even if by other than natural means). Such rules apply to normally non-productive pairs.

The AP tyranny, is blinded by the morality of its leader, which exists outside of logic. So all ultimate goals, is not the logical course of the nation, but rather in defense of the tyrants moral view, against anything which is contrary to his internally established morality. In such that absolute justice, that is absolute equity, is absent from AP's law. Authority exists by pure power, under the sophist contentment with might makes right. His might further brought about by an unthinking, illiterate populace, extremely docile, lacking the will to overthrow the tyrant.... While at the same time, far less than 1/2 his populace actually approves of, the government, but rather follows by fear of the consequences laid out (another Thrasymachusian, sophist view), instead of through honest loyalty.

Under the argument, The CRoT should be weaker. However, an analyzation of imperical data shows the CRoT weilds political, economic, and military power, which is several magnatudes greater than the HEoAP.... even being that the CRoT is a slightly smaller, newer state. This is of course indicative that, even while the announced goals of the HEoAP's tyrant is the furtherment of his people, that the end result of his choices, based upon his morality, is the weakening of the nationstate of the HEoAP as a whole. That therefore, regardless of his moral claims, or appeals to logic, he is a failure to his people, and a failure to his own stated goals. Logically, his validity, founded upon itself, denies itself; and therefore further indicates his incompitence and invalidity as a leader for the people of the HEoAP.

Once again, AP, you scew the issue.

What is the basis of law? Morality, or ethics? Is it based upon consensus, or logical truth?

As of date, you have claimed to base law upon
1. Morality
2. Derivation of majority morality
3. Through pure will of power

Add logical reasoning to that, and that it can be made by all four interdependantly, or exclusively.

In the end, a system of law based upon "might makes right". (which is very Thrasymachusian).

I prefer force shiites on reason. Like the sound of that better. Any way When did I even imply this? You making things up now? In a democratic republic might makes law, the judiciary can then determine if it is right or not. When dealing with an emperor, that is the case, unless he is killed. However, never have I said majority rules anything. I have repeatedly stipulated that laws, albeit not all, are based in part, on morality. Which you fail understand the concept of, and hide behind a philospher who does not even agree with you.

Even in such a system, you still loose, because the NSUN is mighter than you, and majority consensus has dermined morality for you, to which, being mightier, you must obey. Of course, from further language, in protest, you indicate you do not believe this... But rather, hold you individual morality as superior, for unknown reasons... Of course, at the same time, moralist opponents of yours, hold the exact same view Both of your cannot be right, by pure virture of logic. One must be wrong, or even both wrong.

What are you babling about now? When Have I said my morals are right. I have said that morals can be logically reasoned, and compete with equally valid moral reasoning. And that your assumption that moral arguments are invalid is aspicious at best. A sophistry to elude an argument.

I contend that both sides, and indeed the entire moral argument of this issue is wrong. And that logic should take place of individual opinions and emotional considerations for the creation of law.

Both opinions can be logically derived, and equally weighted. Expecially when there are two different angles to view an issue. See Aristotle.

Ex: Limitation of marriage to functional reproductive parters only bolsters population growth.

Q: How? Does such a limitation in any real way effect ultimate population growth?

A:This is of course false. Since ultimate population grows is dependant upon the individual wills of the people, and not government legislation. Pairing reproductive parters, in no way insures reproduction. And even Judeo-christian text, establishes marriage not upon reproduction, but upon partnership. As marriage was established before either 'the fall' or childbirth in order. And even establishes it as an institution before the existance of governmental establishment. (Confirmed in the Common Law).

Increasing the choice availability, and independance of the people, and increase the enviromental conditions of the people increases their likelihood of reproduction. Since homosexuals, which under the objectors position are non-reproductive, they are an added source of reproductive capacity of a free nation, in that they will seek out scenarios and procedures, which would not be available in the moralist nanny-state, to bear and raise children. Therefore bolstering the free-nations population, through the use of a sect of parental units, which are classified non-viable, and useless in the other.

Yes assume away possible psychological aspects I agree. Even conceded to the swedes on this for matters of consistency. However, like I stated in response to question one, if a government desires a certain outcome, it would have a reason to be against homosexual marriage. Not that I agree with what was proffered. As morality does not matter given the mode of the question. Your rebuttals to it are not logical, but sophistries that avoid the answer and proffer reasoning that lead to your moral conclusion.

