NationStates Jolt Archive

this resolution ison the table. it is currently #12, but that will change some time after midnight tonight. The repeal reads as follows: Category: Repeal


Resolution: #12


Proposed by: Jandar

Description: UN Resolution #12: Gay Rights (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: We of the Domain of Jandar, being fiercely independent and moralistic as a population, agree that we cannot discriminate against the gay lifestyle. However, as a nation we feel that we cannot be compelled by an outside governing body to endorse a gay lifestyle. All lifestyles are protected here in the Domain of Jandar, including the right to be gay, but no lifestyle is endorsed by this nation except the lifestyle of hard work and national loyalty. With its current language, this "Gay Rights" resolution must be repealed.

I would ask that all delegates that feel the same way approve this proposition before friday at midnight.

this resolution ison the table. it is currently #12, but that will change some time after midnight tonight. The repeal reads as follows:

Hopefully you haven't used the same tired arguements we've destroyed over a hundred times before.

Category: Repeal


Resolution: #12


Proposed by: Jandar

Description: UN Resolution #12: Gay Rights (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Standard stuff.

Argument: We of the Domain of Jandar, being fiercely independent and moralistic as a population, agree that we cannot discriminate against the gay lifestyle. However, as a nation we feel that we cannot be compelled by an outside governing body to endorse a gay lifestyle. All lifestyles are protected here in the Domain of Jandar, including the right to be gay, but no lifestyle is endorsed by this nation except the lifestyle of hard work and national loyalty. With its current language, this "Gay Rights" resolution must be repealed.

Wait, so you're arguing against it just because you already have it legal and protected and the UN is forcing you to have it legal and protected? I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me.

Oh, congrats on having one of the most original arguements I have seen on the subject.

The Gay Rights resolution, as well as the two others that deal with it in some form, are only intended to have it legal and protected. That doesn't mean that you have to endorse them, just that they have to be legal and protected. The main goal of it is to hit those nations that would make it illegal.

I would ask that all delegates that feel the same way approve this proposition before friday at midnight.

I cannot. I support the issue and feel it is important enough to override the rights of nations.

Argument: We of the Domain of Jandar, being fiercely independent and moralistic as a population, agree that we cannot discriminate against the gay lifestyle. However, as a nation we feel that we cannot be compelled by an outside governing body to endorse a gay lifestyle. All lifestyles are protected here in the Domain of Jandar, including the right to be gay, but no lifestyle is endorsed by this nation except the lifestyle of hard work and national loyalty. With its current language, this "Gay Rights" resolution must be repealed.

I would ask that all delegates that feel the same way approve this proposition before friday at midnight.

Even if your nation is liberated and tolerates all life styles, would you not accept that there are nations out there that will not protect an endorse gay rights? And that by repealing this resolution you are potentially condemming thousands of gay men and women to a life of opression and intolerance and hatred?

Is that something you wish to be remembered for throughout the United Nations and throughout history?

(And on a technicallity, you only have to endorse gay marriages, not the "gay lifestyle" as you so politely put it)

Nice try.

Don't like civil rights? Pull out of the UN :D .

And as you homophobes say when the homosexuals react to your homophobic jokes in games: "It's just a game!111111" :D Oh, it felt so good to say that :p .

The UN should do this in reality :cool: .

-Our government is in complete agreement with Jandar. UN Resolution #12 violates the basic concept of national sovereignty and if it doesn't violate one of the governing rules of this body, then an act should be created so that it does.
-Regardless of the stance of any particular nation, having an international body create a protected class status for any group on a worldwide scale based from sexual orientation seems to be a bit troubling. Has this body discussed creating protected status for any other groups? What are the criteria for such a status to be created? Is it also the role of this body to govern moral issues on such a microscopic scale while leaving out or overriding the sovereignty of localities, states and nations to decide? Our nation feels strongly that this matter is best left to local governments, not international ones.
-Our nation struggles to treat every Man, Woman, and Child like they are of worth. Creating a special class status for some groups and not others will encourage discrimination and could lead to the deterioration of Democratic Government. Perhaps this issue could be addressed in a manner that protects the sovereignty of nations, but addresses the need for equality amongst citizens.
-
-
President ethAn, The Democratic Republic of ethAnTkE

Nice try.

Don't like civil rights? Pull out of the UN :D .

And as you homophobes say when the homosexuals react to your homophobic jokes in games: "It's just a game!111111" :D Oh, it felt so good to say that :p .

The UN should do this in reality :cool: .

Actually I don't think he is homophobic. I think he is going more for the national sovereignty card in this repeal, rather than tham "gays are evil" card.

In either case I am not going to support it, but I think we should at least deny it support based on the proper grounds :}

-Our government is in complete agreement with Jandar. UN Resolution #12 violates the basic concept of national sovereignty and if it doesn't violate one of the governing rules of this body, then an act should be created so that it does.
-Regardless of the stance of any particular nation, having an international body create a protected class status for any group on a worldwide scale based from sexual orientation seems to be a bit troubling. Has this body discussed creating protected status for any other groups? What are the criteria for such a status to be created? Is it also the role of this body to govern moral issues on such a microscopic scale while leaving out or overriding the sovereignty of localities, states and nations to decide? Our nation feels strongly that this matter is best left to local governments, not international ones.
-Our nation struggles to treat every Man, Woman, and Child like they are of worth. Creating a special class status for some groups and not others will encourage discrimination and could lead to the deterioration of Democratic Government. Perhaps this issue could be addressed in a manner that protects the sovereignty of nations, but addresses the need for equality amongst citizens.
-
-
President ethAn, The Democratic Republic of ethAnTkE


And as it has been repeatedly demonstrated time, and time, and TIME again, straight people do not apparently need their right to marry to be defended. No one sets up laws to let straight people hold hands in the street, or to let them kiss in public. Because no one would ever think it necessary to pass a law - only those who are opressed and victimized need laws to protect them, because the ones who are doing the opressing and victimizing are already protected.

There are maybe one or two resolutions that do go over the top in interfering in national sovereignty for no apparent reason. But this is not one of them. This protects a group that needs to be protected because far too many people out there think it is their "god given right" to treat them like crap, while not considering that the UN could equally pass a proposal stopping straight couples from marrying, holding hands and kissing.

TilEnca,

You have missed the point. Our great nation believes that equality is the only answer. The resolution we're discussing does not promote equality, it promotes class warfare, and elitism. Our nation firmly believes that the spirit of this resolution could be met, but the terminology that is currently in it is destructive to nations that do not have such struggles, like ours. I am writing to you as the first openly bisexual President of the Democratic Republic of ethAnTkE. If you are going to give people protected status, give it to all free people equally. Make it a declaration and an expectation for all instead of just one group that is being identified by something as silly as who they desire to have sexual relations with.

President ethAnTkE

You have missed the point. Our great nation believes that equality is the only answer. The resolution we're discussing does not promote equality, it promotes class warfare, and elitism. Our nation firmly believes that the spirit of this resolution could be met, but the terminology that is currently in it is destructive to nations that do not have such struggles, like ours. I am writing to you as the first openly bisexual President of the Democratic Republic of ethAnTkE. If you are going to give people protected status, give it to all free people equally. Make it a declaration and an expectation for all instead of just one group that is being identified by something as silly as who they desire to have sexual relations with.

To jump in here,

Why is the current resolution about gay rights destructive to your nation?

All people are supposed to be treated equally. Unfortunatly, this is not a common occurence. You might have noticed the bunch of repeal requests for the Gay Rights resolution by people who are very much against gays. If we repeal this resolution, your nation will not be affected - but other nations which veiws are very much against they gay comunity will lash out at homosexuals and bisexuals in a possibly violent nature.

It is wonderful to believe that everybody is treated equally, but it just isn't reality. While I, and many other people, accept you as a person - others will not. The Gay Rights resolution's intent was to protect.

