NationStates Jolt Archive

The objective is not scare away more and more people from the UN. The natural evolution of the UN is to become a union of tightly knit nations with a favourable attitude towards convergence, since with every single resolution that is passed some nations will feel alienated.

The Grand All-Nude Sultan is curious to know: How do we know that the natural evolution of the UN is toward a union of tightly-knit nations etc etc? What if the natural evolution of the UN were actually an ever-tightening death spiral of sin and debauchery, leading to scarred social misanthropy and long afternoons on the psychoanalyst's couch?

After all, the Dutch and French seemed to have questioned a similar "ever closer union" within their immediate region. How do we know it must be so for the UN?

Ana Al-Shaytahn Al-Wahid,
Sultan Al-Salaam

1. The relevance of this statement is unclear to Our Government. How does the system of one-state-one-vote mitigate against the power of the UN to override national self-determination?The popular vote ensures that laws passsed and enforced have the approval of the majority. It's called democracy.

2. Yes! The "function of the UN" should be limited to international relations and the identification of legitimately UNIVERSAL human rights.That is your opinion and I respect it.
However Canada6 disagrees.

3. The majority? Of whom? Because the UN is predicated on the state system, each state is given one vote, regardless of its size. This lack of representative democracy (...)It is not a representative democracy and never has been. It doesn't have to be. In fact the one state, one vote system creates an advantageous position for smaller soverign nations to have their vote count as much as a larger one.

This is balanced of course by the regional delegates votes. By belonging to a larger region, that region's delegate's vote will carry greater weight.

But once again we are discussing game mechanics, and this has nothing to do with the resolution at hand. In my experience at Nation States, Canada6 has detected a recurrent litmotif for nations that strongly dissagree with a resolution. They bring up the game mechanics issue and state that they resent that the UN is enforcing this and encroaching that.

That's just silly and immature. If they agreed with the resolution there would never be a complaint on the abuse of powers of the UN, on their part.

There will never be a unanimous agreement on any proposal, even if we stick to certain areas of legislation. Those who are fervently against a proposal will always evoke the abuse of powers of the UN (aka game mecanics issue) whenver they are at a loss for clear, and logical reason as to why they are against it.

The Grand All-Nude Sultan is curious to know: How do we know that the natural evolution of the UN is toward a union of tightly-knit nations etc etc? We don't. That is just Canada6's opinion. From Canada6's close carefull observation we find that as more and more resolutions are passed some nation's will begin to feel that the laws that have been passed, and that the general direction of the UN is different from that of their nation. This will alienate them and eventually force them to leave eventually leaving more and more closely knit and united ("likeminded" if you will), nations.
Of course the UN will always have a strong influx of new nations. So it's sort of like a gene pool, and evolution working it's magic.

The objective is not scare away more and more people from the UN. The natural evolution of the UN is to become a union of tightly knit nations with a favourable attitude towards convergence, since with every single resolution that is passed some nations will feel alienated.

Unfortunately, if that is the attitude that the majority of NSUN members assume, nations like Ours will be driven off and the UN will indeed become a "union of tightly knit nations": small and utterly irrelevant.

Unfortunately, if that is the attitude that the majority of NSUN members assume, nations like Ours will be driven off and the UN will indeed become a "union of tightly knit nations": small and utterly irrelevant.The UN will never become small. And the UN will certainly always retain more relevance than a nation that has broken away from the UN. Alone and by itself.

And the UN will certainly always retain more relevance than a nation that has broken away from the UN. Alone and by itself.

To clarify your position, Canada6, are you asserting that the needs of individual, non-member states are irrelevant, and not a priority on the international level?

If so, then the UN is akin to an Old Boy's Club or a cartel.

1: could prevent groups with strong beliefs from complying with these

2: the fact it gives the parents the right to choose who gets to addopt (in my view when they give up the child they give up all rights to the child and the state gains full powers)

the way the UN is going I am thinking of leaving

The popular vote ensures that laws passsed and enforced have the approval of the majority. It's called democracy.

That is your opinion and I respect it.
However Canada6 disagrees.

It is not a representative democracy and never has been.

Canada6,

In the first part of your response to Adoration of Me, you claim that the UN ensures that laws passed and enforced have the approval of the majority and "It's called democracy".

Then in the third partof your response, you state the UN is not a representative democracy and never has been.

Now, which is it? Or is it an unrepresentative democracy?

- Alpha Male, Henle 6.

The popular vote ensures that laws passsed and enforced have the approval of the majority. It's called democracy.

It is not a representative democracy and never has been. It doesn't have to be. In fact the one state, one vote system creates an advantageous position for smaller soverign nations to have their vote count as much as a larger one.

This is balanced of course by the regional delegates votes. By belonging to a larger region, that region's delegate's vote will carry greater weight.

But once again we are discussing game mechanics, and this has nothing to do with the resolution at hand. In my experience at Nation States, Canada6 has detected a recurrent litmotif for nations that strongly dissagree with a resolution. They bring up the game mechanics issue and state that they resent that the UN is enforcing this and encroaching that.

That's just silly and immature. If they agreed with the resolution there would never be a complaint on the abuse of powers of the UN, on their part.

There will never be a unanimous agreement on any proposal, even if we stick to certain areas of legislation. Those who are fervently against a proposal will always evoke the abuse of powers of the UN (aka game mecanics issue) whenver they are at a loss for clear, and logical reason as to why they are against it.

1. So, to clarify, you don't actually care about the PEOPLE being governed. The majority of the world could disagree and that would be OK. That sounds more like oligarchy than democracy to Me.

2. We have never once objected to game mechanics. The issue of sovereignty is at the heart of Our disagreement with the resolution. We have said repeatedly that it is BECAUSE of the supremacy of the UN (OOC: which I accept as part of the game) that We consider it Our duty to Our people and allies to try to limit unnecessary laws enacted entirely for their own sake.

3. It is the poorest of rhetoric to try to put words into Our mouth and call Us "silly and immature."

It seems to Me, based on several of your posts, that you are working from an assumption that world government is intrinsically good. Obviously, this is not a view shared by My people or any of My allies. Perhaps it would be best to simply agree to disagree at this point.

Of greater concern to Us, however, is the failure of many UN members to differentiate between self-determination and sovereignty. They are related but separate issues. Our need for sovereignty is predicated on our right to self-determination.

I hope we can move beyond this issue and work together to improve international relations among UN members in the future.

v/r
Me

I like the idea of allowing the biological parents to decide what religion and sexual orientation they want the adopting parents to be a part of. If I was a parent, I wouldn't want my child to be adopted by a same-sex couple or an Atheistic one. I would want it to be an opposite-sex, Christian marriage. Therefore, I approve of the idea of allowing the biological parentsto have a choice.

I don't. This is, no offense, stupid. If you don't want, or cannot handle, the responsibilities of raising a child, then you should NOT have so much say in their lives. If you want the child raised a certain way, raise it yourself.
I also can't belive the somwhat bigoted, and frankly, immature attitudes toward other religions and sexualities that some of the other representatives have here. "I don't mind gays, but I sure don't want my kid raised that way!" Grow up.

The Nuncio of the Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii to the NSUN slowly walks to the podium, massaging his temples and scowling from the aftereffects of the Drunken Master Ritual and the subsequent Discipline of Holy Hangover. He looks out over the assembled delegates with rather bleary eyes, and begins to speak...][/I]

Pazu-Lenny Nero called the Vice-President Vigdís Tirfinnbogadót and informed her about the speech of The Nuncio of the Holy Otaku Church. Vigdís Tirfinnbogadót had helped him to write the "Adoption and IVF Rights" proposition and strongly supported it. They decided to send together a recorded video message to The Nuncio of the Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii and to the cute people of HOCEK

Cute people of HOCEK,
Cute Nuncio of the Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii,

We have listened your speech and we want to thank you for expressing your opinion. We really appreciate that in each of your speech you are revelling a part of your stunning (for us) social life and organisation; you know we like diversity. We want to inform you, that our ambassador in Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii publish every week on the intranet of Love and esterel’s administration a stunning (for us) report about HOCEK society, this report has been the most read every week since it’s published.

Even, if it does appear that we have many disagreements with the teaching of HOCEK, we prefer to focus on the values we share with you: your teaching that: "humans are different from a pair of shoes", family, and of course LOVE (LOVE has been added to the name of our Nation by referendum at the foundation of our most serene republic)

It's why we are honestly sorry you don't like the 2 propositions we submitted to the UN. About the “adoption & IVF rights” proposition:

- we suppose you agree with paragraph -5- and -6-, as it give opportunities to sterile couples to have children and to live an happier family life

- we suppose you are not concerned by -3- and -4- because our ambassador in HOCEK told us there are no child sold for money in the Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii

- about -1- and -2-, as HOCEK praise family value, we are very surprised that you deliberately deny the chance to orphan child to live in a family respecting your standards, we never imagined before that this could happen in HOCEK, and we are very disappointed.

Thank you for your time.
We really hope that in spite of our disagreements, our 2 nations will keep good diplomatic and cultural relations and will focus more on the values we both share.

Kisses
Vigdís Tirfinnbogadót: Vice-President and co-founder of the Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel; and
Pazu-Lenny Nero: Foreign-Affairs Minister and de facto UN Ambassador of the Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel

Originally Posted by Canada6
The popular vote ensures that laws passsed and enforced have the approval of the majority. It's called democracy.

It is not a representative democracy and never has been. It doesn't have to be. In fact the one state, one vote system creates an advantageous position for smaller soverign nations to have their vote count as much as a larger one.

This is balanced of course by the regional delegates votes. By belonging to a larger region, that region's delegate's vote will carry greater weight.

But once again we are discussing game mechanics, and this has nothing to do with the resolution at hand. In my experience at Nation States, Canada6 has detected a recurrent litmotif for nations that strongly dissagree with a resolution. They bring up the game mechanics issue and state that they resent that the UN is enforcing this and encroaching that.

That's just silly and immature. If they agreed with the resolution there would never be a complaint on the abuse of powers of the UN, on their part.

There will never be a unanimous agreement on any proposal, even if we stick to certain areas of legislation. Those who are fervently against a proposal will always evoke the abuse of powers of the UN (aka game mecanics issue) whenver they are at a loss for clear, and logical reason as to why they are against it.

The Delegate from Dominion of the Machine Spirit is very upset by the Delegate from Canada6's statements about the UN. First off, the assertation that non-UN states "do not matter" is very troubling. Within the region in which my country lies UN members are out numbered by non-UN states. If they were to ally and move militarily against the Dominion, we would be unable to survive without the UN alliance. As in general non-UN states outnumber UN states 2 to 1 the UN should strive to include as many nations as possible. Without doing so it fails to provide basic security to member nations.

The Great Gear has not been able to compute what you mean by "game mechanics". Is this perhaps a religious belief of the people of Canada6? It has been the observation of our Articifer/Analysts that the operations of the UN have not been questioned. What has been questioned is that member nations are not giving due consideration to the multi-faceted views and cultures of member nations and instead are trying to create a homogenous single world government by legislating all aspects of life.

Again, like the Queendom of Me and other nations who have spoken in this forum the Great Gear is not opposed to IVF or adoption rights. It is opposed to rampant overlegislation of every aspect of culture, heritage and life by a trans-national organization.

May your pistons not bind. - End Statement -

I would like to object to this resolution from a purely environmental standpoint. The fact is that the planet has a limited capacity for human life, a capacity that will, if current trends continue, be overshot.

The overgrowth of the human population must be dealt with, lest we meet with disasterous outcome. In the world's poorest countries, the number of births per woman is staggeringly high, contributing to the epidemic of poverty. In regions where the population has grown beyond that which the environment can support starvation and disease bring many to a slow, painful death.

Overpopulation creates widespread problems, environmental damage, and resource depleation. As such, governments should aim toward zero net population growth before the issue becomes a problem.

The simple fact is the practice of IVF makes the issue of population growth worse. Couple who cannot reproduce natuarally still have the option of child rearing through adoption and should take advantage of it. Increasing the number of people reproducing, thus bringing more hungry mouths into the world, is no solution.

