NationStates Jolt Archive

This proposal is for the insurance that all rights and privaleges that heterosexuals now possess be kept in term and in no way compromised by any other proposals and/or laws that are now in place for the advancement of the homosexual aspect of society, which is now being treated as a proper way of life. Homosexuals will continue to be treated fairly as all people of the spectrum should but will not become a group acting of their own volition, which some resolutions and/or laws are now implying. The concensus of the general public shall not be compromised by the sexual orientation of others. Thus it is inappropriate to expect heterosexuals to accept this way of life without question. Thus the rights of heterosexuals to not accept this form of orientation must be upheld.

This proposal is for the insurance that all rights and privaleges that heterosexuals now possess be kept in term and in no way compromised by any other proposals and/or laws that are now in place for the advancement of the homosexual aspect of society, which is now being treated as a proper way of life. Homosexuals will continue to be treated fairly as all people of the spectrum should but will not become a group acting of their own volition, which some resolutions and/or laws are now implying. The concensus of the general public shall not be compromised by the sexual orientation of others. Thus it is inappropriate to expect heterosexuals to accept this way of life without question. Thus the rights of heterosexuals to not accept this form of orientation must be upheld.

Okay - I have read that three times and I have no idea what you are trying to say, or what you are trying to do.

Could you please post a copy of your proposal (assuming it has been submitted) to make it more clear?

Thanks.

That IS the proposal. All rhetoric and no action.

Heterosexual Right

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Shirenma

Description: This proposal is for the insurance that all rights and privaleges that heterosexuals now possess be kept in term and in no way compromised by any other proposals and/or laws that are now in place for the advancement of the homosexual aspect of society, which is now being treated as a proper way of life. Homosexuals will continue to be treated fairly as all people of the spectrum should but will not become a group acting of their own volition, which some resolutions and/or laws are now implying. The concensus of the general public shall not be compromised by the sexual orientation of others. Thus it is inappropriate to expect heterosexuals to accept this way of life without question. Thus the rights of heterosexuals to not accept this form of orientation must be upheld.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 145 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon Jan 17 2005


And I still have NO idea what it does.

All this amounts to is a proposal to protect the ability of people to be biased. Not worth our time.

This proposal is for the insurance that all rights and privaleges that heterosexuals now possess be kept in term and in no way compromised by any other proposals and/or laws that are now in place for the advancement of the homosexual aspect of society, which is now being treated as a proper way of life.

It's not being treated as the proper way of life, just a way that needs protecting from those who would destroy it.

Homosexuals will continue to be treated fairly as all people of the spectrum should but will not become a group acting of their own volition, which some resolutions and/or laws are now implying.

They are not implying that. They are implying it should be protected and allowed, not trampled upon.

The concensus of the general public shall not be compromised by the sexual orientation of others.

Where did you get that it was? I want evidence.

Thus it is inappropriate to expect heterosexuals to accept this way of life without question.

They may question it, but not oppress it. Freedom of speech does have its limitations.

Thus the rights of heterosexuals to not accept this form of orientation must be upheld.

As long as they do not try to oppress it or discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation, I'm fine with them not accepting it. Their problem.

what youre saying is that people should not be allowed to be biased. What concern is it of yours if someone doesnt like that someone else is a homosexual and lets them know.

what youre saying is that people should not be allowed to be biased. What concern is it of yours if someone doesnt like that someone else is a homosexual and lets them know.

It is my concern because of the possible strife in my nation. My people are violent enough as it is and these things can escalate into a full-blown war between two groups. With my gun laws, you're talking about heavily armed groups of people fighting each other. Not productive to my society.

what youre saying is that people should not be allowed to be biased. What concern is it of yours if someone doesnt like that someone else is a homosexual and lets them know.

Would you accept that if I didn't like a black guy cuse he is black I should be able to tell him that? That if I didn't like a Christian because he is a Christian I should be able to tell them that? That if I don't like a woman because she is a woman that I should be able to tell her that? That if I don't like a straight guy cause he is straight I should be able to tell him that?

Surely if you are arguing for the right to be biased, you should allow people to be biased against everyone. By suggesting a proposal that only allows people to be biased against homosexuals (and not - I note - hetrosexuals) you are infact being pretty biased yourself.

My nation is against this 'proposal' in every shape and form. If I understand this correctly, this proposal allows heterosexual people to express any negative views on homosexuality. This would be in violation of the human rights resolution, and the definition of a marriage resolution, as gays are protected under both acts from the negative actions of others.