-The Gay Rights Resolution was intended to protect, but by allowing.. mandating the creation of protected status groups, you are moving towards fascism. You can still protect gay rights with a resolution that isn't as terribly flawed as this one is. This body could instead pass a resolution that provides equal protection to all peoples. That policy seems to be more responsible.
-On another note.. Taking away the right of free nations to do the correct thing is not responsible either. Encouraging them in other methods than an international governing law is one option. (Sanctions, Relief, etc.)
-This reminds me of the current war on terrorism in the US. To protect the country the government has taken away many of the privacy rights of citizens. In the end, philosophically, the terrorists have won a battle in the war. They restricted freedom. Can we now say that it is ok for the UN to heavy handedly force this (flawed) law onto nations when there are many other responsible and viable methods to get the desired outcome?

That is the real issue here.


President ethAn

-The Gay Rights Resolution was intended to protect, but by allowing.. mandating the creation of protected status groups, you are moving towards fascism. You can still protect gay rights with a resolution that isn't as terribly flawed as this one is. This body could instead pass a resolution that provides equal protection to all peoples. That policy seems to be more responsible.
-On another note.. Taking away the right of free nations to do the correct thing is not responsible either. Encouraging them in other methods than an international governing law is one option. (Sanctions, Relief, etc.)
-This reminds me of the current war on terrorism in the US. To protect the country the government has taken away many of the privacy rights of citizens. In the end, philosophically, the terrorists have won a battle in the war. They restricted freedom. Can we now say that it is ok for the UN to heavy handedly force this (flawed) law onto nations when there are many other responsible and viable methods to get the desired outcome?

That is the real issue here.


President ethAn

Sorry, but what other methods does this UN have?
The only way we do business here is through Resolutions. We do not have recourse to sanctions, relief or other things, except as a direct result of resolutions. Resolutions can not be made to target specific nations, or groups of nations. They are indiscriminate.

If a nation already protects homosexual persons, then Gay Rights has no effect. If the nation so chooses to go further and protect persons of other sexualities, that is its prerogative.
However, if a nation does not protect homosexuals, that is when the resolution has an effect. By repealing this law, you are effectively legitimising the persecution of homosexuals. Maybe not in your nation, but in many others.

Gay or straight, you are a person. When you are born, you have rights no one can take away. I mean NO ONE. Just because of someone' s sexual prefrence thier rights should be limited? I think not.

Gay or straight, you are a person. When you are born, you have rights no one can take away. I mean NO ONE. Just because of someone' s sexual prefrence thier rights should be limited? I think not.

The point here is not that they should have their rights taken away but why they should be treated so special. It's almost a redundancy considering therea re other resolutions that guarantee equal treatment for all (race, gender, religion, sexual orientation).

It's like this indigineous people thing going on right now. Why treat indigineous people specially? What need do we have to specifically make certain groups more special than others.

A repeal of this law would NOT allow for the creation of laws that discriminate and oppress homosexuals becuase of said resolution mentioned above... I'll go look it up and put it here for all of you.

Gay or straight, you are a person. When you are born, you have rights no one can take away. I mean NO ONE. Just because of someone' s sexual prefrence thier rights should be limited? I think not.

Yes, every person has certain inalienable rights.

The very mention of "gay rights" is ridiculous. It automatically assumes that homosexuals are not equal citizens and thus, they should be allotted additional rights.

anyhow, here are the resolutions that i was mentioning.

UN Resolution #26 The Universal Bill of Rights.
-mentions all human beings a lot. Homosexuals aren't human beings?

UN Resolution #80 Rights of Minorities and Women
-This one specifically mentions the right to express love for member of the same sex as well as making sure that other minorities are covered.

UN REsolution #81 Definition of Marriage
-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; (enoguh said about that)

The times are changing people... new resolutoins come in that are more comprehensive and clear than the resolutions that came about at the beginning of UN history. If this means striking down archaic and vague laws in favour of creating new laws that are better suited to describing the current situation, then I'm all for it.

If this resolution is repealed then a new resolution should be formed with the correct language allowing for equal rights for all people. If a new resolution is not drafted then this one should stand until that matter is resolved. In that new resolution, sexual orientation should be added as a specific non discriminant factor.... regardless of sexual orientation...

The wording in this resolution is problematic. It must be fixed. two wrongs do not make a right.

Yes, every person has certain inalienable rights.

The very mention of "gay rights" is ridiculous. It automatically assumes that homosexuals are not equal citizens and thus, they should be allotted additional rights.

It was due to a loophole people were using that was officially closed with that resolution.

If this resolution is repealed then a new resolution should be formed with the correct language allowing for equal rights for all people. If a new resolution is not drafted then this one should stand until that matter is resolved. In that new resolution, sexual orientation should be added as a specific non discriminant factor.... regardless of sexual orientation...

The wording in this resolution is problematic. It must be fixed. two wrongs do not make a right.

Care to elaborate as to what the hell you are talking about?

I don't see any real problems in the wording, besides perhaps using the word "homosexual" instead to make it more formal. I also don't see anything that even implies preferential treatment for anyone, and neither do I see any reason to repeal it if your intention is to protect gay rights or maintain social and legal equality for all.

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.

Actually its word "endorsed" in this sentence that bothers me:

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

I would not have a problem with it, if it were reworded to say:
We also resolve that each member nation must recognize any lawful marriage of two people regardless of sex, and award them the same befefits bestowed to all maried couples.

There are two cards put into play here, the "National Sovereignty" argument, and the "Redundant Resolution" argument. They're both fairly commonly used and both of them have some basic flaws that make them inadmissable as the only reason to repeal a resolution.

A) National Sovereignty:
Does the resolution strike a blow to National Sovereignty? Absolutely. All the resolutions strike blows to National Sovereignty. People who value national sovereignty should not be in the U.N. because the U.N. is about forcing ideals upon others at the cost of adopting these ideals yourself - see the faq for details. The "This hurts nations National Sovereignty" argument is only applicable in a situation where it interferes with the nations ability to properly govern its people. Since this is a moral issue and supports human rights, that doesn't work here.

B)Redundant Resolution:
Ok, so the resolutions redundant. In other words, its completely inactive. Doesn't do anything. The only purpose a redundant resolution serves is to act as a failsafe should the other resolutions that render it void be repealed, essentially tangling the issue in beauracracy. If you attack this resolution, you accomplish nothing, but in theory it is the first step in an attack on other resolutions. There's no real theoretical associated with what happens when it stays, since it has been here for forever, doing nothing.

Finally, the one decent point of this rather silly debate is the word "endorse". Endorse can mean "support", particularly through spoken proclamation, but it can also be interpreted (and nations that don't want to support it have and will continue to interpret it in this manner) as to "give permission". In other words, there's no problem here. Move along.

Your repeal is even more useless than the resolution, therefore there is no practical or logical reason to support it. The only grounds that you can use to repeal this resolution is the moral debate, and I assure you that you won't succeed on those grounds.

TilEnca,

You have missed the point. Our great nation believes that equality is the only answer. The resolution we're discussing does not promote equality, it promotes class warfare, and elitism. Our nation firmly believes that the spirit of this resolution could be met, but the terminology that is currently in it is destructive to nations that do not have such struggles, like ours. I am writing to you as the first openly bisexual President of the Democratic Republic of ethAnTkE. If you are going to give people protected status, give it to all free people equally. Make it a declaration and an expectation for all instead of just one group that is being identified by something as silly as who they desire to have sexual relations with.

President ethAnTkE

You know what - I haven't missed the point. Because as tolerant and wonderful as your nation is, there are a lot of nations out there that want all gays dead with their heads on a spike.

So while I accept you find this Resolution a tad offensive because it gives you something you already have, I think that, for all the gay people living in nations where they would be otherwise oppressed, hunted, killed, mocked, tortured and generally treated like human refuse, this resolution is a wonder of modern society and I for one will keep it that way.

UN Resolution #26 The Universal Bill of Rights.
-mentions all human beings a lot. Homosexuals aren't human beings?


In the eyes of some people? No.


UN Resolution #80 Rights of Minorities and Women
-This one specifically mentions the right to express love for member of the same sex as well as making sure that other minorities are covered.


But does not permit them to act on that expression. You can say "I love you" but you can't hold hands (etc). It also does not specificy marriage as a right.


