Proposal: Repeal "Definition of Marriage" [Archive]

Forgottenlands

14-10-2005, 03:25

Repeal "Definition of Marriage"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #81
Proposed by: Vitalinia

Description: UN Resolution #81: Definition of Marriage (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations,

-A- RECOGNIZING that UN Resolution #81 violates the sanctified rights of nations to establish marriage laws according to what is deemed socially proper in said nations.

Hardly sanctified, hardly violation, hardly relevant to socially proper. Marriage laws at a state level have a lot of rights attached to them - basically, you sign a contract when you're getting married. This contract entails you to a number of rights and lets you make decisions together. However, the details of the contract are still left to the nations by this resolution. The ONLY thing that is dealt with is who is eligable - and that is an issue of discrimination. As far as I'm concerned, no nation has a sanctified right to discriminate against any minority group for any reason with...perhaps...exception to skills (you can't force an office to accept a mentally retarded guy to design a bridge, they need proper skills to do this) and age/maturity.

Add on that resolution 81 doesn't even require nations to have marriage, it just says that nations that do have marriage have to make it for two consenting adults - regardless of what gender they are.

Add on that resolution 81 does not have jurisdiction over churches, just governments.

-B- NOTING that Resolution #81 is also insufficient in that there is a tacit implication that would allow marriages (e.g. between a man and his mother/father/brother/sister, and marriage between a person and an animal) that could be deemed universally abhorrent.

You may have a point about the relatives, but the animal concern is irrelevant.

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

This is actually one of the few resolutions that I REALLY like and its because of this line (I'm actually not very fond of the effect of the resolution as a whole and feel it could be improved). It is one of the few that FULLY recognizes the various RP elements of the NS universe. It doesn't do it for all forms, but it works for most. Why is this point necessary?

Because not all members of the UN are human. Not all citizens of UN nations are human.

The lines ALLOWS governments to make the expansion to include other species, but does not require it. If your government doesn't have non-humans as part of your citizenry, then you need not worry. However, I know many nations that have various other species and want to grant these rights of marriage to all species.

-C- NOTING that marriage for better or for worse originates as a religious institution between a MAN and a WOMAN. No mainstream religion will deny this fact.

That's because no mainstream religion wants to lose their hold on that. However, many governments have gone "are you nuts?"

My parents were not married in a church. They were raised under different religious philosophies, but both lost their belief and I'm pretty sure they're both Atheist (at best, they're "Spiritual"). Seeing as they are not part of any religion, how can they be married if its a religious institution.

You see, the concept of marriage being a religious institution is proposterous. When so many religions have a belief in marriage, a similar idea of the fundamentals of marriage, but VARIED ideas of what a marriage entails, to claim it is a religious institution is ridiculous. How many mainstream religions let the man have more than one wife? But do you see that in North America or most of Europe? Nope, because it's considered unacceptable in this society (in contrast, the Middle East has many men in that boat).

The government has taken the task of regulating the legalities under its jurisdiction - it did this a LONG time ago. That's what the government does: provides laws. It standardizes what is expected for a marriage. This may provide more permissabilities than certain religious institutions might believe in, while others it will restrict. As such, a CIVIL marriage - which is addressed in resolution 81 - is not, in any way, shape, or form a religious institution.

-C- NOTING therefore that Resolution #81 infringes on the rights of religious groups worldwide in being forced to accept the legitimacy of same-sex marriages despite being considered illegitimate and abominable in their doctrine.

No. But I admit that resolution 81 should be rewritten to make it clear that it does not push any church to agree to this law.

-D- REGRETTING that the United Nations has infringed on the sovereignty of each individual nation in allowing the people to vote on the definition of marriage and pass laws according to the will of the majority of each respective nation.

Whatever. This happens all the time. Couldn't care less

-E- STRONGLY URGES all nations to pass this resolution returning power and sovereignty to each respective nations in allowing their people to form their own definition of marriage as mandated by the will of each country’s majority.

Nay. I defend the minority of your country backed by the majority of UN nations.

Authored by the Ambassador to the United Nations,
The Democratic Republic of Vitalinia

Branding, illegal, will be deleted

[Please support this proposal and send it to the UN floor for voting.]

It'll be deleted.

Forgottenlands

14-10-2005, 03:27

Seeing as you've broken two rules with your two proposals, I suggest you read this:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465

Xanthal

14-10-2005, 03:28

The Socialist Republic regrets that there can be no proposed repeal that does not mention religious factors, but this attempt is worded well enough to gain the support of the Alphini nonetheless. The Definition of Marriage resolution is a sovereignty infringement, and does not adequately account for state-sponsored alternatives to religiously-based marriage. We have voted to approve the proposed repeal 3-0.

Yătzĭl Ämsi
First Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

Cluichstan

14-10-2005, 03:55

While the people of Cluichstan agree that this resolution should be repealed, as it infringes upon national sovereignty. However, we will never agree that it cannot be repealed without reference to religion.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

The Eternal Kawaii

14-10-2005, 04:08

The government has taken the task of regulating the legalities under its jurisdiction - it did this a LONG time ago. That's what the government does: provides laws. It standardizes what is expected for a marriage. This may provide more permissabilities than certain religious institutions might believe in, while others it will restrict. As such, a CIVIL marriage - which is addressed in resolution 81 - is not, in any way, shape, or form a religious institution.

Except in nations such as Ours, which have no distinction between "civil" and "religious" law. As such, Resolution #81 is a blatant violation of Our nation's right to regulate marriage according to the rules of Our people's chosen faith.

