NationStates Jolt Archive

This is not an attempt to reduce the rights of homosexuals, but if you read the resolution, I believe I give a good enough case for repeal. Of course, I am open to any opinions on the matter.



Guided by an effort pursued by some member nations to clean the U.N. bureaucracy of outdated and superseded resolutions;

Recalling the following United Nations resolutions to be sufficient when addressing this matter: (1) #26 “The Universal Bill of Rights” of Aug 8 2003 and (2) #81 “Definition of Marriage” of Nov 25 2004;

Recognizing the repetition between the recalled resolutions and the fact that United Nations Resolution #12 provides a very vague and easily obfuscated definition of rights;

Noting that a resolution written exclusively, with good intentions albeit, to protect the rights of a group of people directly implies that they were not born with such rights;

Reaffirming that the United Nations has ensured the full and complete rights of each and every citizen of its member nations, without regard to sexual orientation or any other factor, including the right of marriage and the right to be judged on an equal basis with all other beings;

Proclaims that, for the reasons mentioned, United Nations Resolution #12 “Gay Rights” of May 3 2003 is repealed and removed from U.N. records;

Decides to remain actively seized in the matter.

At first glance, I like it.

Pilot, you are a proposal-writing machine!

At first glance, I like it.

Pilot, you are a proposal-writing machine!

Haha, thank you for your support.

Decides to remain actively seized in the matter.
I don't care what this is supposed to mean ... I still get a mental image of a roomful of epileptic UN Ambassadors locked into a continuous series of Grand Mal seizures, for as long as the law remains in effect.

I agree with the origional proposal which protects the rights of a homosexual couple, and I have read no compelling arguments to have this resolution repealed.

I don't care what this is supposed to mean ... I still get a mental image of a roomful of epileptic UN Ambassadors locked into a continuous series of Grand Mal seizures, for as long as the law remains in effect.

It is what all real-world United Nations resolutions have at the end.

I agree with the origional proposal which protects the rights of a homosexual couple, and I have read no compelling arguments to have this resolution repealed.

Well, as it says, there is a movement to get redundant resolutions out of the United Nations, as it has left the U.N. in a shape of logjammed beurocracy. If we can clean it up, it makes it easier for real work to be done. (Plus, on an OOC note, technically, all of the U.N. nations are getting twice the tax because this is a Social Justice resolution. It makes sense not to get taxed twice for the same thing, doesn't it?)

It is what all real-world United Nations resolutions have at the end.
Which makes the mental image no less bizarre.

Which makes the mental image no less bizarre.

Haha, indeed.

But, like I said, I'd like to hear some opposition other than that the lines give you weird mental images.

I agree with the origional proposal which protects the rights of a homosexual couple, and I have read no compelling arguments to have this resolution repealed.
Well, here's a conundrum.

Please don't make me choose between supporting your side or supporting Pilot's side.

Well, here's a conundrum.

Please don't make me choose between supporting your side or supporting Pilot's side.

Well, the primary point is that, the resolution I am wishing to repeal has been overshawdowed by other resolutions that have greatly elaborated on the rights of all people. It's a waste of the tax increases that are charged to your nation.

Change will support it Pilot.

My region's currently undergoing elections for Prime Minister (which means regional delegate), and I'm on the ballot. If I win (probably won't), and if I get a consensus for it, I'll support it. If I don't get a consensus one way or the other, I'll support it. If I get a consensus against it, sorry, but I'll vote against it. If I lose the election, though, my nation will vote for it. It's not that I'm against progressive policies, but when they're redundant and overshadowed by other resolutions, well, they need to be put out to pasture.

T.R. Kom cannot support this repeal for several reasons.

1) It's a waste of the tax increases that are charged to your nation.Actually, it should only have once off taxed N.S.U.N.members who were members when it passed, if it taxed them at all. It won't effect any new nations ( By new I mean having joined the N.S.U.N. after it passed ) in regards to tax at all I would think.

2)I am wishing to repeal has been overshawdowed by other resolutions that have greatly elaborated on the rights of all people.And just as many make note of it being an important document of precedent in such matters.

3)It is what all real-world United Nations resolutions have at the end.In regards to the " Grand Mal seizures clause " I'd like to point out the RL U.N. mentions many things, most of them not at all anything to do with or to be done by the N.S.U.N. ;)

4)This repeal would penalise the majority of current U.N. members who do not have the earlier, directly related rise in Human Rights to counter-act it. I kind of hope people read this and realise for most of them it will funk their nation up a little, and not the good funking it up, either.

5) Yeah, I'm suffering from a terrible case of " biased cause I'm gay too " but bugger it ( Well, not really ) I don't want to see it repealed now just for what looks to be just for the sake of doing it, as against any whopping great flaw. )

Finally, might I point out, I like how the simple wording in it makes it bloody hard if not impossible to wriggle out of,

:D

And, to target a specific argument of the repeal document itself,Noting that a resolution written exclusively, with good intentions albeit, to protect the rights of a group of people directly implies that they were not born with such rights;I greatly disagree, I've always seen it as making sure a " minority " with the right to such rights actually gets them in a wider society of a " majority " that would not other-wise be so sure to grant them.

Sorry Pilot, this time round I cannot in good faith suport this repeal in any form or fashion. And I advise other delegates and members alike to abstain from granting endorsement like myself shall abstain.

( Not that I'm over worried by this particular topic of repeal, I figure its chances at quorum are almost zilch, and passing open vote even " zilcher " but it is nice to see a really well written one for a change, even if the fact of how it is written is not the problem this time ... )

In the absence of significant protection via other resolutions, Vastiva must decline to support this effort.

We agree in part with your reasoning, but the result would be far different then you invision.

Krioval will also not act on this proposal, and would likely fight it simply because Krioval is particularly noted for the visibility of same-sex couples, and seeing Krioval's name on an "approvals list" for this would likely precipitate a collapse of the current ruling coalition in our Parliament.

T.R. Kom cannot support this repeal for several reasons. + etcAll True. Because that was one of my puppets I :

A) Forgot I was even logged in with ...

B) Did not realise was even forum activated, :rolleyes:

This is not an attempt to reduce the rights of homosexuals, but if you read the resolution, I believe I give a good enough case for repeal. Of course, I am open to any opinions on the matter.

Here's the thing.

Under the UBR every person must be treated equally under the law. That is what it says.

It doesn't stop you discriminating though.

"No person may kiss someone of the same sex". This means no one, man, woman, child, gay or straight, may kiss a member of the same sex. It is not discrimination because you are not just saying "gay men may not kiss other gay men" - you are banning it for everyone.

So under the UBR this would not be against the law.

The only place it would not apply is in their own homes, as a resolution protects this. But it would prevent anyone making gay pron, lesbian movies with kissing, and - most of all - it would stop someone kissing their lover in the street.

I might be wrong about this, but I don't think that there is any resolution that fully protects gay rights in the way that this one does, and as such it should not be repealed but protected and laminated and put on the wall of every government building in the UN :}

[OOC:] Even in RL legislation, minorities to be included by any law must be mentioned specifically to GUARANTEE they are protected by it. For example, criminals lose many rights once convicted, and in many countries being gay is a crime, etc. So that would be one reason to keep it.

[IC] Plus, as TilEnca pointed out, the resolution does provide extra protection in some areas not covered in other proposals.

And finally, even if not technically correct, I imagine that many "less liberal" states, to be euphimistic, will react to this repeal badly, many misinterpreting it to mean that gay rights are protected by international law. And even if this is technically not the case, it could mean the revocal of rights of countless gay people worldwide. Even if this is only temporary, it is unacceptable. I think this repeal is too risky, and unwise symbolically.

4)This repeal would penalise the majority of current U.N. members who do not have the earlier, directly related rise in Human Rights to counter-act it. I kind of hope people read this and realise for most of them it will funk their nation up a little, and not the good funking it up, either.

Ah, tech-wanking. It's fairly unethical. At least, the disagreement on how ethical it is well disqualifies it as a major reason for support or disapproval of proposals.

