NationStates Jolt Archive

To the Honorable Delegates and Members of the United Nations,

We, the Armed Republic of the NeoCon Hubris, region of Conservatopia, would like to inform you our intention to repeal UN Resolution 81: Definition of Marriage.

It would be a great honor to have your ideas, comments, and suggestions. The proposed repeal isn't final yet.

The proposed repeal states:

UN Resolution 81: Definition of Marriage shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

ACKNOWLEDGING the differences of morality inherent to UN member nations, the differences of culture and tradition, the differences of religious associations, the differences of political ideology, the differences of social environments,

RECALLING UN Resolution 80 Article 1 stating “No one race or culture is better than another,”

RECALLING UN RESOLUTION 80 Article 3 stating “Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another,”

EXTENDING the definition of the word “belief” to political ideology, morality, culture, and tradition,

RECOGNIZES UN member nations’ sovereignty over its own social matters,

CONDEMNS the uniform definition of “marriage” for all UN members, the intentional disregard of national governmental authority over their citizens, the inappropriate intrusion of international law to sovereign UN states;

We, the Honorable UN Delegates and Members, grant ourselves back the authority to govern our nations as we see fit, especially on sensitive social matters like the definition of “marriage,”

We stress the importance of respect for national identity, the principles which bind our citizens as one, the culture our nations’ has learned to protect, and the diverse tradition our countries have learned to appreciate;

We repeal UN Resolution 81 that forces our culturally diverse nations to comply a uniform definition of “marriage;”

We strongly believe that sensitive social issues must be decided by local governments, where citizens have direct access to their policymakers and assure that their tradition will be free from governmental bodies alien to their customs,

We hereby declare the definition of “marriage” be left to individual UN nations to define.



We ask your regions' support to grant UN nations their sovereignty back. We believe in the individuality of a nation as strongly as the individuality of people.

The uniform definition of "marriage" enacted by Resolution 81 takes away that individuality and ultimately trampled the very principles it righteously promotes. Resolution 81 has declared the belief it embodies superior to all other beliefs. We should stop this monopoly now.



Respectfully,
Chancellor Adriel Montaigne
The Armed Republic of the NeoCon Hubris
Region of Conservatopia

*yawn*

Silly religious and "national sovereignty" non-arguments again. Futile, for it will not gather enough support, and derisory, because even with this repeal gay marriage is still covered by at least another resolution.

Yes, so important has the UN found the protection of citizens from homophobic discrimination to be, that it has purposefully made it very difficult to strip gay people of the rights it has granted them.

Culture or heritage, or what have you, is not an excuse for discrimination.

All in all, your repeal proposal is a failure from get go. It brings nothing new to the table and differs itself in no way from the countless earlier, failed, repeal attempts.

The Fassian UN representative thus urges that this repeal never be submitted. You'll be wasting not just your own time, but valuable queue space as well.

*yawn*

Silly religious and "national sovereignty" non-arguments again. Futile, for it will not gather enough support, and derisory, because even with this repeal gay marriage is still covered by at least another resolution.

Yes, so important has the UN found the protection of citizens from homophobic discrimination to be, that it has purposefully made it very difficult to strip gay people of the rights it has granted them.

Culture or heritage, or what have you, is not an excuse for discrimination.

All in all, your repeal proposal is a failure from get go. It brings nothing new to the table and differs itself in no way from the countless earlier, failed, repeal attempts.

The Fassian UN representative thus urges that this repeal never be submitted. You'll be wasting not just your own time, but valuable queue space as well.


Thank you for your encouraging words. How are you different from "homophobic bigots"? I see no difference. What if I said the same things to a homosexual? So much for your so-called anti-discrimination rhetoric.

Since my nation is not an UN member, I can say that repealing of this proposal will maybe change our opinion about UN, and make us to be one of the members.
SO, my country is for this. But, I can't vote so this doesn't matter so much. It's only our opinion.


Regards,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of The Holy Empire of Seelenkrieg,
Vannia Shmaug

Thank you for your encouraging words. How are you different from "homophobic bigots"? I see no difference.

Bring not your own shortcoming into the light, for it is of no interest to the Monarchy of Fass. It is a common misconception that intolerance must be tolerated, but that is off-topic for this discussion.

What if I said the same things to a homosexual? So much for your so-called anti-discrimination rhetoric.

Perhaps you would like to buy some skin-thickening formula from one of Fass' retailers at a discount? For it seems to us as though you would need it. It also has, as a fortunate side-effect, the action of making it possible for its users to distinguish attacks on repeals/resolutions from attacks on their authors.

Seek out the wisdom and glory of Fass,
And for this proposal, it never will pass.

Clara Tenar, age 12
Runner-up, Children's Poetry Contest
Torokara City School District

To the Honorable Delegates and Members of the United Nations,

We, the Armed Republic of the NeoCon Hubris, region of Conservatopia, would like to inform you our intention to repeal UN Resolution 81: Definition of Marriage.We've talked before and you know that we Allemanders are basically liberal Federalists. Our concern is that, to the extent that marriage is a contract, the repeal of this Resolution would permit an individual who is married in one country to evade the responsibilities of the marriage contract by moving to another nation where said contract is invalid.

What could be done to ameliorate this situation? It seems to us that protection of the binding nature of contracts is the one international issue here that would justifty NSUN intervention in the matter of defining marriage.

We've talked before and you know that we Allemanders are basically liberal Federalists. Our concern is that, to the extent that marriage is a contract, the repeal of this Resolution would permit an individual who is married in one country to evade the responsibilities of the marriage contract by moving to another nation where said contract is invalid.

What could be done to ameliorate this situation? It seems to us that protection of the binding nature of contracts is the one international issue here that would justifty NSUN intervention in the matter of defining marriage.

Thank you for raising that point.

This proposed repeal doesn't make one person immune from the responsibilites he gained from a contract made in another country. The proposal only states that UN nations will have their own definition of "marriage."

If a person from UN state B moved into UN state A where the said contract is not recognized, it is the duty of UN state B to immediately inform UN state A and request for the deportation of that person. Assuming that the person is not a citizen of UN state A, he/she is not protected by its marriage laws. The marriage law of UN state B is upheld. UN state A has its duty to deport the requested individual.

It is important for UN state B to file the request immediately before the person could apply and be granted UN state A citizenship. The failure to do so will result to the overriding of UN state B's marriage law over that person.

Bring not your own shortcoming into the light, for it is of no interest to the Monarchy of Fass. It is a common misconception that intolerance must be tolerated, but that is off-topic for this discussion.



Perhaps you would like to buy some skin-thickening formula from one of Fass' retailers at a discount? For it seems to us as though you would need it. It also has, as a fortunate side-effect, the action of making it possible for its users to distinguish attacks on repeals/resolutions from attacks on their authors.

As you wish. I won't engage in a barrage of ideas. It is not my interest to alienate nations that could be possibly affected by the proposal at hand. Partisan politics is not my agenda.

The Prinipality of Trops is wondering whether the sponsors of this working paper would consider inserting a clause allowing individuals whose government passes laws which disallow an individual's personal way of living regarding relationships to be married to marry in another nation which allows their marriage and would force the individual's current country of residence to recognize the union and, in doing such, grant that couple the same rights as all other married coulpes.

Michele Walk
UN Delegate for Trops

The Prinipality of Trops is wondering whether the sponsors of this working paper would consider inserting a clause allowing individuals whose government passes laws which disallow an individual's personal way of living regarding relationships to be married to marry in another nation which allows their marriage and would force the individual's current country of residence to recognize the union and, in doing such, grant that couple the same rights as all other married coulpes.

Michele Walk
UN Delegate for Trops

Thank you for raising an idea.

The repeal doesn't hinder any individual to be married in another nation. But the current country of his/her residence would not recognize the union. The couple will be guaranteed every civil liberty available to every citizen. But union rights and priviledges are specifically reserved for recognized unions by the State.

We would like to consider your idea but it will negate the very principles of individuality the State rightfully has. The repeal strongly "assure[s] that their [citizens'] tradition will be free from governmental bodies alien to their customs."

Thank you for raising an idea.

The repeal doesn't hinder any individual to be married in another nation. But the current country of his/her residence would not recognize the union. The couple will be guaranteed every civil liberty available to every citizen. But union rights and priviledges are specifically reserved for recognized unions by the State.

We would like to consider your idea but it will negate the very principles of individuality the State rightfully has. The repeal strongly "assure[s] that their [citizens'] tradition will be free from governmental bodies alien to their customs."

The Principality of Trops recognizes your position and would possibly like to further clarify its own. Trops would like, as previously noted, for states to have to recognize unions between their citizens in other countries and honor them.

Also, it seems as if your repeal could use clarifications if you had to use brackets.

Once again, worthless rhetoric.

The UN protects your right to believe anything you wish. It doesn't protect your right to do anything you wish. Big difference.

The Principality of Trops recognizes your position and would possibly like to further clarify its own. Trops would like, as previously noted, for states to have to recognize unions between their citizens in other countries and honor them.

Also, it seems as if your repeal could use clarifications if you had to use brackets.

Also an addition to clarify things, it is totally up to the government if it wishes to recognize unions made outside its borders. The goal of this repeal is to give individual States their own marriage law.

If your government wishes to recognize a union made in another country, you have the right to do so. It's your law. And we oppose any international body who wish to influence your choice of governing.

The repeal does not legislate the prohibition of any kind of union.

Once again, worthless rhetoric.

The UN protects your right to believe anything you wish. It doesn't protect your right to do anything you wish. Big difference.

Allow me to ignore you for a while.

Since my nation is not an UN member, I can say that repealing of this proposal will maybe change our opinion about UN, and make us to be one of the members.
SO, my country is for this. But, I can't vote so this doesn't matter so much. It's only our opinion.


Regards,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of The Holy Empire of Seelenkrieg,
Vannia Shmaug
Um. If people like you don't join to fight for what they believe in, they UN's never going to change its position.

Join, fight for it, and if it fails you can always withdraw again.

Um. If people like you don't join to fight for what they believe in, they UN's never going to change its position.

Join, fight for it, and if it fails you can always withdraw again.

I absolutely agree with the Honorable Member from YGSM.

Allow me to ignore you for a while.
Well, there's a first time for everything.



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.

I'm tempted to say I'll support it just to get rid of the bestiality clause, but I'm sure that was added to allow things like elven-human marriages.

So NeoCon Hubris, what right exactly does this infringe upon, other than the right to discriminate against gays?

I'm tempted to say I'll support it just to get rid of the bestiality clause, but I'm sure that was added to allow things like elven-human marriages.

So NeoCon Hubris, what right exactly does this infringe upon, other than the right to discriminate against gays?

No, no, no. Don't look at it that way. The repeal only wants to grant individual UN nations their own marriage laws according to their own preferences.

Since we're all so eager to advance civil rights, then why not advance State's rights? Instead of individual people appealing to the government, we now have individual nations appealing to the UN. It is respect for individuality that we want don't we?

It's important that we realize our types of governments differ and how we run things in our own country. And Resolution 81 forces UN members to comply with a resolution that might be against a country's belief. It is difficult to enforce a uniform law on such a diverse environment like the United Nations.

If this repeal would be ratified, it grants all UN nations to establish marriage laws of their own. Marriage will once again be an intimate private institution. This is to keep the government out of the private lives of citizens.

The repeal is in no way prohibiting any kind of union. In fact, it encourages your government to adapt a law that will best benefit your population. Wouldn't it be weird to have communist laws in a capitalistic nation?

First, I don't equate civil rights with states' rights. As a repeal of the various marriage resolutions would undoubtedly cause some UN members to restrict marriage laws, and possibly even annul marriages currently in effect. So I oppose any repeal efforts directed toward those resolutions for that reason.

Second, states do have rights. Among others comes the right to participate in or not participate in the UN.

I'm not sure whether I find it more amusing or disturbing the number of UN member nations who call for an end to infringement on their right as a nation to infringe on their citizens rights as human beings.

Perhaps next there will be a "Right to opress" resolution proposed, protecting the rights of nations to do what they want to their citizens.

First, I don't equate civil rights with states' rights. As a repeal of the various marriage resolutions would undoubtedly cause some UN members to restrict marriage laws, and possibly even annul marriages currently in effect. So I oppose any repeal efforts directed toward those resolutions for that reason.

It is possible that some UN members will restrict their marriage laws. They have the right to do so. If an Islamic country would like to restrct their marriage law, do we consider them bad? NO! It is respect for their culture and heritage that we want to protect. This goes for all nations because we do not have common beliefs.

Second, states do have rights. Among others comes the right to participate in or not participate in the UN.

Right. And an additional right you have missed to mention, we have the right to repeal a resolution. Why withdraw my membership when there's always an option to stay and repeal resolutions we find too intrusive?

The common belief is: If you don't like it, then quit. Many people are not aware about this: If you don't like it, then repeal it.

I cannot believe how the United Nations has become too oppressive against governments who dissent with their policies. The UN has become a bastion of hypocrisy. Self-righteously promoting "civil rights" but trampling the rights of those who wish to dissent.

Going with the popular view is easy and sometimes disastrous.But going against the popular view is hard and worth fighting for.

I'm not sure whether I find it more amusing or disturbing the number of UN member nations who call for an end to infringement on their right as a nation to infringe on their citizens rights as human beings.

Perhaps next there will be a "Right to opress" resolution proposed, protecting the rights of nations to do what they want to their citizens.


Creating your own marriage law is "oppresive"? I have not seen anyone die because of marriage laws.

Fewer people fight with such enthusiasm and vigor for less power at the top when they, themselves, are not the ones at the top.

~ Old Kriovalian philosopher

It is possible that some UN members will restrict their marriage laws. They have the right to do so.

Currently, they do not. I intend to see that the current situation is kept, for the sake of their citizens. Such are the perils of a dictatorship entering a democratic organization - they may have to make a few sacrifices of their all-encompassing power for the sake of conformity.

If an Islamic country would like to restrct their marriage law, do we consider them bad? NO! It is respect for their culture and heritage that we want to protect. This goes for all nations because we do not have common beliefs.

If only this actually troubled Krioval. But it doesn't. We abhor repressive theocracies. Ditto for nations who think that "moral law" trumps civil rights. And I believe that these views currently hold sway over the majority of the United Nations. You have every right to argue otherwise, but many before you have tried and failed, quite spectacularly. I submit that your time may be spent better in other areas.

Right. And an additional right you have missed to mention, we have the right to repeal a resolution. Why withdraw my membership when there's always an option to stay and repeal resolutions we find too intrusive?

Naturally, you may. I don't see this repeal ever passing, simply because there are enough people who believe in the supremacy of civil rights over a repressive regime's right to legislate morality. I just figured that I'd save a lot of people some time and effort.

I cannot believe how the United Nations has become too oppressive against governments who dissent with their policies. The UN has become a bastion of hypocrisy. Self-righteously promoting "civil rights" but trampling the rights of those who wish to dissent.

The United Nations may be "repressive" to nations falling in the minority viewpoint, but it is far from hypocritical. Hypocrisy involves essentially saying one thing while doing its opposite. The UN FAQ specifically says that the goal of the NSUN is to allow a government to impose its will upon other nations through the resolution process. In other words, the NSUN is doing exactly that which it was designed to do. If the mechanics bother you so much, you're not forced to remain. If the mechanics are something you can live with, then stay and push for things you'd like to see. But it's tiresome to hear nations whine about their rights being "trampled". You signed up for that!

Going with the popular view is easy and sometimes disastrous.But going against the popular view is hard and worth fighting for.

The opposite is sometimes true as well. Sometimes what is popular does turn out to be right as well. Popularity and "rightness" don't correlate strongly in either direction. So fighting the popular vote is not always worth doing; it can be horribly wrong.

I cannot believe how the United Nations has become too oppressive against governments who dissent with their policies. The UN has become a bastion of hypocrisy. Self-righteously promoting "civil rights" but trampling the rights of those who wish to dissent.

Going with the popular view is easy and sometimes disastrous.But going against the popular view is hard and worth fighting for.
OOC:
Aw, you were doing great until you were trolled into that post.

Statements like that, you need to pipe in heroic music while we read it.

IC and back to the topic:
Definition of Marriage is Human Rights, innit?

The point of a human rights resolution is to prevent local governments from infringing on the human rights of their citizens. Of course it restricts local governments. If it didn't, it wouldn't be a human rights resolution.

I understand your frustration. Really, I do. Every time someone tries to repeal Gay Rights, some evile person (well, I think it was me last time) points out that repealing Gay Rights won't do a thing to prevent gay marriage because of Definition of Marriage, and support dries up.

I don't have a solution for you here. Perhaps you could expand your horizons and try to work with the Gatesville communities towards repeal of both resolutions. But don't get your hopes up; NSUN has taken a firm stand, and that stand is in favor of gay marriage. If you manag to repeal this resolution, the arguments against repeal of Gay Rights will just change and you'll lose on substance, rather than a technicality.

That said, tilting at windmills is an honorable and entertaining pastime. Enjoy!

If an Islamic country would like to restrct their marriage law, do we consider them bad?

Oh yeah. And don't get me started on this.

Definition of Marriage is Human Rights, innit?

