NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think?

What do you think?
I think #81 Definition of Marriage is a fine piece of legislation which should stay in place.

Only when all go and a general encompassing resolution has been suggested as a replacement.

I won't support a repeal of this resolution as I can't see any good reason to.

Perhaps if you put a copy of your repeal up here, we can all read your argument against it, then I can judge for myself if your reasons for wanting this resolution gone are worth supporting a repeal or not. It would have to be something pretty good though. I do like this resolution.

Argument: Resolution 81 brings about the definition of marriage in view by the Universal Bill of Human Rights, and the Gay Rights resolution. Hovever, the Universal Bill of Rights lists only basic human rights are to be protected by the UN.

Marriage is not one of these basic rights, since marriage is not essential to life, political activity, or reproduction.

Marriage is a privilege bestowed upon a couple by their nation's government, and a worldwide view of what marriage is supposed to be is a gross misrepresentation of what the UN is supposed to be; a union of nations coming together to further peace throughout the world and including all cultures in the process, making room for all nations in the world.

To force a definition of anything on a nation, especially one such as marriage, which is seen as sacred in many cultures, shows complete disrespect to their culture and their leaders.

The peoples of The Holy Empire of Neifleheim thereby propose repealing Resolution 81, Definition of Marriage.

I fully support a repeal of that piece of horrible anti-sovereignty legislation, regardless of my personal views about the need for equal rights with regard to the availability of such contracts.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

I fully support a repeal of that piece of horrible anti-sovereignty legislation, regardless of my personal views about the need for equal rights with regard to the availability of such contracts.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Mikitivity will immediately vote in favour any repeal of that resolution ... its language was too strong and as Ambassador Jones pointed out, it really is a classic example of anti-sovereignty legislation.

Category : Human Rights
Strength : Mild
Proposed by : Vastiva

Description : IN VIEW of the Universal Bill of Human Rights, and the Gay Rights resolution;

The UN HEREBY :

DEFINES marriage as the civil joining of a member of any nation with any other member of any nation, regardless of sex, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, color, or any other characteristic, with the exception of age;

RECOGNIZES age of the individual(s) as a just reason for not recognizing marriage, as per Article One of the Child Protection Act;

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

Thanks to its third article, this one is informally known in Our Conclave of Friendship as "the sheep-shagging resolution". Could someone who has been around the NSUN a little longer than Our nation explain how it did not get laughed down?

We, of course, whole-heartedly support this resolution's repeal. A more odious example of the imposition of NSUN "morality" upon member NationStates could hardly be presented.

Those of you who are supporting our right to National Soverignty, please look to my proposal to repeal Resolution 12, which is another gross misuse of UN resolution power.

Thanks to its third article, this one is informally known in Our Conclave of Friendship as "the sheep-shagging resolution". Could someone who has been around the NSUN a little longer than Our nation explain how it did not get laughed down?
Because there are nations here comprised of races other than humans (elves, dwarves, aliens, sentient penguins, etc.).

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Thanks to its third article, this one is informally known in Our Conclave of Friendship as "the sheep-shagging resolution". Could someone who has been around the NSUN a little longer than Our nation explain how it did not get laughed down?

Your homocentric bias aside, Fib is correct. Not all NSUN member states are composed of "Humans".... You will also note that in the construction of the article, which I assume you reffer to: "[the] nation's right to expand this definition beyond species borders as [their] government see[s] fit." And you will note this is combined with the primary clause definition of "marriage as the civil joining of a member of any nation with any other member of any nation..." So the "Expansion beyond species borders" is refferenced to species encompassing "membership" in the state. Such is not applicable to "sheep" (unless the sheep are in fact "citizens", wielding full equal legal power with all other citizens; though this seem an unlikely occurance... unless there are sentient "sheep" out there running a nation).

The concept is not that non-sentient animals are opened to marriage (such is a violation of clause 1); but rather that in more exotic, magical or space-faring states may expand marriage to include the inter-special marrital recognition between the various and differing sentient species found in those nations (human and otherwise).