Finally, might I point out, I like how the simple wording in it makes it bloody hard if not impossible to wriggle out of,

Actually, simpler wording tends to increase the possibility for practiced non-compliance. Gay Rights states the following:

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


It doesn't disallow nations from putting restrictions on the definition of gay marriage, just as nations are allowed to put restrictions on all marriages (not to minors, officited by a state authority, performed within the boundaries of the state, or recognized neighbor etc). Under the current wording, if a government defines gay marriages as those validated by age (the participants are 50 years old), and loyalty to country (participants are veterans from the armed services), then gay marriages are still technically "protected and endorsed". Qualifications on what qualify as "gay marriage" in the government's eyes, though, are in place--qualifications which Gay Rights does nothing against.

Also, gay marriages here are in no way equated to previously recognized marriages or the benefits of those marriage. These benefits and this recognition, according to "Gay Rights", could still be denied gay who marry.

In writing this, Kundu doubtless had a certain idea of what was meant by "protecting and endorsing" gay marriages. However, the resolution does not articulate his ideas behind the wording. When implementing resolutions nations aren't required to implement the author's intent, only what the exact text of the resolution tells them to.

"Definition of Marriage" has since put a lid on most of these legal non-compliances--so have "Rights of Minorities and Women" and "Fairness and Equality". These three along with "Universal Bill of Rights" fairly well dictate to member nations that gays--and other minorities--have rights to marriage, and protection from discrimination. "Gay Rights" does not.

EDIT: Also consider the rights to sexual activity for gays granted by "Sexual Freedom". "Gay Rights" doesn't make keep nations from restricting the action of homosexuality--"Sexual freedom" does.

This other set of resolutions cover much more ground than "Gay Rights" and legislate the equality of citizens in member nations much more clearly. I feel that "Gay Rights" is entirely unnecessary now. Since then we've really given gays rights, and then extended those rights to everyone.

I think, Pilot, you need to include these resolutions ("Rights and Minorities of Women", "Fairness and Equality",) as covering the ground of "Gay Rights" as well. EDIT: also consider "Sexual Freedom"

I agree. My point, as PC stole from me there (;)), is that the "Gay Rights" resolution is outdated and has been greatly elaborated and expanded upon by other pieces of legislation. You're getting charged "Social Justice" twice. Not to mention that it is one more U.N. agency that has to monitor something that is being monitored by another agency. It's wasteful buerocracy.

I voted for Definition of Marriage, and as a delegate, I endorsed it. I voted for Rights of Minorites and Women, and as a delegate, I endorsed it. I voted for Fairness and Equality, and as a delegate, I endorsed it. This is not an underhanded attempt to restrict the rights of homosexuals. The "Gay Rights" resolution provides no more protection for civil rights than "Definition of Marriage" and the "Universal Bill of Rights" do already.

I agree. My point, as PC stole from me there (;)), is that the "Gay Rights" resolution is outdated and has been greatly elaborated and expanded upon by other pieces of legislation. You're getting charged "Social Justice" twice. Not to mention that it is one more U.N. agency that has to monitor something that is being monitored by another agency. It's wasteful buerocracy.

I voted for Definition of Marriage, and as a delegate, I endorsed it. I voted for Rights of Minorites and Women, and as a delegate, I endorsed it. I voted for Fairness and Equality, and as a delegate, I endorsed it. This is not an underhanded attempt to restrict the rights of homosexuals. The "Gay Rights" resolution provides no more protection for civil rights than "Definition of Marriage" and the "Universal Bill of Rights" do already.

You are missing the key point. DofM says that someone can marry whom they want. Not that you can sleep with them, kiss them or hold hands with them. Minorities and Women says you can express your love for whom you want. Not that you can kiss them, hold hands with them or anything else.

UBR does nothing to protect anyone - it is almost completely pointless in regard to protecting people from discrimination if you put your mind to it.

No other resolution protects gay rights like this one does, and if your repeal it then you will do the cause of equality terrible damage.

I support this repeal. Nice job, Pilot.

Krioval will also not act on this proposal, and would likely fight it simply because Krioval is particularly noted for the visibility of same-sex couples, and seeing Krioval's name on an "approvals list" for this would likely precipitate a collapse of the current ruling coalition in our Parliament.

I find this very odd, since you supported Repeal "Education for all". This is the exact same grounds, but just a step further. Even your pointless old arguments about taxation in game mechanics are resurfacing. I talked about the repercussions of a resolution focused on trimming waste and bureaucracy, and you vehemently rejected every word I said. Now, this proposal is here, and I seem to be hearing some whispers of some form of a resolution trimming movement. Wonderful.

Kudos to you for not acting on it, though. As long as this "movement" is strictly controlled...

Anyways, Pojonia stands in opposition of this repeal as well. Getting rid of resolutions based on redundancy is still a ridiculous concept, and the specialization argument still doesn't give me a good enough reason to cast a vote for a repeal.

I find this very odd, since you supported Repeal "Education for all". This is the exact same grounds, but just a step further. Even your pointless old arguments about taxation in game mechanics are resurfacing. I talked about the repercussions of a resolution focused on trimming waste and bureaucracy, and you vehemently rejected every word I said. Now, this proposal is here, and I seem to be hearing some whispers of a resolution trimming "movement" from the author. Wonderful.

Kudos to you for not acting on it, though. As long as this "movement" is strictly controlled...

Anyways, Pojonia stands in opposition of this repeal as well. Getting rid of resolutions based on redundancy is still a ridiculous concept, and the specialization argument still doesn't give me a good enough reason to cast a vote for a repeal.

I find a difference between the utility of Res. 12 and the recently repealed Res. 3 in that the latter was absolutely unnecessary - it was a weaker form of a later resolution. I find that Res. 12, as others have also said, covers a few holes left by the other resolutions. Further, I foresee quite the snarkfest developing if this reaches the floor. If the education issue was contentious, imagine how a debate on sexual orientation will look. Frankly, it's not worth my energy, and from a national vested interests standpoint, endorsing or even implying acceptance would cause problems back home.

I find this very odd, since you supported Repeal "Education for all". This is the exact same grounds, but just a step further.
I disagree. The concept on "Education" was the removal of a resolution that had been entirely superceded by the second proposal. The concept on "Gay Rights" is one of removing the core support of all following resolutions.

Analogy:
"Repeal Education for All" removed a sagging trailer and replaced it with a slightly newer doublewide mobile home.

"Repeal Gay Rights" is pulling down central support beams from the basement, on the grounds that "well, don't that house look nice! It'd look betta if we'uns opened up that there basement to make room for a pool table."


I think Pilot's repeal, while well-intentioned, is a bad idea.

I disagree. The concept on "Education" was the removal of a resolution that had been entirely superceded by the second proposal. The concept on "Gay Rights" is one of removing the core support of all following resolutions.

Analogy:
"Repeal Education for All" removed a sagging trailer and replaced it with a slightly newer doublewide mobile home.

This is a terrible analogy. Repeal "Education For All" didn't replace anything. And nothing was sagging. The first proposal may have been a mere shadow of the second, admittedly pointless unless one was repealed, but that doesn't mean that there was any point to removing it, save what I believe was previously referred to as "techwanking".

We have the same position, here, but please be careful where you point those analogies.

You are missing the key point. DofM says that someone can marry whom they want. Not that you can sleep with them, kiss them or hold hands with them. Minorities and Women says you can express your love for whom you want. Not that you can kiss them, hold hands with them or anything else.

I disagree. First we need to consider what "Gay Rights" actually does. There are two active clauses here:

...hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life.


and

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

The first action that "member nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life" is too general to really enforce much of anything. If this truly protected all people from discrimination in all parts of life then there would be no need or precedent for "Child Labor", "Religious Tolerance", "Fair trial", "The Child Protection Act", "Wolfish Convention on POW", "Fair Treatment of Mentally-Ill", "Universal Freedom of Choice", "BioRights Declaration", "Refugee Protection Act", "The Sexes Rights Law", "Rights of Minorities and Women"...

And so on. Each of these protects a group of persons from discrimination in a part of life--some more than others. If the first clause in "Gay Rights" were truly enforcable these resolutions would be double legislation and illegal. Because Gay Rights is so general with "protecting people", all people, from discrimination "in all parts of life" it is unable to provide any real protection from discrimination to anyone.

