NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTING The existent protections offered against pedophilia (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029629&postcount=23),

NOTING the pro-Animal Rights tendencies of the NationStates United Nations (NSUN) delegacy,

FEARING the possibility of disease, immorality and degradation of the human race that can result from the molestation of non-human species, and

DETERMINED to protect the voiceless animals from sexual molestation by deviant humans who place their atrocious sexual perversions over the health and welfare of wildlife and domestic animals,

WE PROPOSE that Bestiality--which shall be defined as the sexual intercourse between a human (of species Homo Sapiens) and a non-human living organism, including intercourse between a human and another non-human primate--shall henceforth be outlawed in all nations under the governance of the NSUN.

Well, I guess all those nations with Elvish populations are pretty much screwed if this passes. That and the constant harping on morality are huge turn-offs.

~ Lord Raijin

Well, I guess all those nations with Elvish populations are pretty much screwed if this passes. That and the constant harping on morality are huge turn-offs.

~ Lord Raijin

OOC: Elves? heh... funny.

OOC: As I was asked very nicely by the moderators - after they deleted my similar proposal - not to propose such a thing again as they didn't want it in the game....

OOC: As I was asked very nicely by the moderators - after they deleted my similar proposal - not to propose such a thing again as they didn't want it in the game....

OOC: This isn't all that graphic a proposal, although I admit everything I do in this game is a satire of the American Evangelist movement.... but I guess I'll wait for the mods to intervene, and if they don't in the next few days, I'm continuing my work on it. Not to mention, there is that pedophilia proposal...

Revision:
-----------
Outlaw Bestiality
Moral Decency
Mild

NOTING The existent protections offered against pedophilia,

NOTING the pro-Animal Rights tendencies of the NationStates United Nations (NSUN) delegacy,

FEARING the possibility of disease and social degradation of the human race that can result from the molestation of non-human species, and

DETERMINED to protect the voiceless animals from sexual molestation, for the HEALTH and WELFARE of wildlife and domestic animals,

WE PROPOSE that Bestiality--which shall be defined as the sexual intercourse between a human (of species Homo Sapiens) and a non-human living organism, including intercourse between a human and another non-human primate--shall henceforth be outlawed in all nations under the governance of the NSUN.

Ummm...

Don't we have a resolution permitting inter-species marriage?

Wouldn't it be quite hard to comsumate such a marriage with this resolution?

Wouldn't you have to repeal Definition of Marriage first?

EDIT-Definition of Marriage (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=80)

There we go. Though I see now that it is up to individual governments to decide whether or not to permt inter species marriage. This does tread on some toes though still.

NOTING The existent protections offered against pedophilia (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029629&postcount=23),

NOTING the pro-Animal Rights tendencies of the NationStates United Nations (NSUN) delegacy,

FEARING the possibility of disease, immorality and degradation of the human race that can result from the molestation of non-human species, and

DETERMINED to protect the voiceless animals from sexual molestation by deviant humans who place their atrocious sexual perversions over the health and welfare of wildlife and domestic animals,

WE PROPOSE that Bestiality--which shall be defined as the sexual intercourse between a human (of species Homo Sapiens) and a non-human living organism, including intercourse between a human and another non-human primate--shall henceforth be outlawed in all nations under the governance of the NSUN.

Illegal resolution... Resolutions may not over-ride existing resolutions unless previous resolution is repealed through the repeal process...

As such, under the "Definition of Marriage" resolution, this proposal is illegal.

Illegal resolution... Resolutions may not over-ride existing resolutions unless previous resolution is repealed through the repeal process...

As such, under the "Definition of Marriage" resolution, this proposal is illegal.

Yet marriage doesn't have to be sexual. Bestiality is a form of sexual intercourse.

I would recommend an amendment, ' non-human living organism' should be changed to 'non-human organism'. I do not need to elaborate.

There are many, many non-human sapient species in the NS world. They are equally capable of giving consent to sex, and so sex between humans and members of these species is no more the business of any government than is sex between humans.

Yet marriage doesn't have to be sexual. Bestiality is a form of sexual intercourse.

You'll lose... There are too many non-humans in the UN... Tekanians being one of them, since we are humanoid, but not humans...

Yet marriage doesn't have to be sexual. Bestiality is a form of sexual intercourse.

Au contraire mon petit filous!

The First act of a Marraige for many Religions/ sects/ species/ Groups/ Races, is to consumate the wedding. EG,, Have sex!

Au contraire mon petit filous!

The First act of a Marraige for many Religions/ sects/ species/ Groups/ Races, is to consumate the wedding. EG,, Have sex!

He does have a technical point though - you can ban sex whilst still allowing marriage contracts.

Nevermoore's government likes to hold no jurisdiction over the 'bedroom 'activities of its citizens. It is not our place or your place to take dominion over their sexual affairs and frankly we would rather not think about them let alone pass laws.

Illegal resolution... Resolutions may not over-ride existing resolutions unless previous resolution is repealed through the repeal process...

As such, under the "Definition of Marriage" resolution, this proposal is illegal.

Uhm, well, no - #81 Definition of Marriage only provides for what a civil marriage is. That's it. Sexual intercourse is in no way, shape, or form addressed by Definition of Marriage.

The one you might have problems with is #7 "Sexual Freedom".

I think what Tekania was referring to is the final part of 'Definition of Marriage", which refers to nations having the right to expand the definition to other species should they so wish. A resolution outlawing bestiality would run counter to this, provided you believe that marriage requires a sexual aspect (which has been accepted in western marriages for at least the past 100 years. Whether that is 'right' is another matter whatsoever)

OOC: Obviously, you've never been married.... marriage =/= sex :D

OOC: Obviously, you've never been married.... marriage =/= sex :D
Too. Damn. Funny.