We approve of this proposed repeal, noting the few stylistic changes needed to bring it into compliance with NSUN "standards and practices" in terms of format, etc. We also encourage all sovereignity-minded nations to add their assent.

Listeneisse

14-10-2005, 04:17

The Kingdom of Listeneisse agrees that the present UNR #81 "Definition of Marriage" is so broadly worded as to allow marriages based on incest.

It does far more than that, however, and should be REPEALED.

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.
Since it defines it as 'civil,' but does not define what 'civil' means, it leaves nations entirely unable to determine what locus of civil law has ultimate authority, either local, state or provincial, national or regional.

So nations cannot issue laws on how to regulate marriage, or even pass laws on what constitutes a legal marriage, because of the nebulous phrase "any other characteristic."

Familial relation is another "characteristic" beyond those listed, so not a grounds to prohibit union; ergo, incestuous relations are permitted and cannot be prohibited.

It does not allow states to prohibit polygamy, if that is the nation's desire. Polygamous relations must be recognized.

Nor does it mention whether freedom of choice is required. Thus enforced conditions of marriage may be imposed upon a person -- such as by social or familial arrangement, loss of a wager or bet, required term of repayment or foreclosure of a debt, or any other form of coersive means or tactic. In other words, it does not need to be a willing union, or even a viable legal contract.

It bars policies or laws for such issues as health care concerns -- such as withholding of licence of marriage until STD tests and other health tests have been conducted.

It may unilaterally require states to grant residency or even citizenship to those who are married into members of their nation, abrogating local immigration laws or policies.

It does not put upon it any limitation of "frivilous" or "temporary" marriages, allowing persons to get married for a joke, which often does not turn out very funny, allows them to marry solely for temporary benefit, then have them pre-planned to dissolve the union in a week or month or year's time without care or concern for other family members.

It means that getting married or getting out of a marriage means very little, confusing family finances, family healthcare, child support, inheritance, and a thousand other real-world issues related to family unity and stability.

Since it does not mention what the purpose or scope of a marriage is, many businesses have redefined themselves as "marriages" rather than corporations to find loopholes in law. For instance, they are treating other business persons as their "spouses" to gain discounts and health care benefits. When over 15,000 former "employees" are now all "spouses," and Mr. or Mrs. Corporation are given wedding cake on the day they are employed, one must question the scope of this resolution and its unusual consequences.

This also causes great distress to persons who find suddenly that their "spouses" wish to have sexual relations with them. Because of other conflicting UN Resolutions regarding avoiding government interference with what goes on in other's bedrooms, yet also requiring states to uphold individual rights, employees are often the victims of conflicting UN policy, because their employer is now actually Husband #1035.

Because bigamy and polygamy is not prohibited -- a characteristic beyond the scope of the resolution such as you already have another spouse -- people are coming home declaring that they got married without getting the foreknowledgeable consent of the pre-existing spouse.

Even if polygamy or communal intermarriage is accepted and legal in a culture, this brings into question the rights of each member of the union, and who has the right within the union to say, "Enough!"

Right now, there is no way to stop or limit a growing "organism" of marriage, as defined in this resolution.

Fortunately, other UN Resolutions exist to greatly limit the scope of this Resolution's impact. However, because it is a resolution co-equal to these other resolutions, it calls into question or greatly erodes the other resolution's force.

Thus it greatly undermines, directly violates or questionably conflicts with:

UNR #6, End slavery, since it does not bar "marriages" based solely as a means of economic payment or settling of debt, nor accounts for the express willingness or unwillingness of the participants to enter into the "civil joining."

UNR #8, Citizen Rule Required, if the citizenry would popularly wish to legally define and lawfully declare marriage under more restrictive terms.

UNR #19, Religious Tolerance, since it defines marriage solely as a civil union, whereas many religions see marriage also as a sacred union.

UNR #26, The Universal Bill of Rights, since it violates the individual's right of choice and self-determination, permitting unions based outside their personal belief systems to be unwillfully enacted upon them -- i.e., it requires the tolerance of enforced or arranged marriages.

UNR #30, Common Sense Act II, since as a penalty for a lawsuit, plaintiffs can require "marriage" as the term of settlement. (i.e., "If I win this case, you have to marry me.") This has led to an increase of ludicrous yet earnest lawsuits which are apparently not prohibited by terms of this Resolution.

UNR #49, Rights and Duties of UN States, especially Article 3, regarding unrequested intervention regarding its internal laws and religious institutions.

UNR #53, Universal Freedom of Choice, since it never makes it anywhere clear that marriage must be a consensual union.

In short, this resolution makes near meaningless the word "marriage," since it never defines the purpose, scope, limitation, rights, or limitations of rights on what the actual institution of marriage is. All it says is that it is a "civil joining."

Listeneisse

14-10-2005, 05:07

Enn

14-10-2005, 06:42

-C- NOTING that Resolution #81 is also insufficiently clear in that it prohibits nations the right to internally pass laws or bar practices which may be considered culturally abhorrent (such as incest, beastiality, or polygamy),
The first and last abhorrent things you mention - well, it's a matter of opinion whether Definition of Marriage allows them. However, the resolution in question specifically gives nations the right to determine what species may be recognised in marriages - thus, bestiality can be quite easily banned, should your nation wish it to be banned.

Pallatium

14-10-2005, 10:23

Repeal "Definition of Marriage"
-A- RECOGNIZING that UN Resolution #81 violates the legal rights of member nations to establish marriage laws according to existing local political beliefs, customs, traditions, rites, and institutions,

So? End Slavery prevents people from keeping slaves, despite local customs. Gay Rights protects Gay Marraige, despite local customs.