The second active clause, "that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations" is more direct, but again, it is easily abused--most importantly, it's more easily abused than "Definition of Marriage". "[Protecting] and [endorsing] gay marriages" can be implemented in a away which denies, in practice, most gays the right to marry. "Definition of Marriage", though, is pretty hard to get around with its list of characteristics non-discriminatable in marriage: "[nationality] sex, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, color, or any other characteristic". "Definition of Marriage" more than easily covers any ground "Gay Rights" is supposed to cover, and surpasses it with real promises of equal rights to marry.

If the problem is that gays rights to display affection in public wouldn't be protected without "Gay Rights", it's important to note that it isnt protected with "Gay Rights" either.

But, I feel displays of affection in public are protected by "Rights of Minorities and Women", protecting the "right to express their love for a member of the same sex". Expression of love in private isn't an issue of the government (from "Sexual Freedom"), so the expression of love can be assumed to be public, in my opinion anyway. Any restrictions on the public expression of love (on the basis of indecent exposure, etc.) seems, in accordance with "Rights of Minorities and Women", to need be across the board: homosexual and heterosexual.

To summarize:

It can be concluded that "Gay Rights" never did protect gays from discrimination. And, with the passage of "Definition of Marriage", "Gay Rights" is no longer acting to protect gay marriage, either.

< OOC: Perhaps I should hire Powerhungry Chipmunks as my lawyer? >

Well.

As the general point of dissent is the protection against discrimination, would it not be prudent to first reinforce that, then remove "Gay Rights" as redundant and unnecessary, along the lines of the recent Education repeal?

I can't believe I actually got compliments from Powerhungry Chipmunks... seventh sign of the Apocalypse...

Well, the primary point is that, the resolution I am wishing to repeal has been overshawdowed by other resolutions that have greatly elaborated on the rights of all people. It's a waste of the tax increases that are charged to your nation.
You miss my point.

Well.

As the general point of dissent is the protection against discrimination, would it not be prudent to first reinforce that, then remove "Gay Rights" as redundant and unnecessary, along the lines of the recent Education repeal?

I can't believe I actually got compliments from Powerhungry Chipmunks... seventh sign of the Apocalypse...

Well, if you read over the proposal again, I make it very clear that the rights of homosexuals have been consistently reinforced by subsequent resolutions. Not to mention that, even though its a repeal of a resolution, the following line still has active standing in U.N. law:



Reaffirming that the United Nations has ensured the full and complete rights of each and every citizen of its member nations, without regard to sexual orientation or any other factor, including the right of marriage and the right to be judged on an equal basis with all other beings;

We have officially been dragged to a neutral position on this, and shall wait for more profound thoughts on how subsequent resolutions give sufficient protection to merit the removal of "Gay Rights".

We have officially been dragged to a neutral position on this, and shall wait for more profound thoughts on how subsequent resolutions give sufficient protection to merit the removal of "Gay Rights".

Well, my last post quoted, the resolution clearly states that the United Nations has put protections into law for gay rights that cannot be ignored with the repeal of this resolution. I am not sure what else you want. Perhaps you'd like to suggest a line to add?

we, the rogue state of Resistacia, support this proposal, and go one step further.
Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.
this is taken from UBR. to me, this makes any resolution protecting gays, women and minorities redundant, in that it clearly states all human beings have the right to be treated equally. not only does this protect gays, women and other minorites, it protects everyone. having various resolutions like gay rights, and others, is just a waste of space, and is also a form of descrimination. it is descrimination for these groups. thus being discrimination against anyone who doesnt fall into those catagories. while we do support the child protection act, etc, a resolution leaning towards a minority is irrelevent and goes againts article 4 of the UBR

Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

Alright, one more time - here's the problem. You could pass a law stating "No one has the right to share a domicile with a member of the same sex".

Could it be applied equally to everyone? Yes.
Would it be selectively discriminatory? Yes.

Pilot, can you see the problem here? The question is of discrimination through enforcement of sexually-biased laws.



OOC: Given I just worked sixteen hours with one fifteen minute break, forget cohesive thought. If needed, will try later.

Krioval seconds Vastiva's concerns. Repealing this resolution would allow selective discrimination in the manner that has just been described, and could even prevent the Commander from participating in official state functions with his family. For that reason, we continue to oppose this.

Lord Jevo Telovar
Ambassador from Krioval
Regional Delegate of Chaotica

Alright, one more time - here's the problem. You could pass a law stating "No one has the right to share a domicile with a member of the same sex".

Could it be applied equally to everyone? Yes.
Would it be selectively discriminatory? Yes.

Pilot, can you see the problem here? The question is of discrimination through enforcement of sexually-biased laws.



OOC: Given I just worked sixteen hours with one fifteen minute break, forget cohesive thought. If needed, will try later.
the nation of Resistancia does not see this problem. if a law is "selectively discriminatory", then it automatically violates article 4, because any decriminatory law violates the right to be treated equally.

the nation of Resistancia does not see this problem. if a law is "selectively discriminatory", then it automatically violates article 4, because any decriminatory law violates the right to be treated equally.


Alright, one more time - here's the problem. You could pass a law stating "No one has the right to share a domicile with a member of the same sex".

Could it be applied equally to everyone? Yes.
Would it be selectively discriminatory? Yes.

Everyone is "being treated equally" - the same thing is being restricted from everyone. However, the law is biased because it selects against one section of the population by intent of design. Such a bias is not spelled out, it merely exists because of the application of "equal enforcement".

This is known as "cleverly being a jerk", something nations are very good at.

Well, the primary point is that, the resolution I am wishing to repeal has been overshawdowed by other resolutions, <snip>This is something else that worried me, what is with all this talk of " over - shadowed " ? I would have thought " Gay Rights " was a foundation on which many other concepts and resolutions had been built on.Ah, tech-wanking. It's fairly unethical. At least, the disagreement on how ethical it is well disqualifies it as a major reason for support or disapproval of proposals.Wow, accuse me of wanking, eh ? I don't think I have ever seen that applied in U.N. things all that much before. Let us hope it does not become a trend, shall we, because I would think that " Game Mechanics Wanking " might be a little more accurate if you've got the daggers out for the argument I proposed. Because " tech " is a little different to game mechanics, after all, ;)

Further more, in case you've not noticed, there are a lot of " stats based " voters in the U.N. and while I personally might dislike " stats based voting " I'm thinking they have the right to be well aware of what this repeal would mean in relation to their own personal voting policy.

Don't you ?

I agree. My point, as PC stole from me there (), is that the "Gay Rights" resolution is outdated and has been greatly elaborated and expanded upon by other pieces of legislation. You're getting charged "Social Justice" twice. Not to mention that it is one more U.N. agency that has to monitor something that is being monitored by another agency. It's wasteful buerocracy.Actualy, its a human rights resolution ... and your not really being " charged " anything, except with the duty to provide equality. Surely that isn't too much for the U.N. to ask of its whole ? And where the hel does it mention an agency ? Gay Rights produces and orders the up-holding of laws by national level government and by extension, judicial systems, it does not mandate an agency that I can see. Of course, if you want to open a Gay Rights Violation Investigation Agency, that is up to you to decide about, but it doesn't say you have to.

Now at this point, I wan't to say Fris's analogy was bang on the money I think, and so was he point before that. I have one of my own.

" Gay Rights " is the core of many other bits and bobs of legislation we have, and here is something else to consider.

It is also like the core of an apple. If you remove the core and just let the thing sit out in the sun for a few weeks, chances are its going to rot ...I think Pilot's repeal, while well-intentioned, is a bad idea.And that pretty much sums it up.

...

I think the The Pojonian Puppet should maybe look at the rest of the analogy before they try to reduce just a component of it. To kill all the forest you tend to have to cut down all the trees.

Well, if you read over the proposal again, I make it very clear that the rights of homosexuals have been consistently reinforced by subsequent resolutions.So now we have this great armored car, we're going to take away all the car parts and leave a heap of armor with nothing to put it on ?this is taken from UBR. to me, this makes any resolution protecting gays, women and minorities redundant, in that it clearly states all human beings have the right to be treated equally. not only does this protect gays, women and other minorites, it protects everyone.Not all that right, really..