Increasing the number of people reproducing, thus bringing more hungry mouths into the world, is no solution.

Though, to play the devil's advocate, according to the resolution, such hungry mouths can always be exported to member nations willing to adopt them and able to support them.

Though, to play the devil's advocate, according to the resolution, such hungry mouths can always be exported to member nations willing to adopt them and able to support them.

Phrased that way, it sounds more like human trafficking than adoption. (But We understand that isn't the intent.)

- Me

adopted childern SHOULDN'T HAVE RIGHTS!!!! IT SHOULD BE UP TO THE GOVERNMENT TO DO ANYTHING :D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

actually it is the children that should have the rights and final word on the matter.

it is up to each individual to choose wether they want to be hetero, homo or bisexual; christian, muslim, budist, atheist, etc, including what proffession (and thus the path to reach it) they want to undertake when they are adults.

so until the age of 8 or 10 years they should have no religion or sexual influences pending on them.
they should be adopted be anyone (that meets the standards, such as someone that can monetarely (with or without support) can support their children, educate them well, etc) without having those matters enforced (or even applied) until they are old enough to think for themselves and choose what they want.

so until 8 years old or so you could not baptize them or take them into religious activities UNLESS they want. and even this should be minimized (okay to take them to family marriages/baptizes and so on, or to church ocasionaly if they ask to go).

if i was young i would like to choose wether or not to attend to religious events and what religion to pick and not be enforced to undergo jewish, christian, etc...

an example:
"hey son, your uncle is getting married this weekend. do you want to attend to his christian marriage?"
a) "hell yeah, its my favorite uncle!"
b) "i guess i could go. after all its my uncle though im hmmm... 'alienish'."
c) "sure, i want to go! its my great uncle and im christian too."
d) "sure. hmm no. okay, whatever you say."
e) "no, i hate him!"
f) "no, im not christian."
g) "no, i hate him and im not christian!"

well you get the point.

I would like to object to this resolution from a purely environmental standpoint. The fact is that the planet has a limited capacity for human life, a capacity that will, if current trends continue, be overshot.

The overgrowth of the human population must be dealt with, lest we meet with disasterous outcome. In the world's poorest countries, the number of births per woman is staggeringly high, contributing to the epidemic of poverty. In regions where the population has grown beyond that which the environment can support starvation and disease bring many to a slow, painful death.

Overpopulation creates widespread problems, environmental damage, and resource depleation. As such, governments should aim toward zero net population growth before the issue becomes a problem.

The simple fact is the practice of IVF makes the issue of population growth worse. Couple who cannot reproduce natuarally still have the option of child rearing through adoption and should take advantage of it. Increasing the number of people reproducing, thus bringing more hungry mouths into the world, is no solution.

I don't really see how IVF can be connected to the population growth problem. If the UN or any other states should attempt to solve the problem of overpopulation of rapid increase of population it most definetly should not be affecting the IVF. Countries having problems with population growth have it due to lack of education and no or very low usage of contraception. Also these societies are unlikley to actually practice the IVF so even if it would be a problem, it will doubtfully have important impact on the population growth.

The main purpose of the IVF as I see it is to increase the tolerance in the society towards single parents and homosexuals and now is as good of a time as ever to do it. Most of the societies have become liberal enough to accept IVF, and once accepted it will rapidly improve the tolerance situation towards single parents and most of all homosexual couples. It's just one step further from giving them civil marriage rights.

And as for population problems, developed countries where IVF mostly applies and can be implemented mostly have problems with their population getting older, and parents not deciding for children any more. I guess in this case for most of UN members this will have a positive effect, in addition you can release some of the social welfare system funds, now being used for parentless children care, and redirect it into some other fields of social welfare care.

so until the age of 8 or 10 years they should have no religion or sexual influences pending on them.
they should be adopted be anyone (that meets the standards, such as someone that can monetarely (with or without support) can support their children, educate them well, etc) without having those matters enforced (or even applied) until they are old enough to think for themselves and choose what they want.



But are children at the age of 8 or 10 really able to comprehend the point of religion and chose among them? I doubt it's really their choice even at the age of 8-10 and onward.

my 2 little cousins at the age of 9 can speak portuguese more fluently (way lot more vocabulary) than most adults of my age (21) can, plus they are very smart.

i think kids at that age can already comprehend these matters well.


ive had christian influence from my family since i was born till i was like 15 years old and that didnt made me christian. i dont believe in anything.

I have a reponse to the issue currently in debate in the UN

While many may have no problem with this, there are some nations that are described as moralistic. as you know, this means alot of us are religiously opposed to IVF and Adoption by same-sex couples, and also opposed to giving them the same rights as opposite-sex couples.

I think that this resolution should have a clause stating that nations that have moral objections should be given the chance to accept an issue to reject this in their country alone. In the issue of religion, I object to this and have voted against it. I respect the opinions of others, and if they want it in their own country, i have no problem with that. But i know i speak for more than just myself when i say there are numbers of nations that would like to decide for themselves.

Simonovastan would be interested in hearing what the nation of Love and esterel, the author of this resolution, has to say about certain concerns voiced by nations that remain unaddressed.

1. Why couples provided a priority over single parents, regardless of sexual orientation.

2. The reasoning behind why biological parents should have input into the future of a child they themselves are unwilling or unable to care for, and whether or not children are the "property" of their progenitors.

3. Whether or not countries with strong cultural or religious traditions will be permitted to "opt out" of this resolution, and whether or not these nations will be allowed to continue to practice the religions/beliefs of their peoples if this resolution is passed.

1. Why couples provided a priority over single parents, regardless of sexual orientation.

thanks for your questions:
This proposition doesn't deal at all with single parents, no priority, nothing is stated.
Why? because i don't know aything on this topic.
This proposition deal only with "couples"


2. The reasoning behind why biological parents should have input into the future of a child they themselves are unwilling or unable to care for, and whether or not children are the "property" of their progenitors.

"This shall only apply in the case, both the child was willingly given away by parents but not purposely abandoned"

for exemple if they have an uncurable disease, or they are phisically not able
=> this is only a priority, when several couples are available

children are the "property" of their progenitors => no


3. Whether or not countries with strong cultural or religious traditions will be permitted to "opt out" of this resolution,

"MANDATES" (Law)

- An order issued by a superior court or an official to a lower court.

- a document giving an official instruction or command

- To make mandatory, as by law; decree or require

and whether or not these nations will be allowed to continue to practice the religions/beliefs of their peoples if this resolution is passed.

yes of course

You, my left wing wacko, are the exact dip I am refering to:

You actually think that you can impose your ideals upon this world, please come over to my country and we can talk about how we can relieve the world of a cancer such as you.

You should of voted against the repeal because it is countries such as yours that are deservent of coup!!!

Anyways leave the world alone with the rules on how to adopt. If you want serial killers to adopt, let them do it in your country. Do not attempt to do it in mine

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand
Oh, poor misguided soul, allow me to point out directly where your arguments, if that be what they are, are hollow and a complete waste of time on your part. It is obvious that you are not capable of wasting your time actually reading the proposal to support your claims, so I will help you child.



URGES that in all nations:
-3- Only nationally accredited adoption organizations can conduct the adoption procedure; and
-4- Adoptive parents be forbidden to give money to this adoption organizations, to any person working in or related to this association, to the biological parents and to people related to the biological parents; adoptive parents are welcome to donate money to any adoption organizations that they did not use and are not attempting to use to adopt children
Oh unfortunately challenged one, now do you see? Your nation's adoption agencies may conduct the adoption proceedure. Nowhere does it say that you have to give a child to a person... period. No, it rather says that adoptive parents may not be discriminated against in view of their sexuality or marriage status.
As for your manner, I would suggest change. You refer to me as a lefty "dip"; by using such uncontrolled and tactless language, what does it say about your position, and you as a person yourself? Truly I pity you, and pray that one day you will find the other half of your brain that was so cruelly wrenched from your skull early in your life.
From now on, when you have an opinion, make sure it isn't a bunch of hooey, back it up. I shall pray that you come out of your infantile stage... and soon.

Sincerely
Spoon Savers

To clarify your position, Canada6, are you asserting that the needs of individual, non-member states are irrelevant, and not a priority on the international level?No. They just have much less voice outside the UN than they would have within the UN.

Canada6,

In the first part of your response to Adoration of Me, you claim that the UN ensures that laws passed and enforced have the approval of the majority and "It's called democracy".

Then in the third partof your response, you state the UN is not a representative democracy and never has been.

Now, which is it? Or is it an unrepresentative democracy?

- Alpha Male, Henle 6.
There is a slight diference between Democracy and representative democracy.

The UN is a democracy but not a pure representative democracy. An analogy would be that it works more like the European Comission, rather than the European Parliament.

The European Comission is a democratic institution but not a representative democratic institution. On the other hand...
The European parliament is a representative democratic institution.

adopted childern SHOULDN'T HAVE RIGHTS!!!! IT SHOULD BE UP TO THE GOVERNMENT TO DO ANYTHING :D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In the Blessed All-Nude Sultanate of Cans and Jars, we take this even further: All children are deemed the property of His Most Right Honorable and Perfectly-Cut Sultan.

So we're right there with you, brother.

Ila Salaam Al-Aslam,
Malik Al-Milk Sultan Al-Salaam

1. So, to clarify, you don't actually care about the PEOPLE being governed. The majority of the world could disagree and that would be OK. That sounds more like oligarchy than democracy to Me.Last time I checked democracy was the rule of the majority and the opposite of oligarchy. If the majority of the "world" (whatever you mean by world) dissagrees then that majority will have their right of way. Every democracy works like that, at least theoretically. I don't understand what your point is, nor what caring or not for people has anything to do with this. I do care for the people that are governed. In Canada6 political freedoms are highly valued.

2. We have never once objected to game mechanics. The issue of sovereignty is at the heart of Our disagreement with the resolution. We have said repeatedly that it is BECAUSE of the supremacy of the UN (OOC: which I accept as part of the game) that We consider it Our duty to Our people and allies to try to limit unnecessary laws enacted entirely for their own sake.Fair enough. However, if the majority of UN members found these laws to be unecessary they would also vote against them. Apparently the majority does not feel these laws to be unecessary.

It seems to Me, based on several of your posts, that you are working from an assumption that world government is intrinsically good. Obviously, this is not a view shared by My people or any of My allies. Perhaps it would be best to simply agree to disagree at this point.Canada6 is willing to work with the UN as long as it is within certain parameters. The moment the citizens of Canada6 feel that the UN no longer reflects us as a nation we will leave immediately, for no nation is obliged to stay.

The Delegate from Dominion of the Machine Spirit is very upset by the Delegate from Canada6's statements about the UN. First off, the assertation that non-UN states "do not matter" is very troubling.Canada6 has not stated at any time that it is our belief that non un members do not matter to us. We have stated that it is our belief that a non UN member will eventually lose a certain amount of relevance by leaving the UN, and cutting of political and diplomatic ties with this body. This is not a reflection on our dealings with non UN members but rather a reflection on the benefits of UN member status, that a non member will be without.

What has been questioned is that member nations are not giving due consideration to the multi-faceted views and cultures of member nations and instead are trying to create a homogenous single world government by legislating all aspects of life.Canada6 acknowledges that the UN will of course create with every passed resolution a group of nations that have alienated, forgotton and perhaps even damaged by the outcome of a resolution vote. Canada6 has been on the losing side of several resolutions. What I mean by game mecanics, is basicaly the risk that is made when joining the UN. Losing a little bit of our self-determination and sovereignty in order to belong to and take part in a fascinating body of nations. The UN.

Again, like the Queendom of Me and other nations who have spoken in this forum the Great Gear is not opposed to IVF or adoption rights. It is opposed to rampant overlegislation of every aspect of culture, heritage and life by a trans-national organization.Canada6 is fully aware of the consequences when UN resolutions are passed. Once again we state that as long as we feel that we can work with the UN, we will stay and participate.