All resolutions (mostly all) interfere with national sovereignty at some level, otherwise they would not do anything.

Plus just cause you don't like it doesn't mean everyone in your nation doesn't. You are sure you are happy to subject the minority to your moral standards just so you can be happy about it?

-B- OBSERVING that UN Resolution #81 offers no specific definition of the constitution, purpose, limitation or scope of the "civil joining" of a marriage, thus allowing it to be subverted and used for purposes outside of personal domestic relations,

So? Marriage is just a name for two people agreeing to live together and stay together. That's pretty much all it is. If people want to subvert it what does it matter?

-C- NOTING that Resolution #81 is also insufficiently clear in that it prohibits nations the right to internally pass laws or bar practices which may be considered culturally abhorrent (such as incest, beastiality, or polygamy),

Again - this is just you imposing your narrow moral view point on the rest of the world. (I know - inherent contradiction. I am for the resolution cause it imposes a moral view point, and not supporting you for doing the same thing. The difference is the resolution, and my moral view point, doesn't stop people doing something. Yours does)

Incest is already protected by The Sexual Freedom Laws. Polygamy is a widely respected state of marital relations in some nations. And you could argue that while you might find sex with animals is wrong, other people don't.

And - by the way - this resolution does not force people to do this. If no one in your nation wants to marry an animal, they don't have to. The UN are not going round putting guns to people's heads and forcing them in to incest or polygamy. It is just saying that those who want to, can.

-D- REGRETTING that it bars states to enact policies licensing or delaying marriage such as to test for soundness of health, to require programs of personal counselling or reproductive education, or to control the recognition of marriage for legal immigration or naturalization processes,

Gray area I guess. But I don't think it does that - it says you must not prevent them being married just because they are different religions, the same sex or something else that is (for want of a better phrase) arbitrary. However you can still require them to go through various tests. The medical soundess of a person is particular to that person (but not particular to women, for example). Same with counselling and reproductive education programs. And also with legal processes.

I would say this is the strongest part of your arguement, but it can be argued it doesn't apply.

-E- UPHOLDING an individual's rights to recognize what marriage may be to their own self-determination, and affirming their freedom of choice to consent to enter into a union of marriage of their own free will,

That's what this resolution does!! I tsays that while you may think marriage is only between a man and a women, I think marriage is only between a woman and a woman. The whole point of the resolution you are trying to repeal is to put the definition of marriage in the hands of the individual who is getting married, without the interference of someone two thousand miles away in a different country.

Seriously - what does it matter to you whether I marry my sister or not? How does it hurt you if I do?

-F- REGRETTING that Resolution #81 prohibits taking the free will of parties to enter into the "civil joining" of marriage into account,

Why? How?

-G- AFFIRMING that marriage may also be held as a sacred religious institution between partners, with unique and potentially different limitations and responsibilities placed upon those to enter into a marriage than those imposed by a state,

And it may not. You can still hold it that way, while I don't have to. I am not telling you that marriage can't be sacred in your country, and I am not saying you must hold it sacred. I am saying its up to you. And your people.
Just imagine you are gay, and want to marry your boyfriend. This resolution protects that right. Now imagine this was repealed, and your government said "no - you can't do that". Would you be happy about it? Would you quietly sit down and accept it as "the will of the majority" and not be pissed off about it?

-H- REGRETTING that the United Nations has infringed on the sovereignty of each individual nation in allowing the people to vote on the definition of marriage and pass laws according to the will of the majority of each respective nation,

Sadly, something I don't care about. The NSUN does that all the time (not so much on marriage, though it should be noted that twice now the UN has voted to approve resolutions on marriage, and not once has it accepted one that limits the right to marry) and, for some people, it is it's reason for life.

-I- HEREBY agrees to revoke UN Resolution #81, returning power and sovereignty to member nations' governments, freedom of belief to religious and ethical institutions, and right to the people of the world to form their own definition of marriage as they so deem fit.

Yeah - they can do that already. The only reaosn they would not do that is if they want to oppress some of their people. Which is not an acceptable reason to repeal a resolution.

Listeneisse

14-10-2005, 11:27

All resolutions (mostly all) interfere with national sovereignty at some level, otherwise they would not do anything.
Yes, they do. However, in some cases, the consequences of the infringement become intolerable, and thus, are subject to repeal.

Some governments wish to repeal some UN decisions. Others may join them if they likewise feel the resolution was passed hastily or without due understanding of ramifications to other liberties or rights until after the passage.

In this case, I believe people wanted to do the right thing, but this is a poorly worded resolution.

Plus just cause you don't like it doesn't mean everyone in your nation doesn't. You are sure you are happy to subject the minority to your moral standards just so you can be happy about it?
I can assure you we have many millions of Christians who are unhappy with the definition of marriage being eroded this far. Our religious leaders are displeased. Our people are infuriated. The point was brought up, even before this discussion began, at the opening of our national UN Association Chapter to the shock and discomfort of all assembled.

No one could fathom how the United Nations might legalize, and mandate the toleration of incest.

So? Marriage is just a name for two people agreeing to live together and stay together. That's pretty much all it is. If people want to subvert it what does it matter?There, you are wrong.

Accoding to this, it is a 'civil joining' of any number of persons, for nameless reasons, for purposes unspecified.

Traditional marriages, in actuality, also legally obligate the conjoined persons if they become parents of children, grants them social rights over their property, alterations to tax codes, and a thousand other details of law and custom. You show a blithe denial of the understanding of marriage law at the very least by such a declaration. Marriage, under the rule of most nations, is not just "shacking up."