It only protects humans. Not " every-one ".

This is an specific issue of sexuality not " race ".

Mid you, this is all a bit tied together with string, I'll read back across all this material in this thread later to pick up on the arguments I've missed. Because of recent RL events I'm more able to concentrate on all this at night when I've usually taken my thinking cap off for the day, ;)

Finishing off, to jump back to the very opening line, This is not an attempt to reduce the rights of homosexuals, but if you read the resolution, I believe I give a good enough case for repeal.So Remember Folks,

" This is not an attempt to reduce the rights of homosexuals, "

Even though this is exactly what it will do

Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

5. The Nation States United Nations recognises that gender is not just a physical manifestation but also a mental manifestation, and recognises that people of self proclaimed gender are also equally protected by the regulations and recommendations bound here in.

The UN Recognizes gender as mental manifestation. Despite my disagreement with this proclamation, it is the law. Therefore, any law that discriminates against males who consider themselves to be women, or females that consider themselves to be men, would be illegal.

However, this sets up an interesting and sexist paradox. Cookie to the first member who can outline it.

Bathrooms.

Equality implies equity, as that is what the courts address. Any law stating a man and a man can not hold hands is inequitable. It allows for a physical display of affection between a man and woman, and not that of man and man or woman and woman. It also prevents construction workers from helping a friend about to fall to his or her death.

A physical male considers (x)self a female, and so enters the women's bathroom.

Proper? Improper? Reprocussions, as the physical parts obviously do not match the mental "belief" - and yet the law says....???

Bathrooms.

OOC:We had that problem at UCDavis. The Campus police got in trouble for arresting two homosexual men whose chosen gender was female. The police were reprimanded for violating a campus ordinance. I agree with you, but can vouch for how such laws are applied.

A physical male considers (x)self a female, and so enters the women's bathroom.

Proper? Improper? Reprocussions, as the physical parts obviously do not match the mental "belief" - and yet the law says....???

Apparently niether of us voted for this, but, the law says he is female.

we, the rogue state of Resistacia, support this proposal, and go one step further.

this is taken from UBR. to me, this makes any resolution protecting gays, women and minorities redundant, in that it clearly states all human beings have the right to be treated equally. not only does this protect gays, women and other minorites, it protects everyone. having various resolutions like gay rights, and others, is just a waste of space, and is also a form of descrimination. it is descrimination for these groups. thus being discrimination against anyone who doesnt fall into those catagories. while we do support the child protection act, etc, a resolution leaning towards a minority is irrelevent and goes againts article 4 of the UBR

It doesn't. You can pass a law saying "no one may have sex with a member of their sex". You are not being discriminating, because you are applying to straight people as well as gay people. It would make gay sex illegal for everyone, which is not discriminatory. In the same way that you can ban necrophillia without being discriminatory.

The UBR affords no protection for gay rights, despite what everyone appears to be claiming. And as such the Gay Rights resolution should stay.

Equality implies equity, as that is what the courts address. Any law stating a man and a man can not hold hands is inequitable. It allows for a physical display of affection between a man and woman, and not that of man and man or woman and woman. It also prevents construction workers from helping a friend about to fall to his or her death.

Ah - but what if the law states that two people of the same sex can not hold hands? It doesn't say men can't hold hand with men - it just says no one can hold the hand of someone of the same sex as them. It's not discriminatory as it applies to everyone - straight men, gay men, straight women, gay women, straight elves etc etc etc.....

Ah - but what if the law states that two people of the same sex can not hold hands? It doesn't say men can't hold hand with men - it just says no one can hold the hand of someone of the same sex as them. It's not discriminatory as it applies to everyone - straight men, gay men, straight women, gay women, straight elves etc etc etc.....
it still implies inequity, because it means only those of opposite sexes can hold hands. considering that in some cultures, a man holding another man's hand does not imply homosexuality, but friendship, this has been blown out of proportion. i guess your nations term of 'equallity' differs from others. maybe an idea would to be to take stock of all these 'rights' resolutions, and combine them. there are quite a number of citizens of my nation that see things like 'gay rights' and 'women's rights' and see them as descriminatory. and some in these groups dont like the idea of having seperate resolutions for them cause it can be deemed that they dont have the equality they are seeking, and is also cause for abuse against them.

...and yet, the resolution being repealed does not ensure any of the rights mentioned by people as reasons for opposition to this.

This is something else that worried me, what is with all this talk of " over - shadowed " ? I would have thought " Gay Rights " was a foundation on which many other concepts and resolutions had been built on.

Maybe in spirit, but in actual legislation there isn't a depencency of other laws on "Gay Rights". DofM recognizes "Gay Rights", but not many of the other resolutions which are suggested as replacing "Gay Rights" don't and the measures they enact are fairly independent of "Gay Rights", regardless of their recognition of it.


Further more, in case you've not noticed, there are a lot of " stats based " voters in the U.N. and while I personally might dislike " stats based voting " I'm thinking they have the right to be well aware of what this repeal would mean in relation to their own personal voting policy.

Don't you ?

There are also a lot of "OMG I hate gayz, I'm gonna repeal this sataninc resolution" voters out there. I don't see anyone interested in ensuring their "right to be well aware of what this repeal would mean in relation to their own personal voting policy". If a group or demographic doesn't participate in the forum, it isn't the responsibility of those that do to inform them of arguments or argue in their stead. If you want to argue along "stat based" lines you so disagree with, that's fine. But it isn't a requirement of the forum to do so.


" Gay Rights " is the core of many other bits and bobs of legislation we have, and here is something else to consider.

It is also like the core of an apple. If you remove the core and just let the thing sit out in the sun for a few weeks, chances are its going to rot ...And that pretty much sums it up.

Which resolutions leave holes of coverage to accomodate for ground already covered by "Gay Rights"? What are these resolutions that will "rot" in the sun if left without the all-encompassing "Gay Rights"

So now we have this great armored car, we're going to take away all the car parts and leave a heap of armor with nothing to put it on ?Not all that right, really..


" This is not an attempt to reduce the rights of homosexuals, "

Even though this is exactly what it will do

Hardly.

As before stated "Gay Rights" offers little to no coverage for gays to begin with. The two active clauses:

1) "member nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life"

and

2) "we also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations"

1) The first clause is unpracticable. To be in compliance, all a nation does to do is pass laws (more than one) to protect some people (not necessarily gays) in "all parts of life". So, "Mynation" could pass laws to protect mimes from discrimination at work, play, in society, etc. and be in full compliance.

2) The second clause is overshadowed by "Definition of Marriage", which much more clearly protects rights to marry for all and closes loopholes through defintion. The second clause's limited coverage for gays has been traded in for greater coverage for all.

If there's a gap in protection for gays without "Gay Rights", then there's a gap in protection of gays with "Gay Rights" as well. Getting rid of "Gay Rights" does not produce gaps in protection of gay rights because "Gay Rights" doesn't protect gays rights.

Beyond "Gay Rights": I've been looking into how gays are protected through other resolutions and will post in about three to four hours. But, for now remember: since "Definition of Marriage", "Gay Rights" has offered no protection for gays.

...and yet, the resolution being repealed does not ensure any of the rights mentioned by people as reasons for opposition to this.
this is a very valid point.

it still implies inequity, because it means only those of opposite sexes can hold hands. considering that in some cultures, a man holding another man's hand does not imply homosexuality, but friendship, this has been blown out of proportion. i guess your nations term of 'equallity' differs from others. maybe an idea would to be to take stock of all these 'rights' resolutions, and combine them. there are quite a number of citizens of my nation that see things like 'gay rights' and 'women's rights' and see them as descriminatory. and some in these groups dont like the idea of having seperate resolutions for them cause it can be deemed that they dont have the equality they are seeking, and is also cause for abuse against them.

And that would be exactly my point. If I can stop all gay activity in my nation and still remain within the rules of the UBR, then clearly the UBR does not protect gay rights in the way that a lot of people appear to think it does.