OOC: <-- too much experience. 10 years come Friday. :D

Being that Cyrians are not, in fact human, and being that many of us have in recent years engaged in very fruitful relationships with humans, we would have to act to protect their rights and oppose this proposal.

Now if you were able to limit it to non-sentient life, I might support you.

This strikes Wang Chun as a matter that should best be regulated at the local level, not the global level.

And this has nothing to do with that deplorable Wang Chun minority group who's motto is, "Why do you think they call them pets?"

Sidestreamer, I could care less for your xenophobic mentality.

The simple fact is, these united nations are composed of nations of differing species; and that individual soveriegnty takes precedence.

Your ignorant views play no part here...

The primary principle of the DoM was to ensure fairness across all borders, including special, so that UN member-state citizens may marry other member-state citizens, regardless of their gender, race or species... And as such, as well, protect this principle.

Your arrogant xenophobic bigotry is against this precept, and so, is over-rulled.

This resolution would make it illegal for humans to mate with Tekanians, Elves, Gnomes, Sarkarasetians, etc. And thus runs contrary to all NSUN reasoning to this point... Including Sexual Freedom, the DoM and the like.

We will not tollerate the legalization of xenophobic mentality...

DETERMINED to protect the voiceless animals from sexual molestation by deviant humans who place their atrocious sexual perversions over the health and welfare of wildlife and domestic animals,

I'd love to see you try to molest a 2000-pound horse.

I'd love to see you try to molest a 2000-pound horse.

I wouldn't.

In response to this proposal, the Constitutional Republic has just ratified Amendment XVI to our Constitution:


Marriage and sexual relations persuant thereto, shall be a protected right in this republic. No law shall be passed by this Republic nor her constituent Dominions to disparage persons applicable under this Constitution to their rights thereunto.

Marriage is thus defined as any civil contractural union between two or more persons, regardless of sex, race, or species.

Cyrian Space approves of this move by Tekania, but wonders what the Tekanian constitution defines as a person.

Nevermoore's government likes to hold no jurisdiction over the 'bedroom 'activities of its citizens. It is not our place or your place to take dominion over their sexual affairs and frankly we would rather not think about them let alone pass laws.

Very true, i really dont care what my citizens do as l;ong as they do it in their own bedroom on their own time. if they dont then :sniper:

OOC: Elves? heh... funny.

I just pretend that elves and other species which various nations claim to be are simply manifestations or different titles of the same species.

Mind you, I also work on the assumption that NS follows a similar tech level as Max's book, so all these claims about orbital ion platforms etc, I do tend to take with a pinch of salt.

<shrugs>

Huh. Now that DLE has taken a break from the UN, does this make Krioval the most bellicose FT nation on the forum?

We of Icegrip Island kinda of want a little more sub-species diversity over here. So... unrelated, but Elves, gnomes, all those guys are more than welcome here. And if our people want to be more than just friends with them, well... they're more than welcome to do that, too. Revise your proposal if you want it to gain any ground.

I mean, I'm all for keeping people from putting Mr. Happy too close for ol' Bessie's comfort, but let's be nice to our other brethren :fluffle:

Cyrian Space approves of this move by Tekania, but wonders what the Tekanian constitution defines as a person.

We covered that in an earlier amendment:


All persons, which are defined as any being in possession of intelligence, self awareness, and consciousness enjoy all rights as persons as long as all three qualifiers are met.

Section 1
Intelligence is defined as the ability to store and recall information, and the ability to process that information by any means.

Section 2
Self Awareness is defined as the ability to understand its surrounding enviroment, and to know itself and its existance.

Section 3
Consciousness is defined as that ability to process it's own memories and surroundings, and understand all that it is, and around it, and to reach past its own being as a creature.

Huh. Now that DLE has taken a break from the UN, does this make Krioval the most bellicose FT nation on the forum?

Depends on is implied by bellicose.... If it is meant "warlike" then I wouldn't put DLE or Krioval in the mix... If it is meant as merely aggressive in debate, I'd say I would have to fit in the mix as well....

CRoT is FT as well...

We of Icegrip Island kinda of want a little more sub-species diversity over here. So... unrelated, but Elves, gnomes, all those guys are more than welcome here. And if our people want to be more than just friends with them, well... they're more than welcome to do that, too. Revise your proposal if you want it to gain any ground.

I mean, I'm all for keeping people from putting Mr. Happy too close for ol' Bessie's comfort, but let's be nice to our other brethren :fluffle:

Hmmm. Cows are property. You may do with your property as you wish.

Besides the "icky" factor - and the need for medical and psychiatric testing afterwards - we don't quite see the problem here. We don't agree with the practice, but neither are we engaging in it. Does it hurt the cow?

I guess that depends on how you violate the animal, yes?

But in any case... you don't have to marry animals to have sex with them. You can keep them in a stable in the back, for crying out loud. No one has to know how much you love ol' Bessie, because what you do with her is really not anyone's business. But to marry her... is absolutely not necessary.

The problem, is that the resolution defines "bestiality" in way too far of a sense....

"that Bestiality--which shall be defined as the sexual intercourse between a human (of species Homo Sapiens) and a non-human living organism"

That is, under its wording it makes sexual intercourse between Elves and Humans illegal, between Humans and Tekanians illegal, between Humans and Sarkarasetians illegal, and so forth...

And in precept, defines all non-humans (Homo Sapiens) as "animals"... Which, as a non-Homo Sapien Sapien, composed member-state, I find personally offensive.

This Constitutional Republic took great stemps to ensure that all "people" regardless of species enjoy the same rights and freedoms.... And we expect no less than that from other member states in these United Nations.. And that Humans enjoy the same rights as we native Tekanians in our dominions.

Come up with a new, and valid, definition, which is applicable to non-sentient life-forms, only, and I may support it.