The point of a human rights resolution is to prevent local governments from infringing on the human rights of their citizens. Of course it restricts local governments. If it didn't, it wouldn't be a human rights resolution.

Exactly. There are people who think that marriage is a human rights issue. There are also people who think that marriage is not a right, but a restriction.

Restriction, because of the traditional and cultural importance to many members of society. And promoting these traditions are in no way targeting those people who they think cannot participate in.

Who knew during 10,000BC marriage would be such a sensitive issue? They didn't know that people of the year 2005 will see their culture as "discriminatory."

Since we are all well aware of our cultural differences, why should one one belief reign supreme on this matter? Why can't we allow individual governments to enact laws that will preserve their belief?


I understand your frustration. Really, I do. Every time someone tries to repeal Gay Rights, some evile person (well, I think it was me last time) points out that repealing Gay Rights won't do a thing to prevent gay marriage because of Definition of Marriage, and support dries up.

And I took the risk of repealing Resolution 81 first.

I don't have a solution for you here. Perhaps you could expand your horizons and try to work with the Gatesville communities towards repeal of both resolutions. But don't get your hopes up; NSUN has taken a firm stand, and that stand is in favor of gay marriage. If you manag to repeal this resolution, the arguments against repeal of Gay Rights will just change and you'll lose on substance, rather than a technicality.

We're already working on it.

That said, tilting at windmills is an honorable and entertaining pastime. Enjoy!

Thanks.

(*much writing*)

Respectfully,
Chancellor Adriel Montaigne
The Armed Republic of the NeoCon Hubris
Region of Conservatopia

Here's an orange. Would you care for a mango?

Okay, look, Gay rights isn't just a matter of some minor policy, its a matter of a group being made second class citizens with fewer rights than others. Gay marriage isn't just a culture issue, it's an issue as to whether a government is allowed to restrict the rights of two consenting adults to marry. And oppression takes many forms, more silent and insidius than death. I am sure you would not argue that the laws of segregation once practised on earth (and indeed, still prevalent in some nations) were not oppressive, as the black skinned humans were not put to death.
And while you remain in the U.N. to attempt to change this resolution, you must comply with it. And once your citizens see that the sky has not yet been rent with balls of fire and brimstone from an angered god, and seen that two men or two women who love each other are capable of as productive a union as a mix between the sexes, perhaps your government will lose the backing it seems to have.
My point in this is that marriage between two men or two women is legal RIGHT NOW in your nation. (Supposing you ARE a member of the U.N.)
You have three options before you. You can remain in the U.N. and accept resolution 81, and allow gays to marry. You can leave the U.N. and regain your ability to do as you please. Or you can remain in the U.N. and fight to repeal resolution 81. Should you choose this, know that I will fight you all the way, and I will urge my regional delegate to do the same. You have very little chance of success.

To the Honorable Delegates and Members of the United Nations,

We, the Armed Republic of the NeoCon Hubris, region of Conservatopia, would like to inform you our intention to repeal UN Resolution 81: Definition of Marriage.

It would be a great honor to have your ideas, comments, and suggestions. The proposed repeal isn't final yet.

We ask your regions' support to grant UN nations their sovereignty back. We believe in the individuality of a nation as strongly as the individuality of people.

The uniform definition of "marriage" enacted by Resolution 81 takes away that individuality and ultimately trampled the very principles it righteously promotes. Resolution 81 has declared the belief it embodies superior to all other beliefs. We should stop this monopoly now.



Respectfully,
Chancellor Adriel Montaigne
The Armed Republic of the NeoCon Hubris
Region of Conservatopia

I support this as written. However, it doesn't have a chance in hell of passing at this point. There's a reason I haven't attempted to write a bunch of repeals and throw them at the queue. It would be a waste of my time.

The great thing about radicals attempting to repeal everything under the sun - it makes a repeal of anything less likely as all the delegates get sick of hearing/reading them.

The great thing about radicals attempting to repeal everything under the sun - it makes a repeal of anything less likely as all the delegates get sick of hearing/reading them.

Does this mean I should send the leader of Great Boats a fruit basket?

okay, say this gets passed, then what? there are some things about marriage covered in the resolution 'Gay Rights', and though through the title you may think it applies only to homosexuals, it doesnt.
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.
okay, the last part directly refers to gay marriages, so you would still have to repeal this in order to get full control over the marriage situation. but then you get the first part.

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

you can create all the marriage laws you want, but they still have to conform to this and other resolutions passed. and thus far, no one has managed to overturn any of them

to Seelenkrieg: quit grandstanding, join the UN, try to make the changes, and if you arent satisfied, resign. just because you join the UN, doesnt mean you have to stay in.

Does this mean I should send the leader of Great Boats a fruit basket?

Double dog dare ya!

The following telegram was dispatched from Krioval to Great boats:

The government of Krioval is proud to present to the leader of Great boats a gourmet fruit basket in honor of your recent attempts to repeal nearly every United Nations resolution ever passed. We would have upgraded it to the premium version, but sadly, the text of said proposals failed to achieve the four-line threshold. We wish you better luck next time.

Director Koro Vartek
Diplomacy and Trade
Armed Republic of Krioval

OOC: I just hope that was legal.

The following telegram was dispatched from Krioval to Great boats:



OOC: I just hope that was legal.

I can't think of any reason why it would be illegal. I think it might even be protected under the Freedom of Humor resolution. :)

Vastiva seconds the motion that this activity by Krioval is protected by the "Freedom of Humor" (UN Resolution #36):


Therefore let it be resolved that the member states of the United Nations recognize the right to humor as a fundamental right of sentient beings.

And let it be further resolved that the member states of the United Nations shall make no laws preventing any sentient being from exercising this right to humor except where said exercise is contrary to the accepted moral standards of the community or where said exercise is unduly hurtful to a particular individual or group.

and as such, we request that Krioval be exempted from any UN action against their nation and/or delegate by UN staff for such; which, of course, includes the UN Gnomes.

Stop arguing pointlessly with those who disagree with you. Just submit it. If you want real advise, then post to your region board.

So I guess this proposal is about whether individual nations should have the freedom to deny their citizens certain individual freedoms (namely freedom to marry)? Interesting ...

Since we're all so eager to advance civil rights, then why not advance State's rights?

States do not have rights. The sole justification for the existence of governments is that they can protect and provide the rights that all sapient beings deserve. States do not have any "right" to eschew this duty.

Marriage will once again be an intimate private institution. This is to keep the government out of the private lives of citizens

Rubbish. Marriage is not made any more private by having the laws governing it passed more locally. And the second sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

It is possible that some UN members will restrict their marriage laws. They have the right to do so. If an Islamic country would like to restrct their marriage law, do we consider them bad? NO!

Yes we do.

It is respect for their culture and heritage that we want to protect.

The fact that rights have been denied to certain people for centuries is no justification for continuing to oppress them.

This goes for all nations because we do not have common beliefs.

The fact that there are many different views of what is right and wrong has no bearing on whether something actually is right or wrong.

Self-righteously promoting "civil rights" but trampling the rights of those who wish to dissent

We are perfectly happy to give you and other dissenters just the same rights as everyone else, including the right to hold and protest your dissenting opinions. But we don't regard the oppression of homosexuals as a right that anyone should have.

Who's oppressing homosexuals?

So I guess this proposal is about whether individual nations should have the freedom to deny their citizens certain individual freedoms (namely freedom to marry)? Interesting ...

RECALLING UN Resolution 80 Article 1 stating “No one race or culture is better than another,”

RECALLING UN RESOLUTION 80 Article 3 stating “Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another,”

EXTENDING the definition of the word “belief” to political ideology, morality, culture, and tradition.

States do not have rights. The sole justification for the existence of governments is that they can protect and provide the rights that all sapient beings deserve. States do not have any "right" to eschew this duty.



Rubbish. Marriage is not made any more private by having the laws governing it passed more locally. And the second sentence makes no sense whatsoever.



Yes we do.



The fact that rights have been denied to certain people for centuries is no justification for continuing to oppress them.



The fact that there are many different views of what is right and wrong has no bearing on whether something actually is right or wrong.



We are perfectly happy to give you and other dissenters just the same rights as everyone else, including the right to hold and protest your dissenting opinions. But we don't regard the oppression of homosexuals as a right that anyone should have.


RECALLING UN Resolution 80 Article 1 stating “No one race or culture is better than another,”

RECALLING UN RESOLUTION 80 Article 3 stating “Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another,”

EXTENDING the definition of the word “belief” to political ideology, morality, culture, and tradition,

okay, say this gets passed, then what? there are some things about marriage covered in the resolution 'Gay Rights', and though through the title you may think it applies only to homosexuals, it doesnt.

okay, the last part directly refers to gay marriages, so you would still have to repeal this in order to get full control over the marriage situation. but then you get the first part.

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

you can create all the marriage laws you want, but they still have to conform to this and other resolutions passed. and thus far, no one has managed to overturn any of them

to Seelenkrieg: quit grandstanding, join the UN, try to make the changes, and if you arent satisfied, resign. just because you join the UN, doesnt mean you have to stay in.

RECALLING UN Resolution 80 Article 1 stating “No one race or culture is better than another,”

RECALLING UN RESOLUTION 80 Article 3 stating “Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another,”

EXTENDING the definition of the word “belief” to political ideology, morality, culture, and tradition.

Stop arguing pointlessly with those who disagree with you. Just submit it. If you want real advise, then post to your region board.

We already have. Its present in some foreign region boards too.

The nation of Sorabia will support this repeal.
We compliment the educated people of The Armed Republic of NeoCon Hubris on the job well done.

Dimitrije Ljotic
Minister of Foreign Affairs
The Holy Empire of Sorabia

Why did you post the provisions of your proposal three times? Is this an attempt to say that the proposal speaks for itself? Because it does, and it's rather loud, boorish, and rude.

If marriage is a completely religious ceremony in your country, then you should have no right to disallow it anyway, as it should be performed by whatever religion wishes to perform it. Certainly there is some religious group in your country willing to marry same sex groupings. Are you not indeed inpinging yourself on the religious rights of your citizens, by refusing them the ability to marry in a church willing to accept such a marriage?

This is going to be fun. For reference's sake, here is the entire text of Resolution 80.


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.

Now, our friend, NeoCon Hubris, seems to like articles 1 and 3, and seeks to expand the interpretation of article 3 beyond what is stated above. It is also implied, but to our friend's credit, not directly stated, that the intent of Resolution 80 was to never create a UN law that could, in theory contravene a national majority's viewpoint. Of course, this is hardly the case, especially considering that other parts of the resolution specifically restrict that interpretation, those being articles 2 and 4, which are conveniently left out of NeoCon Hubris's earlier posts.

That's right, the articles omitted state quite specifically that men and women are to be considered equal AND that one can choose a same-sex lover. Strangely, it doesn't say that one can choose an opposite-sex lover, but fortunately, Resolution 81 (the one subject to this repeal attempt) does.

So interestingly enough, NeoCon Hubris is attempting to advocate the expansion of the word "belief" to include centuries-old oppressive religious traditions in an attempt to allow nations to ban same-sex marriages while ignoring the very next article of the same resolution!

Do I need to post that three times, or is the irony apparent after a single post?

RECALLING UN Resolution 80 Article 1 stating “No one race or culture is better than another,”

RECALLING UN RESOLUTION 80 Article 3 stating “Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another,”

EXTENDING the definition of the word “belief” to political ideology, morality, culture, and tradition.
by quoting UN Resolution 80, you have effectively contradicted yourself, especially when marriage isn't restricted to one religion or belief
as wrestling fans would say: "you #$%@%^ up!"

This is going to be fun. For reference's sake, here is the entire text of Resolution 80.



Now, our friend, NeoCon Hubris, seems to like articles 1 and 3, and seeks to expand the interpretation of article 3 beyond what is stated above. It is also implied, but to our friend's credit, not directly stated, that the intent of Resolution 80 was to never create a UN law that could, in theory contravene a national majority's viewpoint. Of course, this is hardly the case, especially considering that other parts of the resolution specifically restrict that interpretation, those being articles 2 and 4, which are conveniently left out of NeoCon Hubris's earlier posts.

That's right, the articles omitted state quite specifically that men and women are to be considered equal AND that one can choose a same-sex lover. Strangely, it doesn't say that one can choose an opposite-sex lover, but fortunately, Resolution 81 (the one subject to this repeal attempt) does.

So interestingly enough, NeoCon Hubris is attempting to advocate the expansion of the word "belief" to include centuries-old oppressive religious traditions in an attempt to allow nations to ban same-sex marriages while ignoring the very next article of the same resolution!

Do I need to post that three times, or is the irony apparent after a single post?

Resolution 80 Article 4 doesn't say anything about marriage. It only says one sex can love the same sex. My repeal doesn't prohibit people from loving people of the same sex. What my repeal does is allowing UN States to have their own marriage laws.

Resolution 80 Article 2 doesn't say anything about marriage either. It just states that men and women have the same rights whether be at the workplace or at home.

I find no need to quote those Articles.

by quoting UN Resolution 80, you have effectively contradicted yourself, especially when marriage isn't restricted to one religion or belief
as wrestling fans would say: "you #$%@%^ up!"

So what is Resolution 81? That's your belief of how should marriage be defined. My belief is different from Resolution 81.

And using Resolution 80 Articles 1 and 3, it states that no one belief is more right than the other. Its says that no one, not you, not me, has the monopoly on what political ideology, culture, tradition, and morality should reign supreme in the UN.

My repeal doesn't prohibit any kind of union. Your country will have every right to define what marriage is. Its your country. Its your social environment. Its your belief. Its your law.

Imagine if the real UN defined what marriage is. How many countries will express their outrage? It could possibly create new conflicts.

The Crusades left so many people dead. Muslims and Christians. All because they wanted to exterminate each other and have their religion supreme.

Why do you think you're right? Why do you think I am wrong? Who tells you you're right? Who tells you I'm wrong?

well, that's certainly "extending" the meaning, all right.

The Grand Duchess of YGSM has instructed me to oppose any proposal relying on dialectic doublethink or frivolous deconstruction. Normally I just ignore the drunken biddy, but on this one I'm inclined to concur.

The ruler's "beliefs" don't negate the human rights of the ruler's subject populace.

dictionary.com

definition of "belief"

1.The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another

2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something

3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

We all have beliefs and we are entitled to have it. We all think our beliefs are right. But who are we to say that someone's belief is wrong? Just because I don't share your belief it makes me wrong?

Resolution 80 Article 3, "Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another.”

well, that's certainly "extending" the meaning, all right.

The Grand Duchess of YGSM has instructed me to oppose any proposal relying on dialectic doublethink or frivolous deconstruction. Normally I just ignore the drunken biddy, but on this one I'm inclined to concur.

The ruler's "beliefs" don't negate the human rights of the ruler's subject populace.

Exactly. And your ruler will still have the same rights to govern over your people after the repeal. Your ruler can adapt the very same law. No one will interfere with your type of governing. Your law. Your people.

Marriage should be compuslory with jail time :headbang: or execution :mp5: as punishment. :)

Marriage should be compuslory with jail time :headbang: or execution :mp5: as punishment. :)

How would the victim know the difference?

Resolution 80 Article 4 doesn't say anything about marriage. It only says one sex can love the same sex. My repeal doesn't prohibit people from loving people of the same sex. What my repeal does is allowing UN States to have their own marriage laws.

Resolution 80 Article 2 doesn't say anything about marriage either. It just states that men and women have the same rights whether be at the workplace or at home.

I find no need to quote those Articles.

Well of course you wouldn't. They undermine your argument. You seem to think that the spirit of article 3 gives you some ability to declare any policies you dislike to be improper, but at the same time, the spirit of other articles are being ignored because they are inconvenient for you. That sort of manipulation is directly counter to how Krioval believes that a strong debate should be conducted, and as such, we find it difficult to respect your positions on just about anything. Throwing argument after argument on the table in no reasonable fashion seems to do little to help your position either.

*offers NeoCon Hubris an apple*

I agree completely with this resolution. The fact of the matter is that every nation in the world has different beliefs on these sensitive moral issues. Somethings need to be decided on as a world governing body, other things do not. This is an issue that should be personal to each nation. I put full support behind this resolution.
I respect a nation's right to allow for gay marriage, likewise, my right should be respected not to allow gay marriage. I am not a bigot, or discriminating, I just have a different set of moral standards than other people, that does not make my beliefs wrong.

Confederacy of Calm Member

I still think it is funney that there are so many nations basically shouting "I have a right to take away my citizens rights!"

What you people don't understand is that one of the main points of the U.N. is to establish an agreed upon set of rights for all people, which cannot be infringed upon by governments. Things like speech, religion, humor, sexuality, privacy, and marriage have been agreed upon as rights that people have, which cannot ever be taken away. It is not the governments place to tell a person who they can and cannot marry.

What I wonder is how your nation is dealing with the same sex marriages going on in it RIGHT NOW. You are a member of the U.N., and so same sex marriage is legal in your nation. What have you observed to arise from that?

Things like speech, religion, humor, sexuality, privacy, and marriage have been agreed upon as rights that people have, which cannot ever be taken away. It is not the governments place to tell a person who they can and cannot marry.

I agree that such is not the place of any government, including the UN.