As for your manner, I would suggest change. You refer to me as a lefty "dip"; by using such uncontrolled and tactless language, what does it say about your position, and you as a person yourself? Truly I pity you, and pray that one day you will find the other half of your brain that was so cruelly wrenched from your skull early in your life.
From now on, when you have an opinion, make sure it isn't a bunch of hooey, back it up. I shall pray that you come out of your infantile stage... and soon.

Sincerely
Spoon Savers

My fellow delegates and member nations:

I would now like to proceed with the proof of why I called this lefty nation a dip.

But before I show my proof I would first like to say once again that The City by the Live Sea is very happy and supportive of any nation that want's to make it easier for all to adopt. It is the fact that this is indeep a state's right decision and should not be imposed upon the whole world(s) alltogether (I say worlds because I have noticed that there are other planets involved in the Nationstates world--but I digress)

Now to the proof: The following is a Tgram that I received from the spoon savers:

You, my friend, are an obtuse piece of art. I am saddened by your lack of debate skills, but only angered by your debate style. I grow tired of your miserable angered posts that hold no ground, perhaps you need psychiatric help. Anyway, what I need to say is this... I you can't keep your tongue and smileys in check, I will confer with the moderators to have your nation rendered null and void. If you wish to attack me with this in the forum, you will be destroyed by your own words, for this is only a warning at the moment. I tell you this simply because I don't want to act, but I will if you prevail with your influent, boisterous, penile rants.
Respectfully yours,
Spoon Savers

As all of you can see, I have been given the very epidimy of an declaration of war!!! Being scince I am indeed a very active member (not to mention delegate) of the UN, I now must come before you and ask for UN intervention to stop such attacts from happening. I know my region stands behind me and I even believe that the left leanning members would also stand behind me on such a dark day where a nation throws all kinds of violent threats against a fellow member nation.

For the one thing that all of us in these forums can say is that we are all have the right to our believes and we will do all we can do to defend that particular right

I still am an avid opponent to this proposal. But I ask for help in defending against such pre-emptive strikes by spoon savers

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

The City by the Live Sea has the support of the Federation of Stulsa. The City by the live sea DOES deserve the right to state its own opinion. The Federation of Stulsa also believes that this proposal is an issue of self governance, not an issue to be forced upon individual states. As stated before, this proposal is TOO BROAD and TOO VAGUE! This proposal should and must be refined further before any support of it will come from the nation of Stulsa. Again, no matter what the view is from The City by the Live Sea, they are an independent state and deserve to have that opinion heard, no matter how ridiculous it may seem to another nation.

I find it absolutely abhorrent that this resolution has even gone to vote. This would have been fine if it had been thought out, and presented perhaps as two or three seperate resolutions. However, to force member nations to vote on the issue of stem cell research and adoption in the same resolution is absolutely rediculous. My nation would gladly support the adoption resolution, but I have no wish to support or encourage stem cell research, and it is quite obvious that there are many other nations here with the same beliefs.

Passing this resolution will only be a victory for those who wish the destruction of an individual nation's right to choose its beliefs.

Originally Posted by Adoration of Me
What has been questioned is that member nations are not giving due consideration to the multi-faceted views and cultures of member nations and instead are trying to create a homogenous single world government by legislating all aspects of life.

Canada6 acknowledges that the UN will of course create with every passed resolution a group of nations that have alienated, forgotton and perhaps even damaged by the outcome of a resolution vote. Canada6 has been on the losing side of several resolutions. What I mean by game mecanics, is basicaly the risk that is made when joining the UN. Losing a little bit of our self-determination and sovereignty in order to belong to and take part in a fascinating body of nations. The UN.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Adoration of Me
Again, like the Queendom of Me and other nations who have spoken in this forum the Great Gear is not opposed to IVF or adoption rights. It is opposed to rampant overlegislation of every aspect of culture, heritage and life by a trans-national organization.

Canada6 is fully aware of the consequences when UN resolutions are passed. Once again we state that as long as we feel that we can work with the UN, we will stay and participate.

Please do not misquote Us in the future. These were the wise words of our esteemed colleague from the Dominion of the Machine Spirit.

- Me

Oh, poor misguided soul, allow me to point out directly where your arguments, if that be what they are, are hollow and a complete waste of time on your part. It is obvious that you are not capable of wasting your time actually reading the proposal to support your claims, so I will help you child.


Oh unfortunately challenged one, now do you see? Your nation's adoption agencies may conduct the adoption proceedure. Nowhere does it say that you have to give a child to a person... period. No, it rather says that adoptive parents may not be discriminated against in view of their sexuality or marriage status.
As for your manner, I would suggest change. You refer to me as a lefty "dip"; by using such uncontrolled and tactless language, what does it say about your position, and you as a person yourself? Truly I pity you, and pray that one day you will find the other half of your brain that was so cruelly wrenched from your skull early in your life.
From now on, when you have an opinion, make sure it isn't a bunch of hooey, back it up. I shall pray that you come out of your infantile stage... and soon.

Sincerely
Spoon Savers

BRAVO!!
:D

I would now like to proceed with the proof of why I called this lefty nation a dip.

But before I show my proof I would first like to say once again that The City by the Live Sea is very happy and supportive of any nation that want's to make it easier for all to adopt. It is the fact that this is indeep a state's right decision and should not be imposed upon the whole world(s) alltogether (I say worlds because I have noticed that there are other planets involved in the Nationstates world--but I digress)

Now to the proof: The following is a Tgram that I received from the spoon savers: ...telegram deleted, originally in post number 280... As all of you can see, I have been given the very epidimy of an declaration of war!!! Being scince I am indeed a very active member (not to mention delegate) of the UN, I now must come before you and ask for UN intervention to stop such attacts from happening. I know my region stands behind me and I even believe that the left leanning members would also stand behind me on such a dark day where a nation throws all kinds of violent threats against a fellow member nation.

For the one thing that all of us in these forums can say is that we are all have the right to our believes and we will do all we can do to defend that particular right

I still am an avid opponent to this proposal. But I ask for help in defending against such pre-emptive strikes by spoon savers

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand
Ah, the spawn of ill judgement strikes again, with about as little influence and eloquence as before. To all nations who read the personal letter that I sent to this heathen nation, I pray you realize my intentions. Far be it in my morals to openly embarass a nation, or another person for that matter, by publicly giving them a warning. Live S has done that for you. What was meant as a personal letter advocating caution, Live S turned into a reason to declare war??????????? :mp5:
You ask for the protection of the UN? Absurd O lost one. Was it not you that had such harsh words to say previously against the communist bastards controlling the UN, and now you plead for assistance. You are a hypocritical fool! :eek:
You ask for help in defending yourself against such preemptive strikes from me??? PLEASE... "before you take a grain of sand out of someones eye, take first the mountain out of yours".

Now if you want to attempt to come into my nation and demand rules on how my government imposes rules on adoption, :upyours:

This is my nation and we are not going to allow anyone to dictate what we can and can not do within our boarders. You obnoxious leftist communist bastards!!!! You are what is wrong with these poor third-world nations in the first place.

I saw the leftys loose in the last resolution, lets see them get another loss by voting against this one.[/COLOR]

I will not even ask, this truly was the unprovoked attack against your fellow UN members, and I think it fitting for them to remember that.
My friend, should I be able to call you that some day in the future, you have greatly wronged this forum. Yet in this attack, you have only injured yourself. Perhaps you have no concience to consult, but from now on, when someone gives you a private piece of advice... take it... for you, it can only help.
No more shall I respond to your blatantly prejudice, ignorant remarks.
With considerably less respect,
Spoon Savers

Do us all a favor and update your ignore list to include "The City by the Live S" if you consider his (IC) posts counterconstructive; please don't carry on a flame war here.

I'm astonished at all the "yes" votes.

I'm going to draft a proposal the same way this was.

It will mandate that children should be educated and that Datopp should be the "king country" of the world.

And if you vote NO, it means you hate children.


Really though, this proposal is tackling 3 seperate issues at once. And at it's heart it will grant power to governments in war torn countries to hold onto orphaned children.

Groot Gouda, thank you very much for your post.
We are relatively new to the UN, and find your position very interesting
we regret you were not on the Forum for the 12 days we improved it here with the help of many nations.

The problem is, that there are so many resolutions coming up all the time, I simply don't have the time to respond to them all. And that is necessary, because it can be difficult to estimate which resolutions will reach quorum, or whether an author will be prepared to listen. Sometimes a resolution looks like it'll never work, and then suddenly it does reach quorum and it's too late.

I do try, though.

Well, in my personal opinion, i would vote yes if i want to.
Let those who have kids have kids. It doesnt matter whether they are gay or not. The gender lines between women and men are so blurre nowadays that all men are confused anyway. I seriously believe that two women or two men can take care of children as well as any oter heterosexual couples, albeit an impact on the future behaviour of the children. Homosexuality isnt wrong. All men and women should have the freedom to live the way they want to.
However, i feel that the UN should not poke its nose in matters like this., as i feel that the country should be the one deciding. I believe that an absolute right or wrong does not exist, or at least definitely not in this policy.

I do not know if this question has yet been posed, as i do not have the initiative to read all 20 pages of the forum, but my only difficulty with the resolution in itys curent form is this:what if an unmarried couple (homo- or hetero-sexual) breaks up after the adoption of a child? Granted that it would be no different from, a child living with his/her biological parents living through a divorce, but an adoption should be considered more carefully, the chances of a divorce analyzed by the agency. An unmarried couple would have a much higher break-up rate, and therefore a higher chance for a child to be traumatized from this event. I do not have a problem with homosexual couples adoptin (insofar as they have taken some sort of committment, whatever their given country allows, be it civil union or marraige) but in my opinion, unmarried couples should be able to make that commitment to each other before they try to make a commitment to a child.

what if an unmarried couple (homo- or hetero-sexual) breaks up after the adoption of a child? Granted that it would be no different from, a child living with his/her biological parents living through a divorce, but an adoption should be considered more carefully, the chances of a divorce analyzed by the agency.
Good point. That's why in the proposal it researves the right of the nation's adoptive agency to have final say in who is adopting their children. The proposal is stating that there should be no prejudice against nonmarried couples and gay couples who wish to adopt or IFV.
MANDATES all nations to allow:
-1- Same sex couples and non married couples to adopt children with the same standard that opposite-sex and married couples are held to.
Many nations today have restrictions on who they allow to adopt. This section simply states that as long as gay and unmarried couples are not discriminated against, the nation has the same rights in saying who adopts as before. I know this seems like a half win half lose, but you can't please everybody fully. :p
Spoon Savers

Many nations today have restrictions on who they allow to adopt. This section simply states that as long as gay and unmarried couples are not discriminated against, the nation has the same rights in saying who adopts as before. I know this seems like a half win half lose, but you can't please everybody fully. :p
Spoon Savers

when i wrote the first draft in this forum, someone asked this proposition to define "the standard" mentionned
i wanted to do it, but i was not able to do it

in this thread the nation of "Caer Rialis" asked us if we have read in real world:
"the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption Hague"

sadly we haven't, we are sorry about that

if we have read it before we would have added its following paragraph:

"""recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding"""
http://www.holtintl.org/treaty.shtml

This notion is absurd. Some countries in the UN are theocracies. How are you going to discriminate against them to make them allow both IVF and adoption by gays, if those nations consider them to be immoral and illegal? This is absurd, and I will resign from the UN if it passes. I hope you realize that many nations have already resigned because of this vote.

This notion is absurd. Some countries in the UN are theocracies. How are you going to discriminate against them to make them allow both IVF and adoption by gays, if those nations consider them to be immoral and illegal? This is absurd, and I will resign from the UN if it passes. I hope you realize that many nations have already resigned because of this vote.
It is an inevitable step in the process of the UN's evolution.

It is an inevitable step in the process of the UN's evolution.

exactly

And fortunately, the number of members is still over 31,000. No obvious decline yet!

