NationStates Jolt Archive

Am I right?

Oh, it's the gay rights resolution.

Do you have a text of this repeal?

Let's see, do you want it repealed because:
A): It doesn't really protect Gay Rights and should be replaced with a better resolution.
B): It violates National Sovereignty.
C): You hate gays and don't feel that they should have rights.

Choose your answer carefully. You'll be graded afterwards.

And make sure you have something of an actual argument than just A, B, or C.

You forgot one Yeldan UN Mission :p:).

D): You think Gays should have rights but not the right to marry.

its the most common argument I see on the very frequent repeal attempts of this resolution.

As stated in my proposal, marriage is not a basic human right, as it is not listed in the Universal Bill of Rights.

Oh, and my answer is B, it violates national sovereignty, as do many other resolutions that I want to eventually propose to have removed.

Resolution 12 can only be explained in one way, broad.

The beginning of this starts with this:

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

From there, it leads into the actual description of what the resolution shall accomplish, which shall be split up into two parts:

1. "We, the People's Republic of Kundu and the other peoples of the world wishing for the preservation of freedom and the respect of all hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life."


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

This resolution, however noble in it's action, does too little for "protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life", and lists no rights or any such thing to guide the member nations of the UN to actually protect people from whatever discrimination they might be talking about. Please note that this resolution was passed before Resolution 26 "The Universal Bill of Rights" was passed, giving absolutely no guide to nations before that who cannot be penalized for making up their own list of "rights" due to ex post facto laws.

As for the second section of the resolution, it lists marriage as a right for homosexuals, which it most certainly is not. However, it isn't a right for heterosexuals either, and wouldn't be protected against discrimination laws.

The second section also deals with morality. Morality is not something that can be legislated, nor judged. The morality of a nation can differ greatly simply by crossing an international border. In many nations cannibalism (when the person is already dead) may be seen as revolting and horribly wrong, but just across the border, it may be seen as a way of remembering fallen brethren. It all depends on the cultre within a nations borders, and should be left alone by the United Nations.

The second section also deals with morality. Morality is not something that can be legislated, nor judged. The morality of a nation can differ greatly simply by crossing an international border. In many nations cannibalism (when the person is already dead) may be seen as revolting and horribly wrong, but just across the border, it may be seen as a way of remembering fallen brethren. It all depends on the cultre within a nations borders, and should be left alone by the United Nations.

Basing a repeal of the Gay Rights resolution on multiculturalism, huh? I like it. Contact me for a list of folks you may want to contact after you submit the repeal.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

As stated in my proposal, marriage is not a basic human right, as it is not listed in the Universal Bill of Rights.

Oh, and my answer is B, it violates national sovereignty, as do many other resolutions that I want to eventually propose to have removed.

I will now be extremely blunt and talk in frank terms about what I think of this argument, you may not like what I have to say. You have been warned.

I personally cannot stand certain arguments that are used as excuses either for oppostion to or for repealing otherwise excellent resolutions. One of these is "it violates national sovereignty": This is a completely ridiculous argument; it's a bit like saying, "Oh well, I won't put any petrol in my car, because it violates my right to drive my car on what I like". Petrol and the car are part and parcel and cannot function without each other. Likewise, the U.N. requires a certain degree of violation of one's national sovereignty. If you don't like this, then just press the "resign from the U.N." button. Otherwise, don't constantly complain about and use it as an excuse to allow rampant abuse of human rights, pollution, political instability, etc, etc, etc. It is a lazy, knee-jerk argument to use and really, if you wish to oppose something, come up with a real reason for opposing it.

There, I've got that off my chest. Now if you'll excuse me...

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

This is true, the UN does require some degree of violation to national soverignty. However, that line has to be drawn somewhere, and it has with Resolution 26, the Universal Bill of Rights, in which marriage is not mentioned, and therefore not protected as a right under the UN.