I still think it is funney that there are so many nations basically shouting "I have a right to take away my citizens rights!"


Nope. As an elected official of my country, I am only doing my duty to represent the opinion of my citizens. It is their request, not mine.

Nope. As an elected official of my country, I am only doing my duty to represent the opinion of my citizens. It is their request, not mine.

Well then, the minorities of your nation must be glad that there are nations like Krioval watching out for their civil rights as well. If the opinion of your citizens is sufficiently strong, they will move for your nation's withdrawal from the United Nations. Otherwise, they can deal with the idea that two people can marry one another regardless of sex. It's not like same-sex marriages are forced on anybody not wishing to enter into one.

It's not like same-sex marriages are forced on anybody not wishing to enter into one.

Is there any UN statute prohibiting a nation from forcing the citizenry into same-sex marriages? If not, it's probably done in a few UN nations. I suspect that certain authoritarian anti-homophobia nations would force religious fundamentalists (those who find same-sex marriage objectionable) into said same-sex marriages in order to make the fundamentalists more tolerant and open-minded. I've seen stranger things done. *shrug*

Well then, the minorities of your nation must be glad that there are nations like Krioval watching out for their civil rights as well. If the opinion of your citizens is sufficiently strong, they will move for your nation's withdrawal from the United Nations. Otherwise, they can deal with the idea that two people can marry one another regardless of sex. It's not like same-sex marriages are forced on anybody not wishing to enter into one.

In fact there are no laws prohibiting them from emigrating to any country.

My citizen's are not interested in withdrawing our membership. I already told you about this.

Choice #1: If you don't like it, then quit.
Choice #2: If you don't like it, then repeal it.

Our citizens wanted choice # 2. We don't like forcing nations to quit the UN because it would be sheer hypocrisy to put the word "United" in the United Nations.

Nope. As an elected official of my country, I am only doing my duty to represent the opinion of my citizens. It is their request, not mine.

This means you could be replaced by a computer. And not a very well programmed one at that - just one that spits out whatever opinion is put in most often.

This means you could be replaced by a computer. And not a very well programmed one at that - just one that spits out whatever opinion is put in most often.

Isn't that what most humans do anyway? :)

Many, yes, but perhaps that is why leaders - not managers, not figureheads - are an exotic and rare breed.

Our Sultan took what was a fourth-rate country and has created from that base clay a first-world nation, with far more economic force then most countries with twice the pedigree. As such, the nation accepts him as their leader; in truth, they have no choice. When a leader leads, the nation follows.

Is there any UN statute prohibiting a nation from forcing the citizenry into same-sex marriages? If not, it's probably done in a few UN nations. I suspect that certain authoritarian anti-homophobia nations would force religious fundamentalists (those who find same-sex marriage objectionable) into said same-sex marriages in order to make the fundamentalists more tolerant and open-minded. I've seen stranger things done. *shrug*

While it's not addressed directly, there are a slew of resolutions that deal either with sexual choice or freedom from discriminatory law. They are:

Sexual Freedom - #7
Gay Rights (read the part about discrimination) - #12
The Universal Bill of Rights - #53, article 4
Universal Freedom of Choice - #69
Rights of Minorities and Women - #80
Definition of Marriage - #81

Combined, these resolutions indicate that one can choose one's sexual partner without restriction, save for the age restriction (children are excluded) and that nations are allowed to restrict interspecies contact. Further, other resolutions on that list say that citizens are not to be subject to discrimination based on sex or sexual orientation. It would be discriminatory for people to only be allowed to marry others of the same sex because it creates an inequality - a man could marry a man, but a woman couldn't; this would be discriminatory against women, then, and illegal. If you are unconvinced, by all means submit a proposal to deal with the perceived problem.

If you are unconvinced, by all means submit a proposal to deal with the perceived problem.

No thanks. I'm generally the last person to try to tell nations specifically what they can and cannot do. :)

Resolution 7 doesn't even deal with marriage. It just states that what two consenting adults do shall not be interfered by the State with the exception of some cases.

Resolution 12 should be repealed too. By technicality. It combines 2 separate ideas in one resolution. First, it promotes "anti-discrimination." Second, it enforces gay-marriage laws. That should be two separate resolutions.

Resolution 53 is very close to promoting anarchy. And the margin of victory isn't that wide.

Resolution 69 is economically detrimental. It states that all sexes should have equal wages. How much does the Honorable UN Delegate from Krioval make? Is his wage equal to all his citizens? Why should we pay lazy workers the same wage as hard-working people?

Resolution 80 says nothing about marriage either. It only states that man and woman should be treated equal at the workplace or household. Article 4 doesn't even come close to defining marriage. It only states that people are allowed to love who ever they like.

Resolution 81, we're doing a repeal on that one.

In fact there are no laws prohibiting them from emigrating to any country.

Not, in point of actual fact, true.
There was a proposal a couple months ago for a resolution guaranteeing the right of emigration, but it hasn't passed yet.

I wonder what happened to it?

My citizen's are not interested in withdrawing our membership. I already told you about this.

Choice #1: If you don't like it, then quit.
Choice #2: If you don't like it, then repeal it.

Our citizens wanted choice # 2. We don't like forcing nations to quit the UN because it would be sheer hypocrisy to put the word "United" in the United Nations.
A sound sentiment. I strongly encourage you to continue your repeal efforts, even though I hope your efforts fail to overturn the protection of gay marriage under various human rights resolutions.

It is not the UN's purpose to meddle in such areas as marriage. A definition of marriage should be left to nations to decide, in accordance with their own religions and cultures. The primary focus of the UN should be in addressing international issues.

The Great Republic of Adamsgrad supports this repeal.

RECALLING UN Resolution 80 Article 1 stating “No one race or culture is better than another,”

RECALLING UN RESOLUTION 80 Article 3 stating “Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another,”

EXTENDING the definition of the word “belief” to political ideology, morality, culture, and tradition.

In order to be consistent in the application of this principle you are using for this issue, you would have to advocate the repeal of all laws by all governing bodies, not just this one resolution by this one body. Until such time as you disband your own government and allow all your citizens to follow all of their "beliefs" to their fullest extents, I cannot regard this argument as promoting anything but double standards.

Who's oppressing homosexuals?

Any nation that would deny homosexuals the right to marry people of the same sex is oppressing them, by denying them the rights that they deserve.


We regard the moral relativism of resolution 80 as one of the poorest principles of legislation that remain on the UN law books to date, and in fact would like to see that one repealed.

RECALLING UN Resolution 80 Article 1 stating “No one race or culture is better than another,”

RECALLING UN RESOLUTION 80 Article 3 stating “Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another,”

EXTENDING the definition of the word “belief” to political ideology, morality, culture, and tradition.

Absolutely. And a nation is neither a race, nor a culture, nor a religion, nor a belief, nor a political ideology, etc. It is an assemblage of individuals who, more often than not, are of varying races, cultures, religions, and political ideologies.

If an individual's race, culture, religion or political belief forbids same-sex marriage, then they are free to not be marry someone of the same sex, not to take part in same sex marriages, and their religious group is free not to perform same-sex marriages. If, however, their race, culture, religion, or political belief allows same-sex marriage (and many do), then they are free to do any of the preceding. If a nation adopts the position of banning same-sex marriage, then they are elevating the beliefs of one race, culture, religion, or political ideology above another. They are no longer equal.

You still have not answered my question. How are your citizens dealing with the same sex marriages going on now, as we debate, in your country? Because you are in the U.N. Same sex marriage IS legal. What is the effect of this that you are seeing?

In order to be consistent in the application of this principle you are using for this issue, you would have to advocate the repeal of all laws by all governing bodies, not just this one resolution by this one body. Until such time as you disband your own government and allow all your citizens to follow all of their "beliefs" to their fullest extents, I cannot regard this argument as promoting anything but double standards.

The repeal of all laws by all governing bodies is not my interest. Like I have said many times in this thread, no foreign body should have the right to intefere with a nation's social matter. Your people. Your law.



Any nation that would deny homosexuals the right to marry people of the same sex is oppressing them, by denying them the rights that they deserve.

Some people believe that marriage is a right. Some people believe that marriage is a matter of moral decency. Resolution 80 Article 3 states that no one belief should reign supreme in the UN. Resolution 81 violated that.


We regard the moral relativism of resolution 80 as one of the poorest principles of legislation that remain on the UN law books to date, and in fact would like to see that one repealed.

Good luck with that.

You still have not answered my question. How are your citizens dealing with the same sex marriages going on now, as we debate, in your country? Because you are in the U.N. Same sex marriage IS legal. What is the effect of this that you are seeing?

They have extended their support for my administration. They feel that their culture and tradition has been violated. And one of our government's agenda is to protect our citizen's culture and tradition.

The repeal of all laws by all governing bodies is not my interest. Like I have said many times in this thread, no foreign body should have the right to intefere with a nation's social matter. Your people. Your law.

No nation should have the right to interfere with an individual's liberty.

Like I have said many times in this thread, no foreign body should have the right to intefere with a nation's social matter. Your people. Your law.
This idea is completely counter to the very concept of the U.N.
The U.N.'s purpose is to interfere in the social matters of member nations. But this interference is completely voluntary. You do not have to be a member of the U.N. if you do not wish to be. By joining the U.N. YOU have made the desicion to allow same sex marriage in your country. You were not forced to join the U.N.

Some people believe that marriage is a right. Some people believe that marriage is a matter of moral decency. Resolution 80 Article 3 states that no one belief should reign supreme in the UN. Resolution 81 violated that.
You are dramatically misinterpreting this resolution. This resolution was made to protect other people's ideas from discrimination and censorship, not to affectively impose anarchy. You are saying that according to this resolution, a man's belief that you should be shot is no more right or wrong than your belief that you should not be shot, and thus there should be no laws concerning the shooting of people. Obviously this is not the intended meaning of this resolution, and you are twisting it to your own ends.
Also, under this interpretation, no U.N. resolution should ever be made, if even a single member nation dissents.

Do you think that we should dissolve the U.N., in order to end the foreign influence it has? What do you think is the purpose of the U.N.?

really, your entire argument is rediculous.

Also, how many people in your nation think that you should leave the U.N., to end this infringement on your sovereignty? How many will there be when this repeal fails miserably, as I assure you it will, and same sex marriages continue to be legal?

Absolutely. And a nation is neither a race, nor a culture, nor a religion, nor a belief, nor a political ideology, etc. It is an assemblage of individuals who, more often than not, are of varying races, cultures, religions, and political ideologies.

If an individual's race, culture, religion or political belief forbids same-sex marriage, then they are free to not be marry someone of the same sex, not to take part in same sex marriages, and their religious group is free not to perform same-sex marriages. If, however, their race, culture, religion, or political belief allows same-sex marriage (and many do), then they are free to do any of the preceding. If a nation adopts the position of banning same-sex marriage, then they are elevating the beliefs of one race, culture, religion, or political ideology above another. They are no longer equal.

Nothing in the repeal prohibits any kind of union. You are allowed to make your own marriage laws.

I see no reason to adopt a position of banning same-sex marriage.

Our government's policy is to leave our citizens free, neither restraining them nor aiding them in their pursuits.

Our government's policy is to leave our citizens free, neither restraining them nor aiding them in their pursuits.
And yet if this repeal passes, you will no doubt outlaw same sex marriages. How is this not restricting the pursuits of some of your citizens? should you not leave them alone to make a choice to marry who they choose?

This idea is completely counter to the very concept of the U.N.
The U.N.'s purpose is to interfere in the social matters of member nations. But this interference is completely voluntary. You do not have to be a member of the U.N. if you do not wish to be. By joining the U.N. YOU have made the desicion to allow same sex marriage in your country. You were not forced to join the U.N.

Can you define what a "repeal" is? And under the UN Charter is there any special requirement for UN States to address a repeal other than having UN endorsement?


You are dramatically misinterpreting this resolution. This resolution was made to protect other people's ideas from discrimination and censorship, not to affectively impose anarchy. You are saying that according to this resolution, a man's belief that you should be shot is no more right or wrong than your belief that you should not be shot, and thus there should be no laws concerning the shooting of people. Obviously this is not the intended meaning of this resolution, and you are twisting it to your own ends.
Also, under this interpretation, no U.N. resolution should ever be made, if even a single member nation dissents.

We're not imposing anarchy. In fact, UN States are allowed to create their own marriage laws. Resolution 81 is more anarchic. Resolution 53 is even closer to imposing anarchy.

Do you think that we should dissolve the U.N., in order to end the foreign influence it has? What do you think is the purpose of the U.N.?

The purpose of the UN is to address international issues not private social matters.

really, your entire argument is rediculous.

I wish.

Also, how many people in your nation think that you should leave the U.N., to end this infringement on your sovereignty? How many will there be when this repeal fails miserably, as I assure you it will, and same sex marriages continue to be legal?

We have not made a national census regarding that matter. It's just gonna waste taxpayer money.

Nothing in the repeal prohibits any kind of union. You are allowed to make your own marriage laws.

I see no reason to adopt a position of banning same-sex marriage.

Our government's policy is to leave our citizens free, neither restraining them nor aiding them in their pursuits.

Nothing in Resolution 81 prohibits any kind of union, except for the age restrictions.

Presumably, then, the only purpose of the repeal would be to allow nations to place restrictions on the freedom of their citizens.

The question then is who is sovereign? The Nation, or the individual?

Nothing in Resolution 81 prohibits any kind of union, except for the age restrictions.

Presumably, then, the only purpose of the repeal would be to allow nations to place restrictions on the freedom of their citizens.

The question then is who is sovereign? The Nation, or the individual?

We do not believe in absolute freedom. It is anarchy.

We do not believe in absolute freedom. It is anarchy.

Of course. Freedom cannot be absolute, or it harms or infringes the freedom of others. But where do you draw the line other than that and who is to be the arbiter?

Resolution 81 recognizes the harm that can result to children from being married before a certain age. It recognizes that the capacity for individual choice does not exist in children.

Other than that, why should the state be able to dictate whom the individual can marry?

Resolution 81 recognizes the harm that can result to children from being married before a certain age. It recognizes that the capacity for individual choice does not exist in children.

Yes, I fully understand that. And also I want you to fully understand that we have two different sets of beliefs. I respect your belief so I have not made any provisions in the repeal to prohibit any kind of union.

Our country's belief is the elected government has the duty to carry out his platform. We have a mandate to carry out the principles which got us elected.

Other than that, why should the state be able to dictate whom the individual can marry?

Exactly. Marriage is a private institution. The government, including the UN, should have no interest to restrain nor aid the private pursuits of its citizens

Would you send all homosexuals to concentration camps if that was what the majority of your citizens wanted? Really, it is only a difference of scale. You are indeed required to represent the majority's interests as a leader, but it is also your duty to protect the minority. If 70% of the people in your nation BELIEVED that the other 30% should be enslaved, would that be just?
No, it would not.
If 95% of the people in your nation BELIEVED that the other 5% should be stripped of the ability to marry as they choose, would that be just?
I submit that it would be unjust.
just because a majority of your people believe that same sex marriage is wrong does not mean that they have a right to stop people from marrying members of their own gender.

And once more, what gives you the right to restrict your citizens freedoms, so long as they do not conflict with the freedoms of others?
And what gives you the right to restrict the freedom of those churches within your nation who wish to be allowed to perform marriages for same sex couples.
You say that you have a mandate of the people, but if nine people out of ten believe that they should be able to restrict the rights of the tenth person, does that make such an action just?

Can you define what a "repeal" is? And under the UN Charter is there any special requirement for UN States to address a repeal other than having UN endorsement?
Why are you accusing me of censoring you, or of trying to oppose your ability to submit this repeal? I am not doing either of these. I do not feel the need to put a stop to all things that I do not like. Now I will oppose you to the best of my ability, should this repeal pass quorum, and to deny me that you would be denying me my rights as a U.N. delegate. Of COURSE you have the right to post an appeal, and I have a right to oppose you. You do NOT have a right to appeal a resolution simply by your will. You must convince a majority of member nations of the U.N. to do that.

You have the right to submit a repeal, much like citizens in member nations of the UN have the right to speak their mind. Having a true influence, however, is not a right, but is a privalege granted based on the validity of your message.

Ack! I apologise, that was the wrong nation, I meant to submit those as Cyrian space, but this computer won't let me log out as Feylands. Consider those two as having been submitted by Cyrian Space.

Again, I apologise for using a puppet nation there, but technical difficulties seem to be tying my hands.

Yes, I fully understand that. And also I want you to fully understand that we have two different sets of beliefs. I respect your belief so I have not made any provisions in the repeal to prohibit any kind of union.

Our country's belief is the elected government has the duty to carry out his platform. We have a mandate to carry out the principles which got us elected.


A country doesn't have a belief. A country is made up of individuals, each of whom have their own beliefs. I have a belief. You have a belief. I respect your belief. We are all entitled to our own beliefs. Where it becomes problematic is where the beliefs of one individual (or a group, in the case of your nation perhaps a majority) are imposed on another in such a way that it severely limits the ability of that other to excercise a basic freedom (in this case marriage). An individual is free to oppose same-sex marriage, but they are not free to impose their definition of marriage on another such that the other is not able to marry the person of their choice.