And fortunately, the number of members is still over 31,000. No obvious decline yet!

yes, thanks, i will keep watching this number from now and after the vote if the proposition pass

I must say, given the current status of the vote, that, though this resolution was clearly drafted with good intentions, it is far too generous in terms of expanding the UN's jurisdiction. The section dealing with the issue of international adoption is clearly within the UN's scope, is properly worded, and is a fantastic idea. However, though promotion of tolerance and the advancement of medical science are important progress that should be made, stem cell research and acceptance of particular family units are domestic issues. A precedent for the UN mandating domestic issues that bear no import to the maintenance of international harmony is not something to be taken lightly. I think that the sensible nature of the issues in the resolution overlook the fact that IVF, stem cell research, and the legal status of the gay and unmarried family units are not worth the political encroachment.

"MANDATES" (Law)

- An order issued by a superior court or an official to a lower court.

- a document giving an official instruction or command

- To make mandatory, as by law; decree or require

and whether or not these nations will be allowed to continue to practice the religions/beliefs of their peoples if this resolution is passed.


yes of course

The Commonwealth of Simonovastan apologizes, as he does not wish to be deliberately obtuse in his discourse with Love and estrel. But isn't the author of this resolution contradicting itself?

On one hand, Love and esterel mandates the requirements outlined in this resolution.

But on the other hand, Love and esterel says that nations with strong religious or cultural traditions (such as The Catholic States and other theocracies) will continue to be allowed to practice their religions and theocratic form of self-rule.

Theocratic, homophobic nations will be required to allow foreign gays to adopt their children, IVF and stem cell research, despite this being in conflict with whatever moral code or god they choose to follow, yet will be allowed to continue follow whatever moral code or god.

This seems tantamount to asking members of a particular faith that forbids the eating of certain animals (or all animals) to renounce their faith and consume, simply because "the greater good" has been determined to far outweigh any relationship they may have to their artificial saviors.

It doesn't add up. Though the athiest state of Simonovastan does not understand or recognize an official religion, we believe that it is unreasonable and immoral to request that nations adopting a particular worldview be forced to change it in favor of another. Religious freedom, in other words.

Love and esterel says that nations with strong religious or cultural traditions (such as The Catholic States and other theocracies) will continue to be allowed to practice their religions

nations with strong religious or cultural traditions (such as The Catholic States and other theocracies) will continue to be allowed to practice their religions, of course

and theocratic form of self-rule.

Theocratic, homophobic nations will be required to allow foreign gays to adopt their children, IVF and stem cell research, despite this being in conflict with whatever moral code or god they choose to follow, yet will be allowed to continue follow whatever moral code or god.

theocratic, form of self-rule, homophobic nations won't be allowed to continue their homophobic practice, of course

The world's going to the dogs,you're seriously letting tihs resolution pass?
These do-good liberals have already ruined the next generation in the real world,Now they're Destroying even more tradition ,and now deserve the death penalty,in god's view.
Same sex couples are not meant to be.
Vote no on Adoption and IVF rights!!!!!!!!!!
Don't let the liberals Win!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bring back morality and respect!!!!!

We think that Love and esterel has once again contradicted itself.

nations with strong religious or cultural traditions (such as The Catholic States and other theocracies) will continue to be allowed to practice their religions, of course

theocratic, form of self-rule, homophobic nations won't be allowed to continue their homophobic practice, of course

We wish to illustrate our point with a hypothetical situation (which echoes what will eventually arise in member nations should this resolution pass), outlined in steps:

1. A populace feels Harry Potter/homosexuality/IVF/stem cell research/rock 'n roll/whatever is morally wrong, as dictated by the words of whatever prophet or madman they choose to believe in.

2. Thus, this moral belief is preexisting.

3. This resolution is approved.

4. The theocracy, with its citizens believing in a god or gods or a set of ideals, is required to change their existing beliefs by the new UN mandate.

5. An individual's religion (or perhaps even an entire nation's) is subverted by UN authority.

6. Practicing or professing such beliefs in this faith would be in conflict with the UN resolution.

7. The "old" religion must either change its central dogma or be outlawed.

The world's going to the dogs,you're seriously letting tihs resolution pass?
These do-good liberals have already ruined the next generation in the real world,Now they're Destroying even more tradition ,and now deserve the death penalty,in god's view.
Ummm... back up Jehova. One thing, who is the Pres of the US currently, and what party is he from??? And in what direction is the US going economically, and democratically and educationally???? Oh yeah, dumb question. Relax man, your opinions are as good as anyone elses, however they are worthless if you don't back them up. Heck, I'd love it if you started quoting the Bible, that would put a new twist in this forum! :D

Once again, to clarify from the statements Love and estrel has made:

If a religion holds same-sex relations to be immoral, it is Love and estrel's position that the religion should not be allowed to be practiced.

If a sovereign nation-state is to adopt a theocratic form of government bound to these religious principles and tenents, it is Love and estrel's position that the government should not be a valid one.

I have said this twice before: this proposal is too broad and too vague. I would be happy to vote on a downsized and more concise document, but this is not the right bill, yet. There are too many issues at hand, issues that are national issues, not UN issues. I believe that the bill should exclude clauses 5 and 6 for seperate pieces of legislation. This bill should also have more depth in the rules for adoption, as some points have been brought out in this forum pertaining to the adoption rules. These are my grumblings about this proposal, and I will not vote for it until it has been modified to a more focused and deliberate piece of legislation. Remember, you can still change your vote, it isn't set in stone yet!

Once again, to clarify from the statements Love and estrel has made:

If a religion holds same-sex relations to be immoral, it is Love and estrel's position that the religion should not be allowed to be practiced.

Please, read what i have said and don't try to misquote me
Thank you

Please, read what i have said and don't try to misquote me
Thank you

nations with strong religious or cultural traditions (such as The Catholic States and other theocracies) will continue to be allowed to practice their religions, of course

theocratic, form of self-rule, homophobic nations won't be allowed to continue their homophobic practice, of course

The Catholic States is a self-ruled, sovereign theocracy. Their objection to this resolution is based on moral and religious grounds, is it not? To quote their position:

Some countries in the UN are theocracies. How are you going to discriminate against them to make them allow both IVF and adoption by gays, if those nations consider them to be immoral and illegal? This is absurd, and I will resign from the UN if it passes.

Your delegate's rhetoric reeks of doublespeak, Love and esterel. You're saying the people of The Catholic States are allowed to practice their state-sponsored religion (which holds homosexuality and IVF to be unnatural and immoral, and condemns it) but you're also saying that it will not be allowed to continue this practice.

What's it going to be? Will nations objecting to this resolution be allowed to remain in the UN without fear from reprisals (economic or otherwise) due to diametrically-opposed moralistic viewpoints?

You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Which is why this issue should be left to individual nations to decide what's best domestically, not the international community.

I should note that Iam from the United Kingdom,which is being torn apart by New labour.Now people are trying to bend the boundaries of Morality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simonovastan
Once again, to clarify from the statements Love and estrel has made:

If a religion holds same-sex relations to be immoral, it is Love and estrel's position that the religion should not be allowed to be practiced.

Morality is not restricted to religion. There are general standards of morality,which must not,and cannot be changed.
Justice and Morality before heretic obscenities.

Do not attempt to catch me out-you cannot sway me,no matter what you say.

Please, read what i have said and don't try to misquote me
Thank you

We read what you are proposing; however, The Catholic States acknowledges that theocracies, which contain laws based on moral and spiritual grounds, will be shaken and discriminated against through this current UN legislation. If this legislation passes, I notion for an immediate reconsideration on the UN's sovereignty and influence over religious rights and the individual rights of a country to maintain a religious state. Theocracies in general are built on the pillars of faith and moral values. One's country can not continue to function if the United Nations abuses its power and destroys these pillars which govern the theocrat's citizens.

The Catholic States requests that any objections to the current resolution be made now, to further support the liquidation of this proposal.

I have messaged many delegates whom are in support of this resolution ,and hopefully they have listened and changed their position to against.


This Immoral Resolution will not pass under my watch.I can assure you of that.

What's it going to be? Will nations objecting to this resolution be allowed to remain in the UN without fear from reprisals (economic or otherwise) due to diametrically-opposed moralistic viewpoints?

You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Which is why this issue should be left to individual nations to decide what's best domestically, not the international community.


Perhaps I am strecthing what Simonovastan is saying, but the implication is that the UN should not take moral stands when there is considerable disagreement over the issue.

This makes perfect sense, after all, what right does the UN have to impose moral law onto its members. Then again, what right does a theocracy have to impose its view points onto its members? Yes, there are many gray issues, but that doesn't mean the UN should never step in when the fundamental rights of citizens living in its member countries are being violated. Many nations believe in genocide, others, that its o-kay to create second-class citizens, or make thirteen-year-olds work for $.50 an hour. The fact of the matter is that there are times when the UN needs to step up in the name of morality. There has never been any act so heinous that it has not been considered controversial at some time. In this case, the state-endorsed creation of second-class citizens by unfairly denying the right to adopt or care for a child is unacceptable.

In response to the esteemed delegate of Love and esterel's questions:

- we suppose you agree with paragraph -5- and -6-, as it give opportunities to sterile couples to have children and to live an happier family life

The Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii adopts a neutral stance towards the technology of IVF. Like any other technology, it is a tool and therefore devoid of moral value per se. We recognize its value in assisting the birth of children, where it can be used for good, as children are a blessing from the Cute One. We also recognize that such technology, when used without moral guidance, can lead to all manner of evils, such as the commodification of human beings. It is for this reason We so vigorously opposed the recent proposal on stem cell research. That proposal would have legalized the trafficking in human flesh, an abomination equivalent to slavery or prostitution.

- we suppose you are not concerned by -3- and -4- because our ambassador in HOCEK told us there are no child sold for money in the Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii

The esteemed ambassador is correct. Trafficking in human flesh, whether an adult, a child, or an embryo, is a capital crime in Our nation. We take this matter quite seriously, rest asssured.

- about -1- and -2-, as HOCEK praise family value, we are very surprised that you deliberately deny the chance to orphan child to live in a family respecting your standards, we never imagined before that this could happen in HOCEK, and we are very disappointed.

We understand that Our nation's family law may seem strange to foreigners. That is why We took the time to explain the social and spiritual natures of the Kawaiian family to the esteemed delegates present. Our law may seem inappropriate for other nations, and We recognize that. However, it is appropriate for Our nation, given its unique culture and tradition. Our law is carefully designed to work within the framework of that culture and tradition to ensure the rights of all are protected.

And this, esteemed delegates, is chiefly why we oppose this legislation. It is culturally insensitive. Not all nations are the same, and it is not the place of the NSUN to hammer them into sameness.

I approve of IVF if the child will go to its biological parents,that are straight,the child will not be put up for adoption,except in unforseen circumstances where adoption is the only future for the child,in which case to a responsible straight couple,or single straight individual,who would treat it as one of their own children,raise it to be a respectable member of society.

Do not allow this resolution ,which would doom children from birth to pass.
Vote Against it now before the opportunity passes!!!!!!

Morality is not restricted to religion. There are general standards of morality,which must not,and cannot be changed.
Justice and Morality before heretic obscenities.

Do not attempt to catch me out-you cannot sway me,no matter what you say.

The Commonwealth of Simonovastan was not defining morality. Rather, we were pointing out a flaw in Love and esterel's logic regarding the status of theocracies (which their delegate believed was a misquote).

To paraphrase, Love and esterel essentially stated that theocracies are free to pursue their religious beliefs, so long as those beliefs do not condemn homosexuality.

We believe that this is unfeasible and, as illustrated in a previous thought experiment, would lead to religions either becoming:

1) Controlled by the United Nations through manipulation or editing of central dogma. That is, if a tenet of a religion is that homosexuality is wrong, then the religion must be changed to suit the new mandate.

2) Being forced underground. If a religion refuses to change its viewpoints on homosexuality, in-vitro fertilization, or stem cell research, it is in violation of this resolution.

The second option is particularly bad for theocracies which have adopted an official religion, or which uses a particular religion for policymaking. If they continue on their course when this resolution is passed, it will either put them in direct violation, or alienate them by forcing them out of the United Nations.

Perhaps I am strecthing what Simonovastan is saying, but the implication is that the UN should not take moral stands when there is considerable disagreement over the issue.