...and yet, the resolution being repealed does not ensure any of the rights mentioned by people as reasons for opposition to this.

Prove it.

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #12

Gay Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kundu

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

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


again, that is the resolution. how is 'protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life' any different from 'All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation'? discriminatory laws violate the right of equality, thus is covered. same as the marriages is covered in its own resolution. the same goes for the 'Rights of Women and Minorities' resolution. after review, we found that there was nothing in that resolution that wasnt covered before in UBR and other resolutions, and the fact that it went to vote is astounding to our government. we are not in the intrest of discrimination, and in fact are discrimination both against and for particular groups, particularly if the area is covered by another resolution, whether it be, in this case, one that has come after, or, in the case of women and minorities, before. the fact is, you are trivialising and scratching to keep in place something that has been clearly superceeded

And that would be exactly my point. If I can stop all gay activity in my nation and still remain within the rules of the UBR, then clearly the UBR does not protect gay rights in the way that a lot of people appear to think it does.
how does Gay Rights protect gay rights any better than UBR does? the same loopholes used in respect to UBR can be used in respect to Gay Rights as well, and with greater ease due to the fact that Gay Rights is so broadly worded.

and as for your 'prove it' comment, read post #51 in this thread. Or countless other posts that break down what Gay Rights actually does. I don't feel I need to go into great detail on the matter because others already have done that quite well. I would be interested in hearing from you, or others who share your position, how Gay Rights is less easily bypassed than other resolutions that have since been passed.

This is the way I see it :-

'protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life'

This means you can not pass a law that discriminates against one man having sex with another man. Because you are picking on men who want to have sex with men. Furhter this is in the context of a gay rights resolution, so it is safe to assume you are stopping gays from being discriminated against in regard to whatever they do - you can't not employ them because they are gay, you can't refuse them the right to adpot because they are gay and you can't refuse to marry them (so to speak) because they are gay.

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

This means that you can easily execute anyone who has sex with a member of the same sex. You are treating everyone fairly - if they get caught while involved in gay sex, you will execute them, regardless of whether they are gay or straight, man or woman. It would not be against the law.

The second one does not mention discrimination at all. So employers can refuse to employ someone who is gay, because under the UBR you can pass a law that says "a reason not to hire a man is because they have had sex with another man". This does not violate the rule about being treated equally under the law because it applies to EVERYONE - not just gay men.

Please believe me - the UBR does not mention the word discrimination in it anywhere. While the implication of the resolution is that it is attempting to stop discrimination, it does not actually say in it's text that discrimination is illegal. So if you repeal gay rights then the UBR will afford NO protection to gay couples. They will have the right to marry, they will have the right to say they love each other, but that is it. NOTHING else will be protected by any of the resolutions as they are written now.

Article 4 doesn't protect anyone from discrimination - it just says that if you are going to put one man to death for having sex with another man, you have to put all men to death. That is all it provides protection for. It does not prevent homophobic nations from executing gay men - it never will.

...and neither does Gay Rights. If all men are put to death for having sex with other men, then it isn't discrimination, and thus, Gay Rights is rendered null & void in that instance for the exact same reason that UBR would be, according to you.

Also, UBR does not mention a gender. It says all human beings. In your example, anyone who has sex with a man, whether they are male or female, would have to be put to death, because it would not be equal treatment if men were treated to harsher penalties than females. No nation would pass such a law, because banning procreation is simply poor policy and political suicide.

...and neither does Gay Rights. If all men are put to death for having sex with other men, then it isn't discrimination, and thus, Gay Rights is rendered null & void in that instance for the exact same reason that UBR would be, according to you.

Also, UBR does not mention a gender. It says all human beings. In your example, anyone who has sex with a man, whether they are male or female, would have to be put to death, because it would not be equal treatment if men were treated to harsher penalties than females. No nation would pass such a law, because banning procreation is simply poor policy and political suicide.

I didn't mention gender in executing someone. I said someone of the same sex. There is a difference.

And it's obviously discrimination because you are passing a law that will adversely affect one group of people more than another. So even if you treat everyone equally - you kill them all - it is more likely you will execute more gay men than straight, which is discriminatory.

Another example is from The West Wing - an episode called Mandatory Minimums.


TOBY
Mandatory Minimums are considerably higher for crack than for powder cocaine.

The vast majority of crack users are black. The vast majority of drug users are white. The Mandatory Minimums are racist.


All people who are sentenced for crack cocaine are given the same sentence, therefore they are treated equally under the law. It just so happens more black people use it than white people do. So it is a discriminatory law, even though it treates people in the same way.

The UBR affords no protection for gay rights, and the gay rights resolution does.

I didn't mention gender in executing someone. I said someone of the same sex. There is a difference.

And it's obviously discrimination because you are passing a law that will adversely affect one group of people more than another. So even if you treat everyone equally - you kill them all - it is more likely you will execute more gay men than straight, which is discriminatory.

Another example is from The West Wing - an episode called Mandatory Minimums.



did you even read what i wrote? In your example, you clearly mentioned the law would be passed against men. That is not equal treatment between men & women, and thus, under the UBR, could not be passed. It would have have to be passed against all human beings, and that would drastically change the effect of the law in your example. Banning men from having sex with men would be impossible. Banning all humans from having sex with men would be possible, under the UBR, but no such law would ever be passed because it effectively ends procreation.

The fact that Gay Rights uses the word discrimination is irrelevant. Discrimination (which is never defined in Gay Rights anyhow) is most commonly defined as unequal treatment between groups. That definition looks mighty close to the wording of the UBR. Gay Rights basically states what the UBR does, but in more general terms. Any loophole that can be exploited in the UBR can be exploited in Gay Rights.

I grow tired of repeating myself.

Also, using network dramas to prove a point really is not the way to go about things.

also, just because more people from a certain group choose to break a law that targets all citizens, it does not mean that the law in question is discriminatory. A discriminatory law would be one that targets a specific group, or gives a specific group harsher penalties, not a law that targets all citizens and threatens all of them with the same penalty.

This is the way I see it :-

'protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life'

This means you can not pass a law that discriminates against one man having sex with another man. Because you are picking on men who want to have sex with men. Furhter this is in the context of a gay rights resolution, so it is safe to assume you are stopping gays from being discriminated against in regard to whatever they do - you can't not employ them because they are gay, you can't refuse them the right to adpot because they are gay and you can't refuse to marry them (so to speak) because they are gay.

I disagree. "Gay Rights"'s phrasing of that clause (member nations "pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life") is so inspecific it can be too easily manipulated to guarantee gays any rights. What it tells member nations to do:

1) Pass laws--more than one law
--> These laws must give an unspecified level of protection from discrimnation to an unspecified group of people
--> These laws must address discrimination in "all parts of life"--so hopelessly broad it has no hope of stopping nations from abusing definitions of what makes up the "parts of life".

So, first, the protection doesn't even have to apply to gays. Yes the resolution mentions gays elsewhere, but it doesn't qualify this "protection" in "all parts of life" as applying to gays. I could pass laws protecting mimes from discrimination and be in compliance.

Then there's the level of protection. The laws can "protect" the group (whichever we choose to pass the laws about) from discrimination through extremely light fines--"Gay Rights" has no stipulation against this. It still is some level of protection, and therefore "protecting".

Also there's the definition of "all parts of life". Of course, the author had an idea of what this means when writing it, however, he did not articulate that idea. Nations are free to assume what is included as "parts of life" and merely pass laws protecting a group of people--with whatever level of protection they choose--within that definition of the "parts of life".

"Gay Rights" is so easily bypassed that it has almost no effect on member nations at all except that it offered, before "DofM", some protection for gay marriages. Now that "Definition of Marriage" has more clearly and fully protected marriages of all types, it isn't necessary at all. In fact, it'll only get in the way of proposal writers trying to extend the rights of gays.




Now: ways in which gays' rights are protected. I'll break down the protection current resolutions give them and which gaps of protection, if any, are present.

Right to engage in homosexual intercourse:

-Protected along with other private sexual activites by "Sexual Freedom" ("What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state");
-Public intercourse is not protected by the UN as its a public decency matter, decided by member nations independently.