Exactly. Marriage is a private institution. The government, including the UN, should have no interest to restrain nor aid the private pursuits of its citizens

And the only restraint Resolution 81 places on the pursuits of private citizens is the age restriction. The UN should not aid Nations in interefering in the private pursuits of their citizens by repealing the resolution.

But hey, that's just my belief.

"Belief" only gets you so far, NH.

It wouldn't matter if Plato or Michael Jackson believed pederasty were the highest expression of human love - the UN has declared it an unacceptable infringement on human rights, and banned every member nation from having laws allowing pedophelia.

Likewise, the UN has declared restrictions on adult marriage an infringement of human rights.

It's quite a simple arguement at the bases.

If NeoCon Hubris does not want to interfere with his citizens rights to marry each other - in whatever mix - then there is no reason to repeal, as that is what the Definition of Marriage assures.

If NeoCon Hubris wants to interfere, and ban some form of marriage, they must first remove the Definition of Marriage.

The conclusions are obvious from the actions.

NH, maybe if you argue on the basis of polygamy, you'll gain more support.

Wait. Does Definition of Marriage specifically prohibit multiple marriages at the same time?

NH, maybe if you argue on the basis of polygamy, you'll gain more support.

Wait. Does Definition of Marriage specifically prohibit multiple marriages at the same time?

Nope. It was designed that way. It says


"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; "


and makes no mention or allusion as to whether anyone is restricted to one or more or none at all.

Love, the Author

So, that should split the mormons right out of the coalition supporting repeal.

Love, the Author

It's too bad nations can't marry one another or Krioval would propose.

It's too bad nations can't marry one another or Krioval would propose.
You flirt you!

And here I thought I was the one you wanted!

You flirt you!

And here I thought I was the one you wanted!

Is there a reason I'd keep to only one other nation? Or is it just that you don't want to share?

A country doesn't have a belief. A country is made up of individuals, each of whom have their own beliefs. I have a belief. You have a belief. I respect your belief. We are all entitled to our own beliefs. Where it becomes problematic is where the beliefs of one individual (or a group, in the case of your nation perhaps a majority) are imposed on another in such a way that it severely limits the ability of that other to excercise a basic freedom (in this case marriage). An individual is free to oppose same-sex marriage, but they are not free to impose their definition of marriage on another such that the other is not able to marry the person of their choice.

Who's imposing what? In fact, I believe that marriage is a restriction. I dare not to impose people what my beliefs are. I do not impose my definition marriage on you. I do not impose my definition of marriage to any other country. It is Resolution 81 that imposes something. It's a law, remember?

To you, marriage is a basic freedom. To me, it is an institution made for opposite sexes. What makes your belief so much better than mine?

I don't believe in absolute rights, just like I don't believe in absolute freedom.

And the only restraint Resolution 81 places on the pursuits of private citizens is the age restriction.

Yes. And to me, age restriction is not enough. We have two different beliefs.

If I were to make a UN Resolution, I would put "marriage" under the Moral Decency category. If you were to make a UN Resolution, you would put it under Human Rights.

Now tell me why is your belief more right than mine? What makes me sooo wrong about believing that marriage is a matter of moral decency? I see no negative effect on your country even after repeal. You can make marriage laws of your own. Your people. Your law.

The UN should not aid Nations in interefering in the private pursuits of their citizens by repealing the resolution.

HUH? Why is there Resolution 81 in the first place?

It's quite a simple arguement at the bases.

If NeoCon Hubris does not want to interfere with his citizens rights to marry each other - in whatever mix - then there is no reason to repeal, as that is what the Definition of Marriage assures.

But Resolution 81 obligates me to interfere with a private matter otion has no interest of interfering with, doesn't it? Resolution 81 is mandatory, right?

Let's say a church, for example, would not wed a same-sex couple because it is not their tradition to do so, then my government would have to interfere on that private matter because Resolution 81 mandates me to interfere.

If NeoCon Hubris wants to interfere, and ban some form of marriage, they must first remove the Definition of Marriage.

Who's gonna ban what? Our policy is not to aid nor restrain a citizen's private pursuit.

"Belief" only gets you so far, NH.

It wouldn't matter if Plato or Michael Jackson believed pederasty were the highest expression of human love - the UN has declared it an unacceptable infringement on human rights, and banned every member nation from having laws allowing pedophelia.

Likewise, the UN has declared restrictions on adult marriage an infringement of human rights.

What about those people who think that marriage is a matter of moral decency? We have a UN category for that, don't we?

Again, I see no negative effect on your country, nor does it prohibit you from doing anything.

Why are you accusing me of censoring you, or of trying to oppose your ability to submit this repeal? I am not doing either of these. I do not feel the need to put a stop to all things that I do not like. Now I will oppose you to the best of my ability, should this repeal pass quorum, and to deny me that you would be denying me my rights as a U.N. delegate. Of COURSE you have the right to post an appeal, and I have a right to oppose you. You do NOT have a right to appeal a resolution simply by your will. You must convince a majority of member nations of the U.N. to do that.

You have the right to submit a repeal, much like citizens in member nations of the UN have the right to speak their mind. Having a true influence, however, is not a right, but is a privalege granted based on the validity of your message.

HUH? Who's accusing who?

But Resolution 81 obligates me to interfere with a private matter otion has no interest of interfering with, doesn't it? Resolution 81 is mandatory, right?

Let's say a church, for example, would not wed a same-sex couple because it is not their tradition to do so, then my government would have to interfere on that private matter because Resolution 81 mandates me to interfere.

No, Resolution #81 explicitly avoids the question of religion. Your church does not have to allow the wedding, nor involve itself. Your government, if it allows marriage at all, has to allow that form of civil union as expressed in the resolution.

For example, a social pressure/onus could exist to have "a church wedding". However, as long as the church is not "the government", the church - as an independant body - is free to do as it wishes.

In the case of a Theocracy, your government has to grant "a marriage". However, it does not have to impart "the blessing of the Church" to the marriage, or anything beyond civil recognition equal to any other marriage. This, in and of itself, is a way of "getting around the resolution" - though it is more an example of how social morays are just as involved in marriage as the piece of paper and civil recognition.



Who's gonna ban what? Our policy is not to aid nor restrain a citizen's private pursuit.

If that were truly the case, you would not attempt a repeal, as it does nothing against any citizen's private pursuit. You, sir, have not only shown you have an agenda, you have laid it out in your actions.

Would you send all homosexuals to concentration camps if that was what the majority of your citizens wanted? Really, it is only a difference of scale. You are indeed required to represent the majority's interests as a leader, but it is also your duty to protect the minority. If 70% of the people in your nation BELIEVED that the other 30% should be enslaved, would that be just?
No, it would not.

That's why my country is a republic. To prevent the tyranny of the majority. I hate the mob rule that pure democracy brings. I thank the Founding Fathers for that.


And once more, what gives you the right to restrict your citizens freedoms, so long as they do not conflict with the freedoms of others?

So basically you're telling me that I am absolutely wrong for believing that marriage is a matter of moral decency?

And what gives you the right to restrict the freedom of those churches within your nation who wish to be allowed to perform marriages for same sex couples.

Who said I'm gonna restrict churches? Churches are private matters. I see no need to cooperate with them.

You say that you have a mandate of the people, but if nine people out of ten believe that they should be able to restrict the rights of the tenth person, does that make such an action just?

There are lots of things I could think of. I believe that marriage is a restriction but I believe in free enterprise. Can you be more specific?

Did you honestly ask why, if the goal is to prevent governments from interfering in the private lives of citizens, Resolution 81 was passed?

HUH? Why is there Resolution 81 in the first place?

You did?! I feel this underscores a problem in realizing what your critics are saying in the first place. We feel that the UN can be used as an organization to "disarm" otherwise repressive governments (in our eyes) from denying a minority of their population similar rights afforded to their majority. So passing a resolution defining marriage so as to make it inclusive would effectively strongarm more conservative governments from sticking their noses into their citizens' private lives. I hope this has clarified the issue a bit.

Did you honestly ask why, if the goal is to prevent governments from interfering in the private lives of citizens, Resolution 81 was passed?



You did?! I feel this underscores a problem in realizing what your critics are saying in the first place. We feel that the UN can be used as an organization to "disarm" otherwise repressive governments (in our eyes) from denying a minority of their population similar rights afforded to their majority. So passing a resolution defining marriage so as to make it inclusive would effectively strongarm more conservative governments from sticking their noses into their citizens' private lives. I hope this has clarified the issue a bit.

Convince me why your belief is better than mine. Why are you right? Why am I wrong? Who told you you're right? Who told you I'm wrong?

Convince me why your belief is better than mine. Why are you right? Why am I wrong? Who told you you're right? Who told you I'm wrong?

See, you're not willing to be convinced, or the mountains of posts in the past several months (predating my nation's official foundation) would have done so. Similarly, so would the many other sources on the internet have convinced you. But you would rather peddle a prejudice wrapped up in the "national sovereignty" argument, which to me is as transparent an agenda as one can have.

But why is my belief better? Briefly, it's because it allows freer expression on the part of all people while nobody can demonstrate any tangible harm from it. Certainly, religious conservatives can hem and haw about how seeing two guys kiss will lead to the collapse of moral civilization, but they're not forced to watch, they're not forced to marry someone of their sex, and they're not forced to religiously endorse the unions. Depriving people of the right to obtain a civil contract based on their sex, on the other hand, unnecessarily restricts civil liberties while having the primary effect of making a group of people "feel good". That, in a nutshell, is why mine is the superior belief; that is why I am right and you are wrong.

If you want to go into the religious argument, you can claim that your God doesn't like same-sex marriage. Fine, that's not something that can be disproven. But then, I claim that Solokaro (and other Gods) not only approve of same-sex unions, but actively engage in them. You can't disprove my claims. So the religious argument is irrelevant, and we're left with my previous paragraph.

So much for brevity. :rolleyes:

Convince me why your belief is better than mine. Why are you right? Why am I wrong? Who told you you're right? Who told you I'm wrong?
I'll take a stab at this one. I've been married near twenty years now. I don't need anyone to tell me what marriage is about; I speak from experience, not belief.

Marriage is not a restriction. Your calling it a restriction indicates to me that you're talking about the religious institution that sometimes goes by the same name as the civil unions protected by this resolution. I don't like the name either, but it's a comman usage and is spelled out very clearly in the resolution.

Marriage has nothing to do with raising children. That's why there are separate tax credits in my nation for married people and for people with children. You can argue that marriage should be a requirement for raising children, but that would be a separate resolution. That would be a restriction, and The Grand Duchy of YGSM (and the Duchess) would oppose it. My nation has many married couples who have no intention of having or raising children, and plenty of couples who've passed the child-bearing age and whose children are now adults. That doesn't make their marriages less valid than my marriage to the Duchess.

Marriage is about combining of assets and division of labor. It is a way of viewing a couple as a single entity under the law, so that benefits and responsibilities of one apply to the other.

I'll take a stab at this one. I've been married near twenty years now. I don't need anyone to tell me what marriage is about; I speak from experience, not belief.

Marriage is not a restriction. Your calling it a restriction indicates to me that you're talking about the religious institution that sometimes goes by the same name as the civil unions protected by this resolution. I don't like the name either, but it's a comman usage and is spelled out very clearly in the resolution.

The repeal doesn't outlaw civil unions.

Marriage has nothing to do with raising children. That's why there are separate tax credits in my nation for married people and for people with children. You can argue that marriage should be a requirement for raising children, but that would be a separate resolution. That would be a restriction, and The Grand Duchy of YGSM (and the Duchess) would oppose it. My nation has many married couples who have no intention of having or raising children, and plenty of couples who've passed the child-bearing age and whose children are now adults. That doesn't make their marriages less valid than my marriage to the Duchess.

Yup. You are still entitled to have your own marriage laws after the repeal. The repeal won't do anything bad to your country. We just want nations to have their own marriage laws.

Marriage is about combining of assets and division of labor. It is a way of viewing a couple as a single entity under the law, so that benefits and responsibilities of one apply to the other.

So it is wrong for me to believe that marriage is also a matter of moral decency?

In order to be consistent in the application of this principle you are using for this issue, you would have to advocate the repeal of all laws by all governing bodies, not just this one resolution by this one body. Until such time as you disband your own government and allow all your citizens to follow all of their "beliefs" to their fullest extents, I cannot regard this argument as promoting anything but double standards.

OOC: I'm proud to be consistent in my beliefs by being an anarchist nation. :) Go me! *does consistency dance* :D

So it is wrong for me to believe that marriage is also a matter of moral decency?
Only as wrong as it is to believe that invisible dragons inhabit your attic. It is not wrong for you to hold that belief, but the belief in and of itself is wrong, and it would be wrong of you to impose your belief that invisible dragons reside in your attic upon others. How you would go about doing that last part is up to your imagination.

Only as wrong as it is to believe that invisible dragons inhabit your attic. It is not wrong for you to hold that belief, but the belief in and of itself is wrong, and it would be wrong of you to impose your belief that invisible dragons reside in your attic upon others. How you would go about doing that last part is up to your imagination.

The invisible dragons residing in his attic have crossed over into my piece of insanity and have elected me to ask you how you were aware of their existance.

Please hurry with your answer. They're scaring the purple elephants away.

Only as wrong as it is to believe that invisible dragons inhabit your attic. It is not wrong for you to hold that belief, but the belief in and of itself is wrong, and it would be wrong of you to impose your belief that invisible dragons reside in your attic upon others. How you would go about doing that last part is up to your imagination.

Who told you that moral decency is wrong?

Who told you that moral decency is wrong?

The Spanish Inquisition.

The Spanish Inquisition.
Oooh. I didn't expect that.

The repeal doesn't outlaw civil unions.
It allows them to be outlawed :headbang:


Yup. You are still entitled to have your own marriage laws after the repeal. The repeal won't do anything bad to your country. We just want nations to have their own marriage laws.
The rest of us don't want nations to have their own marriage laws. The only things that could possibly do would be (a) allow pedophelia, or (b) trample the human rights of UN member nations' citizens.


So it is wrong for me to believe that marriage is also a matter of moral decency?
YES.

Read my previous post again - you're confusing terms.

A vote for this repeal is a vote to encourage pedophilia! Won't someone please think of the children?!

OOC: I never thought I'd be able to say that without bursting into hysterical laughter.

A vote for this repeal is a vote to encourage pedophilia! Won't someone please think of the children?!

OOC: I never thought I'd be able to say that without bursting into hysterical laughter.
You didn't burst into laughter?

You didn't burst into laughter?

It wasn't hysterical.

NeoCon Hubris has fully exposed his agenda - I vote this thread be closed as the vast majority of nations in the UN are not going to support the attempt.

Particularly when fear is so badly disguised.

Oooh. I didn't expect that.

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Glad to see someone got my reference.

NeoCon Hubris has fully exposed his agenda - I vote this thread be closed as the vast majority of nations in the UN are not going to support the attempt.

Particularly when fear is so badly disguised.

On this I must agree. At this point, we've pretty much made our points and some members are resorting to open mocking instead. I think we've worn out this issue for the sixth time.

NeoCon Hubris has fully exposed his agenda - I vote this thread be closed as the vast majority of nations in the UN are not going to support the attempt.

Particularly when fear is so badly disguised.

Yes. My agenda is to repeal UN Resolution 81. Wasn't that very obvious from the very start? Why should the thread be closed? How'd you know the amount of support it might have? Got crystal balls in your pad? I thought you guys are for equality? Oh--right. Coz I don't share your belief. Nice try though.

The repeal of all laws by all governing bodies is not my interest. Like I have said many times in this thread, no foreign body should have the right to intefere with a nation's social matter. Your people. Your law.

Then why aren't you trying to repeal every single resolution in the UN apart from the few which do not dictate internal policy? Why aren't you busy repealing the anti-paedophilia resolution, and the Universal Bill of Rights? End Slavery? The ban on Child Labor? Fair trial? Free education? Habeas Corpus?

And I still believe that if you say the UN cannot elevate one belief over another, then national and local governments have no more right to do so.

Plus, the belief that no foreign body should interfere with a nation's social matter is also a belief, which according to you must be equal with the notion that the UN ought tbe able to interfere.

Some people believe that marriage is a right. Some people believe that marriage is a matter of moral decency. Resolution 80 Article 3 states that no one belief should reign supreme in the UN. Resolution 81 violated that.

Again, your interpretation of this resolution demands the repeal of all laws.

I don't believe you are truly a moral relativist, otherwise you'd be applying this principle consistently - I think you wanted to repeal Definition of Marriage first, then you saw resolution 80 and realised it might work as an excuse to repeal.

Yes. My agenda is to repeal UN Resolution 81. Wasn't that very obvious from the very start? Why should the thread be closed? How'd you know the amount of support it might have? Got crystal balls in your pad? I thought you guys are for equality? Oh--right. Coz I don't share your belief. Nice try though.

I, at least, know the amount of support that such a proposal would gain because I've been watching futile attempts by national sovereignty-ites and bigots to repeal the protection of gay rights for over 18 months now, and all that has happened is a strengthening of the protection.