There are also different laws for common law marriages as opposed to clerical and justicial marriage. (We maintain the validity of a modern Canon law in our nation, though many nations may not do so.) But here is at least three legal definitions in our own nation of what constitutes marriage.

With the bland typing of a few keystrokes, millennia of personal rights and obligations, social customs, religious rites, and well-understood law were overturned.

Quote:
-C- NOTING that Resolution #81 is also insufficiently clear in that it prohibits nations the right to internally pass laws or bar practices which may be considered culturally abhorrent (such as incest, beastiality, or polygamy),

Again - this is just you imposing your narrow moral view point on the rest of the world. (I know - inherent contradiction. I am for the resolution cause it imposes a moral view point, and not supporting you for doing the same thing. The difference is the resolution, and my moral view point, doesn't stop people doing something. Yours does) Polygamy is a widely respected state of marital relations in some nations.
No, sir. There you again prejudge by your own narrow mindedness. While the Kingdom of Listeneisse might, say, find polyamory to be beyond our local custom, there are Biblical traditions which speak, say, of Solomon's many wives. There are many cases of cultures where having multiple spouses is quite the norm. We are surely not calling for the prohibition of customs in nations where they are already established.

However, each culture may find it unpalateable to adopt those other culture's customs as their own. There are often religious and other cultural reasons why it might be acceptable in one society and not in another.

While we respect guests in our nation who may practice quite different social customs than us, in our own nation, we wish to conduct our own social laws and practices.
Incest is already protected by The Sexual Freedom Laws.We were hoping that incest was not a "protected practice," and indeed quite the contrary. We believe you misphrase yourself.

Can you cite specifically a specific reference? Also note each Resolution must stand on its own, regardless of other resolutions. So even citing another resolution does not mean this one is well-worded.

And you could argue that while you might find sex with animals is wrong, other people don't.That is for them to practice in their own nation.

This therefore allows people to marry their pets and give them the same legal status as humans. They can do that in their own nations. We will not be allowing this any time soon in our nation.
And - by the way - this resolution does not force people to do this. If no one in your nation wants to marry an animal, they don't have to. The UN are not going round putting guns to people's heads and forcing them in to incest or polygamy. It is just saying that those who want to, can.Correct. In the case of animalistic practices, it does not mandate it. Hence we do not practice it.

We also note that there are other races besides humanity represented in the NationStates. We understand that there is a significant need to recognize those who are not Homo sapiens by lawful means.

Yet we will not be tolerating someone getting an ant farm and marrying themselves lawfully to a thousand midget brides. Or a thousand and one when a new one hatches.

Please pardon us, but these were only the most ludicrous and egregious outstanding problems with the resolution. If these are not obvious problems to your nation, you will not be supporting a repeal, ergo, your position is well understood.

Yet please, continue to defend them. I am sure that there are many UN members and delegates quite entertained by your position.

That's what this resolution does!! It says that while you may think marriage is only between a man and a women, I think marriage is only between a woman and a woman. The whole point of the resolution you are trying to repeal is to put the definition of marriage in the hands of the individual who is getting married, without the interference of someone two thousand miles away in a different country.
That was its true spirit and intent: to ensure that true marriage, loving marriage, or even arranged or contractual marriage, would be honored and recognized.

However, the proposal as written leaves no clear definition of what marriage is precisely.
Seriously - what does it matter to you whether I marry my sister or not? How does it hurt you if I do?There are biological issues of genetic interbreeding, but there are more often psychological issues of exogamy (http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/tutor/marriage/incest.html) which dictate that families try to intermarry for reasons having more to do with the success of the family as part of the community than permitting insular intermarriage.

Within nations which might primarily ascribe to Judeo-Christian tradition, they might cite Leviticus 18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2018;&version=9;) as a prohibition against both incest and bestiality. For those of us who might believe in a Heaven or Hell, there is rather clear language to keep this prohibition as an observed cultural tenet.

It is not the goal of the Kingdom of Listeneisse to request anyone to become Christian (or Jewish) who is not, yet it would be considered highly offensive to persons of that faith to be told that they must tolerate this in their community.

Quote:
-F- REGRETTING that Resolution #81 prohibits taking the free will of parties to enter into the "civil joining" of marriage into account,

Why? How?The text of the original resolution does not make it explicit that marriage is a consensual act. If so, please point it out.

Quote:
-G- AFFIRMING that marriage may also be held as a sacred religious institution between partners, with unique and potentially different limitations and responsibilities placed upon those to enter into a marriage than those imposed by a state,

And it may not. You can still hold it that way, while I don't have to. I am not telling you that marriage can't be sacred in your country, and I am not saying you must hold it sacred. I am saying its up to you. And your people.No, we cannot. We are prohibited from making 'marriage' ino a religious union. It is simply a 'civil joining' as per this Resolution.

In other words, our clerical marriages hold no weight of international law any more. They were rendered invalid.

In fact, as of this Resolution's passing, all clerical marriages are null and void. Because only civil joinings are recognized: judicial procedures, or common law.

Just imagine you are gay, and want to marry your boyfriend. This resolution protects that right. Now imagine this was repealed, and your government said "no - you can't do that". Would you be happy about it? Would you quietly sit down and accept it as "the will of the majority" and not be pissed off about it?However, this also allows you to marry twenty five other people without my consent. "Honey, I'm home. I brought company. They'll be staying."

What is more, no court in the United Nations could bar that union, though I could of course get divorced.... 26 times.