This makes perfect sense, after all, what right does the UN have to impose moral law onto its members. Then again, what right does a theocracy have to impose its view points onto its members? Yes, there are many gray issues, but that doesn't mean the UN should never step in when the fundamental rights of citizens living in its member countries are being violated. Many nations believe in genocide, others, that its o-kay to create second-class citizens, or make thirteen-year-olds work for $.50 an hour. The fact of the matter is that there are times when the UN needs to step up in the name of morality. There has never been any act so heinous that it has not been considered controversial at some time. In this case, the state-endorsed creation of second-class citizens by unfairly denying the right to adopt or care for a child is unacceptable.So in essence you argue that of course the UN should not impose its values on member states, unless we consider certain nations' laws to be unenlightened, in which case of course the UN should impose its values on them.

Enlighten us. When did it become a right to adopt or even to raise child? Adoption agencies have all sorts of requirements imposed upon individuals and couples seeking to adopt: some require that the couples be married, some require that they be married for at least 5 or 10 years, some require that the couple already have children in their household, some give preference to sterile couples, some give preference to those couples who can better afford to provide for a child, some even require a certain income level be met, some require a gun-free household, some require a smoke-free household, most discriminate against single parents or applicants with a rap sheet or a history of violent behavior and/or drug or alcohol abuse. Many discriminate against same-sex couples, and even in nations that ban discrimination against homosexuals, religious agencies are usually exempt.*

Given all the above-stated provisos, how then is adoption a right? The "right" to raise one's own children doesn't even exist, as abusive or negligent parents can easily lose custody of their offspring. Even in divorce cases, joint custody may be more common, but in most cases one spouse (usually the male) will be granted only visitation rights, if that.

No, adopting and raising children is more likely a privilege, a privilege which in this case the UN has elected to step in, not to enforce a civil "right," but instead to regulate according to its own prejudices. I say this resolution does not enforce a civil "right" because it basically mandates that gays and foreigners be permitted to adopt if they otherwise qualify for adoption according to that nation's laws. In other words, it is perfectly acceptable for adoption agencies to continue to discriminate against would-be adoptive parents, so long as such discrimination is not on the basis of sexual preference or national origin.

* And this legislation recognizes no such exemption for private religious adoption agencies, so this doesn't just endanger religious beliefs in theocratic nations.

This makes perfect sense, after all, what right does the UN have to impose moral law onto its members. Then again, what right does a theocracy have to impose its view points onto its members?

The Catholic States would like to know of an instance in which religious dogma was somehow pressured on or suggested to another nation. Perhaps this is just a variation from the point, since no such action has ever occured. We realize that other nations may not choose to be structured as a theocracy, and just as our holy father, Pope John Paul III, our government realizes that faith is not wished for in every country. In return, we ask... nay... demand the right of our country as a theocracy, to uphold moral and spiritual laws, righteously, in the Catholic States.

As previously stated, if the UN fails to see the absurdness of this proposal, the Catholic States will not comply with the proposal at hand, and will immediately repeal.

Surely two major purposes of the UN are to promote equality for all and cooperation between states. I agree that birth parents should be allowed to have a say in their child's adoptive parents. I also argue that a clause should be put into the bill, which means that theocracies opposed to IVF do not have to allow this in their state.

However, I cannot agree that preventing gay couple's from adopting should be within the powers of any government. To discriminate against same-sex couples harks back to discrimination apparent in the Holocaust and the Apartheid. Though it is true that adoption is not technically a civil-right, it is unfair to prevent these couples, who cannot have children, from adopting. To do so is prejudice on the part of the government and if the couple is not part of the state religion then they should not be controlled in their actions by this religion.

I am personally appalled that any of the UN members would be so bigotted as to compare same-sex couple's adoption rights to those of known child abusers, drug-addicts and violent criminals. There is no danger to a child in being adopted by a same-sex couple and they are likely to grow up as a far more well-balanced individual than if they grew up in a state adoption agency or were passed from foster parent to foster parents for years upon end. The raising of these children by same-sex couples would also decrease the prevalence of homophobia in the future, leading to a happier and less bigotted world for all.

Morality is not restricted to religion. There are general standards of morality,which must not,and cannot be changed.

Do not attempt to catch me out-you cannot sway me,no matter what you say.
I have no qualms about your morals. I happen to have a set of my own, and I understand that they are sometimes not explainable. My worry was because you attempted to hide it behind a religion and be the voice of God. Let it be known that I appreciate your morals. I myself have some reservations when it comes to messing with human genes, but I feel that this resolution contains more good content than bad. I am therefore saddened that you are closed minded to changing your morals. I can understand defending them, but downright saying that they are right and none other are... saddening.

I will keep in mind, and pray for the New labour problem in your country,
Spoon Savers

The Catholic States would like to know of an instance in which religious dogma was somehow pressured on or suggested to another nation.
I don't believe the Shadow-Kai was refering to a government imposing it's religion on other nations, but rather it's religion to the nations' own citizens, in which effect, a theocracy could be an analogy of a dictatorship (stretching, I know).

Vote Yes

IVF....We recognize its value in assisting the birth of children, where it can be used for good, as children are a blessing from the Cute One. We also recognize that such technology, when used without moral guidance, can lead to all manner of evils, such as the commodification of human beings.

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel want to thanks The Eternal Kawaii for his for his reconnaissance that IVF can be a blessing.

We also want to assure the HOCEK, that we share the fear that this technology can be used with evil manners and that we must stay vigilent on this matter.

As regional delegate of New Mexico, Terioamo is disappointed at the continual disregard for the opinions of Stulsa and Terioamo.

Terioamo has again and again pointed out the clear moral implications involved in this resolution. Why should we promote IVF when it hurts a child’s chance to be adopted? :confused:

The nation of Stulsa has spoken its concerns of the broad sweeping, improper, and vexing nature of this resolution.

But, again, and again we are not being replied to, our concerns are not being answered. :mad:

Where is the true sprit of the UN? Why can't people see the logic in the opinion of Stulsa or the opinion of Terioamo?

VOTE NO on the "Death to Adoption Resolution" (IVF Rights)

I overall agree with this bill, and give it my full support. I must say hough, hat my only grievence with it would be:

Nations will be permitted to allow Biological Parents to indicate their preference of the adoptive parents' religion, marital status and/or sexual preference before signing their parental rights away.

If a person doesn't want to raise a child themselves, they shouldn't be picky about who adopts them.

This just allows people to discriminate by saying my childs to good to be raised by So-and-So, because their homosexual and Atheist. Other than that I agree with the bill.

* And this legislation recognizes no such exemption for private religious adoption agencies, so this doesn't just endanger religious beliefs in theocratic nations.

Agreed, but we believe that this resolution puts theocracies more at odds than other governments because the resolution directly goes against the core beliefs of their government, not just their people.

The delegate of Love and esterel (the author of this proposal) has already illustrated this problem out in his or her own words:

nations with strong religious or cultural traditions (such as The Catholic States and other theocracies) will continue to be allowed to practice their religions, of course

theocratic, form of self-rule, homophobic nations won't be allowed to continue their homophobic practice, of course

The delegate of the Commonwealth of Simonovastan is still interested in hearing from Love and esterel regarding this contradiction.

Personally, the people of Zionach think that this proposal tastes like a half baked bittersweet chocolate chip cookie. Nice and sweet, but gummy and gross. In otherwords, the IVF thing is illegal in my country.

Also, I belive that the UN was created for International security and Unity,
not deciding country policy on adoption/IVF laws.

Another thing i have to point out is:WHAT IS WRONG WITH DISCRIMINATION?

People discriminate all the time, and most of the time for good reasons.
Think about it.
Would you entrust a snail to win a 100 yard dash or a horse?
Most people would pick the horse, and thats racial discrimination right there.
My point is that discrimination IS good if you use your head while discriminating.

People discriminate all the time, and most of the time for good reasons.
Think about it.
Would you entrust a snail to win a 100 yard dash or a horse?
Most people would pick the horse, and thats racial discrimination right there.
My point is that discrimination IS good if you use your head while discriminating.

I am yet again appalled that anyone could talk about being a homosexual as if it some disadvantage or fault. Anyway, surely the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (OOC: That does apply here right?) states the following:

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.


Not only is the idea of different rights for same-sex couples discriminative, it is also part of the government forcing a religion onto the couple. These arguments against the bill are a blatant move against the ideals with which the UN was first set up and I am appalled at my fellow countries for them.

And fortunately, the number of members is still over 31,000. No obvious decline yet!

The trend is declining, so it'll be difficult to estimate whether this resolution is to blame. If it isn't growing, that's also a sign. Few nations actually quit the UN because of a resolution.

However, in the last few weeks with mostly badly written resolutions, several thousand nations have left the UN. About the same number left the game. Which is bad, considering that if 3000 nations cease existing, less than a 1000 UN members should. So the UN has been on the decline for a while, more so than NS in general.

However, in the last few weeks with mostly badly written resolutions,


which ones of the last weeks resolutions do you find mostly badly written ?

Not only is the idea of different rights for same-sex couples discriminative, it is also part of the government forcing a religion onto the couple. These arguments against the bill are a blatant move against the ideals with which the UN was first set up and I am appalled at my fellow countries for them.

Should a UN resolution be allowed to supercede or alter religions?

The athiest Commonwealth of Simonovastan couldn't agree more that forcing a religion on a person is immoral. But, conversely, this very resolution will force nations or peoples who believe certain faiths to adhere to UN resolutions above that which is dictated by their gods or prophets.

Remember that UN mandates override domestic law. If this resolution passes, theocracies would need to change their State religion, or be in direct violation of the resolution.

Once again, the Simonovan delegation posits his query:

The delegate of Love and esterel (the author of this proposal) has already illustrated this problem out in his or her own words:

nations with strong religious or cultural traditions (such as The Catholic States and other theocracies) will continue to be allowed to practice their religions, of course

theocratic, form of self-rule, homophobic nations won't be allowed to continue their homophobic practice, of course

The delegate of the Commonwealth of Simonovastan is still interested in hearing from Love and esterel regarding this contradiction.

Can Love and esterel guarantee that this resolution won't trample on the religious or moral freedoms of other nation-states?

As Love and esterel's delegate has already pointed out, it can't. This resolution will impose a particular worldview on nations that have opposing worldviews, and will affect those unique cultures in a way that will force them to relinquish UN membership.

We urge the UN Assembly to reconsider your votes. Those that have voted in favor of this resolution are making a grave mistake.

Should this pass, we will push for an immediate repeal.

I would point out that this is not pushing against individual's religion's. The part's which would involve whole nation cooperation (e.g. IVF and stem-cells) are merely urged/encouraged. The adoption of a child my a same-sex couple is a merely personal matter between the couple and the birth parents. This is not removing anyone's rights, but giving rights to those against which there is prejudice and a lack of personal choice.

The delegate of the Commonwealth of Simonovastan is still interested in hearing from Love and esterel regarding this contradiction.

i don't understand where you see a contradiction, our proposition doesn't do anything against association, or religion even homophobic ones.
Nothing will be done against people who adhere to these association, and continue to think same-sex relashionhip or IVF is bad. They will always be free.

Furthermore i want to assure you most religions in love and esterel and many in the world have nothing against same-sex relashionhip or IVF, because these religion main topic is love and because IVF can procure more love and hapiness in family where couples are sterile and that orphan children will be more loved in a same sex couple family (meeting the standards) than in an orphanage

We want here to say that we admire the works of many orphanage in the world and we think they will be able to provide even more care for
their children, if more children are adopted by couples meeting the standards

Why would people puposely combine something that is obviously good (adoption) with something that is morally questionable at best gay-parent adoption and IVF?

As representitive of The Holy Empire of Peter and Paul, a theocracy, I am saddened that my fellow delegates at the UN have decieded that the UN should be a theocracy of sin. Even if I agreed with homosexual unions or IVF, then I would still not support this vote. Why?