Then why aren't you trying to repeal every single resolution in the UN apart from the few which do not dictate internal policy? Why aren't you busy repealing the anti-paedophilia resolution, and the Universal Bill of Rights? End Slavery? The ban on Child Labor? Fair trial? Free education? Habeas Corpus?

And I still believe that if you say the UN cannot elevate one belief over another, then national and local governments have no more right to do so.

Plus, the belief that no foreign body should interfere with a nation's social matter is also a belief, which according to you must be equal with the notion that the UN ought tbe able to interfere.



Again, your interpretation of this resolution demands the repeal of all laws.

I don't believe you are truly a moral relativist, otherwise you'd be applying this principle consistently - I think you wanted to repeal Definition of Marriage first, then you saw resolution 80 and realised it might work as an excuse to repeal.


Are you in a hurry? One repeal at a time.

I, at least, know the amount of support that such a proposal would gain because I've been watching futile attempts by national sovereignty-ites and bigots to repeal the protection of gay rights for over 18 months now, and all that has happened is a strengthening of the protection.

So?

So, with this electorate, you're unlikely to achieve anything along these lines.

Are you in a hurry? One repeal at a time.

Do you or do you not intend to attempt to repeal all resolutions interfering with domestic matters? If not, you are a hypocrite. If you do, why not start with resolutions that have less support?

It's not worth granting the legitimacy of arguing with a bigoted faction whose the sole reason for proposing the above mentioned resolution is to deny equal rights and protection to a group of people. This is despicable and nothing more than blatant persecution and analagous to racism. I agree that the thread should be closed and declared dead.

The Debate

Against the repeal:
All people should have equal rights. Criminals should be free. To put them in prison is bigotry because we believe that moral decency is a sham. People who believe that marriage is a matter of moral decency are very bad people. Religious people are evil. Scrap moral decency. Our group should reign supreme regarding this matter.

For the repeal:
Sensitive issues like marriage should be left to individual UN States to decide. We believe in the individuality of a nation as strong as our belief in the individuality of a person. It is best that we keep this social matter decided by local governments so local policymakers could effectively serve their constituents. We like individual UN States to define "marriage" according to their own liking. The repeal doesn't prohibit any kind of union and I see no negative effect on your country since you will be in charge of creating your own laws.

The Debate - Another Viewpoint

Against the Repeal:

An individual's civil liberties should be protected against intrusion from the State. Morals are not to be legislated, but kept to the private arena. Acts that do not cause harm to anybody else should be protected even if the majority of a given location find them distasteful. Oppression in the name of morality, especially religious dogma, cheapens both the institutions of faith and law.

For the Repeal:

A State should be able to do whatever it wants. That includes categorically denying people civil rights simply because a behavior makes some people feel uncomfortable. It doesn't matter if said behavior is entirely harmless, that people find it to be "icky" is sufficient cause to legislate against it. We like to use the phrases "moral decency" and "national sovereignty" to push an insidious agenda because it is extremely difficult for people to oppose either of those concepts. In short, our argument is based on duplicity and hypocrisy, but we claim to be the moral group.

I would want a resolution that allows a country to have marriage be between any 2 people, but if they don't agree with it they would be forced to give them a cival union with the same rights.

The Real Debate - Sans Intentional and Rude Misrepresentations ;)

Against the Repeal:

An individual's civil liberties should be protected against intrusion from the State. Morals are not to be legislated, but kept to the private arena. Acts that do not cause harm to anybody else should be protected even if the majority of a given location find them distasteful. Oppression in the name of morality, especially religious dogma, cheapens both the institutions of faith and law.

For the Repeal:

Sensitive issues like marriage should be left to individual UN States to decide. We believe in the individuality of a nation as strong as our belief in the individuality of a person. It is best that we keep this social matter decided by local governments so local policymakers could effectively serve their constituents. We like individual UN States to define "marriage" according to their own liking. The repeal doesn't prohibit any kind of union and I see no negative effect on your country since you will be in charge of creating your own laws.

I mostly agree with both of these. There are things I find problematic in each of them, but overall, good points.

The Debate

Against the repeal:
All people should have equal rights. Criminals should be free. To put them in prison is bigotry because we believe that moral decency is a sham. People who believe that marriage is a matter of moral decency are very bad people. Religious people are evil. Scrap moral decency. Our group should reign supreme regarding this matter.

Glad to see your art of bullshitting and purposefully misconstruing what is said is intact.

Okay, time to bring up my own laws and see how will that fits.

1. "All people should have equal rights." This is true and a focus of our society.

2. "Criminals should be free." Only if you define being dead or being forced to work on orbital platforms as free. They may not have any bars on the doors or guards, but it's not exactly like they have anywhere to go or any way to get there.

3. "To put them in prison is bigotry because we believe that moral decency is a sham." To put them in jail is a waste of money when they make so effective laborers. And morality is relative, so it's useless in this matter. It's better from a societal point of view to remove them from society simply because people tend to get thoughts of revolution in their minds when they don't see police in action and are armed enough to attempt to follow through.

4. "People who believe that marriage is a matter of moral decency are very bad people." Sadly, this tends to be true. Mainly because most Sarkarasetans don't understand that "The bread is his body, the wine his blood." to not be advocating cannibalism.

5. "Religious people are evil." Not evil, just social outcasts and often viewed as mentally deficient. Keep in mind that's from the same people who view throwing balls of fire from your hands and vampirism as normal parts of society, so their view is a little skewed.

6. "Scrap moral decency." Yep, this is the view. Mainly because science is more useful. That, and parts of "moral decency" don't need morality to justify them.

7. "Our group should reign supreme regarding this matter." Of course. The other side wants to ban the issue at hand outright and by all signs one side must win. If its going to be that way, I would rather it be my side.

For the repeal:
Sensitive issues like marriage should be left to individual UN States to decide. We believe in the individuality of a nation as strong as our belief in the individuality of a person. It is best that we keep this social matter decided by local governments so local policymakers could effectively serve their constituents. We like individual UN States to define "marriage" according to their own liking. The repeal doesn't prohibit any kind of union and I see no negative effect on your country since you will be in charge of creating your own laws.

See Krioval.

Against the repeal:
All people should have equal rights. Criminals should be free. To put them in prison is bigotry because we believe that moral decency is a sham. People who believe that marriage is a matter of moral decency are very bad people. Religious people are evil. Scrap moral decency. Our group should reign supreme regarding this matter.
Good job, you can mudsling and make misleading statements.
You might get better results if you actually addressed other's points instead of putting words in their mouths.
Just a thought.

I'm honestly still amazed that you managed to get from "Believing that marriage is a matter of moral decency is wrong." to "Morality is wrong." Without getting pulled over for major thought violations. You are a crock, and I will no longer participate in this discussion. Should this come to a vote (and chances are it will not) I will do all in my power to oppose it. Until that unlikely time, I will have no more of this discussion.

Good day, sir.

I'm honestly still amazed that you managed to get from "Believing that marriage is a matter of moral decency is wrong." to "Morality is wrong." Without getting pulled over for major thought violations. You are a crock, and I will no longer participate in this discussion. Should this come to a vote (and chances are it will not) I will do all in my power to oppose it. Until that unlikely time, I will have no more of this discussion.

Good day, sir.

Right now, I don't really care if the legislation fails. The exposed leftist hypocrisy is more than enough to make me happy.

What hypocracy besides your own?

Good job, you can mudsling and make misleading statements.
You might get better results if you actually addressed other's points instead of putting words in their mouths.
Just a thought.

See his extradition thread for more examples.

I was going to leave the conversation, but then I was accused of being a hypocrite, so I've got to defend myself now.
So how am I being hypocritical?

Right now, I don't really care if the legislation fails. The exposed leftist hypocrisy is more than enough to make me happy.

*puts up a sign above his seat*

NO LONGER FEEDING THE TROLL.
PLEASE JOIN THE TREND.

Right now, I don't really care if the legislation fails. The exposed leftist hypocrisy is more than enough to make me happy.
I am now insulted.

I answered you forthrightly and honestly. I addressed your question directly. Your response is to sling mud at me.

I certainly didn't call myself a "bigot" did I?

There's nothing more important to me than to accomodate all the bright ideas you guys brought up. I was hoping that we would just respect our valued beliefs. Marriage is such a sensitive issue that I would just like to leave it to ourselves. Instead, it's become the root of an even more fiery debate.

I find it very odd that those people invoking tolerance are much more intolerant when it comes to other beliefs. Calling me a "homophobe," "bigot" etc. I get persecuted for having a different belief.

I certainly don't hate homosexuals. I live in a very liberal town and have homosexual friends too. I just don't share the belief that marriage is a right. We get along very well. I do respect their lifestyle, and they respect my belief in return. They seem more tolerant than most people here.

Mudslinging? We're all guilty of it.

I certainly don't hate homosexuals. I live in a very liberal town and have homosexual friends too. I just don't share the belief that marriage is a right. We get along very well. I do respect their lifestyle, and they respect my belief in return. They seem more tolerant than most people here.

That part I bolded there is the core of this debate. To many of us here, you may as well say that speech or religion are not rights either. The U.N. is in place partially to define and protect the rights of the citizens of it's member nations. Now what you need to do is show us why marriage should not be considered a right. And yes, you need to do this to change anything, because that is what you are going to have to convince people of if you want to get this repeal passed. You cannot simply state that because you believe that marriage should not be a right, and have it be so. If you could, then the U.N. Would be a dictatorship run by you.

Now I would like it explained how I am a hypocrite.

Now what you need to do is show us why marriage should not be considered a right.

It is pointless to do so. Our minds are already fixed on things we already believe as true. If you truly believe that marriage is a right, then you are entitled to do so. I am not telling you to believe that it is not. I'm not trying to convince you that it is not. My belief is my belief. Your belief is your belief. I'm not more right than you. You're not more right than me.

And yes, you need to do this to change anything, because that is what you are going to have to convince people of if you want to get this repeal passed. You cannot simply state that because you believe that marriage should not be a right, and have it be so. If you could, then the U.N. Would be a dictatorship run by you.

Of course I wouldn't run the UN and be a dictator. How many times do I have to say that very sensitive social matters should be left to individual states? The repeal doesn't even impose anything. The only point I have to make is that we are different people with different beliefs and we have different cultures and we should be able to protect those culture by making our own laws. If you feel that same-sex marriage is a right, then make national laws that would enact it. Some people think that marriage is a matter of moral decency, and the would make national laws to enact it too.

Its like legalizing/outlawing gambling, euthanasia, abortion, marijuana, prostitution. Its very sensitve and people are very divided about these issues. We just want to make our own laws.

Now I would like it explained how I am a hypocrite.

Who said you are? Did I name names?

Children, please...

I asked a serious question a while back that nobody answered. I'm going to ask it again.

First, a statement: I'm an advocate of national sovereignty. I also believe that gay marriage should be legal.

My question: if we allow nations to define marriage for themselves, what do we do about the person who takes advantage of this fact to skip out on his or her obligations under the marriage contract? IOW, if a person emigrates to a nation where his or her marriage is illegal, have they just found a way to be granted a no-tears, no-obligations divorce?

Right now, I don't really care if the legislation fails. The exposed leftist hypocrisy is more than enough to make me happy.

Amen!

Welsh - Sidestreamer Ambassador to the UN

Mudslinging? We're all guilty of it.
I'm guilty of mudslinging in this debate?

Please point me to my post.

I told you that you are wrong about civil marriage being a moral decency issue. I told you, speaking from experience, that marriage is not a restriction. You have chosen not to engage me on those arguments, but to dismiss me as a leftist hypocrite.

The proposal on extradition has convinced me you're capable of better debate than this. If you don't think your ideas are strong enough to stand up in honest debate, stop posting in this thread. Don't use disingenuous sophistry, and don't cast aspersions.

O this thread is why I was confused earlier, I was mixing the gay rights with this definition of marriage. I think a country should allow to have its own definition of marriage but if that definition doesn't include gay couples then they will be forced to have cival unions.

But then not allowing them to have it be called marriage would seem unfair, but having it named marriage won't give them anything special all it will do is bring more hate against their population. I think it is a horrible wrong doing that gay couples can't visit each toher in the hospital right now and I think that in real life that cival unions should be given asap because they are much more resonable and will more likely able to pass legislature then gay marriage. Then this belief reflects to how I feel about this resolution in the game.

O this thread is why I was confused earlier, I was mixing the gay rights with this definition of marriage. I think a country should allow to have its own definition of marriage but if that definition doesn't include gay couples then they will be forced to have cival unions.

But then not allowing them to have it be called marriage would seem unfair, but having it named marriage won't give them anything special all it will do is bring more hate against their population. I think it is a horrible wrong doing that gay couples can't visit each toher in the hospital right now and I think that in real life that cival unions should be given asap because they are much more resonable and will more likely able to pass legislature then gay marriage. Then this belief reflects to how I feel about this resolution in the game.

"Gay marriage" is already a reality in the UN due to not one but two resolutions.

Personal rights are of UN concern. Sometimes, the UN (or a national government) has to say that they aren't going to say anything about something. In the case of the Sex Industry Worker Act, the NSUN decided that prostitution was legal, arguing that it's a matter of personal choice. The same thing could be done with this, as far as it isn't already covered by earlier resolutions.

The UN can effectively bypass national governments and put the decision where it belongs: the people themselves. This removes the ability of those who are apparently meddlesome bigots who cannot get over their language hang-ups to prevent people from exercising their free choice to live as they wish to live.

Ultimately, the right to live as one will is the "ultimate" human right - and it includes the right to live with who one will, and to die as one will.

If you, personally, could not stomach being in a "cival union" with someone you love - regardless of sex, as to limit it to one sex or another is bigotry of the worst kind - then you have effectively argued against the existance of "cival unions". Enough with the ridiculous arguements - if you could not do it, then do not seek to require it of others.

Who's imposing what? In fact, I believe that marriage is a restriction. I dare not to impose people what my beliefs are. I do not impose my definition marriage on you. I do not impose my definition of marriage to any other country. It is Resolution 81 that imposes something. It's a law, remember?

To you, marriage is a basic freedom. To me, it is an institution made for opposite sexes. What makes your belief so much better than mine?


Nothing makes my belief better than yours. In fact, I fully respect your belief. I respect your right to hold that belief. I respect your right to express that belief. You are free to oppose same-sex marriages. You are free to not participate in same-sex marriages. You are free to be part of a religious denomination that refuses to perform same-sex marriages. However, you are not free to turn your belief into a national law designed to severely curtail the freedoms of others.

The only thing Resolution 81 imposes is an obligation on states to respect the individual freedom and choices of their citizens.


I don't believe in absolute rights, just like I don't believe in absolute freedom.


Fair enough. But I ask again, who decides where freedoms should be limited and how? The state? The majority of its citizens? Would that not be the Tyranny of the Majority? How does your Republican structure prevent this?



If I were to make a UN Resolution, I would put "marriage" under the Moral Decency category. If you were to make a UN Resolution, you would put it under Human Rights.


OK, but I need a definition of "Moral Decency". I find it can be a vague and nebulous term that can justify almost anything. My concern is that "morality" is often just a way of referring to a belief held by the majority. Which brings us back to Tyranny of the Majority again.


Now tell me why is your belief more right than mine? What makes me sooo wrong about believing that marriage is a matter of moral decency? I see no negative effect on your country even after repeal. You can make marriage laws of your own. Your people. Your law.


There is nothing wrong with you believing that is is a matter of moral decency. However, you need to define moral decency, and explain why same-sex marriage is morally indecent. The arguments you have made so far suggest that for you it is more of a national sovereignty issue than one of moral decency.


The exposed leftist hypocrisy is more than enough to make me happy.


I actually think that myself and Evil Cantadia have been arguing this from an individual rights perspective that is consistent with the philosophy of Mill, for example, who is hardly a leftist. I think we have been extremely consistent in our positions. What bothers me more than anything is so-called conservatives (and I am not saying you are one of these) that allegedly support individual rights and freedoms, except where these conflict with their own conservative "morality", in which case they are ready to throw the choice and liberty that their system is allegedly premised on right out the window. That, to me, is hypocrisy. But hey, that is only my belief.

Again, I respect your belief, and I do not think you should be belittled for it. I don't think you should be labelled for it, and I do not support the suggestion that we close the thread. However, I also think that if you wish to be treated with respect, you should be respectful to others, and avoid labelling them and their views, and misconstruing their arguments.

To the Honorable Delegates and Members of the United Nations,

We, the Armed Republic of the NeoCon Hubris, region of Conservatopia, would like to inform you our intention to repeal UN Resolution 81: Definition of Marriage.

It would be a great honor to have your ideas, comments, and suggestions. The proposed repeal isn't final yet.

The proposed repeal states:





We ask your regions' support to grant UN nations their sovereignty back. We believe in the individuality of a nation as strongly as the individuality of people.

The uniform definition of "marriage" enacted by Resolution 81 takes away that individuality and ultimately trampled the very principles it righteously promotes. Resolution 81 has declared the belief it embodies superior to all other beliefs. We should stop this monopoly now.



Respectfully,
Chancellor Adriel Montaigne
The Armed Republic of the NeoCon Hubris
Region of Conservatopia

I proposed a repeal for #81 too. My reason was because of the agelimits. I could not find sufficient evidence in the Child Protection Act to back the age restrictions, and proposed instead that the limit be locally imposed.