I believe I'd find that more than mildly annoying.

Enn

14-10-2005, 11:53

This therefore allows people to marry their pets and give them the same legal status as humans. They can do that in their own nations. We will not be allowing this any time soon in our nation.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, and you seem to be ignoring, species boundaries to marriage are entirely up to each nation to decide for itself. You have no obligation whatsoever to recognise the marriage between beings of different species.
Does this need to be said again, or will you please stop repeating garbage?

In any case, you appear to be saying that this represents an unnecessary violation of national sovereignty. You are also saying that the resolution is so open to interpretation that many different meanings could be taken by different nations.
Which do you mean? How can something violate national sovereignty, but also allow nations to determine pretty much anything with it?

Pallatium

14-10-2005, 12:24

Yes, they do. However, in some cases, the consequences of the infringement become intolerable, and thus, are subject to repeal.

That much I accept.

By the way - how dare the UN tell me that I can't have sex with children. Clearly it is an intollerable assult on my national sovereignty to tell me that my children are not old enough to enjoy sex. If someone is content to say that the love me and my wife share is wrong and immoral, then I should be able to tell them that not having sex with their children is wrong and immoral.

Some governments wish to repeal some UN decisions. Others may join them if they likewise feel the resolution was passed hastily or without due understanding of ramifications to other liberties or rights until after the passage.

I think people understood the concept of condoning gay marriage, as it has been done twice. The rest of the resolution is just people grasping at straws to try to find a reason to justify their narrow minded view.

In this case, I believe people wanted to do the right thing, but this is a poorly worded resolution.

It says people may marry who they wish, and if necessary the nation can permit them to marry outside of their species (so elves can marry dwarves).
How it poorly worded unless you are looking for it?

I can assure you we have many millions of Christians who are unhappy with the definition of marriage being eroded this far. Our religious leaders are displeased. Our people are infuriated. The point was brought up, even before this discussion began, at the opening of our national UN Association Chapter to the shock and discomfort of all assembled.

So? I have many millions of my people who are unhappy with the idea that a woman marrying a woman is an abhorrent idea. Do you care about that? Or are you only interested in pleasing your people?

No one could fathom how the United Nations might legalize, and mandate the toleration of incest.

Because it's an INDIVIDUAL CHOICE for the love of Bobbi. I am not talking about rape or child molestation (the above comments not withstanding). If two sisters want to be together, and don't have children, who in the name of the Goddesses has the right to stop them? People don't get to chose who they fall in love with - its not a concious decision, or even a genetic one - it's just one that you realise you have made without making it.

On the off chance this gets repealed, how woudl you like it if I said that people can only marry people of their own age, race and religion? Wouldn't you think that was an intolerable assult on human freedom?

There, you are wrong.

It's my opinion that marriage is just a word. What people chose to ascribe to that word is up to them, but I am not wrong.

Accoding to this, it is a 'civil joining' of any number of persons, for nameless reasons, for purposes unspecified.

And?

Traditional marriages, in actuality, also legally obligate the conjoined persons if they become parents of children, grants them social rights over their property, alterations to tax codes, and a thousand other details of law and custom. You show a blithe denial of the understanding of marriage law at the very least by such a declaration. Marriage, under the rule of most nations, is not just "shacking up."

Who's tradition? Yours? Your friends? It's not my tradition and I will thank you not to force me to bow to your out of date and achronisitic views.

There are also different laws for common law marriages as opposed to clerical and justicial marriage. (We maintain the validity of a modern Canon law in our nation, though many nations may not do so.) But here is at least three legal definitions in our own nation of what constitutes marriage.

Again - in your nation. In my nation (see here (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Pallatium)) marriage is merely a word that two people can use if they want. And it works pretty damn well for us.

With the bland typing of a few keystrokes, millennia of personal rights and obligations, social customs, religious rites, and well-understood law were overturned.

We used to send children down the mines. We used to keep short people as slaves. We used to do a whole lot of things based on personal rights, obligations, social customs, religious rites and the like, but hey - we realised the we had to grow as a society, so we stopped keeping slaves and sending kids down the mine.

We also used to have a law that forbad (forbade?) women to sleep with men (there were no men, so it didn't matter), but then we realised we were hurting quite a few people, so we overturned that law as well. A few people objected, but now everyone realises that the actual good of the one outweighs the fact a few people spit their dummy out once in a while.

No, sir. There you again prejudge by your own narrow mindedness. While the Kingdom of Listeneisse might, say, find polyamory to be beyond our local custom, there are Biblical traditions which speak, say, of Solomon's many wives. There are many cases of cultures where having multiple spouses is quite the norm. We are surely not calling for the prohibition of customs in nations where they are already established.

Again - if it is not happening in your nation, why do anything about it? The only reason to stop this resolution would be that you want to ban it in your nation. And if you want to ban it, it means it must be a problem.

However, each culture may find it unpalateable to adopt those other culture's customs as their own. There are often religious and other cultural reasons why it might be acceptable in one society and not in another.

To each their own. Why should I care if men in Hyrule are having sex with chickens? No one does it here - no one wants to - but that doesn't mean we frown on others doing it elsewhere.

While we respect guests in our nation who may practice quite different social customs than us, in our own nation, we wish to conduct our own social laws and practices.

So - out of curiousity - if this is overturned, and you ban (say) gay marriage, would two of my people be permitted to come to your country and act as a married couple? Or would they be required to not do that?

We were hoping that incest was not a "protected practice," and indeed quite the contrary. We believe you misphrase yourself.