Apart from basing their objection to homosexual unions upon the supernatural; there is no logical reason for a nationstate to deny the right of a person to enter into a marriage contract with another of the same-sex. Since this would neither increase, nor decrease, the presence of reproductive pairs in a society. But at the same time increase the number of marriage partners, who may seek to reproduce (even if by other than natural means). Such rules apply to normally non-productive pairs.

You never did state in your question it had to a reason from a UN NS. If a rogue nation makes the creation of family units and reproduction cumpolsory, and emplors marriage contracs to establish the formation of those family units, then it can deny those contracts to homosexuals as they do not meet the required criteria.

The AP tyranny, is blinded by the morality of its leader, which exists outside of logic. So all ultimate goals, is not the logical course of the nation, but rather in defense of the tyrants moral view, against anything which is contrary to his internally established morality. In such that absolute justice, that is absolute equity, is absent from AP's law. Authority exists by pure power, under the sophist contentment with might makes right. His might further brought about by an unthinking, illiterate populace, extremely docile, lacking the will to overthrow the tyrant.... While at the same time, far less than 1/2 his populace actually approves of, the government, but rather follows by fear of the consequences laid out (another Thrasymachusian, sophist view), instead of through honest loyalty.

What is the point of this? I have not expressed AP laws. Nor have I really discussed my morals. I have stated a competing point in the adoption issue. Primarily, that despite that it can be looked at as a human rights issue, it also has child protective issues. Both Looked at logically I might add.

And that argument I posted for question one, which you provide a logical extension for, was, just an answer to the question. Not the law of AP as you appear to be clinging to.

Under the argument, The CRoT should be weaker. However, an analyzation of imperical data shows the CRoT weilds political, economic, and military power, which is several magnatudes greater than the HEoAP.... even being that the CRoT is a slightly smaller, newer state. This is of course indicative that, even while the announced goals of the HEoAP's tyrant is the furtherment of his people, that the end result of his choices, based upon his morality, is the weakening of the nationstate of the HEoAP as a whole. That therefore, regardless of his moral claims, or appeals to logic, he is a failure to his people, and a failure to his own stated goals. Logically, his validity, founded upon itself, denies itself; and therefore further indicates his incompitence and invalidity as a leader for the people of the HEoAP.

Okay, this would roleplaying I take it. As again your description of AP's leader is unfounded, or based on Tekanian modes of analyses. Which, despite claims off all things in the republic being logical, it seldom comes to conclusions on AP that make sense. But hey, its amusing, maybe i'll put this on the NS wiki or whatever that thing is called.;)

Please - today is the deadline for this proposal - if delegates wishing to vote for this please do so and UN members who approve the proposal but are not delegates please lobby your regional delegate to support this motion.

Thank you

President of Cosmia

i strongly urge all regional delegates to endorse the same sex couples on adoption proposal for the UN to vote. this would make the world a strong and more united place and give so many young people the chance of a better life.

The President of the Democratic Republic of Cosmia

Someone please tell me how placing a young child in a gay enviroment will "give...young people the chance of a better life."? Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against gay people or same sex couples/marriages, but dosn't anyone agree that children should be given a normal home to live in? What will that do to a young child? They will see their friends with a mum and dad, yet that child will have a mum and mum or dad and dad? The childs friends will see this too! What are they going to say? That child will be ridiculed and bullied at school for the rest of his/her days! I cannot and will not support this proposal.

Someone please tell me how placing a young child in a gay enviroment will "give...young people the chance of a better life."? Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against gay people or same sex couples/marriages, but dosn't anyone agree that children should be given a normal home to live in? What will that do to a young child? They will see their friends with a mum and dad, yet that child will have a mum and mum or dad and dad? The childs friends will see this too! What are they going to say? That child will be ridiculed and bullied at school for the rest of his/her days! I cannot and will not support this proposal.
Dear if you don't think it's normal then you obviously do have something against them. It's like saying 'no offence but you’re an arsehole' obviously it is offensive and if you didn't want to offend HP shouldn't have said it.