If this were to pass, both resolutions would have to be thrown out. You can only remove a resolution by repeal, so I call to remove this proposal as it interfers with the game mechanics.

Considering I have only been here for less than a week, I could be wrong in this matter. In which case, I find the spirit of this proposal to be counterproductive to the UN, and more specifically to my nation's ideal of social freedoms. It is also a redundant issue, as people are allowed the freedom of speach and opinion anyway.

I am still confused by your jargon describing homosexuals interfering with the heterosexual's way of life? Is there some sort of organization of gays going around and making the world a bad place for straight people??

Actually - it depends on your perspective.


Gay Rights


A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kundu

Description: WHEREAS it has been clearly witnessed there is an outspoken minority who wish to oppress gays.

We, the People's Republic of Kundu and the other peoples of the world wishing for the preservation of freedom and the respect of all hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life.

We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.


and


Definition of Marriage


A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category : Human Rights
Strength : Mild
Proposed by : Vastiva

Description : IN VIEW of the Universal Bill of Human Rights, and the Gay Rights resolution;

The UN HEREBY :

DEFINES marriage as the civil joining of a member of any nation with any other member of any nation, regardless of sex, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, color, or any other characteristic, with the exception of age;

RECOGNIZES age of the individual(s) as a just reason for not recognizing marriage, as per Article One of the Child Protection Act;

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


So - neither of these resolutions explicitly prevent people from expressing their opinions about homosexuality. Gay rights does not say that free speech has to be restricted in regard to homosexuals. It's possible it can, but it is not necessary. And the definition of marriage does not even come close to mentioning preventing freedom of speech.

So why is it necessary to write a new proposal that allows people the freedom of speech to say they do not like gay men?

They can not actually act on their dislike as that would be discrimination, which is banned. But they can excercise freedom of speech to their total extent.

I think this new proposal is totally unwarranted.

If this were to pass, both resolutions would have to be thrown out. You can only remove a resolution by repeal, so I call to remove this proposal as it interfers with the game mechanics.

Considering I have only been here for less than a week, I could be wrong in this matter. In which case, I find the spirit of this proposal to be counterproductive to the UN, and more specifically to my nation's ideal of social freedoms. It is also a redundant issue, as people are allowed the freedom of speach and opinion anyway.

I am still confused by your jargon describing homosexuals interfering with the heterosexual's way of life? Is there some sort of organization of gays going around and making the world a bad place for straight people??

I understand your comments, but I don't believe that the mechanics of the game are affected by two seperate resolutions of rights (even if the latter is nothing more than an attempt at placing a limit on rights).

Denai

My nation fully believes in equal rights. We do not give exclusive and special rights to any group, but we firmly believe that minority groups need our protection in some cases. Hetorsexuals are a welcome part of our society as they help sustain our population and bring in interesting perspectives to our diverse society.

Denai

I understand your comments, but I don't believe that the mechanics of the game are affected by two seperate resolutions of rights (even if the latter is nothing more than an attempt at placing a limit on rights).

Denai

I think the arguement that this is trying to repeal gay rights without the bother of having the repeal.

In the same way that passing a resolution that bans abortion would not be permitted right now, because abortion is legal in every UN nation.

It's quite an inventive way to say 'Gays are icky'.

You do not have our support.

Giordano,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

Thus the rights of heterosexuals to not accept this form of orientation must be upheld.

Look mate, if you're a bigot and don't want to look like the stereotypical bigoted moron, don't split your infinitives whilst trying to look intellectual and objective about aspects of the modern world you can't cope with or socially progressive and pedantic nations such as mine will point it out and make you look silly.

President Iggy H. Pop.

Heterosexuals shall have the right to be heterosexual.

Just like homosexuals shall have the right to be homosexual.

Same for bisexual people.


Or in short, if you fall in love, there shall be no discrimination from the side of the government, employer, insurer, landlord, or other organization or individual on which you are dependent regarding your lover's gender, nationality, religion, ethnizity, handedness (right- or left-handed), eye-color, language, hair-length, hair-color, skin-color, foot-size, etc. etc.

Heterosexuals shall have the right to be heterosexual.

Just like homosexuals shall have the right to be homosexual.

Same for bisexual people.


Or in short, if you fall in love, there shall be no discrimination from the side of the government, employer, insurer, landlord, or other organization or individual on which you are dependent regarding your lover's gender, nationality, religion, ethnizity, handedness (right- or left-handed), eye-color, language, hair-length, hair-color, skin-color, foot-size, etc. etc.

covered in "Definition of Marriage", resolution 81, and in another one I can't remember which states "no discrimination".