UN REsolution #81 Definition of Marriage
-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; (enoguh said about that)


This does mention marriage as a right, but not anything else. Marraige does not define the right to sex or to anything else most couples would take for granted.


The times are changing people... new resolutoins come in that are more comprehensive and clear than the resolutions that came about at the beginning of UN history. If this means striking down archaic and vague laws in favour of creating new laws that are better suited to describing the current situation, then I'm all for it.

Gay Rights (R#12) is the ONLY one that specifically grants all the rights to gay couples that straight couples are presumed to have. It is one of the most important resolutions passed. And repealing it would be a disaster.

A) National Sovereignty:
Does the resolution strike a blow to National Sovereignty? Absolutely. All the resolutions strike blows to National Sovereignty. People who value national sovereignty should not be in the U.N. because the U.N. is about forcing ideals upon others at the cost of adopting these ideals yourself - see the faq for details. The "This hurts nations National Sovereignty" argument is only applicable in a situation where it interferes with the nations ability to properly govern its people. Since this is a moral issue and supports human rights, that doesn't work here.


It is only a blow to national sovereignty if people want to ban gay marriage. Otherwise I can't see it being so :}


B)Redundant Resolution:
Ok, so the resolutions redundant. In other words, its completely inactive. Doesn't do anything. The only purpose a redundant resolution serves is to act as a failsafe should the other resolutions that render it void be repealed, essentially tangling the issue in beauracracy. If you attack this resolution, you accomplish nothing, but in theory it is the first step in an attack on other resolutions. There's no real theoretical associated with what happens when it stays, since it has been here for forever, doing nothing.


Actually - it isn't reduntant. As I mentioned previously no other resolution (or combination of resolutions) gives people the rights that this resolution does. If you remove it then nations would be able to argue that although gay men and women can marry, they can't hold hands in the street, or kiss in public places, etc, etc, etc.
This resolution protects a LOT of rights, even if no one seems to understand that fact.

TilEnca, please read the argumentation before refuting it, not just the tag line for the paragraph. I'm on your side, here. The objective of the last post was to establish the only arguments that could possibly hold any ground in this debate and why, even IF they are correct, they don't hold enough water to pass the proposal.

To summarize, every resolution interrupts national sovereignty, even if it is in something such as limiting gay marriage, and many resolutions are redundant (this one, at least, has redundant parts, regardless of what you present). Neither of these are reasons to repeal the resolution because there are only good effects on the people even if both arguments are true.

I understand that this resolution protects rights. It protects them both through its own wording and through the fact that you have to get through both it and resolutions 80, 81 and 26 to be able to sincerely infringe upon all forms of Gay Rights. Please don't write me off as ignorant of the matter if you yourself aren't paying attention to the argumentation.

First things first.. Kelssek you are rude, and my great nation will not dignify yours with a response. I suggest you fire your diplomat immediately.

Second, Many of you.. would like to dimiss the idea of national sovereignty since in this case it is in your favor to do so. Yet you will be the first to squeal when you find that the majority decision does not represent your nation's interests.

With regards to Pojonia's comments.. It is easy to attempt to blow off the notion of national sovereignty, yet I see no reasonable or legitimate argument to do so: "the U.N. is about forcing ideals upon others at the cost of adopting these ideals yourself" Where is that in the charter? The UN is about representation not force. It is not a dictatorship. It's a collective of which my nation is a part of. Although you have a loud and strong voice, it is only one. Accept that, and play your part. As a matter of fact the charter of this body is designed to protect the ideas regarding national sovereignty. Any resolutions that deny such rights are not legitimate.
Furthermore.. Your 'The "This hurts nations National Sovereignty" argument is only applicable in a situation where it interferes with the nations ability to properly govern its people.' comment is a bit out of touch. Read my nation's previous posts. I have mentioned quite clearly that the desired outcome of this resolution could be met in a fashion that did not contradict the national right to sovereignty. It would take work, not lazy attempts to pass uninforceable resolutions that create special classes of citizens... This scenario encourages fascism, which directly interferes with the my nation's ability to properly govern its people (as I have noted previously.)

Creating special classes of citizens is a path that has proven to be dangerous throughout history. Lets rid ourselves of this poorly formed resolution and work together to create one in the spirit of it's intend... a resolution that protects all humans and guarantees them the rights to liberty, life,hapiness and the fair treatment/respect that they should get. Passing sloppy resolutions to cover a wrongdoing is simply a bandaid. All that my nation asks for is the same intent in a well worded resolution that does not create special classes. This resolution is no such item. Scrap it, and take the responsibility of making it right. No more bandaids and scotch taping problems.

President ethAnTkE, The Democratic Republic of ethAnTkE

With all due respect to the idea that a gay rights resolution could be passed that does not interfere with national sovereignty, you are gravely mistaken.

There are nations out there who will NOT accept gay rights ever. Some left the UN over it, some did not join. Others are trying to repeal the current resolution because, while they claim they are not homophobic, their posts mostly consist of rants about "ADAM AND STEVE" (generally in capital letters by the way) and would not accept any resolution that required them to acknowledge gay rights.

I believe there are some things that should be decided at a national level, and some at an international level. The oppression of a whole group of people, across the world, regardless of race, creed or colour, is something I believe the UN should be responsible for putting a stop to. That is why I don't accept the national sovereignty arguement as a valid reason for repealing this ground-breaking piece of UN law.

Now I could be wrong - maybe it should be national, not international - but until I can see a convincing arguement otherwise I am going to stay with the fact that it should be international law. And "just because some people don't like it" is not going to convince me.

First things first.. Kelssek you are rude, and my great nation will not dignify yours with a response. I suggest you fire your diplomat immediately.

He's not being rude. His diplomat won't have yours assassinated or your nation attacked.

Second, Many of you.. would like to dimiss the idea of national sovereignty since in this case it is in your favor to do so. Yet you will be the first to squeal when you find that the majority decision does not represent your nation's interests.

The majority decision has gone against me before. And the same arguement type I hold invalid for you didn't suddenly become valid then. The national sovereignity arguement is invalid, whther it disadvantages me or not.

With regards to Pojonia's comments.. It is easy to attempt to blow off the notion of national sovereignty, yet I see no reasonable or legitimate argument to do so: "the U.N. is about forcing ideals upon others at the cost of adopting these ideals yourself" Where is that in the charter? The UN is about representation not force. It is not a dictatorship. It's a collective of which my nation is a part of. Although you have a loud and strong voice, it is only one. Accept that, and play your part. As a matter of fact the charter of this body is designed to protect the ideas regarding national sovereignty. Any resolutions that deny such rights are not legitimate.

THIS IS NOT THE REAL UN. IT DOES NOT OBEY THE REAL UN'S CHARTER.

You have no idea how many times we get tired of saying that.

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

This body's charter is the FAQ and the stickies at the top of the forum. And none of them support national sovereignity over the UN.

Furthermore.. Your 'The "This hurts nations National Sovereignty" argument is only applicable in a situation where it interferes with the nations ability to properly govern its people.' comment is a bit out of touch. Read my nation's previous posts. I have mentioned quite clearly that the desired outcome of this resolution could be met in a fashion that did not contradict the national right to sovereignty. It would take work, not lazy attempts to pass uninforceable resolutions that create special classes of citizens... This scenario encourages fascism, which directly interferes with the my nation's ability to properly govern its people (as I have noted previously.)

Then get out of the UN. Seriously. Feel free to leave. I'll even help you by showing you the express elevator.

The UN may enforce any resolution it likes and you have no option of disobeying it. That is the reality of the game.

Creating special classes of citizens is a path that has proven to be dangerous throughout history. Lets rid ourselves of this poorly formed resolution and work together to create one in the spirit of it's intend... a resolution that protects all humans and guarantees them the rights to liberty, life,hapiness and the fair treatment/respect that they should get.

1) Those are privilages, not rights. Each is very easy to take away.

2) Except for life and liberty (to a certain extent), already covered.