And as for this romanticism of perfect childhood. Well don't you think a child with a Mummy and a Daddy may feel different because Daisy has two Mummys, Mark has one Mummy, Amy's Mummy gives her packed lunches and Rosie has her sister looking after her? But they all get picked on because Alex is a little git who picks on other kids and never gets disciplined because Mummy thinks he is a golden child and Daddy doesn’t have balls enough to stand up to her.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

I dont like the tone of your voice! Is that the way your childhood was?

I dont like the tone of your voice! Is that the way your childhood was?
No, my parents are Catholic. They're so proud.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

A child whose parents are of the same sex does not provide an environment that provides the presence of both male and female parents. Therefore, a child raised in that environment is not provided the opportunity to develop in an environment with the capacity to support full psychological development.

For the first sentence: NO SH*T!! That's what they call a tautology, buddy. You also have no logic in your second statement-and every kid growing up with two mommies or two daddies also has plenty of adult role models of both genders to look up to. And you have no logic in you claim-there is no warrant and you really, really piss me off.

Sort of unrelated to the direction this post has taken, but I saw this on the first page...However, a mountain of accepted research exists on the negative psycholigical impacts of children raised without the continued and systemic presence of parents of both sexes.
How about single parent families I wonder? I imagine most nations have no legislation regarding single foster parents, yet they probably have similar impacts upon the kids.

Anyway....Someone please tell me how placing a young child in a gay enviroment will "give...young people the chance of a better life."? Well, I suppose it depends on if your state welfare system is well funded or not.

What are they going to say? That child will be ridiculed and bullied at school for the rest of his/her days! That'll Only happen because of a lack of education and encouragement of tolerance within your nation. Besides Kids pick on other kids for whatever reason they can find, be it that they have two dads, are ginger, or etc etc etc.....kids are cruel like that if not correctly educated.

So what exactly is your argument Hirota? Are you saying that same sex couples can make good role models for kids? For God sake, the two 'dads' will probably die, before the kid is in his/her teens, from aids! It just not right.

So what exactly is your argument Hirota? Are you saying that same sex couples can make good role models for kids? I'm saying that I think that two parents of the same gender are just as healthy for a child as having one parent.

For God sake, the two 'dads' will probably die, before the kid is in his/her teens, from aids! It just not right.That's just plain ignorant. Whilst HIV does occur in the homosexual community and was initially prevalent amongst homosexuals, the spread of the condition is currently fastest in the heterosexual community. Plus, if the couple are in a healthy, monogamous relationship, then AIDS or HIV is hardly an issue regardless of the gender of the two adults.

Are you saying that same sex couples can make good role models for kids?
I'm sorry but I didn't know your ability to be a role model had anything to do with your sexuality…

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

For a few establishments of personal background:
1. Personally I consider homosexuality a sin.
2. Religiously, I am a Presbyterian, and a "conservative" one at that.

That being said, however, I do not mix my personal religious beliefs into the governmental operations of the Republic. Or let my personal religious biases, intefere with my responsibilities to the Republic.

If one cannot divorce their judgements and legislation, in general law, of their own prejudice, either by person or by belief, then they have no business governing others; because they are incapible of rendering an impartial rulling. As such, this is in line with the UN's views as a whole, in the areas of judgements, and in line with the UN's conceptualization of a "free-nation".

Sort of unrelated to the direction this post has taken, but I saw this on the first page...
How about single parent families I wonder? I imagine most nations have no legislation regarding single foster parents, yet they probably have similar impacts upon the kids.

Correct. There are OOC posts addressing that. I concede, if single individuals are allowed to adopt, it makes no sense to exclude homosexuals. Or, that heterosexual couple should have precedent over the two other groups.

The other two quotes following the first were not AP's.

For the first sentence: NO SH*T!! That's what they call a tautology, buddy. You also have no logic in your second statement-and every kid growing up with two mommies or two daddies also has plenty of adult role models of both genders to look up to. And you have no logic in you claim-there is no warrant and you really, really piss me off.

