NationStates Jolt Archive

Text:
Argument: Repeal for the ANIMALS:
Seeing that the UN has been a strong advocate for animals,

Whereas, there has been no research stating that animals have any interest in sexual activities with humans,

Whereas, the animal's age is NOT set in the 'Definition of Marriage' resolution unlike the mentioning of a legal age of adulthood (resolution refers to Child Protection Act),

Noting, the normal animal have been proven not to have the same logic and ability to comprehend thus not able to make serious decisions like marriage etc.,

Recognizing, the animals in many relations with humans are forced and obviously face serious physical (and possibly mental) repercussions.

Understanding, the original resolution to bring to the table ONLY regarding bestiality because marriage regarding sexual orientation ("gay rights", "rights of women and minorities") and minorities ("rights of women and minorities") are all ready protected by the UN and will be still incase of this repeal,

Thus Be It Repealed: For the safety of our animal friends and against the sexual deviants who pry on the weak (as shown to be supported by the UN in resolution against pedophilia)

Description: 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.

Rights of Women and Minorites

Description: The UN should recognize that all people are created equal. The matter of race, sex, religion or sexual preference should not make anyone less equal. These are inalienable rights of all UN nation citizens.

ARTICLE I- No one race or culture is better than another.

ARTICLE II- Males and Females should be treated as equals. Whether it be in the workplace or at home.

ARTICLE III- Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another.

ARTICLE IV- One should have the right to express their love for a member of the same sex.


Gay Rights

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.

I know the issue of bestiality might have occured a lot during the actual voting of the resolution...but I think it is important to discuss because the idea of free and open relations with animals (no regulations) is a severe threat to animals everywhere. And that is the only thing brought to the table DoM.

Firstly - the "species" clause was put in because some nations objected to limiting marriages to the same species. For example I am human, but my husband is an Elf.

I didn't think it was necessary, but who am I to say what others may feel?

Secondly - the clause only applies if you want it to. So if your nation does not think it should allow men to marry ant-eaters, you don't have to.

Thirdly - the Definition of Marriage resolution was brought to the floor to stop all the people who were whining about "gays having more rights than straight people" - the Definition of Marriage protects gay marriage, interacial marriage, inter-nation marriage and so forth. If you repeal it (without repealing "Gay Rights") then there would be nothing to stop someone banning international marriages, and interage marriage (for example you could prevent 100 year olds from marrying 50 year olds) and (I think, but I could be wrong) nothing to stop you banning interacial marriages. And - of course - the government of TilEnca could declare my marriage null and void. Which would piss me off just a little :}

Fourthly - there is an arguement that DofM also brings a law to defend polygomy (on the assumption that it defends a marriage as one person to another person, but does not state that either person has to be single). This is another thing that is not defended anywhere else.

So all in all I think that, given the wealth of new law and new rights that DofM brings to the UN, banning it over a clause that has been frequently misinterpretted and is mostly just a pre-text for those who want to try to outlaw gay marriage (which, by the way, I am not trying to accuse you of doing, but from the amount of repeals that say "ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE" in an attempt to repeal it my point can be seen as a valid one), the interspecies clause is not one really worth worrying about.

Text:
Argument: Repeal for the ANIMALS:
Seeing that the UN has been a strong advocate for animals,

Whereas, there has been no research stating that animals have any interest in sexual activities with humans,

Whereas, the animal's age is NOT set in the 'Definition of Marriage' resolution unlike the mentioning of a legal age of adulthood (resolution refers to Child Protection Act),

Noting, the normal animal have been proven not to have the same logic and ability to comprehend thus not able to make serious decisions like marriage etc.,

Recognizing, the animals in many relations with humans are forced and obviously face serious physical (and possibly mental) repercussions.

Understanding, the original resolution to bring to the table ONLY regarding bestiality because marriage regarding sexual orientation ("gay rights", "rights of women and minorities") and minorities ("rights of women and minorities") are all ready protected by the UN and will be still incase of this repeal,

Thus Be It Repealed: For the safety of our animal friends and against the sexual deviants who pry on the weak (as shown to be supported by the UN in resolution against pedophilia)

Make laws about cruelty to nonsentient animals.

As it is, the species portion was as TilEnca said. People wanted their ability to marry sentient members of other species protected. But at the same time some nations wanted to prevent it. And do to the wide range of what is sentient and the fact no definition of the word can cover the entirety of humanity (let alone any other species), the only wording option they ended up with is that one. The fact it is optional means you can outlaw it and move on.

Though I respect Tilenca and DLE's opinions, there is a key they are missing.

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

The fact is many UN nations when given the chance will do many very crazy things. The fact the original resolution let so much space to the imagination is very bad thing. The shield of you can outlaw if you want is not good enough for me.

As for its expansion of rights, they all could be implied from 'rights of women and minorities' and other resolutions

Though I respect Tilenca and DLE's opinions, there is a key they are missing.

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

The fact is many UN nations when given the chance will do many very crazy things. The fact the original resolution let so much space to the imagination is very bad thing. The shield of you can outlaw if you want is not good enough for me.

As for its expansion of rights, they all could be implied from 'rights of women and minorities' and other resolutions

Actually, I am considering what you are not: The nations that wanted beastiality had it legal before this resolution. This resolution didn't actually change anything in that area. Repealing it won't make it illegal either, so they will continue to have it.

That shield may not be good enough for you, but you must face the fact it already existed and repealing this doesn't be rid of it. Your repeal is worthless.

And a repeal isn't actually needed anyway for this issue. From what I can tell all you need is an animal welfare motion. If worded carefully you should be able to do it without contradicting this motion.

I know the issue of bestiality might have occured a lot during the actual voting of the resolution...but I think it is important to discuss because the idea of free and open relations with animals (no regulations) is a severe threat to animals everywhere. And that is the only thing brought to the table DoM.
how many of those posts were part of the resolution?