Right to be known as gay/identify his or herself as gay:

-Protected by Universal Bill of Rights from as an article of free speech ("All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference." and "All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation." and "Any persons who violate any of these articles shall be held accountable by the law." and "If any of these stated rights do not exist in a member nation, they are herby protected.")

Right to express love for partner in public:

-Protected by "Rights of Minorities and Women" ("These are inalienable rights of all UN nation citizens...the right to express their love for a member of the same sex.")

Right to marry:

-Protected by "Definition of Marriage" ("DEFINES marriage as the civil joining of a member of any nation with any other member of any nation, regardless of...sexual orientation...or any other characteristic,")

Right not to be discriminated against by employers:

-Protected by "The Sexes Rights Law" ("The Nation States United Nations calls upon all employers within member-states to abide by the following regulations : a) Equal wages for all sexes. b) Equal benefits for all sexes.")


If there are other protections which should be extended (harsher punishments for hate crimes, more clear instructions that governments aren't to pass laws discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, etc.) their passage is entirely independent of the repeal of "Gay Rights". Currently, "Gay Rights" is only giving member nations the illusion of protection of gays' rights. If "Gay Rights" is repealed it will likely increase the likelihood of further gay rights being protected. "Gay Rights" doesn't protect anything right now. Let's get rid of it, and maybe someone can pass some real protection.

I disagree.

And (and this is my other problem) even if I didn't agree there is one more fact.

This was one of the first resolutions passed that stood up for minorities. It made a statement that the UN believes it is right to say all people are equal, and that the bigots of the UN should not be permitted put their petty concerns infront of what the majority accepted was the right thing to do.

It is a signal that one of the core values of the UN is freedom of choice, and by repealing it it sends the signal the UN cares less about freedom of choice than it did. Whether that is the case, it is the signal that it will send. And all those nations out there who want to ban gay rights will take this as a signal that the UN is become more tolerant of homophobes and bigots.

I don't think that is the signal we should be sending. And if - as most of the people seem to be arguing - that repealing this will have no effect, why bother repealing it and risk a torrent of homophobic resolutions on the back of the repeal. Why not let it stand as a signal that the UN will not stand for such an action?

No offense Tilenca, but you appear to balancing yourself on rhetoric now.

Also the core beliefs you stipulate as being represented by the gay rights resolution are also violated by that same resolution.

"that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life. "

Pass laws protecting people from discrimination, ok.

" gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations."

The only marriage recognized (resolved) to be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations are gay marriages. Discriminatory towards heterosexuals, lesbians, transvestites, those with mental manifestations of gender, etc...

This is the signal we should be sending: Get rid of redundant, ineffective, and inconsistent legislation.

No offense Tilenca, but you appear to balancing yourself on rhetoric now.

Also the core beliefs you stipulate as being represented by the gay rights resolution are also violated by that same resolution.

"that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life. "

Pass laws protecting people from discrimination, ok.

" gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations."

The only marriage recognized (resolved) to be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations are gay marriages. Discriminatory towards heterosexuals, lesbians, transvestites, those with mental manifestations of gender, etc...

This is the signal we should be sending: Get rid of redundant, ineffective, and inconsistent legislation.


First of all - I stand by my previous arguements - no other resolution or combinations of resolutions will protect all gay rights.
Second - Gay rights does protect more rights than all the other resolutions together.

Third - that was a "speech" about what I believe, not something I would describe as rhetoric.

And finally - the idea that because a nation must endorse gay marriage it discriminates against all other types of marriage is the type of arguement I would normally expect to come from a right-wing homophobic nation who wants all gays to burn in hell, not from someone I would consider as reasonable as you. And it is just a sample of what will come in the future if the UN gives the idea it is soft on gay rights.

I don't think that is the signal we should be sending. And if - as most of the people seem to be arguing - that repealing this will have no effect, why bother repealing it and risk a torrent of homophobic resolutions on the back of the repeal. Why not let it stand as a signal that the UN will not stand for such an action?

The UN is the supreme international authority for member nations. As such, I feel the UN has a responsibility to maintain coherent, understandable, accurate resolutions--especially in regard to our most important issues. Resolutions in the UN need to be well executed to show that thought and care and devotion are put into the issue behind the resolution. We declare an issues' importance to us with how well-written our resolutions are.

If this unenforceable, loophole-laden resolution demonstrates our stance on gays rights, then what message are we sending by letting it stand? Are we not telling the world the UN supports gay rights only in well-meaning but do-nothing ways? Why are we satisfied to merely state our support, rather than enforcing it?

We should repeal this resolution because it's a signal of how the UN feels about human rights. Through the resolutions after "Gay Rights", the UN has come to really show support for gays rights--in practice and principle. We have enforced gay rights. We've applied the concepts hinted at by "Gay Rights" in actual, effective ways. How we treat an issue in resolution sends a very clear message. "Gay Rights" is grossly inadequate and since its passage, we've had to correct its inadequacies mistakes. Do we really want to maintain something so inadequate as central to such an important issue?

The repeal of "Gay Rights" will be a symbol of the UN choosing true and practical rights for gays over idealistic but non-existent rights. It symbolizes us choosing a sincere, realistic path for human rights protection over a politicized, ineffective one. Rather than supporting the idealistic protection of all from discrimination in all parts of life, and making of world peace, and ending of all violence, we're telling the world that we're serious, that we walk the walk. We take the violation for human rights as grounds for more than a reprimand or a slap on the wrist. The UN gives gays real protection, not just moral support.

That’s why I think we should repeal it.

OOC

I misunderstood the work required to push two proposals. If you haven't all seen my Juvenile/Incomptent Capital Punishment Ban, you can check it out here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=401755). That is what I am focusing on, as you can all agree that it is a much more pressing issue that repealing a useless resolution. Therefore, I will leave the debating to Powerhungry Chipmunks, who seems to be arguing it much better than I think I am capable of. But as for me, I am dropping out of this debate for a while and will return to it at the appropriate time.

Thank you for all your comments and concerns up to this point. The issue will be back, so check in a week or two.

in supporting this, the message that we, the state of Resistancia, is wanting to send is that all human beings are equal and that any law or resolution aimed at any group, regardless of being for or against, denotes enequity, because while it covers one groups rights, it doesnt ensure others and also leads to alienation, either of the targeted group, or those not covered, and in some cases resentment

First of all - I stand by my previous arguements - no other resolution or combinations of resolutions will protect all gay rights.
Second - Gay rights does protect more rights than all the other resolutions together.

Third - that was a "speech" about what I believe, not something I would describe as rhetoric.

And finally - the idea that because a nation must endorse gay marriage it discriminates against all other types of marriage is the type of arguement I would normally expect to come from a right-wing homophobic nation who wants all gays to burn in hell, not from someone I would consider as reasonable as you. And it is just a sample of what will come in the future if the UN gives the idea it is soft on gay rights.

I agree, it was one of the UNs first attempts at providing rights for a repressed class of people.

Furthermore, I do not disagree with gay marriage. I am in disagreement with legislation that isolates one class of persons from all others, as such are typically band-aids to a problems that affects other groups as well. And therefore consider them to be in and of themselves discriminatory documents.

As applied here my statement on discrimination within the resolution pertains to the UN only requiring that gay marriage be recognized within it after addressing discrimination as it pertains to all other persons. An ideological inconsistency within the text. DofM solved that problem.

Given the resolutions adopted after the initial concept was illustrated in Gay Rights, the original legislation has become obsolete. It is no longer necessary, and should become a historical document in Komokons thread as opposed to present legislation.

Again no offence was intended. Or is intended by this post. However, right wing homophobic nations, come on now ;). (According to a recent review of party platforms AP would be considered a Libertarian, but remains a decline to state state. :D)

I agree, it was one of the UNs first attempts at providing rights for a repressed class of people.

Furthermore, I do not disagree with gay marriage. I am in disagreement with legislation that isolates one class of persons from all others, as such are typically band-aids to a problems that affects other groups as well. And therefore consider them to be in and of themselves discriminatory documents.