Depends on your perspective. The Sexual Freedom resolution says

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

Now the way I see it is if you can claim that Definition of Marriage protects sex with animals, then this resolution protects the rights of siblings (who are of age) to sleep together in their own home. Futher more it protects the right of parents to sleep with children of age, and the right to have orgies the likes of which you have never seen.

So you can prevent siblings from marrying, but not from having sex.

Can you cite specifically a specific reference? Also note each Resolution must stand on its own, regardless of other resolutions. So even citing another resolution does not mean this one is well-worded.

(see above)

That is for them to practice in their own nation.

And if you want to ban it, it means that people want to do it in your nation. So again with the oppression.

This therefore allows people to marry their pets and give them the same legal status as humans. They can do that in their own nations. We will not be allowing this any time soon in our nation.

And you don't have to. It says

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

So - if you don't want to let people marry their pets, you don't have to. It's right there, in the resolution. No need to repeal it to prevent pet weddings - you have the power already.

Correct. In the case of animalistic practices, it does not mandate it. Hence we do not practice it.

We also note that there are other races besides humanity represented in the NationStates. We understand that there is a significant need to recognize those who are not Homo sapiens by lawful means.

Yet we will not be tolerating someone getting an ant farm and marrying themselves lawfully to a thousand midget brides. Or a thousand and one when a new one hatches.

You don't have to. Again - it says you do not have to expand it - you can make it illegal for people to marry ants. It's right there in black and white. So why are you so worried about it?

Please pardon us, but these were only the most ludicrous and egregious outstanding problems with the resolution. If these are not obvious problems to your nation, you will not be supporting a repeal, ergo, your position is well understood.

They are really not problems. We haven't expanded the definition to include pets. That would be ludicrous. We have expanded it to include men from othe rnations, because we think it is only fair.
Seriously - how is it a problem?

Yet please, continue to defend them. I am sure that there are many UN members and delegates quite entertained by your position.

I am for freedom of choice in the matters of love. If people find that entertaining then they can be entertained. It doesn't make me wrong.
(If it helps, I find your position some what sad and pathetic)

That was its true spirit and intent: to ensure that true marriage, loving marriage, or even arranged or contractual marriage, would be honored and recognized.

Arranged marriages are a part of some religions.

However, the proposal as written leaves no clear definition of what marriage is precisely.

So you want it deifned down to the last detail? Despite the vast array of nations in the UN, you think you can pin it down to a narrow point that will make everyone happy?

This resolution does not force anything upon you. It lets you chose.

There are biological issues of genetic interbreeding, but there are more often psychological issues of exogamy (http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/tutor/marriage/incest.html) which dictate that families try to intermarry for reasons having more to do with the success of the family as part of the community than permitting insular intermarriage.

Marraige doesn't require sex. Two people who can't have kids can marry, and no one seems to mind. So why not accept that two people who are in love, but just happen to be related, can marry and not have kids? How does that hurt?

And even if they do have kids (which I admit could have genetic issues in the future) HOW DOES IT AFFECT YOU?

You are seeking to screw up the lives of people you will never meet and never be affected by, and you are doing it because your religion tells you so.

Within nations which might primarily ascribe to Judeo-Christian tradition, they might cite Leviticus 18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2018;&version=9;) as a prohibition against both incest and bestiality. For those of us who might believe in a Heaven or Hell, there is rather clear language to keep this prohibition as an observed cultural tenet.

I don't subscribe to whatever the Tavana those traditions are, so they can quote them all they want - I am not going to listen.

It is not the goal of the Kingdom of Listeneisse to request anyone to become Christian (or Jewish) who is not, yet it would be considered highly offensive to persons of that faith to be told that they must tolerate this in their community.

My entire faith (for want of a better phrase) is based on the idea that women marry women and have children. And now you are telling me that I must tolerate the fact that some nations have banned this. If you won't accept it, why should I?

The text of the original resolution does not make it explicit that marriage is a consensual act. If so, please point it out.

As I said before, I can't, because arranged marriages are part of some nations' traditions.

No, we cannot. We are prohibited from making 'marriage' ino a religious union. It is simply a 'civil joining' as per this Resolution.

In other words, our clerical marriages hold no weight of international law any more. They were rendered invalid.

In fact, as of this Resolution's passing, all clerical marriages are null and void. Because only civil joinings are recognized: judicial procedures, or common law.

That depends on your perspective. It doesn't say you can't expand the definition of marriage - it just says that all marriages must include a civil union. Which, if they are going to be recognised in national law, I would have thought they would have had to.
Further more - you knew this coming in to the UN. If the idea of this was so abhorrent and terrible, why did you join?

However, this also allows you to marry twenty five other people without my consent. "Honey, I'm home. I brought company. They'll be staying."

Again - part of some religions. And if no one in your nation wants to do it, why is it an issue to you?

I think this is one of the better pieces of law in the UN. It protects the rights of most people who want to get married. And since marriage is a personal thing between two (or more I guess) people, it should NOT be of interest to ANYONE ELSE in the world.

This puts the choice in the hands of the people. Not the governments, not the church or the state, not the right or left wings of a country - but in the hands of the people. Which is where choices about marriage should be.

So - to sum up - I am not supporting a repeal.

Tekania

14-10-2005, 12:46

Forgottenlands

14-10-2005, 19:16

Except in nations such as Ours, which have no distinction between "civil" and "religious" law. As such, Resolution #81 is a blatant violation of Our nation's right to regulate marriage according to the rules of Our people's chosen faith.

