NationStates Jolt Archive

THE UNITED NATIONS:

REALIZES that the people of different member nations have differing cultural and religious ideologies,

REALIZES that the "Definition of Marrage" resolution amounts to heresy to the body politic of many member nations,

IN LIGHT OF the "Religious Tolerance" resolution passed Sat Jun 21 2003 which states that "Whereas, There is a need for more religious tolerance on Earth. Therefore be it resolved that the United Nations support and promote a greater understanding of all religions and promote more tolerance of differences of religion." we hereby

DECLARE that the "Defintion of Marrage" resolution passed on Thu Nov 25 2004 is ILLEGAL and hereby REPEAL said resolution, and

DECLARE that the people of all member nations shall decide for themselves as a people what is and isnt marrage and,

DECLARE that the governing bodies of member nations are obligated to allow said named descision to be made directly by the people of each nation themselves via popular vote.


====

Any UN delegate wishing to support this proposed repeal of an illegal UN Resolution may do so on page 15 of the submitted proposals page.

thank you,


mason

Marriage is not a religious institution. Thus falls your complete argument.

Also, using a word like "heresy" makes you sound foolish (and, no, not just because you misspelt it), even more so than your not understanding the nature of marriage does.

It might have been a good idea to put the number of the resolution, but then, seeing as the original resolution does, in fact, promote religious tolerance, you're probably better off. I will give no approval to this, as the original resolution defines marriage so as to prevent governments from interfering with religious marriages in any case save that of age.

Definition of Marriage
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Vastiva

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.


Read the resolution a bit more carefully before repealing it.

By the way, "Heresy" is defined as "a belief that rejects the orthodox tenets of a religion", and is a religious word used to express intolerance.

In the eyes of the UN, marriage is regarded as a legal and civil institution, not a religious institution. Therefore it is perfectly legal for the UN to enact legislation on the matter.

It is the opinion of the nation of Krioval that nations unable to differentiate between religious custom and civil law may wish to study the two more carefully. Krioval has an official state religion, and our civil laws are completely separate from religious precepts. Krioval wishes all nations the best in recognizing the ultimate benefits to such a system.

Lord Darvek Tyvok
Kriovalian Ambassador to the UN

kriovals view reflects my own. Church and state are separate and should remain that way. Its unfortunate that the word marriage was used in this bill as it infers religious elements. Perhaps the word Union would have served better.

President Murphy,
The realm of Hibernia.

Marriage is not a religious institution. Thus falls your complete argument.

Also, using a word like "heresy" makes you sound foolish (and, no, not just because you misspelt it), even more so than your not understanding the nature of marriage does.
I'd have to call marriage primarily a religious institution.

I'd have to call marriage primarily a religious institution.
OOC: In many countries (Australia, Britain, America), marriage in conducted both by the Church and by the State. Each gives different privileges. If a marriage is only conducted by the state, then it is a civil or common law marriage. This practice is centuries old.

IC: Well, the Resolution in question defined marriage in a civil sense, not a religious sense. It does not require religious leaders to preside over the marriage of anyone they disaprove of.

"Tolerance" and "understanding" does not mean all the beliefs of any religion become law in the UN. It simply means we tolerate the beliefs.

Ergo, your arguement is invalid.

Further, in the definition of marriage as per the resolution, it is defined as a civil event - not a religious one.

Therefore, your arguement is invalid.

Invalid arguements do not a repeal make.


THE UNITED NATIONS:

REALIZES that the people of different member nations have differing cultural and religious ideologies,

REALIZES that the "Definition of Marrage" resolution amounts to heresy to the body politic of many member nations,

IN LIGHT OF the "Religious Tolerance" resolution passed Sat Jun 21 2003 which states that "Whereas, There is a need for more religious tolerance on Earth. Therefore be it resolved that the United Nations support and promote a greater understanding of all religions and promote more tolerance of differences of religion." we hereby

DECLARE that the "Defintion of Marrage" resolution passed on Thu Nov 25 2004 is ILLEGAL and hereby REPEAL said resolution, and

DECLARE that the people of all member nations shall decide for themselves as a people what is and isnt marrage and,

DECLARE that the governing bodies of member nations are obligated to allow said named descision to be made directly by the people of each nation themselves via popular vote.


====

Any UN delegate wishing to support this proposed repeal of an illegal UN Resolution may do so on page 15 of the submitted proposals page.

thank you,


mason

kriovals view reflects my own. Church and state are separate and should remain that way. Its unfortunate that the word marriage was used in this bill as it infers religious elements. Perhaps the word Union would have served better.

President Murphy,
The realm of Hibernia.

That would have defeated the whole point of the resolution though :}

I'd have to call marriage primarily a religious institution.

As long as you sign a paper to be married and there are secular laws to govern marriage, it will not be a religious institution. Plus, the resolution defines it as non-religious.

I'd have to call marriage primarily a religious institution.

Nope. Marriage was first a method of combining tribes into bigger tribes to go beat up on the tribes that didn't make with the tribute.

Religion got into the act to suborn power (they're good at that). Marriage itself has nothing to do with nothing - its paper and words. Outside of that, there's only you keeping you with the other person. Or people, if you're kinky and live in Utah or far west Canada.

Whether marriage is or is not a religious institution is a moot point.

Religious tolerance must be assumed to mean the tolerance for religious practices practiced by members of different religions insofar as they do not infringe on the rights of others.

This is implied in the following text from the same resolution (#19, Religious Tolerance). "Be it further resolved that the United Nations oppose all wars fought in the name of God and religion."

Such tolerable practices do not include those that would restrict followers of a different religion (or followers of no religion) from exercising their right to marry in the same nation.

No single religion has a monopoly on the definition of marriage. To claim the term for only one faith is an act of intolerance, and as such not covered by the resolution of Religious Tolerance.

Furthermore, marriage, being recognized by the state as an official institution (carrying with it legal rights and responsibilities to the involved parties, as well as special Social Welfare status where applicable), and being potentially both established and dissolved by the state, is a legal institution on a national level.

Meaning it's up to the government how to define it, or in the case of UN members, the United Nations.

its on p 20 now for those that wish to endorce


mason