There is inadequate research at present to distinguish the gender role model effects of homosexual parents from heterosexual parents and or single gender living environments. Absent that, you default to research on children in single gender growing environments. Which is shown to lead to developmental problems. Quote the entire discourse next time. Sorry you consider me an icky person and get mad at those you disagree with. However, with respect to logic, back up what you say about their being plenty of other role models around and how that would somehow differ from other single gender households that do not benefit from that effect.

It would be a shame to deny a loving couple a child.

It would be a shame to deny a loving couple a child.
I denied my couple a child.

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

When I last checked this proposal was only 5 votes short from reaching the UN Floor.

If it interests nations, I copied the full text (including endorsements received) when it was only 6 votes short. A copy of this text is located at the IDU forum (see my footer).

When I last checked this proposal was only 5 votes short from reaching the UN Floor.
I beleive that this proposal received so many approvals due to two principal reasons:

1) Delegates get bored when there is no resolution at vote, and
2) This had 'feel-good legislation' written all over it.

This is a nice idea, but it really isn't necessary. I hope that the author will consider expanding it into a proper adoption proposal that addresses any international aspects, as well as defining it as a more general proposal not specifically aimed at granting a single group specific rights.

We've got plenty of gay rights proposals in place. This should not be an issue under current international law, thanks to all the other resolutions already in place. It's gilding the lily, for no obvious purpose. Make it a general-purpose proposal, and you'll get all the approvals you already got, plus you might pick up curmudgeons like me as well.

IC:

I am not convinced that this legislation is either necessary or desirable. This is not out of disagreement with the ethics of the proposal; Ecopoeia is already compliant. However, I would very much like to see the UN focus on issues that have a genuinely international scope. This proposal, in my opinion, does not pass muster in this regard.

Lady Desdemona, I have taken great pains to prevent my colleague, Mathieu, from coming anywhere near your office. His Gallic sensitivities would inevitably lead him into an unbecoming duel with Mr Jones for your affections.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

OOC:

Hmm. I'm ready to dispute any research that supports the nuclear family. Single parent families are only undesirable in that they place an enormous financial and physical burden on the parent in question. Otherwise, I see no substantial problem with them. Those of us who have grown up with just one parent in the house are well aware that two parents are just too many, dammit. It gets crowded...

Additionally, would the lawyer-philosophers - for the love of God or whatever you find holy/sacred/orjustplainimportant - please ease off on the interminable tracts of ethics/morality debate. It makes my eyes bleed.

Merry Xmas, everyone.

Please stop sexually harassing my wife she is enough trouble as it is.

Lord Geoffrey of Merwell,
The Black New World

This is a nice idea, but it really isn't necessary. I hope that the author will consider expanding it into a proper adoption proposal that addresses any international aspects, as well as defining it as a more general proposal not specifically aimed at granting a single group specific rights.

Make it a general-purpose proposal, and you'll get all the approvals you already got, plus you might pick up curmudgeons like me as well.

Yes, I am currently drafting a new proposal based on the original and making the base broader to count in other issues about adoption. If any of you would like to see this proposal before I post it please send me a message. I also will accept any additional points or amendments that people have and will seriously consider them. However, in the end it is my proposal and i will have the final say on what goes on.

I was also saddened to see so much on these posts saying gay couples really arent worthy to be allowed to raise a family (Iknow this wasnt said directly but that is how it came across). As a gay man myself (even though im only 18), the prospect of never having a family of my own is difficult to face. Adoption would be one of the very few roots for me and a partner to take. Many gay couples would make wonderful, caring, loving parents but will never get the oppourtunity.
I understand peoples concerns and except their opinions but in the C21st, it hurts me to think people judge others for who they love.

- For any one who is interested in th Liberal Democrat Youth and Student Movement in the UK please contact me for more information.

Cosmia

The United Socialist States of Yugoamerica supports your resolution.

OOC: I am not against Gay couples being allowed to adopt, as my parents placed me in the care of a homosexual couple on occasion for extended periods of time when I was a child. My posts were to the effect that gay couples and single individuals can be allowed to adopt, but all else being equal, priority should be given to heterosexual couples until a conclusion is reached on the effects of such single gender households. If it is found to have negative repercussions, then perhaps strong limitations on both such occurences should be in place, or not allowed depending on the countries child welfare system. This is because I consider it the responsibility of government to place fostered individauls under its care in the best environment available for physical and mental development.