We approve of this proposed repeal, noting the few stylistic changes needed to bring it into compliance with NSUN "standards and practices" in terms of format, etc. We also encourage all sovereignity-minded nations to add their assent.

Y'know, after spending something like 5 months debating with you, you'd think I'd have figured out to acknowledge that point by now.

Forgottenlands

14-10-2005, 21:38

The Kingdom of Listeneisse agrees that the present UNR #81 "Definition of Marriage" is so broadly worded as to allow marriages based on incest.

It does far more than that, however, and should be REPEALED.

:rolleyes:

Since it defines it as 'civil,' but does not define what 'civil' means, it leaves nations entirely unable to determine what locus of civil law has ultimate authority, either local, state or provincial, national or regional.

Actually, this is a good thing. It makes it so that the nation itself decides - which can be quite a good thing. My home country of Canada has marriage conducted at a Provincial level while the country has overruling authority on it. I believe the same system is done in the US.

So nations cannot issue laws on how to regulate marriage, or even pass laws on what constitutes a legal marriage, because of the nebulous phrase "any other characteristic."

Hardly. A civil marriage is a contract. The contract is written up by the government and acts as basically an agreement between the government and the couple - the couple indicating that they wish to be married and the government indicating it shall grant them specific rights. As such, a civil marriage shall exist only if that contract is signed. All this resolution says is that a government can only prevent people from signing this contract if they match either of the two exceptions.

Familial relation is another "characteristic" beyond those listed, so not a grounds to prohibit union; ergo, incestuous relations are permitted and cannot be prohibited.

I believe its addressed, let's not flog a dead horse.

It does not allow states to prohibit polygamy, if that is the nation's desire. Polygamous relations must be recognized.

I'm uncertain about that. I think you still have the ability (implicitly) to limit the number of active contracts of this sort that a person can have - preventing the person from having multiple marriages. Considering the wording of the resolution is only between two people, that means you'd have to have multiple marriages to have a situation of polygamy.

Nor does it mention whether freedom of choice is required. Thus enforced conditions of marriage may be imposed upon a person -- such as by social or familial arrangement, loss of a wager or bet, required term of repayment or foreclosure of a debt, or any other form of coersive means or tactic. In other words, it does not need to be a willing union, or even a viable legal contract.

Actually, it does. A civil marriage can only be recognized by a legal contract, and since it is a legal contract, a signature placed upon it is considered to be an indication of consent. Add on that most of them require a witness, and the fact that these contracts can be annulled if something false comes up, you have, in just about every case, no real loopholes - and certainly none that you would be able to necessarily remove without this resolution in place.

It bars policies or laws for such issues as health care concerns -- such as withholding of licence of marriage until STD tests and other health tests have been conducted.

I don't care. In fact, I think this is a good thing. In fact, I think this would, in many ways, be covered by the disabilities resolution (can't remember what it's called)

It may unilaterally require states to grant residency or even citizenship to those who are married into members of their nation, abrogating local immigration laws or policies.

Hardly. If your nation automatically grants residency to all couples, that is an issue with your immigration and citizenship laws, not with your marriage laws - not that this doesn't happen in the real world anyways (my gf has considered in the past of doing that to emmigrate to Europe and there was a "That 70's Show" episode where Fez married Laurie to pull the same trick).

It does not put upon it any limitation of "frivilous" or "temporary" marriages, allowing persons to get married for a joke, which often does not turn out very funny, allows them to marry solely for temporary benefit, then have them pre-planned to dissolve the union in a week or month or year's time without care or concern for other family members.

That's a Divorce issue, not a marriage issue. Not dealt with by this resolution so your argument is false.

It means that getting married or getting out of a marriage means very little, confusing family finances, family healthcare, child support, inheritance, and a thousand other real-world issues related to family unity and stability.

That's a morality issue, not a legal issue.

Since it does not mention what the purpose or scope of a marriage is, many businesses have redefined themselves as "marriages" rather than corporations to find loopholes in law. For instance, they are treating other business persons as their "spouses" to gain discounts and health care benefits. When over 15,000 former "employees" are now all "spouses," and Mr. or Mrs. Corporation are given wedding cake on the day they are employed, one must question the scope of this resolution and its unusual consequences.

Aside from my point about polygamy above, the fact that Health Care policies are not addressed by this resolution, etc, that is just plain stupid on behalf of the corporation. A marriage contract (especially if you standardize it) will not give the employee the necessity to work (nor does it give the employee the right to be paid meaning he won't sign that contract). Add on that if there are no divorce laws, the employer will be stuck with the employee no matter how bad he is and if there are, the employee can "divorce" the employer and this process can make the employer liable for A LOT of money. If those issues are not there, it's an issue with how you set up the marriage law - which is not addressed by this resolution.

This also causes great distress to persons who find suddenly that their "spouses" wish to have sexual relations with them. Because of other conflicting UN Resolutions regarding avoiding government interference with what goes on in other's bedrooms, yet also requiring states to uphold individual rights, employees are often the victims of conflicting UN policy, because their employer is now actually Husband #1035.

Considering that people can and have been charged with raping their spouses, that's an issue of your own laws.

Because bigamy and polygamy is not prohibited -- a characteristic beyond the scope of the resolution such as you already have another spouse -- people are coming home declaring that they got married without getting the foreknowledgeable consent of the pre-existing spouse.

Polygamy/Bigamy are addressed above. Add on that marriage between two couples with a common partner does not mean that the other two are automatically married, so everything else is just a matter of the cons of allowing polygamy.

Even if polygamy or communal intermarriage is accepted and legal in a culture, this brings into question the rights of each member of the union, and who has the right within the union to say, "Enough!"