-IVF involves the creation of otherwise viable embryos that have no intention of usage. This is something that I and many others consider to be murder. This issue alone is enough to get a no vote.
-In my nation both IVF and gay marriage are illegal, they aren't frowned upon, they are illegal. IVF carrys the same penalties as manslaughter.

Finally, due to the way that my nation works, laws that are related to morals and ethics cannot be changed by either the UN or the elected branch of the legislature in my nation. Moral laws are set by the Code of Canon Law, which is not tied to this body. If this bill passes, and becomes binding in Peter and Paul, then we will have two conflicting laws. One will allow gay adoption rights and IVF ane one will ban them. The court system will never allow the illigitmate authority of secular law to override Canon Law on this issue, there will be massive confusion amongst the populace and will create unneede laws in my country.

whatever he just siad, I back it.

-IVF involves the creation of otherwise viable embryos that have no intention of usage.

sex also involves sometimes the creation of otherwise viable embryos that have no intention of usage

nature doesn't allow some people who really want to have a child to have one, and force some people who don't want to have one to have one. sorry we have to deal with that.

but we agree with you on he following point:
if nature was always allowing people who really want to have a child to have one and never force people who don't want to have one to have one
=> everything would have been more easier

our nation is a newly formed one. we are all cats. even the description of our country is wrong. but our region is described right land of cher

we are concerned with dogs, fleas, food, naps, and important things like that.

you will have to convince me that if i vote your way it will help cats.

maybe if you could promise a case of sheeba catfood for each of our contry's members?

tho we are only one country. we don't care. we just want to be cats.

i heed to nap now. that is foemost.

cher--ruler of cats...and cats rule!

i don't understand where you see a contradiction, our proposition doesn't do anything against association, or religion even homophobic ones.

In your own words:

nations with strong religious or cultural traditions (such as The Catholic States and other theocracies) will continue to be allowed to practice their religions, of course

theocratic, form of self-rule, homophobic nations won't be allowed to continue their homophobic practice, of course

Or do you deny having written these words? Therein lies the contradiction: nations will be allowed to practice their religions, but not their homophobic practices. In essence, you've just told these theocracies what they may and may not practice.

Now, words from the Peter and Paul delegation:

If this bill passes, and becomes binding in Peter and Paul, then we will have two conflicting laws. One will allow gay adoption rights and IVF ane one will ban them.

There you have it. A theocracy founded on religious principles, which will then be in direct violation of the resolution should it pass.

Nothing will be done against people who adhere to these association, and continue to think same-sex relashionhip or IVF is bad. They will always be free.

On the contrary, socially-conservative theocracies will be in violation of this resolution.

Furthermore i want to assure you most religions in love and esterel and many in the world have nothing against same-sex relashionhip or IVF

As evidenced by the theocracies which have already voiced their opinions (which seem to be ignored), many in the world do have something against IVF and same-sex relationships. And this resolution mandates that same-sex couples (which receive no legal recognition in certain theocracies) be given the right to adopt.

This resolution would force existing religious practices to change.

Is Love and esterel's delegate being deliberately obtuse? Do you honestly not understand?

how about cats? cats seem to have no problem with love. we are the highest being around. how many humans have 9 lives? why do you think there are so many of us?

i am not convinced. i think love is antural. i don't understand a lot of what is said. as a cat simple things register only.

i hear about this stem cell stuff. what is a stem? what is a cell?

and what is research?

lets get on to food and naps and flea eradification.

think about this. common sense will tell you.

cher

Dear Love and Esterel,

Your proposal is too broad. You are breaching many religious beliefs in the different theocracies in the U.N. I know Canada6 earlier said something to the effect of it being a necessary step in the evolution of the U.N. but that is simply ludicrous. The U.N. does not exist to put bans on religion and force people to change their beliefs. You are asking some of this world's religions to change some of their fundamental principles in order to go along with this resolution. Even just supporting stem cell research, not implementing it but supporting it, goes against the very core of many of the theocratic nations that exist.

If you truly wish the U.N. to represent the different nations of this world you should understand issues as simple as that. You are disrespecting their political and religious freedoms. There was no necessity to add IFV or stem cell research into this resolution. If you had instead left it at adoption, that would have been perfectly fine. We can all debate the merits of adoption and allowing homosexuals to adopt, because as that much falls to adoption agencies within the member state, it can be bypassed through loopholes. But to force the other issues into the same resolution is irresponsible.

unless i am convinced otherwise i agree. i see nothing in this that would benefit us. we take care of ourselves pretty good.

i will vote not vote for this unless our cats are considered in the proposal. it seems to be directed to people only. i think that is very prejudiced against us!

sex also involves sometimes the creation of otherwise viable embryos that have no intention of usage

nature doesn't allow some people who really want to have a child to have one, and force some people who don't want to have one to have one. sorry we have to deal with that.

Unless I'm wrong, I believe that laws generally punish intentional actions of people rather than naturally occuring bodiliy functions over which we have no control. Humans manufacture DMT in the brain all the time, it is always in our blood. DMT is a schedule I substance in the US. It is illegal to use or possess without strict regulatatory hoops to jump through. Yet having DMT in your blood is not illegal.

Your proposal requires that direct actions which lead to the destrcution of embryos be legalized in all member states. This is not something that a body taht is supposed to be fostering free discussion should be doing. Unless the UN is a fascist body, this proposal should be killed.

As for the gay adoption, gay couples have no rights as couples, infact they cannot be defined as couples, in my country so that part of the proposal would be null and void in my country so I do not care about that.

Edit: I have just recieved an official statement by the Archbishop of Nova Carmel on the issue of UN enforced moral restriction:


Any law infringing on the sovereign state's right to regulate it's own morals, ethics, or religion that is passed by the United Nations is henceforth and retroactively pronounced null and void. Any supporters of laws contrary to the teachings of the Universal Church in regards to morals, ethics, or religion are henceforth notified that they are Excommunicated Latæ Sententiæ.

in my country we all do as we please. no one judges anyone. but we pay no taxes money is worthless to us. you can't eat money. you can't nap on it.

gay? i am gay taday. i am gloomy sometimes too--nevertheless, as a liberal free spirited country we think everyone should do as they please.

Just as the delegate from the Holy Empire of Peter and Paul stated, any resolution passed by the UN that contradicts moral law will contradict cannon-based law in the Catholic States. No matter what the delegate from Love and esterel claims, this will make many theocracies either: contradict themselves, collapse, refuse to comply with the UN, or totaly quit the UN all together. If this proposal becomes a resolution, it will be immediately repealed. Also, Cardinal Lee, Archbishop of New Constantinople and head of state, confirmed rumors that the holy father, John Paul III, himself, will respond to the reaction of the UN's vote, and there is a chance he may excommunicate several categories of people.

Every single real concern is being ignored, the contradiction of promoting adoption and IVF (if everyone got IVF no one would adopt!), the pushing of one moral belief on another concerning Homosexuality, and the simple fact that this resolution is so broad and confusing in its attempts to please everyone and every thing that forgets about the children. :mad:

The people of the world are upset at this clear disconnect between the extreme leaders of some countries and the real concerns of others

VOTE NO!

Its not to late!

I would like to remind the honorable delegate from the Catholic States that His Holyness' name is John Paul III. :)

No matter what the delegate from Love and esterel claims, this will make many theocracies either: contradict themselves, collapse, refuse to comply with the UN, or totaly quit the UN all together.

Hop on the bandwagon, Peter and Paul. Your nation's flavour of Catholicism is radical and outdated. After all:

the Catholic communities of Love and esterel and of many nations don't think stem cells research is bad.

Why don't your people abandon their culture and traditions in favor of the clearly superior one?

:rolleyes:

Just as the delegate from the Holy Empire of Peter and Paul stated, any resolution passed by the UN that contradicts moral law will contradict cannon-based law in the Catholic States. No matter what the delegate from Love and esterel claims, this will make many theocracies either: contradict themselves, collapse, refuse to comply with the UN, or totaly quit the UN all together. If this proposal becomes a resolution, it will be immediately repealed. Also, Cardinal Lee, Archbishop of New Constantinople and head of state, confirmed rumors that the holy father, John Paull III, himself, will respond to the reaction of the UN's vote, and there is a chance he may excommunicate several categories of people.

Just to put this argument to bed. Here are a few passed resolutions that are law in all UN nations. Complying with passed resolutions isn't voluntary. These laws apply without exception whether a nation is a theocracy or not.

Sexual Freedom (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029591&postcount=8)
Gay Rights (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029602&postcount=13)
Legalise Euthanasia (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030048&postcount=44)
The Sex Industry Worker Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8134803&postcount=92)
Abortion Rights (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030173&postcount=62)
Rights of Minorities and Women (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7565919&postcount=81)
Definition of Marriage (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7680061&postcount=82)
Stem Cell Research Funding (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7680070&postcount=83)

Hop on the bandwagon, Peter and Paul. Your nation's flavour of Catholicism is radical and outdated. After all:

Why don't your people abandon their culture and traditions in favor of the clearly superior one?

I'm not sure if you missed my comment above, those who favor this lesiglation have been excommunicated, they are not Catholics any more regardless of their thinking otherwise. They have abandoned the Church which will not and Cannot Change because God does not change.

As for the binding nature of UN resolutions. The Courts of Peter and Paul nullifies them, if they are not in agreement with our national laws, then they won't be enforced. The UN can send troops in to try and force the issue, but otherwise nullification is the name of the game.

Nullification is a valid legal tactic that has historical precidence.

Many of the problems in this argument seem to stem from the same question - can a country have a religion? As it is not a sentient being, it is apparent that a country cannot make the choice to become part of a religion. It is not the country but the inhabitant's of that country which have a religion. This means that all leaders who force religious or moral beliefs on the inhabitant's of their country of being nothing less than prejudiced and dictatorial. People should have the right to choose what they believe in, and if they believe that their is nothing wrong with homosexuality (which of course there isn't) then they should have the right to their own beliefs and not be discriminated against for them.

I would also yet again remind you that IVF and stem cell research are both encouraged/urged, so countries do not actually have to follow these. It is adoption rights only which would be enforced by the UN, so not passing this law due to beliefs about IVF or stem cell research is wrong, as those countries who wish to progress in these fields will do so without the UN resolution and vice versa.

The Holy Emperor of Aelandria

As for the binding nature of UN resolutions. The Courts of Peter and Paul nullifies them, if they are not in agreement with our national laws, then they won't be enforced. The UN can send troops in to try and force the issue, but otherwise nullification is the name of the game.

Nullification is a valid legal tactic that has historical precidence.

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

Not in the NationStates UN you can't. Nullification has no historical precedence in the NSUN as far as I'm aware :).

You can nullify them till the cows come home. The UN gnomes will just sneak into your nation and change the law back again. The same thing happens if you try to go against a passed UN resolution through a daily issue. There is no such thing as optionality in the NSUN. The only way to have these type of resolutions not affect you is for you to attempt to repeal them and get them off the books all together.

:mp5: Destroy the UN :sniper:

It is not the country but the inhabitant's of that country which have a religion. This means that all leaders who force religious or moral beliefs on the inhabitant's of their country of being nothing less than prejudiced and dictatorial.

We rise in objection to the esteemed delegate of Aelandria's false and demeaning charactarization of theocratic nations. The Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii is the chosen government of Our nation's people. Nowhere in Our laws is it said that We are forcing Our beliefs upon them.

We find it ironic in the extreme that We should be accused of forcing beliefs upon people in this debate. It is this resolution that would have the UN do the very thing towards Our nation that Our critics accuse Us of! We suggest that, in their zeal to point out prejudice and discrimination, these critics take a long, hard look in the mirror.

You can say that U.N. gnomes will come in and change laws back if you try and nullify resolutions, but in some countries that really isn't feasable. Thanks to the ruination of my GDP brought about by the brilliance of the "Tax everyone to save dolphins" act, even if U.N. gomes tried overturning, say, a ban on prostitution in my country, the funds simply aren't there for there to be a public transport system adequate enough to get people all the way across my country in anything near a timely manner, nor a system of roads funded enough to get you everywhere. So by the time a U.N. gnome even gets to my capital, my government has had plenty of time to prepare to immedietly replace all altered bills with the old ones!