Passing sloppy resolutions to cover a wrongdoing is simply a bandaid. All that my nation asks for is the same intent in a well worded resolution that does not create special classes. This resolution is no such item. Scrap it, and take the responsibility of making it right. No more bandaids and scotch taping problems.

Life creates special classes. Get over it. This is just to protect people who actually need it.

DemonLordEnigma- "He's not being rude. His diplomat won't have yours assassinated or your nation attacked."

You say that as if you have some understanding of me or my nation? Perhaps you have an idea or agenda you'd like to share with us openly?

DemonLordEnigma- The majority decision has gone against me before. And the same arguement type I hold invalid for you didn't suddenly become valid then. The national sovereignity arguement is invalid, whther it disadvantages me or not.

Naturally, you must reallize I wasn't even addressing your nation specifically, and that it was a general comment/observation not to be confused with an established fact as you have done. I think you're clever enough to get my drift.

The FAQ- The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

What EXACtLY do you think is going on here? I'm trying to mold this situation to my vision. I understand the rules of this game so don't think it's anything special that i'm playing it out. I joined with the understanding that I have to obey resolutions that are passed. I'm here to sway opinions and all your fancy FAQ quotes won't stop me. You've proven that you're aware.. that's how it works.
My nation won't be leaving anytime soon. We will work continuously to provide the leadership that is needed. Thank you, though, for your generous offer!

To comment on the charter/FAQ- National sovereignty issues are always going to be a part of this governing body. If our nation feels that they are not addressed properly, you can expect that we will be pushing for resolutions to deal with that. If you took the time to read our posts earlier in the discussion, you will see that our concern with regards to this resolution is about forming a balance. It would seem by your comments that balance is something your nation does not value. That is certainly your right. However, you can expect my nation to push for balance and thoughtful policy, and it shall come as no suprise to you from this point on.

To comment on rights- The rights to liberty, life,hapiness and fair treatment are rights that our nation will represent each day... on each resolution we interact with in this UN. It is not a privilege, it is a philosophy that we wish to promote. If you wish to run your nation differently, fine. Just remember that you also will be expected to live with the rules that this body passes. Don't disparage us for playing the game.

DemonLordEnigma- Life creates special classes. Get over it. This is just to protect people who actually need it.

In my nations view, this is not only a completely unacceptable answer to this problem, but it would be an excuse for negligence. Within our borders that approach from leadership would not be welcome. My nation wants to see the intent of this resolution redrafted in responsible way. If you had read the previous posts it is easy and clear to distinguish that. We will not support hasty and deformed resolutions. That is our policy. That is our philosophy.

President ethAn, The Democratic Republic of ethAnTkE

You say that as if you have some understanding of me or my nation? Perhaps you have an idea or agenda you'd like to share with us openly?

Or perhaps I'm warning you that others are far more rude.

Naturally, you must reallize I wasn't even addressing your nation specifically, and that it was a general comment/observation not to be confused with an established fact as you have done. I think you're clever enough to get my drift.

Naturally, you posted a general comment and didn't expect someone to reply to it with a statement that leans to the opposite. I think you should mark your opinions instead of stating them as facts, which you had done.

What EXACtLY do you think is going on here? I'm trying to mold this situation to my vision. I understand the rules of this game so don't think it's anything special that i'm playing it out. I joined with the understanding that I have to obey resolutions that are passed. I'm here to sway opinions and all your fancy FAQ quotes won't stop me. You've proven that you're aware.. that's how it works.

That quote serves a dual purpose. Part of it is to point out that the UN's policies go against the idea of national sovereignity.

My nation won't be leaving anytime soon. We will work continuously to provide the leadership that is needed. Thank you, though, for your generous offer!

That is a bit of ego you have not yet earned. The UN doesn't actually need your leadership anymore than it needs mine. To think you are providing a necessity is to fool yourself and to throw yourself on the path of illogic.

To comment on the charter/FAQ- National sovereignty issues are always going to be a part of this governing body. If our nation feels that they are not addressed properly, you can expect that we will be pushing for resolutions to deal with that.

Then you might as well repeal most of them, as almost all of them trample it. Good luck in that.

If you took the time to read our posts earlier in the discussion, you will see that our concern with regards to this resolution is about forming a balance. It would seem by your comments that balance is something your nation does not value.

I did read your posts. And found them unneccessary to my reply.

Balance is something I do not value because life itself lacks it. Nothing in nature is ever actually balanced. The ecosystem itself has never been balanced, as it just shifts from one imbalance to another. And on here, if one side doesn't win the other will push until they do. It's the nature of the game.

That is certainly your right. However, you can expect my nation to push for balance and thoughtful policy, and it shall come as no suprise to you from this point on.

If people wanted balance, then maybe it would exist on here.

To comment on rights- The rights to liberty, life,hapiness and fair treatment are rights that our nation will represent each day... on each resolution we interact with in this UN. It is not a privilege, it is a philosophy that we wish to promote. If you wish to run your nation differently, fine. Just remember that you also will be expected to live with the rules that this body passes. Don't disparage us for playing the game.

I'm not talking philosophy when I say they are not rights. I'm talking realistically. Philosophy is nice, but philosophy doesn't save you from a .45 to the head. Philosophy itself is a privilage, as many people throughout history have been horrendously punished for holding one contrary to the accepted philosophy.

I don't disparage you playing the game, but I am not going to accept those as rights when they so clearly are not. As long as they are easy to take away, the reality of the situation remains with them not being rights. And that is what I stick with.

In my nations view, this is not only a completely unacceptable answer to this problem, but it would be an excuse for negligence. Within our borders that approach from leadership would not be welcome. My nation wants to see the intent of this resolution redrafted in responsible way. If you had read the previous posts it is easy and clear to distinguish that. We will not support hasty and deformed resolutions. That is our policy. That is our philosophy.

You speak against special classes of people, and yet just demonstrated you have them. Your nation has a special class of people who are to make leadership decisions. You have created a special class of people who make the decisions. As long as your nation has separate classes of people, it has no right to speak out against anything that creates special classes.

DemonLordEnigma,

Your conversation has proven interesting yet, unfortunately, not of substance. Our nations wishes to discuss the substance of this resolution and it seems that yours prefers argument for arguments sake.
Apply your own logic to what you wish, as you know what governs my nation and you know what to expect from us. We do not have classes as leadership, we have representation through democracic processes. I'm sure you understand that, but in any case it's all just a tactic to distract from the real issue at hand.
This UN needs involvement and leadership from each of its members in many different forms. If you find your nation to be insignicant, as unfortunate as it is, that is an issue my nation cannot help you with. If our nation feels that an issue is not addressed properly, you can expect that we will be pushing for resolutions to deal with it. If your nation chooses to be resigned to the way this all works, then so be it. But it does leave one to wonder why then are you here.. or perhaps why we are so far from the original issue at hand regarding the inadequacies of this resolution versus it's desired intent.
Again, free thought is not a privilege in our land, and we're sad to hear that is it in yours. As for the .45 issues.. try encouraging your police to take an active role instead of pondering on about the balance of good versus evil, or weather patterns and such while allowing it to all play out, because crime is something they CAN affect with a little positive leadership.

Sincerely Yours,
President ethAnTkE, The Democratic Republic of ethAnTkE

Our nation would like to take this opportunity to step in and cool things down a little bit. It is obvious from reviewing posts that this issue is not over how gays should be treated, but rather the way legislation should be made in their, and others protection. I would like to take a moment to remind everyone that no one posting under this topic is attacking gays, but rather the way this legislation was handled, and we ask that rather than fighting over points and errors in arguments that we work together to come to a solution that everyone finds satisfactory.

Our nation would like to take this opportunity to step in and cool things down a little bit. It is obvious from reviewing posts that this issue is not over how gays should be treated, but rather the way legislation should be made in their, and others protection. I would like to take a moment to remind everyone that no one posting under this topic is attacking gays, but rather the way this legislation was handled, and we ask that rather than fighting over points and errors in arguments that we work together to come to a solution that everyone finds satisfactory.

I would agree, but I am not convinced there is one :}

As far as I can tell there are three groups involved.....