"Gay marriage" is already a reality in the UN due to not one but two resolutions.

Personal rights are of UN concern. Sometimes, the UN (or a national government) has to say that they aren't going to say anything about something. In the case of the Sex Industry Worker Act, the NSUN decided that prostitution was legal, arguing that it's a matter of personal choice. The same thing could be done with this, as far as it isn't already covered by earlier resolutions.

The UN can effectively bypass national governments and put the decision where it belongs: the people themselves. This removes the ability of those who are apparently meddlesome bigots who cannot get over their language hang-ups to prevent people from exercising their free choice to live as they wish to live.

Ultimately, the right to live as one will is the "ultimate" human right - and it includes the right to live with who one will, and to die as one will.

If you, personally, could not stomach being in a "cival union" with someone you love - regardless of sex, as to limit it to one sex or another is bigotry of the worst kind - then you have effectively argued against the existance of "cival unions". Enough with the ridiculous arguements - if you could not do it, then do not seek to require it of others.

My believes do not change the way a gay person would wish to live unless they dedicated there life to have the cival union be called marriage, but that would be there choice.

But then I got a question for you, why do you assume I don't understand that the un rules are far reaching and go over and decision made by the individual nation? Is it because I had this thread mixed up with another one? I have no problem folloowing the rules, but there is no resolution or will there ever be that says I have to like them.

Then about your last statement of if I had to be forced into a cival union. Since I'm straight I can't awnser it from a gay persons view point, but if I had the opertunity to have all the rights and be linked by something I would take all that I could get and be happy with it.

But I agree with you on ceasing the arugment, I wish as much as anyone that there was no hate towards gays in the world but this is a ideal thought that can never happen, just like how racism will never end. But then the fact is that if gay marraige were in existance everywhere there would be lots of hate against gays. I wish they could have the rights that married couples and if it was called marriage I would have no resentment ofr it and I would be happy if the world would accept it. But that isn't reality and it would just bring more hate against gays. But then I would be lieing if that was the only reason why I disagreed with gay marriages and me thinking it being the "traditional" marriage (like hasband and wife, man and groom this isn't possible in gay marriage one of my main problem with the definition on ns or in real life) which I have been brought up to believe. But I can put that behind me as a law abiding citizen and member of the un in this game.

Then about your last statement of if I had to be forced into a cival union. Since I'm straight I can't awnser it from a gay persons view point, but if I had the opertunity to have all the rights and be linked by something I would take all that I could get and be happy with it.

Well, I think I can provide you with the overwhelming gay point of view, seeing as I am a married homosexual myself.

It is the job of a democracy to ensure that the rights of minorities are not subjected, are never subjected, to the will of the majority. The rights of human beings who belong to a minority group must always be protected by virtue of their status as citizens, regardless of their numbers. These rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority.

Many of those against same-sex marriage embrace freedom and equality in theory. However, they do not embrace them in fact.

Many opponents of same-sex marriage propose to extend to gays and lesbians the right to “civil union.” This would give same-sex couples many of the rights of a wedded couple, but their relationships would not legally be considered marriage. In other words, they would be equal, but not quite as equal as the rest of society.

Marriage is the only road to true equality for same-sex couples. Any other form of recognition of same-sex relationships ...falls short of true equality

Put simply, we must always remember that “separate but equal” is not equal.

Today, we rightly see discrimination based on sexual orientation as arbitrary, inappropriate and unfair. Looking back, we can hardly believe that such rights were ever a matter for debate. It is my hope that we will ultimately see this current debate in a similar light; realizing that nothing has been lost or sacrificed by the majority in extending full rights to the minority.

So, let me ask you this. Is my marriage any less valuable than yours or your parents? Is your marriage or your parents marriage any less valuable because I am married to someone of the same sexr?

*yawn*

Silly religious and "national sovereignty" non-arguments again. Futile, for it will not gather enough support, and derisory, because even with this repeal gay marriage is still covered by at least another resolution.

Yes, so important has the UN found the protection of citizens from homophobic discrimination to be, that it has purposefully made it very difficult to strip gay people of the rights it has granted them.

Culture or heritage, or what have you, is not an excuse for discrimination.

All in all, your repeal proposal is a failure from get go. It brings nothing new to the table and differs itself in no way from the countless earlier, failed, repeal attempts.

The Fassian UN representative thus urges that this repeal never be submitted. You'll be wasting not just your own time, but valuable queue space as well.

I'd just like to point out that the repeal stated nothing about gay marriage. I know that's already been pointed out, but that's what this debate has been about anyway. I'm for the repeal, but not specifically for the reasons being debated.
Now, don't go flying off the handle at my first arguments, I'm not headed in the direction you may think I am.

First let me point out that the definition doesn't point out a minimum or maximum limit to marriage, but puts a strict definition on marriage. This of course means that any nation must acknowledge any marriage whatsoever, so long as it falls into this definition.
Second, let me point out that the bill doesn't restrict marriage in any way whatsoever, with the exception of age (It isn't specific reguarding what age limits may be acceptable, so I assume that decision is left with individual nations).
Third, let me point out that admitting the marriage is legal must also mean admitting that sexual conduct between the two married is legal.
Fourth, let me point out that the source of some of the most deadly diseases in human history (many think that AIDS originated this way) is the sexual relations between human beings and animals (I exclude the various sentient species of NationStates that may be considered animals, of course).

So by the current definition of marriage, reguardless of the social climate of a nation, any government anywhere would have to recognize a marriage between a man or woman and, say, a ferrel hog. Basically, every nation would have to recognize as legal the proliferation of diseases (plague, rabies, anthrax, several dangerous strains of flu, and smallpox, just to name a few) by a human and his spouse.
As a matter of fact, the current definition doesn't even rule out marriage to inanimate objects. A particularly unsound person could marry a garbage can, for goodness sake.

Well, inter-species marriages are left up to individual governments to legislate.

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

Well, inter-species marriages are left up to individual governments to legislate.

Hm. Well, it would probably be better stated that all nations have the right to *restrict* this definition along species borders... and it still doesn't say anything about garbage cans... but even so, I guess I see your point. :headbang:

Hm. Well, it would probably be better stated that all nations have the right to *restrict* this definition along species borders... and it still doesn't say anything about garbage cans... but even so, I guess I see your point. :headbang:

In view of this point, I think someone should propose a ban on beastiality w/ non-sentient species of NationStates, since non-sentient species are far more likely to possess contagious and deadly diseases that can be spread by prolonged close contact or exchange of bodily fluids. Once it's in the ranks of intelligent people, it'll spread much more easily. Disease crosses borders, so it's not just a local policy.

In view of this point, I think someone should propose a ban on beastiality w/ non-sentient species of NationStates, since non-sentient species are far more likely to possess contagious and deadly diseases that can be spread by prolonged close contact or exchange of bodily fluids. Once it's in the ranks of intelligent people, it'll spread much more easily. Disease crosses borders, so it's not just a local policy.

Actually, I find sentient species are far more likely. Nonsentient species have travel limitations and most wouldn't leave their homes unless given no choice. Sentient species, however, tend to not only leave their homes often, but even find ways around such travel barriers as space. Most modern flu cases in the US are more likely to result from tourists visiting other nations than animals.

Well, I think I can provide you with the overwhelming gay point of view, seeing as I am a married homosexual myself.

It is the job of a democracy to ensure that the rights of minorities are not subjected, are never subjected, to the will of the majority. The rights of human beings who belong to a minority group must always be protected by virtue of their status as citizens, regardless of their numbers. These rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority.

Many of those against same-sex marriage embrace freedom and equality in theory. However, they do not embrace them in fact.

Many opponents of same-sex marriage propose to extend to gays and lesbians the right to “civil union.” This would give same-sex couples many of the rights of a wedded couple, but their relationships would not legally be considered marriage. In other words, they would be equal, but not quite as equal as the rest of society.

Marriage is the only road to true equality for same-sex couples. Any other form of recognition of same-sex relationships ...falls short of true equality

Put simply, we must always remember that “separate but equal” is not equal.

Today, we rightly see discrimination based on sexual orientation as arbitrary, inappropriate and unfair. Looking back, we can hardly believe that such rights were ever a matter for debate. It is my hope that we will ultimately see this current debate in a similar light; realizing that nothing has been lost or sacrificed by the majority in extending full rights to the minority.

So, let me ask you this. Is my marriage any less valuable than yours or your parents? Is your marriage or your parents marriage any less valuable because I am married to someone of the same sexr?

You bring up a fair point and I agree with you that they wouldn't be completly equal. A large percentage of dedicated christians now and will oppose. But in reality equality is impossible, women can't be equal to men because they are differnt. Then I'm not stupid gays are people and there is no physical difference but they will always be seen as differnt and their marriages will always be seen differnt as well.

I would like to thank you for being so open about you sexuality and pushing for the rights of gays everywhere. But I simply can't see a gay marriage as a marriage and the name is not the thing about it, it is the difference between them.

In view of this point, I think someone should propose a ban on beastiality w/ non-sentient species of NationStates, since non-sentient species are far more likely to possess contagious and deadly diseases that can be spread by prolonged close contact or exchange of bodily fluids. Once it's in the ranks of intelligent people, it'll spread much more easily. Disease crosses borders, so it's not just a local policy.

all you have to do is make "consenting adults" a prerequisite for sexual congress. A non-sapient being cannot consent to anything, so therefore, sex with them would be illegal. But I agree with DemonLordEnigma that this has nothing to do with the spread of disease. The Peoples of Bitewaldi object to so-called "bestiality" on the grounds of that non-sapient beings and the young cannot give consent.

You bring up a fair point and I agree with you that they wouldn't be completly equal. A large percentage of dedicated christians now and will oppose. But in reality equality is impossible, women can't be equal to men because they are differnt. Then I'm not stupid gays are people and there is no physical difference but they will always be seen as differnt and their marriages will always be seen differnt as well.

I would like to thank you for being so open about you sexuality and pushing for the rights of gays everywhere. But I simply can't see a gay marriage as a marriage and the name is not the thing about it.

If you are going to get picky about it, no two entites can be equal because every individual is unique. On many levels, and especially in the eyes of the law, women can and should be equal to men. I also think that governments should recognize any type of union, composed of any type and number of consenting adult beings. Consenting is the relevant word here. No one should be forced into a relationship that they do not wish to be a part of.

Of all the couples I know, with the exception of my own parents and my in-laws, the longest stable relationships have been between same-sex couples. All of my heterosexual acquaintences have been married multiple times, exposing their children to divorce and all the emotional upheaval that brings to them, and having to deal with step-parents and parental "politics". I don't see how heterosexual marriage is any better than "gay" marriage. If two (or more) people care for each other and want to make a legal commitment to each other, I say "more power to them!" :fluffle:

If you are going to get picky about it, no two entites can be equal because every individual is unique. On many levels, and especially in the eyes of the law, women can and should be equal to men. I also think that governments should recognize any type of union, composed of any type and number of consenting adult beings. Consenting is the relevant word here. No one should be forced into a relationship that they do not wish to be a part of.

Of all the couples I know, with the exception of my own parents and my in-laws, the longest stable relationships have been between same-sex couples. All of my heterosexual acquaintences have been married multiple times, exposing their children to divorce and all the emotional upheaval that brings to them, and having to deal with step-parents and parental "politics". I don't see how heterosexual marriage is any better than "gay" marriage. If two (or more) people care for each other and want to make a legal commitment to each other, I say "more power to them!" :fluffle:

For the first paragraph what is the point? I agree with being equal but ya like you said its impossible and in some instances they shouldn't be forced to be equal (for example draft).

Then for the second paragraph the point of it is also questionable, why would the length of marriages? the length of one groups marriage to another mean nothing to the term marriage.

Actually, I find sentient species are far more likely. Nonsentient species have travel limitations and most wouldn't leave their homes unless given no choice. Sentient species, however, tend to not only leave their homes often, but even find ways around such travel barriers as space. Most modern flu cases in the US are more likely to result from tourists visiting other nations than animals.

See, but once the disease is in the human population it spreads much more easily. And I was trying not to offend RP'ers. I'm sure a sentient animal would be less likely to roll in a dead corpse, for instance.

See, but once the disease is in the human population it spreads much more easily. And I was trying not to offend RP'ers. I'm sure a sentient animal would be less likely to roll in a dead corpse, for instance.

Meh. Just point out a lack of consent and their lack of sentience. It works for most of us.

You bring up a fair point and I agree with you that they wouldn't be completly equal. A large percentage of dedicated christians now and will oppose. But in reality equality is impossible, women can't be equal to men because they are differnt. Then I'm not stupid gays are people and there is no physical difference but they will always be seen as differnt and their marriages will always be seen differnt as well.

I would like to thank you for being so open about you sexuality and pushing for the rights of gays everywhere. But I simply can't see a gay marriage as a marriage and the name is not the thing about it, it is the difference between them.

According to your theory, "societal ideals will always be the same".

There is overwhelming proof that view is utterly crap.

For the first paragraph what is the point? I agree with being equal but ya like you said its impossible and in some instances they shouldn't be forced to be equal (for example draft).

Why shouldn't females be drafted? That does not automatically assume they will be given front-line combat postitions (and honestly, why not?) Shouldn't all memebers of a population serve their country? Bitewaldi does not institute the draft; we have no need - our population is patriotic and our volunteer forces are more than adequate to protect our borders. Women and men (or individuals of all genders) should be treated fairly and equally under the law.


Then for the second paragraph the point of it is also questionable, why would the length of marriages? the length of one groups marriage to another mean nothing to the term marriage.

I think it indicates that homosexuals take the state of marriage more seriously than heterosexuals. Probably because it is so much more difficult for them to achieve.

When people get "married" for 48 hours (as has been known to happen in the instance of various celebrities) in order to have "relgiously sanctioned sex" or to have an excuse to throw a big party or for reasons of publicity, it demeans the entire thing. It turns marriage from a "lifetime commitment" to a "tempory sexual liason contract" -- and if the lenght doesn't matter, then who cares who gets "married" then? It certainly doesn't mean anything.

Why shouldn't females be drafted? That does not automatically assume they will be given front-line combat postitions (and honestly, why not?) Shouldn't all memebers of a population serve their country? Bitewaldi does not institute the draft; we have no need - our population is patriotic and our volunteer forces are more than adequate to protect our borders. Women and men (or individuals of all genders) should be treated fairly and equally under the law.



I think it indicates that homosexuals take the state of marriage more seriously than heterosexuals. Probably because it is so much more difficult for them to achieve.

When people get "married" for 48 hours (as has been known to happen in the instance of various celebrities) in order to have "relgiously sanctioned sex" or to have an excuse to throw a big party or for reasons of publicity, it demeans the entire thing. It turns marriage from a "lifetime commitment" to a "tempory sexual liason contract" -- and if the lenght doesn't matter, then who cares who gets "married" then? It certainly doesn't mean anything.
Ok I disagree with you second point because a small population goes to vegas gets drunk and gets married doesn't mean anything if the homosexual population was as big and could get married as easily it would happen to them to. Then the sanctity of marriage is just the religious part of marriage. But then where the length does not matter who is extremly important, a two year old can't get married then neither can dog.

Then you are most likely right and I'm in agreence with you that they take it more seriously because it is harder for them to get married.

Ya about the draft that is what I say about the draft but then thouse womens rights activist will just turn right around and say how can you expect a female who is physically scientifcally proven less physically able then a male be drafted? Everyone should be equal under the law but they can't be somone who is criminally insane can't be treated the same as the president. If you were to make everyone equal in every way then you are just going towards communism and becoming a hardcore socalist

Within the CRoT women are eligible for the draft, being equal under the law. That is of course an issue which is national in scope.

Ya about the draft that is what I say about the draft but then thouse womens rights activist will just turn right around and say how can you expect a female who is physically scientifcally proven less physically able then a male be drafted?

You are painting with too broad of a brush. I'm sure there are some females (even human females) that are physically more adept (stronger, more dexterous, etc) than some males. But that has nothing to do with mandatory military service (draft). For the second and final time, there are more jobs in the military than shooting guns on the front lines. Many of these jobs do NOT require exceptional physical abilities. They may require higher mental abilities, and brain power crosses gender boundaries.

Everyone should be equal under the law but they can't be somone who is criminally insane can't be treated the same as the president. If you were to make everyone equal in every way then you are just going towards communism and becoming a hardcore socalist

LOL. Communism and socialism are very different beasts. THE LAW needs to "treat people the same". If a President went on a killing spree (stabbing people one by one, for instance), I'd expect no less than for him/her to be treated the same as a "criminally insane" person (whatever that is). I'd expect him to be detained by law enforcement officials, prosecuted and sentenced if convicted, just like any other person. Just because one is president does not mean one is above the law.