Your homocentric bias aside, Fib is correct. Not all NSUN member states are composed of "Humans".... You will also note that in the construction of the article, which I assume you reffer to: "[the] nation's right to expand this definition beyond species borders as [their] government see[s] fit." And you will note this is combined with the primary clause definition of "marriage as the civil joining of a member of any nation with any other member of any nation..." So the "Expansion beyond species borders" is refferenced to species encompassing "membership" in the state. Such is not applicable to "sheep" (unless the sheep are in fact "citizens", wielding full equal legal power with all other citizens; though this seem an unlikely occurance... unless there are sentient "sheep" out there running a nation).

The concept is not that non-sentient animals are opened to marriage (such is a violation of clause 1); but rather that in more exotic, magical or space-faring states may expand marriage to include the inter-special marrital recognition between the various and differing sentient species found in those nations (human and otherwise).A pity the original resolution didn't bother to make that distinction. :rolleyes:
"Member" is an entirely meaningless word and can denote almost anything; if the author wished to limit marriage to the properly sentient, he should have used the word "citizen."

The Federal Republic, though it supports legalized same-sex marriage, does not feel that we should impose our own concept of marriage upon all member states, and thus supports a repeal of this anti-sovereigntist legislation.

If we judge ourselves by how little we seek to intefere in the private lives of our citizens, then we should not repeal a resolution that has clearly, succinctly and eloquently outlined the legal principles of marriage as recognised by the NSUN.

It would pose a grave risk to the security of many partnerships, who depend on the protection offered by this act, to preserve their relationships. It would be cruel to deny civil rights to so many individuals by removing this guarantee. Many have cited a national sovereignty article and 'liberty' as reasons for repealing this. We ought to believe in positive liberty, by which I mean that we safeguard the rights of others and ensure that their civil and political rights are not violated unduly. Negative liberty, which is being referred to by 'liberty' here, is simply a laissez-faire attitude that offers no shields nor guards for vulnerable individuals, against tyranny and opression.

So please, let us remember our obligation to those of us that may be different and preserve this act.

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

Long live free-matrimony Compadria!

Again, people are bringing up the "Civil Rights" of others. I agree, we should protect the civil rights of all peoples within the NSUN. The Universal Bill of Rights states that:

Article 1 -- All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state.

Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.

Article 3 -- All human beings have the right to peacefully assemble.

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

Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.

Article 6 -- No human beings will be subjected to arrest or exile without an explicit list of their offenses.

Article 7 -- Any arrested person must be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Article 8 -- A human beings family members cannot be held accountable for the crimes of their relative.

Article 9 -- Any persons who violate any of these articles shall be held accountable by the law.

Article 10 -- The Universal Bill of Rights does not override the existing Bill of Rights of United Nations members. If any of these stated rights do not exist in a member nation, they are herby protected. If any nation has rights that go beyond these universal rights, the Universal Bill of Rights will not remove those rights.



Now many people may be thinking "Well, what about Article 5?"

Article 5 is saying that no one is above or beneath the law. Law enforcement officers may not profile due to race, gender, or sexual orientation, and that the courts will not treat anybody of different race, gender, or sexual orientation better or worse.

1) It's article 4

2) Those are not the only rights that people have. To claim these are the only rights one has is to contradict about a quarter of the resolutions this United Nations has passed (from freedom of Conscious/Choice/Humor to Abortion Rights, Legalize Euthanasia and the plathora of discrimination resolutions - about half a dozen of which addresses homosexuality explicity and none of which reserve the right of marriage for the state....though a lot of them don't address marriage). Sir, this is a weak argument and I strongly encourage that you choose a different approach.

Can't we simply define marriage as "expensive" and be done with it?

AK_ID

Can't we simply define marriage as "expensive" and be done with it?

AK_ID

:)

The problem with that is that dating is expensive too!

Thanks to its third article, this one is informally known in Our Conclave of Friendship as "the sheep-shagging resolution". Could someone who has been around the NSUN a little longer than Our nation explain how it did not get laughed down?