Group A - people who support the resolution because they believe in gay rights, and believe that the UN should be involved in supporting and mandating these rights because it is an international issue. Some of this group (group a1, as it were) fear that if the resolution, however badly it might be phrase now, is repealed then nothing will be found to put in it's place because of the next two groups. An even smaller part of this group (which might be just me) believes that if the resolution is repealed, a new resolution banning gay rights will be tabled.

Group B - people who support gay rights, but not the resolution because they want to support gay rights under their own terms, not under the terms of the current resolution. Whether or not they would support another UN resolution depends on what it says, and how much national sovereignty it destroys in the process.

Group C - (note - there have been no posters from this group in this thread, but they do exist in the NS UN) people who oppose gay rights in all forms and think the UN is way out of line for even contemplating mandating it, because after all it's not a matter of homophobia is a matter of religion and they should not be forced to go against theirs just because some people want equallity for everyone. (Note - I have a slightly sarcastic tendancy towards the views of these people). They want the resolution repealed, and no further resolutions put forward.

So - if anyone can see a way to make all three groups compromise I will be amazed :}

(I only just noticed this post - sorry for the delay in replying to it)

TilEnca, please read the argumentation before refuting it, not just the tag line for the paragraph. I'm on your side, here. The objective of the last post was to establish the only arguments that could possibly hold any ground in this debate and why, even IF they are correct, they don't hold enough water to pass the proposal.


And I did not indicate otherwise as far as I remember :} (Well - except that I don't hold that they are correct, and that should be said as often as possible!)


To summarize, every resolution interrupts national sovereignty, even if it is in something such as limiting gay marriage, and many resolutions are redundant (this one, at least, has redundant parts, regardless of what you present). Neither of these are reasons to repeal the resolution because there are only good effects on the people even if both arguments are true.


Even if it has one part that is not reduntant then it is worthy of keeping. We could take out the reduntant parts under an amendment, but what with the rules not letting us do that, I don't see a way of keeping the good parts without the reduntant parts as well.


I understand that this resolution protects rights. It protects them both through its own wording and through the fact that you have to get through both it and resolutions 80, 81 and 26 to be able to sincerely infringe upon all forms of Gay Rights. Please don't write me off as ignorant of the matter if you yourself aren't paying attention to the argumentation.

That really wasn't my intention I swear. However, whether I understood you or not, I took issue with something that you wrote. That the resolution was redundant and did nothing. I didn't believe that to be true, and I still don't, so I thought I would mention that. Because if I read that and thought it was not true, there are people who would believe you, which would be the next step of the repeal - that like the Free Education to 16 and the First Healthcare Bill - it does nothing so why keep it? Since that is not true, in my opinion, I thought I would mention it.

I really did not mean to give the appearance that I was writing you off as ignorant - just give you a different view point.

Then rather than a resolution giving gays special rights, why do we not look at a resolution that restricts negative treatment of gays and other groups, a blanket civil rights resolution which establishes a basic standard of living for all individuals, I have seen very little of the group 3 that you have mentioned, and I cannot see any right thinking nation opposing a resolution that only demands that they treat gays in the same way as they treat the rest of their citizens. In this way basic human rights can be established which no nation that cares for its citizens could take issue with, while at the same time lessening the ammount of "interferance with sovereignty." I understand that this doesnt resolve issues of gay marriage rights etc and so forth but it does establish a basic standard of living for gays on par with the standard of living for others

Then rather than a resolution giving gays special rights, why do we not look at a resolution that restricts negative treatment of gays and other groups, a blanket civil rights resolution which establishes a basic standard of living for all individuals, I have seen very little of the group 3 that you have mentioned, and I cannot see any right thinking nation opposing a resolution that only demands that they treat gays in the same way as they treat the rest of their citizens. In this way basic human rights can be established which no nation that cares for its citizens could take issue with, while at the same time lessening the ammount of "interferance with sovereignty." I understand that this doesnt resolve issues of gay marriage rights etc and so forth but it does establish a basic standard of living for gays on par with the standard of living for others

Well - and I mean no offence by this at all - but you have been here for what? A day, a week? If you look back through a lot of the thread - or hell even through some of the proposals currently submitted to the UN - you will find a lot of people who want to ban gay marriage, and (maybe less) a fair number of people who want gays to burn in hell.

You really would be surprised at some of the intolerance demonstrated round these parts. It hasn't come in to this (yet) and I admit, I haven't seen it for a little while, but it's there, just waiting for a chance to strike. And the moment you get rid of the Gay Rights resolution then the nations who are in the burn in hell category will be out in force like ants at a picnic.

And - and this is where I think the problem reaches a stand-off - I support gay marriage. Not civil unions, but marriage. Because anything else is discrimination and surrender. But a lot of nations want to grant gay rights to everyone, except they insist that - since civil unions are the same as marriages except in name - gay marriages must be called civil unions.

The current resolution prevents that (as does The Definition of Marriage, but there are moves to repeal that on the grounds it will lead to rampant acts of animal sex, but that is another matter) - it requires marriage rather than some wussy, cop-out alternative.

If you (or anyone) can suggest a draft that does what this resolution does - protects the right of gay couples to walk hand in hand along the street and not be arrested, to kiss in public and not be jailed for it, to marry, to make love wherever they want (deceny laws permitting - but only if they apply to all couplings) and so forth, that doesn't interfere with national sovereignty, then I would be pretty impressed. But sadly still unwilling to support it because (personally) I am not willing to take the gamble that if this is repealed, another one will pass.

That would work, and my nation would support figuring out a way to offer some sort of recognized status for same sex partners by making vague terminology stating that it is recognized regardless of sex according to the UN. But just not outright creating a seperate and protected class like the current resolution does.

Good Idea.

President ethAn, The Democratic Republic of ethAnTkE

We have reviewed the thread before. As opposed to some of the viewpoints expressed, we would like to see an updated resolution passed before the old is repealed. We have our own issues with the idea of the repeal, namely that regardless of the reason of the repeal it may be seen as open season on gays, We would prefer a resolution to be passed to become active upon the repeal of the previous resolution. In this way we feel that there is both a security blanket in case the proposed resolution fails, and at the same time no message is sent that favors the discrimination against homosexuals.

We have reviewed the thread before. As opposed to some of the viewpoints expressed, we would like to see an updated resolution passed before the old is repealed. We have our own issues with the idea of the repeal, namely that regardless of the reason of the repeal it may be seen as open season on gays, We would prefer a resolution to be passed to become active upon the repeal of the previous resolution. In this way we feel that there is both a security blanket in case the proposed resolution fails, and at the same time no message is sent that favors the discrimination against homosexuals.

And therein lies another problem - the game doesn't work like that. To replace a resolution it needs to be repealed first, then a new one put in place.

There are some exceptions - people will argue that DofM replaces Gay Rights (which it doesn't really) and two of the current resolutions (Free Education to 18 and RBH Replacement) replace previous resolutions - but they were both passed back in the day, and the new game rules are pretty strict on this sort of thing.

(Just so as you know, I am not shooting down every idea you have purely for my entertainment. I went through the same thing when I started - I wasn't sure of the rules and so forth - and people kindly told me where I was going wrong. So I thought it would only be polite to do the same for any new people who came long, and who were polite enough to warrant it)

In two words: no way.

We suppose an addendum adjusting the language of a resolution would also would not work with how the game is?

The point here is not that they should have their rights taken away but why they should be treated so special. It's almost a redundancy considering therea re other resolutions that guarantee equal treatment for all (race, gender, religion, sexual orientation).

It's like this indigineous people thing going on right now. Why treat indigineous people specially? What need do we have to specifically make certain groups more special than others.

A repeal of this law would NOT allow for the creation of laws that discriminate and oppress homosexuals becuase of said resolution mentioned above... I'll go look it up and put it here for all of you.