You are painting with too broad of a brush. I'm sure there are some females (even human females) that are physically more adept (stronger, more dexterous, etc) than some males. But that has nothing to do with mandatory military service (draft). For the second and final time, there are more jobs in the military than shooting guns on the front lines. Many of these jobs do NOT require exceptional physical abilities. They may require higher mental abilities, and brain power crosses gender boundaries.
QUOTE]

But that wouldn't be treating them equally and that is what my point is about, and not giving every women the same rights and having them in the same situations isn't equal
[QUOTE=Bitewaldi]
LOL. Communism and socialism are very different beasts. THE LAW needs to "treat people the same". If a President went on a killing spree (stabbing people one by one, for instance), I'd expect no less than for him/her to be treated the same as a "criminally insane" person (whatever that is). I'd expect him to be detained by law enforcement officials, prosecuted and sentenced if convicted, just like any other person. Just because one is president does not mean one is above the law.

I know socalism and communism are to very different things(one economic theory/policie and other goverment), but both of their concepts is to create absolute equality. Then a criminally insane person doesn't know right from wrong while if that president went on a killing spree he would know it was wrong. You can't treat the two the same and therfore can't make them equal.

Ekk I messed up that quoteing, I think you can manage.

OOC: Wow. If this were more off topic we'd need a map to find it.

The Dominion of Galder opposes gay marriage, as homosexuality is an abomination.

Cyrian space opposes The Dominion of Galder gaining any political influence whatsoever, as their leaders are an abomination.

The Grand Duchy of YGSM lobs a single nuke at Galder, or Caldor, or some small insignificant nationstate, crushing them like bugs.

For the second and final time, there are more jobs in the military than shooting guns on the front lines.
I shot guns when I was a kid. I taught my nephews to shoot when they were 6 or 7.

It really doesn't take much physical strength.

The Nomadic Peoples of AnarchyforRevan will support any resolution that repeals other resolutions. While we do not support the passing of resolutions and the increased bureacracy and powers granted the UN inherent in them, we recognize that resolutions that repeal previous resolutions will undoubtedly decrease said levels of bureacracy and UN power. Unless said resolution were to repeal a resolution that repealed a previous resolution of course. In this case however, we would defintitely be in support of your repealing.

May All Laws Come To Nasty Ends,
First Citizen A

The Dominion of Galder opposes gay marriage, as homosexuality is an abomination.

Krioval has begun beaming in gay and lesbian erotica from our many satellites into Galder, and we were quite shocked by the insanely high ratings the videos received. Higher, in fact, was the demand for pornography in Galder than in Krioval. Revealing, I think. Now, I'm off to express my sexuality in a healthy and non-repressed manner. Good day.

Commander Raijin Dekker
Armed Republic of Krioval

Krioval has begun beaming in gay and lesbian erotica from our many satellites into Galder, and we were quite shocked by the insanely high ratings the videos received. Higher, in fact, was the demand for pornography in Galder than in Krioval. Revealing, I think. Now, I'm off to express my sexuality in a healthy and non-repressed manner. Good day.

Commander Raijin Dekker
Armed Republic of Krioval
Uh, *ahem*

if another nationstate were interested in receiving said broadcasts, what would the cost structure be like?

*ahem* hypothetically speaking, of course.

Uh, *ahem*

if another nationstate were interested in receiving said broadcasts, what would the cost structure be like?

*ahem* hypothetically speaking, of course.

That depends - are we talking about individual viewership or rebroadcast rights? In either case, I believe you'll find our rates more than competitive.

Or you could just visit Krioval for Soldiers' Day - make sure to have a bill of clean health if you want to participate, though, or you'll likely be left out in the cold.

ok about the equality stuff we were talking about how it would be impossible to treat gays or any other individual equal. Communism and socialism try to do this and thats where that comparision came from and the military was just an obviously thing I pointed out to show that equality can't be achieved.

Then I know there is more jobs then shooting on the front line and I know the shooting part doesn't take the most physical ability but then there is the 60 pounds of gear and on foot patrols running and everything. But then if you still disagree and think anywomen could do that just as good as a man then make a handicapped person go front line combat and treat them equal and not give them all that special unequal treatment.

But ya to make this not go any further off topic (like the nuking other nations wasn't already off topic)
COMPLETE EQUALITY IS IMPOSSIBLE

ok about the equality stuff we were talking about how it would be impossible to treat gays or any other individual equal. Communism and socialism try to do this and thats where that comparision came from and the military was just an obviously thing I pointed out to show that equality can't be achieved.

Then I know there is more jobs then shooting on the front line and I know the shooting part doesn't take the most physical ability but then there is the 60 pounds of gear and on foot patrols running and everything. But then if you still disagree and think anywomen could do that just as good as a man then make a handicapped person go front line combat and treat them equal and not give them all that special unequal treatment.

But ya to make this not go any further off topic (like the nuking other nations wasn't already off topic)
COMPLETE EQUALITY IS IMPOSSIBLE


Twins, both male, apply for a job as a firefighter. They are equal in every way, save sexuality. Are you claiming one is more qualified for the position because his fantasy involves women instead of men?

Equality before the law...

If you believe in a draft, and yet are opposed to the ability of women to be drafted, you do not believe in equality before the law...

If you believe heterosexuals can marry, and yet deny the same to homosexuals, you do not believe in equality before the law...

I will make no distinctions. Liberality and freedom are conjoined concepts... Posession of one, means possession of the other, denial of one, means denial of the other.

I'd just like to point out that the repeal stated nothing about gay marriage. I know that's already been pointed out, but that's what this debate has been about anyway. I'm for the repeal, but not specifically for the reasons being debated.
Now, don't go flying off the handle at my first arguments, I'm not headed in the direction you may think I am.

Alright. And for reference, here's the text of Resolution #81.


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.



First let me point out that the definition doesn't point out a minimum or maximum limit to marriage, but puts a strict definition on marriage. This of course means that any nation must acknowledge any marriage whatsoever, so long as it falls into this definition.

True. However, it also does not state a nation must recognize more then one marriage, nor does it state a nation has to accept only one marriage. It does not state what the civil law is for marriage, nor what is required for a civil joining in any nation. It says marriage is a "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". Lots of space there for interpretation.



Second, let me point out that the bill doesn't restrict marriage in any way whatsoever, with the exception of age (It isn't specific reguarding what age limits may be acceptable, so I assume that decision is left with individual nations).

Yep. Though you do not have to accept multiple species marriages if your nation doesn't want to within your nation.



Third, let me point out that admitting the marriage is legal must also mean admitting that sexual conduct between the two married is legal.

Uhm, duh.



Fourth, let me point out that the source of some of the most deadly diseases in human history (many think that AIDS originated this way) is the sexual relations between human beings and animals (I exclude the various sentient species of NationStates that may be considered animals, of course).

Hur hur hur - oooh, you'll like this one:


UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #7

Sexual Freedom
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Armstrongonia

Description: What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).

Votes For: 2,538
Votes Against: 318

Implemented: Thu Mar 13 2003


I could quote the various healthcare ones as well, but you already look silly. That was perhaps the lamest excuse for a reason to repeal as I have ever seen.



So by the current definition of marriage, reguardless of the social climate of a nation, any government anywhere would have to recognize a marriage between a man or woman and, say, a ferrel hog.

If some other nation said so, and you accept the marriage as legal due to the age of the ferrel hog (*loophole alert*), then yes.



Basically, every nation would have to recognize as legal the proliferation of diseases (plague, rabies, anthrax, several dangerous strains of flu, and smallpox, just to name a few) by a human and his spouse.

We've already said this is a ridiculous arguement and need not repeat ourselves. We will say - if disease is so bad in your nation, pass some laws. The UN is not your mother.



As a matter of fact, the current definition doesn't even rule out marriage to inanimate objects. A particularly unsound person could marry a garbage can, for goodness sake.

Yes, if the nation recognized it as a legal marriage. Here's that quote again, bolding added:


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

So if you accept marriages to garbage cans, so be it. We don't, but we accept your right to do so. We just won't recognize such things here.

Basically, every nation would have to recognize as legal the proliferation of diseases (plague, rabies, anthrax, several dangerous strains of flu, and smallpox, just to name a few) by a human and his spouse.
Huh? None of those are sexually transmitted diseases, and as such are completely irrelevent to this argument.

Plague is spread by fleas. Rabies is spread through bites. Anthrax is spread through the spore of the disease. Flu is spread through air (sneezes, coughs, nasal drips). Smallpox is spread through contact with already infected individuals - this can include just being in the same room as a smallpox carrier.

Have my support

UMCD, you can argue all you like about the varying abilities of different people to fulfil various tasks, but it has no bearing on this particular issue, unless you want to say that every single homosexual in a particular UN nation wishing to ban gay marriage is innately unsuitable to the demands of marriage. In which case we'd ask what these criteria you are setting are, and how you can justify them.

Twins, both male, apply for a job as a firefighter. They are equal in every way, save sexuality. Are you claiming one is more qualified for the position because his fantasy involves women instead of men?

Now where did I ever state that homosexuals were any less equal? I understand the question but my argument is that everyone in society can't become equal, you can't pay everyone the same wages even if a low level worker works his ass off every week and some millionare lays by his pool in california.

(for fire fighters) Neither of them are more qualified then the other. Even though if they were able to do everything the same and get the same grades in school lift exactly the same weight run the same speed and acted excatly the same way as each other it would be like twilightzone.



Equality before the law...

If you believe in a draft, and yet are opposed to the ability of women to be drafted, you do not believe in equality before the law...

If you believe heterosexuals can marry, and yet deny the same to homosexuals, you do not believe in equality before the law...

I will make no distinctions. Liberality and freedom are conjoined concepts... Posession of one, means possession of the other, denial of one, means denial of the other.
I do think women should be drafted but they can't and there are good reason behind the fact.
I believe they can marry (don't support) but in the eyes of the law they are the same (except for a few tax breaks that I wish they could have for the adopting children and being together)

UMCD, you can argue all you like about the varying abilities of different people to fulfil various tasks, but it has no bearing on this particular issue, unless you want to say that every single homosexual in a particular UN nation wishing to ban gay marriage is innately unsuitable to the demands of marriage. In which case we'd ask what these criteria you are setting are, and how you can justify them.
so you beleive every individual can be as equal as any other, because if you do you are a fool. In most aspects the average gay individual is equal to the straight counter part I'm not going to argue against that because it is absolutly true. However in the situation of marriage their marriage is differnt, its like comparing apples and oranges and they can't be treated the same.

so you beleive every individual can be as equal as any other, because if you do you are a fool. In most aspects the average gay individual is equal to the straight counter part I'm not going to argue against that because it is absolutly true. However in the situation of marriage their marriage is differnt, its like comparing apples and oranges and they can't be treated the same.

So basically, we're "fools" for not seeing that marriage is "different" based on a totally arbitrary set of standards, and double standards at that? Huh.

Twins, both male, apply for a job as a firefighter. They are equal in every way, save sexuality. Are you claiming one is more qualified for the position because his fantasy involves women instead of men?
Do the other guys sleeping in the firehouse get a vote?

so you beleive every individual can be as equal as any other, because if you do you are a fool. In most aspects the average gay individual is equal to the straight counter part I'm not going to argue against that because it is absolutly true. However in the situation of marriage their marriage is differnt, its like comparing apples and oranges and they can't be treated the same.

Excuse me, but I'd prefer if you maintained some civility. You've misunderstood me, because you've missed a distinction. There's two things we seem to be referring to here:

1 - this is what I'll call equivalence for clarity's sake. This is when people's attributes are the same - clearly, we aren't all equivalent, and some people have differing abilities, most notably physically.

2 - equal rights, or equality before the law, as Tekania called it earlier. This is not when people are treated the same, but when they are given the same opportunities.

What we're demanding is equal rights, not equivalence. To use the firefighters example, equal rights would mean that men and women both have the right to apply for a firefighting job, and undergo the same tests and fulfil the same criteria to get the job. If two people are equally qualified for the job, they should have equal chance to get it, whatever their sex, ethnicity, or sexuality.

So with the marriage issue, we believe all gay couples should have the same rights to get married as straight couples. If they fit the criteria - which we believe should be consent and age - then a gay couple should be equally entitled to marry.

The only reason to deny equal rights would be if you believe there should be different criteria for marriage, which all gay couples fail to fulfil. Please explain and justify these criteria.

Excuse me, but I'd prefer if you maintained some civility. You've misunderstood me, because you've missed a distinction. There's two things we seem to be referring to here:

1 - this is what I'll call equivalence for clarity's sake. This is when people's attributes are the same - clearly, we aren't all equivalent, and some people have differing abilities, most notably physically.

2 - equal rights, or equality before the law, as Tekania called it earlier. This is not when people are treated the same, but when they are given the same opportunities.

What we're demanding is equal rights, not equivalence. To use the firefighters example, equal rights would mean that men and women both have the right to apply for a firefighting job, and undergo the same tests and fulfil the same criteria to get the job. If two people are equally qualified for the job, they should have equal chance to get it, whatever their sex, ethnicity, or sexuality.

So with the marriage issue, we believe all gay couples should have the same rights to get married as straight couples. If they fit the criteria - which we believe should be consent and age - then a gay couple should be equally entitled to marry.

The only reason to deny equal rights would be if you believe there should be different criteria for marriage, which all gay couples fail to fulfil. Please explain and justify these criteria.

*makes bet on "He can't without the 'its icky' arguement"*


Do the other guys sleeping in the firehouse get a vote?

Do you get to vote who gets to work with you? Are personel files completely disclosed? And this would make a difference in their ability how?

Consent and age... Those are the presently applied criteria...

To bring up the problems with imposing other criteria, and its effects on the systems.

Some of the other criteria do fit, within letter, the principle of equality:

For example:

- Criteria of marriage being upon the reproductive capacity of the two partners:

Such does not technically violate principle. Since all parties to marriage would in-effect, have to meet the criteria (irregardless of the parties). It is obvious that only a heterosexual couple would be able to do so. However, it would not be limiting homosexuals... It would be limiting the entirety, so that, any woman or man who has undergone an operation that makes their reproductive sysem non-functional, or who has a disease which cause their reproductive system to be non-functional, would also be barred from marriage, by the criteria.

Effective, those who have had vasectomies, hysterectomies, who suffer from Turner's Syndrome, even though heterosexual, would be ineligible for marriage under the criteria.

Since the effect denies people based on capacity, yet applies the criteria universally, the effect is in fact "equal".

Applying the criteria to pass a legislative argument against homosexual marriage, is, on the otherhand, restrictive, and opposed to equality before the law (equal rights). As, it is used as a reason to bar a certain class of people access to marriage; while at the same time allowing others who are in violation of the criteria access to it. Thus, the criteria does not match the reason, and it creates a situation where people are being treated differently before the law, based upon the criteria of their sexuality. While it may not be explicitly denying their right... It is a violation of the principle of legal equality.

I'm all for maintaining key criteria for applicablity... But, such criteria should not be invented to discriminate based upon class outside of criteria. That is, you either apply the criteria universally, or you do not apply it at all.

The hypocrits of the "criteria" movement, use the criteria to deny access to certain groups of people, inventing such as a way to discriminate against them. They wish to apply the criteria to the situation to bar the group; but will then not apply the same criteria to others, because the others do not violate their "morals" as towards the issue.

The NSUN's criteria, which it deemed the only important ones, that can be fairly applied universally by all, in the issue of marriage; is consent and age. And even age was left very arbitrarily (that is, the individual groups determine age). Universally consent is all that is left.

___________________

Further, to discredit the principle of protecting the rights of others towards this determination; consent, as already mentioned provides this neccesary criteria. No one is being forced into the exercize of this right against their will. The DoM resolution does not force heterosexual males, for example, to get married to another man. But merely protects the right of two consenting homosexuals to marry one another.

The argument, therefore, that it violated the rights of one person, to allow others to exercize this right, is therefore absurd. No one possesses the right not to be exposed to others in exercize of their rights. A person exercizing their right to worship the religion of their choice, does not violate the right of the person who does not want to exercize any religion at all. And two homosexuals marrying against the dictates of a particular religious affiliation, does not deny the right of that religious affilliation to worship or believe in the religion of their choice. It merely ensures that the rights of all parties are equally protected.

And that is the end principle of it all, equality before the law...

wow... i stopped posting on threads for a while and thought this thread was dead. was doin tons of school work.

Anyways, if marriage is a right and is not a restriction, then why does Resolution 81 have a restriction on age? A teenage girl is capable of bearing a child and let's say the father is some 40 year-old guy, why restrict?

Because they're not so morally blind to see that it's wrong.

wow... i stopped posting on threads for a while and thought this thread was dead. was doin tons of school work.

Anyways, if marriage is a right and is not a restriction, then why does Resolution 81 have a restriction on age? A teenage girl is capable of bearing a child and let's say the father is some 40 year-old guy, why restrict?

A 12 year old is capable of drinking and driving. Do they do that in your nation?

wow... i stopped posting on threads for a while and thought this thread was dead. was doin tons of school work.

Anyways, if marriage is a right and is not a restriction, then why does Resolution 81 have a restriction on age? A teenage girl is capable of bearing a child and let's say the father is some 40 year-old guy, why restrict?

Because we believe marriage, sex etc require full and informed consent from a mature mind, and we do not believe most children are capable of giving proper consent. By the way, the age of the older partner is irrelevant.

wow... i stopped posting on threads for a while and thought this thread was dead. was doin tons of school work.

Anyways, if marriage is a right and is not a restriction, then why does Resolution 81 have a restriction on age? A teenage girl is capable of bearing a child and let's say the father is some 40 year-old guy, why restrict?