Actually that very point was brought up in debate.

The Federal Republic, though it supports legalized same-sex marriage, does not feel that we should impose our own concept of marriage upon all member states, and thus supports a repeal of this anti-sovereigntist legislation.

We are gratified by the esteemed representative of the Federal Republic for their concurrence that this is an anti-sovereigntist resolution and deserving of repeal.

As We have mentioned earlier in the debate of the IVF and Adoption resolution, the Kawaiian definition of marriage is somewhat unique to Our nation's culture. According to HOCEK teachings, marriage is not a private contract between two individuals. Rather, it is a public contract between those two individuals, their respective families, and the surrounding community as an interested third party. The purpose of the contract, of course, is the bringing into this world of children and the raising of them to be proper Kawaiians. The families of the couple have a legitimate interest in seeing a new generation born to them to ensure that the family ancestors continue to be venerated, and the surrounding community has a legitimate interest in seeing new citizens take their place within that community.

Because of the public nature of Kawaiian marriage, the HOCEK has the right and duty to regulate it. It is for that reason, for example, that We outlaw bastardy and single parenthood--so that children will know who their parents are, what families they belong to and which ancestors intercede for them with the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp).

We declare, then, that the NSUN has no business interfering with this arrangement. Indeed, such interference runs afoul of Article 3 of the Universal Bill of Human Rights. The right of assembly includes the right of Our extended families to organize and regulate themselves, including deciding on whether to recognize unions among their members.

sentient penguins, etc.).

Interesting you mentioned penguins.
Anywho, I support the current resolution and see no reason to change #81. It is illegal for bestiality in my country and thisl aw leaves it u to the country to d othat. I like it the way it is. Don't change it.

Interesting you mentioned penguins.
What can I say, I was just saying all the ones I could think of off the top of my head and I remembered hearing that there was a nation of sentient penguins somewhere.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

If we judge ourselves by how little we seek to intefere in the private lives of our citizens, then we should not repeal a resolution that has clearly, succinctly and eloquently outlined the legal principles of marriage as recognised by the NSUN.

It would pose a grave risk to the security of many partnerships, who depend on the protection offered by this act, to preserve their relationships. It would be cruel to deny civil rights to so many individuals by removing this guarantee. Many have cited a national sovereignty article and 'liberty' as reasons for repealing this. We ought to believe in positive liberty, by which I mean that we safeguard the rights of others and ensure that their civil and political rights are not violated unduly. Negative liberty, which is being referred to by 'liberty' here, is simply a laissez-faire attitude that offers no shields nor guards for vulnerable individuals, against tyranny and opression.If you value their rights so much, you are more than free to preserve them ... on your own soil. Why need all UN nations abide by your values? Did "Promotion of Solar Panels" teach you nothing?

If you value their rights so much, you are more than free to preserve them ... on your own soil. Why need all UN nations abide by your values? Did "Promotion of Solar Panels" teach you nothing?

It certainly taught me something, more care is needed drafting these sorts of resolutions, given their universal applicability. 'My' values are shared by several thousand other nations, I'd like to point out and so I feel in no way as if they are exclusively 'mine'.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

It certainly taught me something, more care is needed drafting these sorts of resolutions, given their universal applicability. 'My' values are shared by several thousand other nations, I'd like to point out and so I feel in no way as if they are exclusively 'mine'.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Agreed.

I have never had and continue to not have a problem with a UN resolution contradicting my beliefs. Interestingly, Solar Panels was the first not proposed with the concept of National Sovereignty intomed within its lines that I opposed (UNSA I worked even harder against than Solar Panels, as can be seen by the month of follow up discussion about legalities, though there were other things). However, I just lick my wounds and move on. In this case, the issue was not national sovereignty or an issue I necessarily oppose that was at work here, it was an issue where, quite frankly, not enough time and care went into the drafting and debate of the resolution. Not enough facts were properly presented, both to the author and the UN body as a whole, and these issues have been resolved making it one of the fastest repealed resolutions.