Homosexuals and indigenous peoples are NOT being treated "specially", they are being given special resolutions to define the rights that have been hitherto denied them in the real world. This UN is trying not to create a class of special citizens, but to formally express the rights that marginalized citizens are commonly denied. The rights of marginalized groups have to be garuanteed in straightforward, legal terms because otherwise less scrupulous nations are wont to ignore, avoid, or not grant the equality that such people deserve. For example, in the United States the Civil Rights Act was a neccessary step to secure equality for people of color, because earlier amendments to the contstitution stipulating that all citizens had equal rights were simply ignored in Plessy v. Fergusson. The Civil Rights Act did not create a special class for people of color, it merely asserted in stringent terms that such people were entitled to specific rights, the SAME rights already given to white citizens as a matter of course, because they had been denied those rights over the years. These things have to be spelled out and put into law, or else people are too easily exploited by those who wish to.

DemonLordEnigma,

Your conversation has proven interesting yet, unfortunately, not of substance. Our nations wishes to discuss the substance of this resolution and it seems that yours prefers argument for arguments sake.

The substance is there. You are just not listening.

Apply your own logic to what you wish, as you know what governs my nation and you know what to expect from us. We do not have classes as leadership, we have representation through democracic processes. I'm sure you understand that, but in any case it's all just a tactic to distract from the real issue at hand.

That still creates a class system. The classes are those who rule and those who don't. See the real life examples of that process and notice the vast difference in power they often have.

I know what to expect from you, and you know how I will reply. I cannot afford to let philosophy rule without something of substance to back it.

This UN needs involvement and leadership from each of its members in many different forms. If you find your nation to be insignicant, as unfortunate as it is, that is an issue my nation cannot help you with. If our nation feels that an issue is not addressed properly, you can expect that we will be pushing for resolutions to deal with it. If your nation chooses to be resigned to the way this all works, then so be it. But it does leave one to wonder why then are you here.. or perhaps why we are so far from the original issue at hand regarding the inadequacies of this resolution versus it's desired intent.

You make a simple mistake: You assume it is our job to lead and that the need for us to lead exists. The UN already has leaders, people whose job it is to make sure it doesn't make any drastic mistakes. They are given that job because Max Berry feels they can do it, and they are not us. We are just arguing over the areas that are not drastic mistakes and hoping it goes in our direction. In case you haven't noticed, this forum is posted on by a handfull of people at best. It doesn't have any actual power over the UN. That power is held by the regional delegates.

As for the resolution: It wanted everyone treated equally and was to cover a loophole people were using. It does its job just fine.

Again, free thought is not a privilege in our land, and we're sad to hear that is it in yours. As for the .45 issues.. try encouraging your police to take an active role instead of pondering on about the balance of good versus evil, or weather patterns and such while allowing it to all play out, because crime is something they CAN affect with a little positive leadership.

You make the mistake of not reading my past history on here and then judging how I rule. If you think I suppress free thought, you should see the occasional news broadcast from the Enigma Bragging Network. Sometimes, they say things about other governments that nearly bring my nation to the brink of war.

You should also look up my posts on my police on here. To say they are not active is to show a lack of information that is easily found on this forum about them. Let's just say they are probably paid more than your police are and have much better equipment at their disposal. The .45 issue results from very liberal gun laws, very lethal trespassing laws, and the fact every law-abiding citizen in DLE is issued military-grade weapons. It's not uncommon to walk down the street and see everyone on the street carrying assault rifles. The corporations that focus on weapons have enough money rolling in most of them can embezzle the majority of it and still keep in the clear.

Unfortunately, You are not reading. Our nation does not desire to get into a distracting discussion with yours about all the many topics you seem to be able to pull out other than the issue at hand. As for your concept on representation within the UN and leadership... We simply don't agree. Move on. You cannot change my mind. Your line by line arguments for arguments sake just get old. You don't even appear to be discussing the issues of this forum any longer. My nation is interested in the topic at hand. I believe our discussion on other matters has ended long ago.

President ethAnTkE

Unfortunately, You are not reading. Our nation does not desire to get into a distracting discussion with yours about all the many topics you seem to be able to pull out other than the issue at hand. As for your concept on representation within the UN and leadership... We simply don't agree. Move on. You cannot change my mind. Your line by line arguments for arguments sake just get old. You don't even appear to be discussing the issues of this forum any longer. My nation is interested in the topic at hand. I believe our discussion on other matters has ended long ago.

President ethAnTkE

Your arguement is invalidated by your hypocrisy. Following is a link of all of the times someone has started to move this thread away from the topic by bringing up others:

Discussion about classes: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7993744&postcount=5

More discussion about classes: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7994035&postcount=8

Brings up the War on Terror: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7994481&postcount=10

Talks about other posters whining over things going wrong, the UN charter (not applicable to NS), and the class issue again: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8001040&postcount=25

Forming a balance, philosophy in government, and the "rights" issue: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8001699&postcount=28

Government style, UN leadership, and my police forces: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8002232&postcount=30

More of the class issue: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8002717&postcount=36

Accusing others of trying to distract the conversation: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8004587&postcount=43

Unless you are innocent of it, don't accuse others. When you are ready to discuss without the hypocrisy, let us know.

Perhaps your nation should go back and read its line by line clips again. Each one of those discussion was created completely around a concept dealing specifically with issues regarding this resolution. Metaphors were used, deal with it. On the other hand your nation has been more interested in points of order that may or may not have any bearing on this discussion at all.. The roles of leadership and etc. A little revisionism does not go a long way. Nice try though. Contact my nation when you are serious about the topic at hand, otherwise good day to you.

President ethAnTkE, The Democratic Republic of ethAnTkE

Perhaps your nation should go back and read its line by line clips again. Each one of those discussion was created completely around a concept dealing specifically with issues regarding this resolution. Metaphors were used, deal with it. On the other hand your nation has been more interested in points of order that may or may not have any bearing on this discussion at all.. The roles of leadership and etc. A little revisionism does not go a long way. Nice try though. Contact my nation when you are serious about the topic at hand, otherwise good day to you.

President ethAnTkE, The Democratic Republic of ethAnTkE

Anyone who reads my posts will see I am generally responding to the arguements brought up, as they are brought up. And since you didn't bother to post any proof of your fallacious claim, I must hold it as a cheap way to try to dodge the fact you are guilty of trying to derail the thread. Either provide proof, admit your claims are false, or don't bother replying.

Now, if you wish to reply to my serious replies, they have already been posted and are unrefuted. Try to not attempt to derail the thread this time.

Nice try, but this thread was moving along quite well until we started getting into issues clearly introduced by your nation to derail this discussion.

I suggest your nation keep refrain from posting and allow us to get back to the topic. As for your suggestion to silence my sovereign nation, don't hold your breathe.

President ethAnTkE

Nice try, but this thread was moving along quite well until we started getting into issues clearly introduced by your nation to derail this discussion.

I suggest your nation keep refrain from posting and allow us to get back to the topic. As for your suggestion to silence my sovereign nation, don't hold your breathe.

President ethAnTkE

Provide evidence I was trying to derail the thread. I've challenged you for evidence three times (including this one) on this thread and you have failed to provide it.

My nation will no longer participate in your attempts to derail threads such as in this case:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8004818&postcount=23

We will only discuss items related to the topic in this thread, and invite other nations interested in an effective discussion to follow suit.

President ethAnTkE of The Democratic Republic of ethAnTkE

Evidence provided is insufficient. No mention of who derailed in post. You have failed the proof test. Your arguement is disproven.

Now, either provide evidence, deal with my arguements on the topic, or stop wasting everyone's time.

We suppose an addendum adjusting the language of a resolution would also would not work with how the game is?

You suppose correctly. Amendments are illegal.

However, that is to say you can't propose something to define certain words or terms, as long as you are just defining those words or terms. That's how the Definition of Marriage resolution passed.

In two words: no way.

Two more words: Why not?