Age is very arbitrary (see my previous post), and leaves alot up to the nation in question. And as you can see, the only "cement" principle is "Consent" which is closely tied into "age". IE Age of consent" (that is the age at which a nation considers a person an "adult" and in full exercize of their legal powers), is closely tied to the consent principle.

All of that was part of the initial drafting stage of the DoM.

This is far different from the concept of barring based on non-consenting criteria, such as barring a human the right to marry an AI. Or the right of two homosexual males, or females to consent into a union, or the barring of two females to marry one male.

Basically, as long as they are of "legal age" in the nation, with the ability to exercize all powers under the law, and are sentient, regardless of race, species, type, mode, sexual orientation, or sex... They may enter a legal contractural union with one another. More or less, the DoM turns marriage closer to what it actually is, a legal contractural union, between one or more "persons" (note, persons here does not denote any particular special characteristics beyond merely in possession of self-awareness, ie "personhood".)

Excuse me, but I'd prefer if you maintained some civility. You've misunderstood me, because you've missed a distinction. There's two things we seem to be referring to here:

1 - this is what I'll call equivalence for clarity's sake. This is when people's attributes are the same - clearly, we aren't all equivalent, and some people have differing abilities, most notably physically.

2 - equal rights, or equality before the law, as Tekania called it earlier. This is not when people are treated the same, but when they are given the same opportunities.

What we're demanding is equal rights, not equivalence. To use the firefighters example, equal rights would mean that men and women both have the right to apply for a firefighting job, and undergo the same tests and fulfil the same criteria to get the job. If two people are equally qualified for the job, they should have equal chance to get it, whatever their sex, ethnicity, or sexuality.

So with the marriage issue, we believe all gay couples should have the same rights to get married as straight couples. If they fit the criteria - which we believe should be consent and age - then a gay couple should be equally entitled to marry.

The only reason to deny equal rights would be if you believe there should be different criteria for marriage, which all gay couples fail to fulfil. Please explain and justify these criteria.
I haven't missunderstood anything I'm just trying to make a very simple point (number one on your clairifcation list) that you many are not accepting and that is that equality is impossible. I know there are two differnt kinds of equalities but they are intertwined between each other and trying to make laws with out considering the other is a foolish thing.

I'm all for equal oppertunity but some indivuals just can't be given these rights because of the impracticality or things of that manner (ie criminals). Now I'm not saying that gays are the individuals, but just pointing it out.

If two people are equally qualified for the job, they should have equal chance to get it, whatever their sex, ethnicity, or sexuality.

Yes I agree completly on this. But then this is not implemented because if for example a school was running short minority students and one student was a minority and the other wasn't then who do you think they would pick? They both have the same right they should both be entitled to be admitted but these ideals simply can't be upheld in every situation.
Now are you (as in everyone) going to keep argueing with me on this point because it is ridiculous having every human being equal in every aspect is simply impossible.
Then the gay marriage and straight marriage are differnt and that is why I believe they can't be equal in every aspect. The rights yes but not the other aspects.

So basically, we're "fools" for not seeing that marriage is "different" based on a totally arbitrary set of standards, and double standards at that? Huh.
no you are a fool because you didn't read who I was calling a fool. I was saying that every indivdual is differnt and can't be equal in every aspect and I wasn't talking about only in the eyes of the law (everyone still can't be treated equally there).

But what now are you going to argue about? Are you going to say that the gay marriage is the same as a straight marriage? That everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law and not have their physical charachteristics, abilites, or disabilies put into account? You can disagree with me but your reasoning isn't chaning my mind and several of you are being just as ignonrant as say (or think) I am.

no you are a fool because you didn't read who I was calling a fool. I was saying that every indivdual is differnt and can't be equal in every aspect and I wasn't talking about only in the eyes of the law (everyone still can't be treated equally there).

How "clever" of you to turn an earlier statement into some bizarre absolute, and then argue against your own chimera. I'd be impressed if you weren't the millionth person to construct such an argument in the past day. Of course total equality all the time is just this side of impossibility - that's beside the point. In your school example, if two people scored identically on a school's entrance examination in Krioval, other factors would be consulted that would restrict the focus on the applicants' intellectual abilities. Besides, the only clear-cut "majority" in Krioval would be people who follow Kriovalian Polytheism as their faith, with approximately 95% of the population doing so. Perhaps heterosexuality would qualify as a majority as well, but sexual orientation in Krioval has a long cultural history that pretty much annuls the difference, socially, between homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual Kriovalians.

And while perfect equality is not necessarily attainable, we can certainly avoid injustice caused by "I don't like [X] just because" arguments.

I haven't missunderstood anything I'm just trying to make a very simple point (number one on your clairifcation list) that you many are not accepting and that is that equality is impossible. I know there are two differnt kinds of equalities but they are intertwined between each other and trying to make laws with out considering the other is a foolish thing.

I'm all for equal oppertunity but some indivuals just can't be given these rights because of the impracticality or things of that manner (ie criminals). Now I'm not saying that gays are the individuals, but just pointing it out.


Yes I agree completly on this. But then this is not implemented because if for example a school was running short minority students and one student was a minority and the other wasn't then who do you think they would pick? They both have the same right they should both be entitled to be admitted but these ideals simply can't be upheld in every situation.
Now are you (as in everyone) going to keep argueing with me on this point because it is ridiculous having every human being equal in every aspect is simply impossible.
Then the gay marriage and straight marriage are differnt and that is why I believe they can't be equal in every aspect. The rights yes but not the other aspects.


no you are a fool because you didn't read who I was calling a fool. I was saying that every indivdual is differnt and can't be equal in every aspect and I wasn't talking about only in the eyes of the law (everyone still can't be treated equally there).

But what now are you going to argue about? Are you going to say that the gay marriage is the same as a straight marriage? That everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law and not have their physical charachteristics, abilites, or disabilies put into account? You can disagree with me but your reasoning isn't chaning my mind and several of you are being just as ignonrant as say (or think) I am.

Let's straighten this out - nobody is trying to claim that everyone can live the same life, or even that it would be a good thing.

We're saying that everyone should be subject to the same fair criteria for determining how they're treated. And we're saying that we believe the criterion for marriage should be adult consent. If you think gays should not be allowed to marry, then you'd better explain and justify the criteria you want to apply to marriage.

We're not saying that gay married couple is identical to a straight one. We're just saying that we don't see any reason why a straight couple is any more entitled or qualified to marry than a gay couple.

EDIT:

Then the gay marriage and straight marriage are differnt and that is why I believe they can't be equal in every aspect. The rights yes but not the other aspects.

Are you trying to say here that you do believe gays should be allowed to marry? If so, what are these "other aspects"?

The Armed Republic of Naval Officers supports UN Resolution 81 and will stand behind its desicion on this issue. I also will ignore you for a while....sorry.

Let's straighten this out - nobody is trying to claim that everyone can live the same life, or even that it would be a good thing.

We're saying that everyone should be subject to the same fair criteria for determining how they're treated. And we're saying that we believe the criterion for marriage should be adult consent. If you think gays should not be allowed to marry, then you'd better explain and justify the criteria you want to apply to marriage.

We're not saying that gay married couple is identical to a straight one. We're just saying that we don't see any reason why a straight couple is any more entitled or qualified to marry than a gay couple.

EDIT:



Are you trying to say here that you do believe gays should be allowed to marry? If so, what are these "other aspects"?

I do believe they should be allowed to be "married" because of the definition given in the nsun. But I simply think they the striaght and gay marriages are to differnt to be considered completly equal. The rights should be the same but then there are certain tax breaks (like when a couple is married and has children. But don't give me the adoption stuff because I think if somone adopts they should get more benefits) and definitions I don't really agree with.

Then thouse other aspects are the definition and the attetempt to make the complety equal.

Krioval "so you beleive every individual can be as equal as any other, because if you do you are a fool" is what I said and if you beleive that yes I am calling you a fool.
But then your statement
"And while perfect equality is not necessarily attainable, we can certainly avoid injustice caused by "I don't like [X] just because" arguments."
is nearly true except the necassarily. But my argument isn't based a I don't like gays.

Now I think it may be time for this thread to die or atleast my part in it. I wasn't trying to change anyones mind and I clearly didn't.

hasnt this one passed its expiry date in the que yet? also, geez, 203 posts, in this thread alone, on this topic. hasn't it been debated enough, through this and previous threads on its repeal? if it was going to be repealed, or at least come to vote, it would have been done so by now

Yes but we can still debate it and state our oppinions on the matter. I feel this threads death aproaching but I think it will be replaced by a newer one soon enough. Then about the repeal part there is like always a repeal for this resolution on the table.

Yes but we can still debate it and state our oppinions on the matter. I feel this threads death aproaching but I think it will be replaced by a newer one soon enough. Then about the repeal part there is like always a repeal for this resolution on the table.
thats what i mean. if this was going to go to vote, it would have by now, since this is the umpteenth time it has come up.

I do believe they should be allowed to be "married" because of the definition given in the nsun. But I simply think they the striaght and gay marriages are to differnt to be considered completly equal. The rights should be the same but then there are certain tax breaks (like when a couple is married and has children. But don't give me the adoption stuff because I think if somone adopts they should get more benefits) and definitions I don't really agree with.

Then thouse other aspects are the definition and the attetempt to make the complety equal.

I'm sorry, I see that you're saying that the two shouldn't be the same, but I don't understand anything more. Let me clarify the question. Since we're governments, and the UN deals in laws, what I want to know is what legal differences you believe there ought to be between gay marriage and straight marriage. In what way should they be treated differently by the law?

I don't, particularly, believe the two should be treated different in any legal aspect.

Both should be applicable to the same civil governing laws of the nation.

In my opinion the two should not be seperated. Both should be treated the same apart from one area. Children. I child should, by no means, be forced to grow up within a gay marriage.

In my opinion the two should not be seperated. Both should be treated the same apart from one area. Children. I child should, by no means, be forced to grow up within a gay marriage.

And it's ok for a child to be "forced to grow up" in a heterosexual marriage?

And it's ok for a child to be "forced to grow up" in a heterosexual marriage?

No, but at least (most of the time) a child growing up within a hetrosexual marriage turns out normal. Do you honestly think that a child growing up within a gay marriage is going to turn out hetrosexual? NO! The said child is going to turn out gay. He/she is going to grow up thinking its ok to fumble around/grope/kiss...whatever, with the same sex. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against gay's or gay rights, infact I'm adamant that MARRIED gay couples should have the same rights as hetro's. But, when it comes to rearing a child properly you cannot have just 2 dads or just 2 mums! A child needs that balance in his/her life.

No, but at least (most of the time) a child growing up within a hetrosexual marriage turns out normal.

Define "most of the time". There are plenty of wingnuts out there who grew up in a mother-father household. I find your other assertions to be completely devoid of support, especially considering that single-parent households exist and somehow manage to raise normal children, as do same-sex two-parent households.

I think people need to get over the misconception that there's something shameful about sex.

The general consensus among psychologists is that regardless of the genders of the prospective adopters, it is better for children to grow up in a loving family than in an orphanage or similar.

You are also assuming that normal is good. Whilst I am quite open to the idea that children brought up by homosexuals might grow up differently to those brought up by heterosexuals (although, frankly, it would be ridiculous to assert that all such children will turn out gay), I am not convinced that, even if it's true, it's a bad thing. In fact, such children would probably be more likely to be tolerant members of society, and perhaps have less tendency to repress their sexuality (whatever that sexuality turns out to be), which can be psychologically unhealthy.

The said child is going to turn out gay. He/she is going to grow up thinking its ok to fumble around/grope/kiss...whatever, with the same sex.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against gay's or gay rights,

arent those two abit of a contradiction. You arent against gays, but you dont think a child should grow up to be a gay?

No, but at least (most of the time) a child growing up within a hetrosexual marriage turns out normal. Do you honestly think that a child growing up within a gay marriage is going to turn out hetrosexual?

Yes... Studies have shown that children raised by homosexuals show no increased propensity towards homosexuality than children raised by heterosexuals.


NO! The said child is going to turn out gay.

Says you, but the mountain of existing evidence disagrees with you.


He/she is going to grow up thinking its ok to fumble around/grope/kiss...whatever, with the same sex.

Ahh, so appearantly your entire argument goes back to treating homosexuality as if it is a horrible syndrome, and crime.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not against gay's or gay rights, infact I'm adamant that MARRIED gay couples should have the same rights as hetro's.

No you don't. According to your previous statements.

To throw more gasoline on the fire, I am Christian, and consider homosexuality a sin, in lieu of my faith. I however also have the capacity of distinquishing between my duties as a christian, and my duties as a politician. And know when the two should not attempt to interfere with one another. My personal faith does not allow me to use the power I weild in civil authority for the purpose of discriminating against any single group of people.


But, when it comes to rearing a child properly you cannot have just 2 dads or just 2 mums! A child needs that balance in his/her life.

I cannot see why they cannot have two dads or two moms. Or in what benefit heterosexual parents can provide the child that cannot also be done by a loving caring homosexual couple.

I'm sorry, your statement is clearly hypocritical. You are most certainly basing it upon discriminatory ideas, despite your claims to the contrary.

If any homosexual or heterosexual couple can show that they can provide the ability to provide the child with a proper carring enviroment, and fiscal responsibility necessary towards the raising of the child... They may adopt or raise a child... The partners sexual orientation should not be involved in the process.

I'm sorry, I see that you're saying that the two shouldn't be the same, but I don't understand anything more. Let me clarify the question. Since we're governments, and the UN deals in laws, what I want to know is what legal differences you believe there ought to be between gay marriage and straight marriage. In what way should they be treated differently by the law?

No real legal difference except for the use of the name marriage and since the definition is what it is nothing I can do about it there. The physical difference of the ability for a straight couple to bear a child and then taxes that go with that. Then forcing a church to perform a marriage they are against I oppose to, but this resolution doesn't say anything about it.

Then about irish I don't think that homosexuality is learned like what the scientific studies show. There are to many orphans and anyone (well not people who will be neglegent or are petifiles) should be able to adopt them regardless of sexuality.

I'm sorry, I see that you're saying that the two shouldn't be the same, but I don't understand anything more. Let me clarify the question. Since we're governments, and the UN deals in laws, what I want to know is what legal differences you believe there ought to be between gay marriage and straight marriage. In what way should they be treated differently by the law?

No real legal difference except for the use of the name marriage and since the definition is what it is nothing I can do about it there. The physical difference of the ability for a straight couple to bear a child and then taxes that go with that. Then forcing a church to perform a marriage they are against I oppose to, but this resolution doesn't say anything about it.

Then about irish I don't think that homosexuality is learned like what the scientific studies show. There are to many orphans and anyone (well not people who will be neglegent or are petifiles) should be able to adopt them regardless of sexuality.

I'm sorry, I see that you're saying that the two shouldn't be the same, but I don't understand anything more. Let me clarify the question. Since we're governments, and the UN deals in laws, what I want to know is what legal differences you believe there ought to be between gay marriage and straight marriage. In what way should they be treated differently by the law?

No real legal difference except for the use of the name marriage and since the definition is what it is nothing I can do about it there. The physical difference of the ability for a straight couple to bear a child and then taxes that go with that. Then forcing a church to perform a marriage they are against I oppose to, but this resolution doesn't say anything about it.

Then about irish I don't think that homosexuality is learned like what the scientific studies show. There are to many orphans and anyone (well not people who will be neglegent or are petifiles) should be able to adopt them regardless of sexuality.

I'm sorry, I see that you're saying that the two shouldn't be the same, but I don't understand anything more. Let me clarify the question. Since we're governments, and the UN deals in laws, what I want to know is what legal differences you believe there ought to be between gay marriage and straight marriage. In what way should they be treated differently by the law?

No real legal difference except for the use of the name marriage and since the definition is what it is nothing I can do about it there. The physical difference of the ability for a straight couple to bear a child and then taxes that go with that. Then forcing a church to perform a marriage they are against I oppose to, but this resolution doesn't say anything about it.

Then about irish I don't think that homosexuality is learned like what the scientific studies show. There are to many orphans and anyone (well not people who will be neglegent or are petifiles) should be able to adopt them regardless of sexuality.

No real legal difference except for the use of the name marriage

So how come you're prepared to give them all the same rights, but then refuse to call it what it is?

No, but at least (most of the time) a child growing up within a hetrosexual marriage turns out normal. Do you honestly think that a child growing up within a gay marriage is going to turn out hetrosexual? NO! The said child is going to turn out gay. He/she is going to grow up thinking its ok to fumble around/grope/kiss...whatever, with the same sex. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against gay's or gay rights, infact I'm adamant that MARRIED gay couples should have the same rights as hetro's. But, when it comes to rearing a child properly you cannot have just 2 dads or just 2 mums! A child needs that balance in his/her life.

Either prove it, or admit that was the most biased piece of crap ever posted here.

And I should warn you - overwhelming evidence to the contrary exists, so in our eyes, you look - at best - underinformed.

No real legal difference except for the use of the name marriage and since the definition is what it is nothing I can do about it there.

Just like black people should have all human rights, but they should be called 'Negro Rights' instead?