I'm not sure if you missed my comment above, those who favor this lesiglation have been excommunicated, they are not Catholics any more regardless of their thinking otherwise. They have abandoned the Church which will not and Cannot Change because God does not change.

Agreed, God does not change, he is always good. However, you must question our interpretation of God's Word. Our brains are limited by limitations, we cannot comprehend the eternal. Therefore, with such handicaps, perhaps it is in our own best interest to keep an open mind, and possibly admit that our interpretation may be flawed, no matter how long it has been held by our person. You say that people who support this have abandoned the Church, but has not the Church abandoned them also? Or perhaps the church is flawed in some of its aspects, being as it is run by humans interpreting God's Holy Word. Make no mistake, I am a believer in a religion closely related to Catholocism, but the reason I am not Catholic, is that sometimes, you just gotta loosen up. Unfortuneately, we can't always understand what God is saying, and that goes for things He has been saying since Moses wrote the book of Genesis. Just food for thought. ;)

Spoon Savers

P.S. I thank the delegate from Peter and Paul for rationally describing his postition, an act which an alarminly many members have difficulty with. :)

i have to vote no as no one has convinced me otherwise. cats have very small attention spans. the messages are too long and complicated for us cats. we need simplicity.

anyway, i think i will vote no unless someone convinces me. in a short simple asnwer. i am too busy napping to read these long posts. cats have to get their beauty rest.
cher

I am yet again appalled that anyone could talk about being a homosexual as if it some disadvantage or fault. Anyway, surely the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (OOC: That does apply here right?) states the following:

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.Not only is the idea of different rights for same-sex couples discriminative [sic], it is also part of the government forcing a religion onto the couple. These arguments against the bill are a blatant move against the ideals with which the UN was first set up and I am appalled at my fellow countries for them.First off, whatever the real-life United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights says regarding discrimination is neither here nor there. One simple rule for you to remember:

NS ≠ RL (Damn "Not the Same" card is not working. :mad: )

Secondly, stop referring to the "rights" of gay adoptive couples when even you yourself have acknowledged that adoption is not a "right." The UN by passing this law is operating under the assumption that a previous UN law protecting the rights of gay people does not protect the "rights" of gay adoptive couples, and following that logic, previous UN antidiscrimination accords likewise would not apply to minority couples seeking to adopt. And since the UN has not previously legislated eastablishing adoption "rights," this resolution, if passed, would still permit any nation to discriminate against interracial couples, or black couples seeking to adopt white babies, or white couples seeking to adopt black babies, you name it. This resolution, in spite of its title, does not intend to establish adoption "rights," since its effect would not be universal; it would only protect gay and/or extranational couples.

Which means that this resolution is not a human-rights proposition at all, but rather a vain, poorly crafted international regulation seeking to force all nations to adhere to some "enlightened" social norm. And I have not been too impressed with arguments in its favor seeking to paint all those who oppose UN-mandated gay-adoption "rights" as "bigoted" or "homophobic," because such ad hominem arguments rely not on logic but hysterical name-calling.

P.S. Do beetles play music? Or do you mean The Beatles?

You can nullify [UN resolutions] till the cows come home. The UN gnomes will just sneak into your nation and change the law back again.Yet nations still have the option to roleplay noncompliance.

The same thing happens if you try to go against a passed UN resolution through a daily issue.So far as I know, that simply is not so.

Many of the problems in this argument seem to stem from the same question - can a country have a religion? As it is not a sentient being, it is apparent that a country cannot make the choice to become part of a religion. It is not the country but the inhabitant's of that country which have a religion. This means that all leaders who force religious or moral beliefs on the inhabitant's of their country of being nothing less than prejudiced and dictatorial. People should have the right to choose what they believe in, and if they believe that their is nothing wrong with homosexuality (which of course there isn't) then they should have the right to their own beliefs and not be discriminated against for them.

The Holy Emperor of Aelandria

As it is now, this is correct. The UN the way it is now does not respect a nation-state's right for self determination. Currently, member nations may believe whatever they want as long as it is on the UN's list of approved beliefs. Ironic, isn't it? In trying to preserve civil rights and freedom they are actually stripping it away.

This can change though. Be wise in how you vote and actively encourage non-voting nations or fence sitters to vote.

Yet nations still have the option to roleplay noncompliance.

So far as I know, that simply is not so.

If thats true, then why is anyone arguing about this resolution going against their religion ect? They can just ignore it, change it via an issue, or role play it away ;):).

If nations don't have to follow any UN resolution they don't want to then I can't help wondering why we are here at all. We could just make everything an issue, national and international, and everyone can just choose what they want to obey and dismiss the rest. Having UN resolutions essentially optional makes them much the same as issues anyway.

I was under the impression all UN resolutions were binding on all UN members. Guess I was wrong with that one :).

If thats true, then why is anyone arguing about this resolution going against their religion ect? They can just ignore it, change it via an issue, or role play it away ;):).

If nations don't have to follow any UN resolution they don't want to then I can't help wondering why we are here at all. We could just make everything an issue, national and international, and everyone can just choose what they want to obey and dismiss the rest. Having UN resolutions essentially optional makes them much the same as issues anyway.

I was under the impression all UN resolutions were binding on all UN members. Guess I was wrong with that one :).Re: noncompliance/defiance via roleplaying/daily issues. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9618143&postcount=2)

I think that the U.N. shouldnt have the choice to deside this sort of thing for all U.N. nations. I believe it should be each individual nation to deside.

I approve of IVF if the child will go to its biological parents,that are straight,the child will not be put up for adoption,except in unforseen circumstances where adoption is the only future for the child,in which case to a responsible straight couple,or single straight individual,who would treat it as one of their own children,raise it to be a respectable member of society.

Do not allow this resolution ,which would doom children from birth to pass.
Vote Against it now before the opportunity passes!!!!!!

While I, the ruler of Cuation, have a great respect for the Catholic States for the way they have argued their case, I find this Safeland insulting to myself as a bisexual. Are you saying that I would not make a good parent becuase if I married a man? Why?

I fear that Safeland will be disapointed becuase as it stands, the billl shall pass, a bill I do not support for the record, if you want it to be stopped, come up with a good argument like the Catholic States.

Indeed while I think the UN has a point that people should not be discriminated against, nations of strong religion should be entitled to defend their right to run the country the way their God demands. However I would be willing to take in those that are... uh discriminated against for whatever reason.

Jude
Emperor of Cuation

You can say that U.N. gnomes will come in and change laws back if you try and nullify resolutions, but in some countries that really isn't feasable. Thanks to the ruination of my GDP brought about by the brilliance of the "Tax everyone to save dolphins" act, even if U.N. gomes tried overturning, say, a ban on prostitution in my country, the funds simply aren't there for there to be a public transport system adequate enough to get people all the way across my country in anything near a timely manner, nor a system of roads funded enough to get you everywhere. So by the time a U.N. gnome even gets to my capital, my government has had plenty of time to prepare to immedietly replace all altered bills with the old ones!

You really don't grasp the nature of the UN gnomes do you?

Their actions are instantaneous and universal throughout the UN, and you can't counter them while you are in the UN.

They most certainly do not rely on public transportation to get their job done.

Speaking as a person whose Daddies have given her an upbringing that could not be bettered in any part of the known or unknown world, I would like to urge delegates to pass this resolution so that others might enjoy the same advantages.

However, as I recognise that this emotional appeal may not sway many of the more hard-headed among you, I would like to point out a legalistic detail.

Effectively there are only two clauses which the UN mandates if the resolution passes.

Both these clauses contain phrasing which, if applied by a creative bureaucrat, would permit religious nations (or, if you must, religious populations) to accept the resolution without offending their God or gods.

For example, in paragraph 1: "MANDATES all nations to allow ... Same sex couples and non married couples to adopt children with the same standard that opposite-sex and married couples are held to.

And in paragraph 2, "Opposite-sex and same-sex couples, regardless of marital status, from other UN countries shall be allowed to adopt children if these couples meet the standards defined by the nation of which the child is initially residing in."

All the religious nations have to do is introduce an extra qualification to the list of criteria for adoptive parents. They must merely specify that adoptive parents, in whatever configuration of gender, race and nationality, MUST be members in good standing of the religion concerned. Many may even have this qualification already on their books.

Thus, if your religion rules that blue-eyed people are heretics, then blue-eyed people will not be able to adopt. If abstract artists are anathema, then no adoptions for abstract artists .. you see where I am tending?

Of course, ruling that the blue-eyed, or the abstractly artistic, or the gay, cannot be members in good standing of your church may well bring you into conflict with other UN resolutions, but that is a matter for your nation. It will be your decision. Your valued sovereignty will remain intact and your religion will remain in control of the situation.

Meanwhile you will be able let this well-intentioned resolution pass free of your opposition, knowing that, at the same time, you will have made Daddy Michael and Daddy Paul very proud of their daughter, Dicey Reilly, the Co-President of Ardchoille, who now casts her nation's vote in favour.

Speaking as a person whose Daddies have given her an upbringing that could not be bettered in any part of the known or unknown world, I would like to urge delegates to pass this resolution so that others might enjoy the same advantages.

However, as I recognise that this emotional appeal may not sway many of the more hard-headed among you, I would like to point out a legalistic detail.

Effectively there are only two clauses which the UN mandates if the resolution passes.

Both these clauses contain phrasing which, if applied by a creative bureaucrat, would permit religious nations (or, if you must, religious populations) to accept the resolution without offending their God or gods.

For example, in paragraph 1: "MANDATES all nations to allow ... Same sex couples and non married couples to adopt children with the same standard that opposite-sex and married couples are held to.

And in paragraph 2, "Opposite-sex and same-sex couples, regardless of marital status, from other UN countries shall be allowed to adopt children if these couples meet the standards defined by the nation of which the child is initially residing in."

All the religious nations have to do is introduce an extra qualification to the list of criteria for adoptive parents. They must merely specify that adoptive parents, in whatever configuration of gender, race and nationality, MUST be members in good standing of the religion concerned. Many may even have this qualification already on their books.

Thus, if your religion rules that blue-eyed people are heretics, then blue-eyed people will not be able to adopt. If abstract artists are anathema, then no adoptions for abstract artists .. you see where I am tending?

Of course, ruling that the blue-eyed, or the abstractly artistic, or the gay, cannot be members in good standing of your church may well bring you into conflict with other UN resolutions, but that is a matter for your nation. It will be your decision. Your valued sovereignty will remain intact and your religion will remain in control of the situation.

Meanwhile you will be able let this well-intentioned resolution pass free of your opposition, knowing that, at the same time, you will have made Daddy Michael and Daddy Paul very proud of their daughter, Dicey Reilly, the Co-President of Ardchoille, who now casts her nation's vote in favour.


..... no.

It compromises too much.

IC: Dr. Yeoman shuffled away from his desk with a large manila envelope, containing Powerhungry Chipmunks's "Against" vote, careful to avoid any other UN representatives on his way to the polling station. He had little desire to engage in the discussion of how much better Powerhungry Chipmunks's national government would be at solving "adoption and IVF" woes and difficulties than the UN bureaucracy.

He felt a softly descending anguish in this fact. After all that he and his predecessors had attempted in convincing the UN that nations have a right to their sovereignty and can more practically solve their problems, he still felt cornered, derided as "part of that sovereignty crowd". In contrast to this, he recalled the hopeful 'pep talk' Sam Palleel, the virtual founder of Powerhungry Chipmunks international politics, had given him after he was appointed.

"There's hope out there, son" He'd said, "There'll be a new batch of nations joining in but a month or two. With the precedents we've set, and the unbeaten arguments we've levied for national sovereignty, this body's destined to be pushed back towards moderation and good government." Much to Dan's disappointment though, the new nations seemed just as immaturely convinced of their own ideas of domestic government, in UN micromanagement, in the omnipotence of the compliance ministry or the "UN Gnomes". If only they'd spent a day in Powerhungry Chipmunks, or listened for a moment to the diversity of political opinions and national governmental creativity around the UN, perhaps they'd remove their political blinders.