Stop sniping, and move on with a productive discussion please. *sigh*


President ethAnTkE

Ostracion,

It seems that a new resolution would have to be created. The question then is do we allow a flawed resolution to remain as opposed to having no rule other than the generic human rights resolutions that are preexisting. After some carefull thought and private consultation, I tend to agree with TilEnca on this matter. This resolution cannot be repealed unless another one to replace it has been drafted. I am still trying to learn the processes for these matters. So regardless of the points of order on how (or if) new resolutions can be passed to update or override old ones, my intent is that the current resolution should stand until the problems within it can be addressed in a realistic fashion. It is an unfortunate situation that this flawed resolution made it though without more revision, but we must work with what we have established.
Thanks again to TilEnca for your consultation regarding this item!

President ethAnTkE of The Democratic Republic of ethAnTkE

Stop sniping, and move on with a productive discussion please. *sigh*


President ethAnTkE

Stop posting claims with no evidence to support them as though they are fact, making wild accusations with no evidence to support them, and then posting sniping comments and accusing the other side of the same.

Oh, you're still being a hypocrite. Here's the proof:

Sniping: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8004714&postcount=45
Sniping: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8004790&postcount=47
Sniping: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8004868&postcount=49

And, finally, post your evidence for your claims. The one about me sniping and the one about me not having moved on with the discussion, in addition to all of the others.

Again, We will only discuss items related to the topic in this thread, and invite other nations interested in an effective discussion to follow suit. DLE, if you would like to discuss our issues via email please hit up my profile. I will be happy to do so.

President ethAnTkE of The Democratic Republic of ethAnTkE

I do not discuss issues over email when I have evidence at hand that I cannot trust the other participant. As it is, everything that needs posting on here has been and the evidence is presented for all to read.

Now, I await the others to get up and add replies to what pertains to them.

DLE,

Just because we have a difference of opinions on matters does not mean that we cannot communicate our differences somewhere that do not involve us distracting an entire thread over it. Perhaps you would consider my invitation to send me a telegram.

(Possibly Former) President ethAn, of the Federal Republic of ethAnTkE

After some carefull thought and private consultation, I tend to agree with TilEnca on this matter. This resolution cannot be repealed unless another one to replace it has been drafted.


I am not sure that is exactly what I said, but I think it was the gist of it :}


So regardless of the points of order on how (or if) new resolutions can be passed to update or override old ones, my intent is that the current resolution should stand until the problems within it can be addressed in a realistic fashion. It is an unfortunate situation that this flawed resolution made it though without more revision, but we must work with what we have established.


I really don't think that it is flawed for what it does - it is called "Gay Rights" and, as resolutions go - it does exactly what it says in the title. It doesn't have to protect anyone else, because it's protecting gay rights. And if it tried to, it would be illegal and never have passed.

Although I am willing to keep working with you (and other nations) on this, I really am having a hard time understanding why this resolution is a problem. It protects a seciton of society that has, historically, been persecuted in most nations, and it does not seek to prevent anyone passing laws to allow protection of other members of society. It does absolutely no harm and a lot of good.

I really don't think that it is flawed for what it does - it is called "Gay Rights" and, as resolutions go - it does exactly what it says in the title. It doesn't have to protect anyone else, because it's protecting gay rights. And if it tried to, it would be illegal and never have passed.

That's the problem that you're missing. This piece of legislation is completely useless. Homosexuals are protected through numerous other resolutions. You take this one away, they're still protected. Why not pass "Heterosexual Rights" and "Bisexual Rights" if we're going to allow lame resolutions like "Gay Rights" to stand?

Although I am willing to keep working with you (and other nations) on this, I really am having a hard time understanding why this resolution is a problem.

See above for detail.

It protects a seciton of society that has, historically, been persecuted in most nations, and it does not seek to prevent anyone passing laws to allow protection of other members of society. It does absolutely no harm and a lot of good.

That's where you're wrong. It does absolutely no good. Homosexuals are already protected under UN law from persecution. Under the "Universal Bill of Rights", I can't restrict the rights of the homosexual. That'd be a violation of UN law if I did, making "Gay Rights" unneccessary. The only thing "Gay Rights" serves to do is force nations to "endorse" gay marriage. Other than that, it has no purpose.

That's where you're wrong. It does absolutely no good. Homosexuals are already protected under UN law from persecution. Under the "Universal Bill of Rights", I can't restrict the rights of the homosexual. That'd be a violation of UN law if I did, making "Gay Rights" unneccessary. The only thing "Gay Rights" serves to do is force nations to "endorse" gay marriage. Other than that, it has no purpose.

Firstly - remember the order these things were passed in. At the time Gay Rights was passed, UBR was not. So it did solve a point when it was passed.

Secondly - if you can show me any part of UBR that specifically says you can not call gay men FAGS in the street, then I will agree this needs repealing.

I would imagine no nation has a law saying that you can't insult a straight person's sexuality. So if there is no law to say that, there would be no law to say you can't insult a gay person's sexuality.

Further to that - what if there is no law that says discrimination can not be based on sexuality? I don't see that law in the UBR.

So if you have no laws that say you can't discriminate, then you can't break them. Ergo Gay Rights is protecting something that would be lost should it be repealed.

I can not find a suitable reason not to repeal it, because it does no harm and protects a group of people who need protecting. If you want to do something constructive then pass hetrosexual rights, pass bi-sexual rights. But don't do something that you can not forsee the consequences of doing.

Further to that point - and this is going to seem strange, but I think it is permissible - if Gay Rights is repealed I can write a law in to my nation to say homosexuality is evil. Now since that is a law in my nation, all people have to be treated fairly under it, so all homosexuals will be treated as evil.

So I would still be in line with the UBR, and quite clearly violating gay rights.

Nations can pass laws to do anything and they would not be in violation of the UBR providing they apply them fairly - to all the people they want to oppress :}

Firstly - remember the order these things were passed in. At the time Gay Rights was passed, UBR was not. So it did solve a point when it was passed.

Right. At the time. But now it has no point. Word it however you like. Before, it was, used to be, whatever. Today, as of present-day, it has no value whatsoever.

Secondly - if you can show me any part of UBR that specifically says you can not call gay men FAGS in the street, then I will agree this needs repealing.

Give me a break. So the Universal Bill of Rights left out articles that would prevent people from calling each other names. Big deal. It still keeps homosexuals from getting beaten or punished in the streets, and it gives them total equality. If this is your only argument for keeping this weak piece of legislation around, better find another proposal to dig into, because you're not very convincing.

I would imagine no nation has a law saying that you can't insult a straight person's sexuality.

You're right. If we're going to write up a resolution whose only purpose is to keep people from calling homosexuals fags (wow, most definitely an international issue; we can't have namecalling in UN member nations), why not write one up protecting heterosexuals from insult too? Would you be willing to pass a resolution called "Heterosexual Rights"? Because if you aren't, you might as well drop this particular argument.

So if there is no law to say that, there would be no law to say you can't insult a gay person's sexuality.

I just can't believe that the only reason you want this resolution to stay is to keep gays from getting called names. That's all it does, bro. Sexual harassment is most definitely a domestic issue. I mean seriously, a resolution that prevents namecalling?

Further to that - what if there is no law that says discrimination can not be based on sexuality? I don't see that law in the UBR.

All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

The above quote is taken from the "Universal Bill of Rights". Maybe you interpreted it differently, but I thought it was fairly easy to understand. What it's saying is, all human beings (of all sexual preferences) must be treated equally under the law. There can be no discrimination, no singling out. Every man must be treated equally.

So if you have no laws that say you can't discriminate, then you can't break them. Ergo Gay Rights is protecting something that would be lost should it be repealed.

You do have a law that says you can't discriminate. All people must be treated equally under the law. EQUALLY. =

I can not find a suitable reason not to repeal it, because it does no harm and protects a group of people who need protecting.

It's useless.

If you want to do something constructive then pass hetrosexual rights, pass bi-sexual rights. But don't do something that you can not forsee the consequences of doing.

If I do indeed try to pass such resolutions, I hope to see your support. I have a feeling your extreme left-wing agenda wouldn't provide for a resolution that gave heterosexuals rights, and that you'd fight it until the end. I hope I'm wrong. I'd hate to have to call you a hypocrite.