As applied here my statement on discrimination within the resolution pertains to the UN only requiring that gay marriage be recognized within it after addressing discrimination as it pertains to all other persons. An ideological inconsistency within the text. DofM solved that problem.

Given the resolutions adopted after the initial concept was illustrated in Gay Rights, the original legislation has become obsolete. It is no longer necessary, and should become a historical document in Komokons thread as opposed to present legislation.


I think it still has an operative purpose, and since I appear to be the only one that does I will stick to it, but for now I think I am going to stop debating it, as I appear to be getting no where :}


Again no offence was intended. Or is intended by this post. However, right wing homophobic nations, come on now ;). (According to a recent review of party platforms AP would be considered a Libertarian, but remains a decline to state state. :D)

I didn't actually describe you as that (or I don't think I did!) as I do consider you a reasonable nation! So sorry for that misunderstanding :}

in supporting this, the message that we, the state of Resistancia, is wanting to send is that all human beings are equal and that any law or resolution aimed at any group, regardless of being for or against, denotes enequity, because while it covers one groups rights, it doesnt ensure others and also leads to alienation, either of the targeted group, or those not covered, and in some cases resentment

Please note this is not directed at you, as I don't know you well enough to call you what it would appear I am about to call you, but...

this is the sort of arguement that was used to prevent gay rights, elven rights and so forth coming to be in the first place. And most people calling for "fair laws that don't show bias to anyone" are not a member of that group, but instead want to see that group either outlawed or destroyed completely.

Why doesn't the NSUN have a "hetro rights" resolution? Because it would never occurr to anyone that it was needed! The NSUN is there to protect those who can't (entirely) protect themselves, and to stand up for those who can't (entirely) stand up for themselves. Laws are made to ensure equallity because the governments are not doing their jobs properly. Is it unfair? People might think so, but generally it's those who want to look down, degrade, beat up and destroy those who are now protected by the rights, who are complaining.

This resolution doesn't do anything, or say anything, about other sexualities and about how they should be protected. It's generally only those who don't want gay rights who are complaining about it.

(Like I said - I am not aiming this specifically at you, I am just saying that in the past this has been the case)

if i was to propose a resolution to protect hetro rights or 'single white male's rights' rights or even 'purple human being's rights', it would be shot down based on the argument that it is covered in other resolutions. it could be said that not only are the issues in this resolution covered in UBR and and the resolution on marriages, it could also be said to be covered in the rights of women and minorities. the fact that you are trivialising the situation to retain a superseded resolution is baffeling.

Because as I have said repeatedly, and apparently pointlessly, the other resolutions do not ensure gay rights without this to back them up, and the moment that this is repealed there will be the option for a whole onslaught of new laws that make homophobia legal.

But as no one appears to believe this but me I am fighting a hopeless battle, so go nuts and repeal it, then see what a brave new world you will create.

Our support is with our founder. You do not have our support.

Especially since we have always been a strong supporter of gay rights along side him.

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

Because as I have said repeatedly, and apparently pointlessly, the other resolutions do not ensure gay rights without this to back them up, and the moment that this is repealed there will be the option for a whole onslaught of new laws that make homophobia legal.

But as no one appears to believe this but me I am fighting a hopeless battle, so go nuts and repeal it, then see what a brave new world you will create.

Krioval does not actively fight this primarily because we believe that this resolution would never pass. Even if it made quorum, which is difficult for such a proposal, once the hordes of homophobic nations began to voice their undying support for the repeal the matter would likely die then and there. For what it's worth, I find your arguments compelling for the simple reason that historically underrepresented or persecuted minority groups often do need to be specifically targeted in order to ensure their civil freedoms.

also, just because more people from a certain group choose to break a law that targets all citizens, it does not mean that the law in question is discriminatory. A discriminatory law would be one that targets a specific group, or gives a specific group harsher penalties, not a law that targets all citizens and threatens all of them with the same penalty.

That all depends on when the law is passed. If the law is passed knowing that it will, without doubt, adversely affect one group of people more than another, that law would clearly be an attempt at discrimination.

However if the law is passed, then it becomes apparent what the result of passing the law was, it is not discrimination.

As a soon to be elected Delegate (hopefully), the Prime Minister, under counsel of the Emperor, of the region of The Imperial Socialists must, respectfully, decline to vote in favour of this repeal resolution.

The arguments for this repeal are blatantly illogical, serve no purpose other than to repeal a crucial document that stands firm in securing minority rights, and is innately homophobic (in my biased perspective).

Stransworthe and South Stransworthe urge others to vote "Against" on this repeal.

We should eliminate the word, 'gay'. It connotates a bad meaning. It used to be a nice word, but now it stands for something completely different. All homosexuals are human beings and deserve the same respect as any other human. I don't believe they should be married. I don't believe they should enjoy the same benefits as a married man and women. Homosexuality is a sickness. A homosexual person's life is driven by their sexuality. It is based on sex. A normal couple's life is based on love and a desire to build a family and have children. All people, whether single or married have the opportunity at one time or another to engage in an affair with another person. If the person is married, then the extramarital affair is considered breaking the marriage vows. A man or women can go into a restroom and use the facility and leave it without doing anything else. But in more cases than usual, a homosexual might go into a restroom and engage in a sex act with a complete stranger and then leave. They are motivated by sex. They are driven by sex. This is a sickness. The same type of sickness as a pedophile, or porn addicted person. A man dressing as a women or acting as a women is a perversion. Dragqueens further the damage of the sickness by making it look rediculous. Put the homosexuality back into the closet and let these people get on with their lives without their drive for respectability and equality with a married man and women. In other words, stop the protesting and keep your sexuality a personal affair.

Falconari, you are being a fundamentalist bundle of joy this evening between this thread and the abortion one. Here we go again...

We should eliminate the word, 'gay'. It connotates a bad meaning. It used to be a nice word, but now it stands for something completely different.
I think you'd be happier if we eliminated homosexuality, as opposed to just the word for it.

All homosexuals are human beings and deserve the same respect as any other human. I don't believe they should be married. I don't believe they should enjoy the same benefits as a married man and women.

I see, so by your logic, although homosexuals DESERVE the same respect as other human beings, we shouldn't let them actually have it??? Nice.

Homosexuality is a sickness.
No more than heterosexuality is a sickness. The idea of homosexuality as a sickness has been debunked since the 70s.

A homosexual person's life is driven by their sexuality. It is based on sex. A normal couple's life is based on love and a desire to build a family and have children.
How arrogant and prejudiced of you. Gay relationships are founded on love just as much as straight ones are. And conversely, straight people are driven by sex just as much as gay ones. It is ironic though that when gay people try to prove that homosexuals have loving relationships, e.g. through trying to get married, they are denied the chance to do so.

And I'm not even going to dignify the rest of your comments with a response.

We should eliminate the word, 'gay'. It connotates a bad meaning. It used to be a nice word, but now it stands for something completely different. All homosexuals are human beings and deserve the same respect as any other human. I don't believe they should be married. I don't believe they should enjoy the same benefits as a married man and women. Homosexuality is a sickness. A homosexual person's life is driven by their sexuality. It is based on sex. A normal couple's life is based on love and a desire to build a family and have children. All people, whether single or married have the opportunity at one time or another to engage in an affair with another person. If the person is married, then the extramarital affair is considered breaking the marriage vows. A man or women can go into a restroom and use the facility and leave it without doing anything else. But in more cases than usual, a homosexual might go into a restroom and engage in a sex act with a complete stranger and then leave. They are motivated by sex. They are driven by sex. This is a sickness. The same type of sickness as a pedophile, or porn addicted person. A man dressing as a women or acting as a women is a perversion. Dragqueens further the damage of the sickness by making it look rediculous. Put the homosexuality back into the closet and let these people get on with their lives without their drive for respectability and equality with a married man and women. In other words, stop the protesting and keep your sexuality a personal affair.

And this is EXACTLY the reason the resolution should not be repealed.

TilEnca, i don't see how the fact that the nation of Falconari's UN Delegate is an ill-informed bigot has any bearing on why the repeal shouldn't pass. Any actions Falconari could take after the repeal would be possible before the repeal as well, because while it may have symbolic meaning, it has no actual legal function anymore. And, while some may view symbolic meaning as important, it means very little compared to the actual function of a proposition.