He coughed a soft profanity as one such UN representative passed him. Juvenile? He knew. But after that nation had argued that its viewpoint on a multitude of domestic issues was most important, regardless of the infinite number of disparate situations and solutions in the affected UN nations, Yeoman had little tact and decorum remaining for an 'intellectual and governmental slob', as Yeoman privately called such anti-sovereigntists. Bad government, he thought, deserves to be sworn at.

Luckily though, this delegate did not hear Yeoman's subtle claim of his birth's illegitimacy, and continued walking the opposite direction.

IC: Dr. Yeoman shuffled away from his desk with a large manila envelope, containing Powerhungry Chipmunks's "Against" vote, careful to avoid any other UN representatives on his way to the polling station. He had little desire to engage in the discussion of how much better Powerhungry Chipmunks's national government would be at solving "adoption and IVF" woes and difficulties than the UN bureaucracy.

He felt a softly descending anguish in this fact. After all that he and his predecessors had attempted in convincing the UN that nations have a right to their sovereignty and can more practically solve their problems, he still felt cornered, derided as "part of that sovereignty crowd". In contrast to this, he recalled the hopeful 'pep talk' Sam Palleel, the virtual founder of Powerhungry Chipmunks international politics, had given him after he was appointed.

"There's hope out there, son" He'd said, "There'll be a new batch of nations joining in but a month or two. With the precedents we've set, and the unbeaten arguments we've levied for national sovereignty, this body's destined to be pushed back towards moderation and good government." Much to Dan's disappointment though, the new nations seemed just as immaturely convinced of their own ideas of domestic government, in UN micromanagement, in the omnipotence of the compliance ministry or the "UN Gnomes". If only they'd spent a day in Powerhungry Chipmunks, or listened for a moment to the diversity of political opinions and national governmental creativity around the UN, perhaps they'd remove their political blinders.

He coughed a soft profanity as one such UN representative passed him. Juvenile? He knew. But after that nation had argued that its viewpoint on a multitude of domestic issues was most important, regardless of the infinite number of disparate situations and solutions in the affected UN nations, Yeoman had little tact and decorum remaining for an 'intellectual and governmental slob', as Yeoman privately called such anti-sovereigntists. Bad government, he thought, deserves to be sworn at.

Luckily though, this delegate did not hear Yeoman's subtle claim of his birth's illegitimacy, and continued walking the opposite direction.


[Pazu-Lenny didn’t hear the subtle whisper of Dan Yeoman, when he passed next to him, in this large and crowded corridor of the UN building. But few minutes after, he noticed the buzz created by his esteemed and prestigious fellow UN Ambassador. Then, he turned on his WUSB tablet PC and sent him an e-mail, as his tablet PC was connected with a Wireless USB connection to his 4G mobile phone in his pocket.]

Greetings Dan Yeoman,

i learn of your discreet comment about our proposition. We understand your position and we want to thank you for expressing it democratically. We also want to emphazise that the UN is a free speech area, and so we invite you, if you want to, to express your critics about propositions and Nations more openly. We like very much free speech and we think open critics are useful to improve our own actions.

Yesterday, another esteemed and prestigious UN Ambassador, declared:
“However, in the last few weeks with mostly badly written resolutions,…”
We don’t know which resolutions this Ambassador was referring to, maybe our own, maybe your(s), maybe others. Once again we really want to say that free speech and free criticism are important.

Yes, we are a young nation, yes i have been myself sometimes juvenile, maybe arrogant; yes i have made some errors, recognized them publicly and changed my mind several times; as the UN body is new for us, we sincerely hope you will forgive us.

However, in the same way as your nation (and our nation) is satisfied about new micro credit opportunities worldwide to improve economy or the fact that Nation can now use non-lethal chemical weapons to assure order safely; our Nation is satisfied that more people in the world have now access to a fairer sex education and also, if our proposition at vote pass, that more sterile couples will be able to have children, and more children worldwide will be adopted by couples respecting one’s national standards.

Best,

Pazu-Lenny Nero
Foreign-Affairs Minister & de facto UN Ambassador
The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel

We are a young nation, only recently have we walked these halls, but we cast our vote in favour of this measure.

Like several here, we have reservations over the prejudice in this resolution since it has been watered down from its original form. However, we recognise that compromise is usually the best way forwards - it may not go as far as we would like, but it is a good step forwards. We believe that a vote against could result in their being no movement forwards at all.

Therefore we vote in favour of this resolution, in the hope that better things are to come.

which ones of the last weeks resolutions do you find mostly badly written ?

Mainly Establish UNWCC and The Sex Education Act. Fortunately, the transgender discrimination stuff was defeated but it still reflected negatively on the UN.

Should a UN resolution be allowed to supercede or alter religions?

The athiest Commonwealth of Simonovastan couldn't agree more that forcing a religion on a person is immoral. But, conversely, this very resolution will force nations or peoples who believe certain faiths to adhere to UN resolutions above that which is dictated by their gods or prophets.

Considering the wide range of religious beliefs, sects, institutes and personal beliefs, it's quite probable that even a resolution saying that "red is a colour" will violate someone's belief. But not only is it impossible not to supercede a religion, in many cases (such as human rights issues) it is the only option to make the world a better place.

Mainly Establish UNWCC and The Sex Education Act. Fortunately, the transgender discrimination stuff was defeated but it still reflected negatively on the UN.

thanks for your free speech

The People's Republic of Tajiri_san have decided to vote AGAINST this resolution due to the one fatal flaw that allows homophobic parents to still have power over the children they have decided they do not wish to care for. To allow such a thing is utterly nonsencical and very sad as the rest of the resolution We would have supported wholeheartedly.

:mp5: Destroy the UN :sniper:

I'll pound my shoe to that!

Ma'a Salaama
Most Right Honorable and Perfectly-Cut
Malik Al-Milak Sultan Al-Salaam

I'll pound my shoe to that!

Ma'a Salaama
Most Right Honorable and Perfectly-Cut
Malik Al-Milak Sultan Al-Salaam

What? Don't you two enjoy tyrannical, irrational World Government that tramples on self-determination and sovereignty? Don't you understand that people of different backgrounds and beliefs are better than you and know how your citizens should live, better than they do?

-Me

teh UN is SOOOOOO KEWL!!!!
:) :) :sniper: :gundge: :) :mad: :)

Many of the problems in this argument seem to stem from the same question - can a country have a religion? As it is not a sentient being, it is apparent that a country cannot make the choice to become part of a religion. It is not the country but the inhabitant's of that country which have a religion. This means that all leaders who force religious or moral beliefs on the inhabitant's of their country of being nothing less than prejudiced and dictatorial. People should have the right to choose what they believe in, and if they believe that their is nothing wrong with homosexuality (which of course there isn't) then they should have the right to their own beliefs and not be discriminated against for them.

I would also yet again remind you that IVF and stem cell research are both encouraged/urged, so countries do not actually have to follow these. It is adoption rights only which would be enforced by the UN, so not passing this law due to beliefs about IVF or stem cell research is wrong, as those countries who wish to progress in these fields will do so without the UN resolution and vice versa.

The Holy Emperor of Aelandria

We have the following message from Adoration's International Relations 101 professor:

1. "Country" is a geographic designation.
2. "Nation" is a group pf people united by common heritage, culture, language, and religion.
3. "State" is a political entity.
4. A "Nation State" is a sovereign political entity peopled primarily by a single Nation, usually created to protect and preserve the self-determination of that Nation.

Thus, as you can see, a Nation can have a single religion, which it is the duty of the State's government to protect.

Next class, we will cover the differences between "sovereignty" and "self-determination." For homework, please write an essay on the nature of power and its abuse.

- Me

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel want to thanks all the Nations who helped us to improve the "Adoption and IVF Rights" resolution on the UN forum, all the UN delegates who approved it, all the UN members who voted FOR or AGAINST and all the UN members who debated it in this thread.

Congrats and Best of Luck :)

Good Bye UN.....

What a stupid law that just passed.....

I will have none of that in my nation.... :mad:

I have no doubt that same-sex parents could be good parents, but I know children are evil.....When in school the child will be mocked when asked "which of your fathers is the woman in the house, or which of your mothers is the man in the relationship?.... does she wear a strap-on?"

Later in life they will need psicological help..... and I don`t feel we need any more phucked up people than we already have....

I have said.

Congrats to L&E on passing your resolution.

I agree with you Proxeneta. aslo a child reared by a mother and father grows up better than a child with a mother and mother or father and father. It needs both parients to grow up better. This is such a stupid law.I'll look into repealing this thing. I dont want this law to affect my nation. :mad: :headbang:

if you don' t believe in it well just don't do it. but it is not right to push your moral values on others.

a same sex union is better than none. better than an orfanage.

too much emphasis place on the sex of the parents. not enough on things like ability to provide food, shelter, LOVE, and guidance.

and you are born gay or not. so no one can make you that way imho.

if you don' t believe in it well just don't do it. but it is not right to push your moral values on others.


Why are you trying to push yours on me?

This should not even be a theme of discussion for the UN.

Try feeding starving children.

Same-sex adoption..... This is one phucking huge joke! This should be a decision for each person to make in their nation.

Speak Oil Peak and things of the sort for the good of humanity and the planet....

let each person decide for THEMSELVES what they want to do. it is not up to the government.

it is not up to the government.So why does the UN need to stick its nose where it doesn't belong? Just asking.

i think it should be up to the individual. and you are right i guess the un has no business in this issue.

thanx for the perspective. but i am not saying i agree that same sex marriage should be banned. just that the world government has no business here.

i think i dismmissed this issue. but not on that perspective. i will keep this in mind in the future.

issues that are appropriate to the world shoul only be addressed.

We hope the esteemed delegates here realize what an absurd situation this resolution places Our government in.

As it stands now, if We enforce this resolution, it will be legal for unmarried couples in Our nation to adopt children, yet illegal for them to produce children the natural way.

Is this REALLY what the NSUN had in mind? :(

We hope the esteemed delegates here realize what an absurd situation this resolution places Our government in.

As it stands now, if We enforce this resolution, it will be legal for unmarried couples in Our nation to adopt children, yet illegal for them to produce children the natural way.

Is this REALLY what the NSUN had in mind? :(

Pazu-Lenny was stupefied and speechless. He had read attentively every week, as most persons working in Love and esterel administration, the weekly report of the ambassador of Love and esterel in HOCEK. So he has now a good knowledge of the stunning (for Love and esterel people) social behaviours in the eternal Kawaii.

But, when writting the "Adoption & IVF Rights" resolution, he never ever had a single thought about how incredible and absurd the situation in HOCEK will become if it pass.

He bothered him how to find a solution. The odds were low, but he decided he will aks the UN gnomes to grant a "one only special exception" for the Nation of HOCEK to not fully comply with the "Adoption & IVF Rights" resolution, as the culture and social behaviours of HOCEK were so "unique" and it could be interesting for sociologists all around the world to study behaviours in this Nation.

the un is for international issues. this dies not allpy i should have voted no. i dismissed the issue. i wish i could take it back.

He bothered him how to find a solution. The odds were low, but he decided he will aks the UN gnomes to grant a "one only special exception" for the Nation of HOCEK to not fully comply with the "Adoption & IVF Rights" resolution, as the culture and social behaviours of HOCEK were so "unique" and it could be interesting for sociologists all around the world to study behaviours in this Nation.

You see, that's the problem with NSUN resolutions. The gnomes don't play favorites; there are no exemptions for individual nations. That is why it is extremely important that the impact of resolutions be considered on different cultures before adopting a "one size fits all" solution.

Since the esteemed delegate appears to agree that this resolution has tragic unforseen consequences, would they also be agreeable to its repeal?

that is why half of these issues don't belong here. it is a matter of the country to decide whether half of these things are legal. can you imagine? the world controls gay marriage, death penalty, gun control, abortion.

it is like a lot of these countries are pretending to be states of the same nation. and we are not.

i say dismiss every issue unless it is appropriate to be dictated all over the world.