Further to that point - and this is going to seem strange, but I think it is permissible - if Gay Rights is repealed I can write a law in to my nation to say homosexuality is evil. Now since that is a law in my nation, all people have to be treated fairly under it, so all homosexuals will be treated as evil.

I'm a little confused. I think you could reword this better, but I'll attempt to reply to it anyway. You can't declare a law that makes homosexuality evil if it permits unfair treatment of homosexuals. Under the Universal Bill of Rights, all human beings must be treated equal under law.

So I would still be in line with the UBR, and quite clearly violating gay rights.

I'm not sure if we're reading the same UBR.

Nations can pass laws to do anything and they would not be in violation of the UBR providing they apply them fairly - to all the people they want to oppress :}

If you declared the whole human race evil, than you'd be in line with the UBR. If you declared just homosexuals evil, you'd be in violation of UBR.

The above quote is taken from the "Universal Bill of Rights". Maybe you interpreted it differently, but I thought it was fairly easy to understand. What it's saying is, all human beings (of all sexual preferences) must be treated equally under the law. There can be no discrimination, no singling out. Every man must be treated equally.

Around the time this was passed, people were using the loophole you quoted to classify gays as nonhuman and then ban gay marriage.

I'm a little confused. I think you could reword this better, but I'll attempt to reply to it anyway. You can't declare a law that makes homosexuality evil if it permits unfair treatment of homosexuals. Under the Universal Bill of Rights, all human beings must be treated equal under law.


I think we are at cross purposes here.

It says that all people must be treated equally under the law. Which I am taking to mean the law of the nation, rather than any other law (because I can't imagine what other laws would apply to be honest).

So, I, being the homophobic bigot that I am, pass a law saying that gay men can not work in the army. This is now a law, and people must be treated equally under it. The law only applies to gay men, so as long as I treat all gay men equally, the law is not in violation of the UBR.

(To give you another example, a nationg might have a malpractice law for doctors. Which is blatantly illegal, because it only applies to doctors, and no one else could ever be affected by it. But is anyone going to try to repeal the UBR because of that? No - because it is common sense that certain laws only apply to certain people. Military laws, for example, only apply to those in the military, not to those outside of it. But I am pretty sure they are still permitted under the UBR).

And what if you write a law that says "People may not be gay". That treats EVERYONE in the same way - it says that no one is gay. In the same way a law says "you can not have sex with a goat" the law can say "you can not have sex with a member of the same sex". If one law is permissble, then the other law HAS to be otherwise the UBR is discriminatory within itself.

This proposal does give rights to a specific group, but only because, historically, that group has needed protecting from the rest of the world. If you take it away then their rights will vanish, and as much as the UBR would try to protect them, it would not be able to.

If I do indeed try to pass such resolutions, I hope to see your support. I have a feeling your extreme left-wing agenda wouldn't provide for a resolution that gave heterosexuals rights, and that you'd fight it until the end. I hope I'm wrong. I'd hate to have to call you a hypocrite.

Why do you think I would not want rights for hetro-sexuals? I want rights for gay people, straight people, pink, purple, red and yellow people (and green people, but I think I could go on forever about colours).

The reason no one has proposed them is because no one would ever think they are necessary. The DofM act is the closest thing we have to hetrosexual rights, and that was bitterly contested as being pointless and stupid because it was perceived as only repeating the gay rights resolution in respect to marriage. No one looked at it the other way - that it also defended the right of hetrosexual marriage - because no one considered that right to be in doubt.

But you are wrong - I would not object to proposals to defend the right to be straight. But I be almost certain that a great number of people would tell you it is a waste of time, because why do we need to put in to law what "god himself" has given us?

TilEnca,

It is good to know that we agree on the idea that this resolution should stand until or unless a new one is drafted.
The new resolution should provide the protections intended in the current resolution EXCEPT it shall not establish a seperate and protected class. It shouldl rule regarding all people.
Now before some nation jumps in telling me about the many other resolutions providing protections for human treatment. I do not need a history lesson. I'm fully aware of where the FAQ and current resolutions are located. I'm aware they exist. But I believe that there are some protections that have not been identified that should be. These protections include, but are not limited to items pertaining to homosexuality.

TilEnca- with regards to your not understanding my nations issues with the current resolution.. I thought we had discussed this clearly earlier in the thread.

"I have mentioned quite clearly that the desired outcome of this resolution could be met in a fashion that did not contradict the national right to sovereignty. It would take work, not lazy attempts to pass uninforceable resolutions that create special classes of citizens... This scenario encourages fascism, which directly interferes with the my nation's ability to properly govern its people (as I have noted previously.)

Creating special classes of citizens is a path that has proven to be dangerous throughout history.Lets rid ourselves of this poorly formed resolution and work together to create one in the spirit of it's intend... a resolution that protects all humans and guarantees them the rights to liberty, life,hapiness and the fair treatment/respect that they should get. Passing sloppy resolutions to cover a wrongdoing is simply a bandaid. All that my nation asks for is the same intent in a well worded resolution that does not create special classes. This resolution is no such item. Scrap it, and take the responsibility of making it right. No more bandaids and scotch taping problems."

Now our position regarding this repeal has changed some through the discussion, but we still feel that the resolution is flawed and should be replaced at some point. We agree with TilEnca that this should only be done while continuously guaranteeing the protection of all peoples rights, including homosexuals.

President ethAnTkE, The Democratic Republic of ethAnTkE

Why not pass one guaranteeing the rights of beings of all sexual orientations?

Why not then? I think there would be enough support for it.

president ethAn

Hmm. We need a draft...

Ok - when I said I didn't get what the problem was, I meant I don't get why it's an issue.

This resolution says gay rights must be protected. It doesn't say they get special rights, it doesn't say no one else can have these rights. It doesn't say anyone who isn't gay must be killed at dawn.

What I don't get is why people are working so hard to repeal this when, quite honestly, it will only be a problem if you let it. We have laws regarding gay rights in our nation, not because of this resolution but because the vast majority of the people wanted them. And the rest have grown to accept it. And then we joined the UN and found that something we already had was re-enforced by the UN. No one cared. Not a single person said "Oh no - we are being forced to proclaim gay rights above all others" and not single person said "Oh no - we are having our national sovereignty overruled by the UN in regard to gay rights". Everyone said "Wow - the UN has the right idea too".

I can't support a repeal. This is not a dangerous resolution, it will not encourage fascism and it does stop people proposing resolutions that will ban homosexuality and gay marriage.

I understand your point, I just think you are totally wrong.

And what if you write a law that says "People may not be gay". That treats EVERYONE in the same way - it says that no one is gay. In the same way a law says "you can not have sex with a goat" the law can say "you can not have sex with a member of the same sex". If one law is permissble, then the other law HAS to be otherwise the UBR is discriminatory within itself.

Okay, you've made a much stronger point here, and I'm starting to see what you're getting at. Obviously I didn't think of it that way. Point taken.

Why is it always the new arrivals?

Its nice to see that we are all coming to an agreement (though we are saddened to see that it follows the lines of the solution we suggested many posts previous to the fighting). The nation of Ostracion fully supports any attempt to create a blanket resolution protecting the rights of all sexualities against harrassment and persecution by any nation within the confines of the UN, and further propose a joint committee be created for the purposes of drafting which includes members of each *relevant* faction on the issue (excluding bigots and religious radicals because our nation firmly believes in a seperation of church and state). The factions as we see them currently are: The sovereignty faction (those concerned with the UN impeding nations rights), The redundant faction (those who wich to preclude redundant resolutions from being created), and finally the pro faction (those on the other end of the spectrom from the sovereignty rights faction, those feeling that protection and support take precedence over sovereignty issues). Through these three groups we believe that an equitable solution may be reached in the creation of such an all encompassing civil rights resolution that does not impede (significantly) on sovereignty of other nations and does not (significantly) overlap any previously created resolution.

We further feel that through the creation of an all encompasing civil rights resolution we may side step the issue of repealing the gay rights resolution first, in this way those who have concerns of sending a negative message by repealing this resolution before a new one is in place will be reassured that there is a safety net in the event of failure by the new resolution proposition to pass.