Because people who believe that way will be able to discriminate. For all the reasons that Vastiva, Komokom, and TilEnca mentioned before.

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

TilEnca, i don't see how the fact that the nation of Falconari's UN Delegate is an ill-informed bigot has any bearing on why the repeal shouldn't pass. Any actions Falconari could take after the repeal would be possible before the repeal as well, because while it may have symbolic meaning, it has no actual legal function anymore. And, while some may view symbolic meaning as important, it means very little compared to the actual function of a proposition.

Well on the contrary, I fail to see why people are pushing to repeal this proposal, claiming that it is now redundant and meaningless. Clearly the fact that emotions still run high on the issue, and there are extremely strong points of view on both sides of this repeal issue, indicates that it is not a meaningless proposal that we can or should just discard. If it truly is meaingless to you, Cirspy et al, then just let it lie. Doesn't affect you. But it does matter to others. Including myself.

As a soon to be elected Delegate (hopefully), the Prime Minister, under counsel of the Emperor, of the region of The Imperial Socialists must, respectfully, decline to vote in favour of this repeal resolution.

The arguments for this repeal are blatantly illogical, serve no purpose other than to repeal a crucial document that stands firm in securing minority rights, and is innately homophobic (in my biased perspective).

Stransworthe and South Stransworthe urge others to vote "Against" on this repeal.

First, this proposal has not been submitted yet. Second, I contend that the arguments for this repeal are not illogical.

The argument for this repeal is that "Gay Rights" gives gays no rights. Currently the only service it is rendering is hoodwinking the UN into believing it is protecting gays in some way, which makes it harder fior legislation to pass which provides real protection for gays.

"Gay Rights" was fine when we were a young and naive UN. But we know better now. We need to update our support of gays into practiced protection.

TilEnca, i don't see how the fact that the nation of Falconari's UN Delegate is an ill-informed bigot has any bearing on why the repeal shouldn't pass. Any actions Falconari could take after the repeal would be possible before the repeal as well, because while it may have symbolic meaning, it has no actual legal function anymore. And, while some may view symbolic meaning as important, it means very little compared to the actual function of a proposition.

If the repeal goes through then Falconari and all those who think like him will have an opportunity to push through a resolution making homosexuallity all but illegal. And don't tell me it can't be done with all the other laws, because I contend it can.

Furthermore - and this is just my opinion - if you can only get a resolution passed by getting into bed with people who's opinions you find so horrible, abohorrent and horrific that you want to vomit at the thought of them, then maybe you are attempting the wrong thing in the resolution.

i'm thinking you don't understand what i meant by 'meaningless'. i meant that Gay Rights offers no protection for homosexuals not offered in other resolutions. It has been rendered null & void. If you could present me with an example of something that could be passed without Gay Rights that could not be passed with Gay Rights, then perhaps i could understand the adamant defense of this outdated piece of legislature.

Furthermore - and this is just my opinion - if you can only get a resolution passed by getting into bed with people who's opinions you find so horrible, abohorrent and horrific that you want to vomit at the thought of them, then maybe you are attempting the wrong thing in the resolution.
welcome to the wonderful world of politics.

If the repeal goes through then Falconari and all those who think like him will have an opportunity to push through a resolution making homosexuallity all but illegal. And don't tell me it can't be done with all the other laws, because I contend it can.

Furthermore - and this is just my opinion - if you can only get a resolution passed by getting into bed with people who's opinions you find so horrible, abohorrent and horrific that you want to vomit at the thought of them, then maybe you are attempting the wrong thing in the resolution.


If there's an opening for an anti-homosexual proposal without "Gay Rights", then there's an opening for anti-homosexual proposals with "Gay Rights" as well. If that's the case, then there needs to be a resolution closing that hole. If that resolution were to pass, then it would make sense to first remove "Gay Rights", both because it might legally get in the way of a new resolution in support of gays rights, and because it might dissuade members from voting for a new resolution (saying "We don't need this; Gay Rights covers everything already").

And about those with abhorrent opinions. In order to pass the perfectly just and agreeable repeal of "Education for All" I needed the votes of those that thought it would stop them needing to pay for education--or brought them closer to that. I see no "signs of injustice" from being aided by those that want just to further their own far right or left political campaigns. There are those that voted for "Humanitratian Intervention" because they thought they could abuse it (if memory serves). There were those that voted for "The Nuclear Terrorism Act" because they thought it would increase the sale of nukes to terrorsits in their non-UN puppets. Does this mean "Humanitarian Intervention" or "The Nuclear Terrorism Act" should not have been pursued?

i'm thinking you don't understand what i meant by 'meaningless'. i meant that Gay Rights offers no protection for homosexuals not offered in other resolutions. It has been rendered null & void. If you could present me with an example of something that could be passed without Gay Rights that could not be passed with Gay Rights, then perhaps i could understand the adamant defense of this outdated piece of legislature.

I have. Quite a lot. Re-read this thread, and note the difference between "equal protection under law" and "forbid any discrimination"

as acting as a voice or reason, maybe someone should review ALL the resolutions regarding rights, then come up with a resolution that would satifactoryally cover all of them, submit it as a proposal, then when it is passed, submit repeal resolutions. We recognise that while certain sections of society need to be protected in regards to laws descriminating against them, we also note that:
a) such singling out by resolution can lead to resentment and alienation by those not covered by it, even psychologically through it's title, and the subsequent alienation of the group it is trying to protect.
b) there is too much clutter and confusion caused by resolutions covering similar areas. while the politicians sorting through this mess to try and implament it are enjoying this, some in our nation questioning if their energy would be best directed elsewhere. i am not suggesting 'dumbing down' of the points of the resolutions, only that they be collected into one, easily accessable document.
as for the marriage side of the issue, that document is a seperate one, and as stated, the protection on homosexual marriage is already covered there.

I am in favour of the repeal. It is exactly the same as the repeal for "Education For All". The people against are giving the same reasons as for the last repeal.
The only reason why this proposal mightn't get passed is that the ultra-liberal lobby is much stronger and more organised than whatever resistance existed against the education repeal. :p
It is sometimes a good thing to really read the proposals and think about their prophesed reasons. And a tip for all you debaters out there: You aren't always right. And don't forget that the main reason for not accepting any of anothers arguments is pride. :rolleyes:
Feel free to insult me for any stupid spelling mistake or unclear sentence I just wrote. :eek:
Cut down bueraucracy! I'm going to sleep.

Rights of Minorities and Women
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Amsterdam Junior

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.


i know this was not used in the initial argument, and is equally discriminatory in favour of a group in Resistancian eyes, but we see nothing in here that wouldn't protect homosexual rights any less than the resolution proposed for repeal. if anything, this protects the rights more than the 'gay rights' resolution.

There are those that voted for "Humanitratian Intervention" because they thought they could abuse it (if memory serves).
I did not!












did i?

I am in favour of the repeal. It is exactly the same as the repeal for "Education For All". The people against are giving the same reasons as for the last repeal.
The only reason why this proposal mightn't get passed is that the ultra-liberal lobby is much stronger and more organised than whatever resistance existed against the education repeal. :p
It is sometimes a good thing to really read the proposals and think about their prophesed reasons. And a tip for all you debaters out there: You aren't always right. And don't forget that the main reason for not accepting any of anothers arguments is pride. :rolleyes:
Feel free to insult me for any stupid spelling mistake or unclear sentence I just wrote. :eek:
Cut down bueraucracy! I'm going to sleep.
Not only were your mispelings stoopit and your sentences overly obfuscatory and of insufficient illumination, but your grammar is teh suxx0rs and you undermined your points by using a smiley :p :rolleyes: :p :D

Plus, one of the delegates who sits near you in the assembly says you smell bad and wear silly hats.

:rolleyes: We were talking about you, Asshelmetta. Why do you think we moved to the front of the room?

:rolleyes: We were talking about you, Asshelmetta. Why do you think we moved to the front of the room?
I don't wear a hat!



Don't worry Vastiva. I won't tell Cardigan you were the one who said she smells funny.