Addressed. No one

Right now, there is no way to stop or limit a growing "organism" of marriage, as defined in this resolution.

WTF?

Fortunately, other UN Resolutions exist to greatly limit the scope of this Resolution's impact. However, because it is a resolution co-equal to these other resolutions, it calls into question or greatly erodes the other resolution's force.

*groans

Thus it greatly undermines, directly violates or questionably conflicts with:

UNR #6, End slavery, since it does not bar "marriages" based solely as a means of economic payment or settling of debt, nor accounts for the express willingness or unwillingness of the participants to enter into the "civil joining."

Addressed, false

UNR #8, Citizen Rule Required, if the citizenry would popularly wish to legally define and lawfully declare marriage under more restrictive terms.

Citizen rule required does not grant the citizens the right to rule on all levels. It says that they must have the right to vote on at least one aspect of their government. If that means they can elect their local councilor, than fine. If it means that they can elect which of the two top people in the government shall be dictator this time, that counts. It doesn't mean that the majority gets to say what is right or wrong.

UNR #19, Religious Tolerance, since it defines marriage solely as a civil union, whereas many religions see marriage also as a sacred union.

It deals with marriage at the civil level, not the religious level. Gee, it sounds like an explicit attempt to seperate church and state on one aspect.

UNR #26, The Universal Bill of Rights, since it violates the individual's right of choice and self-determination, permitting unions based outside their personal belief systems to be unwillfully enacted upon them -- i.e., it requires the tolerance of enforced or arranged marriages.

I always hate this argument because I have a hard time giving logical response that doesn't deteriorate to getting banned for flamming. I'll let someone else try to explain why me having a right does not infringe upon your rights (unless, perhaps, the right is that I have the right to infringe upon your rights - such a murder infringes upon your right to personal safety). Just because Joe and Jack Blow down the street are married doesn't mean that their right to get married infringes upon your right to get married, or the rights in your marital contract. In fact, the only right it infringes upon is your right to be a bigot/discriminatory/etc (which is dealt with by MANY resolutions). Add on that the right of choice is already addressed, this argument is TOTAL BS.

UNR #30, Common Sense Act II, since as a penalty for a lawsuit, plaintiffs can require "marriage" as the term of settlement. (i.e., "If I win this case, you have to marry me.") This has led to an increase of ludicrous yet earnest lawsuits which are apparently not prohibited by terms of this Resolution.

Unless it's a signed contract agreed upon by both parties, this is an absolutely ridiculous claim.

UNR #49, Rights and Duties of UN States, especially Article 3, regarding unrequested intervention regarding its internal laws and religious institutions.

§ Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

UN resolutions are exempt - as are regional regulations - by that line.

UNR #53, Universal Freedom of Choice, since it never makes it anywhere clear that marriage must be a consensual union.

Disproven above

In short, this resolution makes near meaningless the word "marriage," since it never defines the purpose, scope, limitation, rights, or limitations of rights on what the actual institution of marriage is. All it says is that it is a "civil joining."

It doesn't need to - you can do that yourself.

This is what's wrong with these bloody resolutions that try to be considerate of NatSov issues - they keep getting blasted for not defining enough things.

Cluichstan

14-10-2005, 21:44

OOC: Holy freakin' ping-pong, Batman! :eek:

Actually, this is a good thing. It makes it so that the nation itself decides - which can be quite a good thing. My home country of Canada has marriage conducted at a Provincial level while the country has overruling authority on it. I believe the same system is done in the US.

OOC: No, the US does it purely on the State level. The federal government doesn't get involved at all.

Forgottenlands

14-10-2005, 21:48

Gruenberg

14-10-2005, 22:00

Not sure whether to wince or applaud. That was pretty brutal.

Forgottenlands

14-10-2005, 22:00

I was going to respond to your other post, but my browser combined with this messed up unix system I'm using screwed up what I had been saying, and I'm too lazy to start over.

Cluichstan

14-10-2005, 22:08

OOC: What you have just witnessed was an official UNOG smackdown. You are now being returned to your regularly scheduled thread. :p

Kirisubo

14-10-2005, 22:13

having followed this debate and carefully examined UNR #81 i believe we have a broad case of sovereignty violation.

Every nation has its laws, traditions and marriage customs some which may offend other nations.

for example the Christian religion is new to Kirisubo. Our Shogun and the council of Daimyos have no problems with freedom of religion (including marriage customs) as long as no local laws are broken.

our major religions are Buddism and Shinto (ooc: i did base my state on feudal japan and its samurai era).

We would have issues with the Christian concept of 'sin' but are content to let them practise their faith as long they let the people of Kirisubo practice their customs and traditions.

with all the different religions and customs in the world i believe that resolution #81 is impractical for the UN to maintain, my nation and its customs. that is my main concern and although we cannot vote to bring this to quorum we will be voting in favour of a repeal if a repeal proposal comes into being.

Pallatium

14-10-2005, 22:22

having followed this debate and carefully examined UNR #81 i believe we have a broad case of sovereignty violation.

As do most resolutions, so why is this one so different?

Every nation has its laws, traditions and marriage customs some which may offend other nations.

Then I think all nations should learn to accept the fact that there are a lot of nations, and that diversity is better than uniformity.

for example the Christian religion is new to Kirisubo. Our Shogun and the council of Daimyos have no problems with freedom of religion (including marriage customs) as long as no local laws are broken.

our major religions are Buddism and Shinto (ooc: i did base my state on feudal japan and its samurai era).

Our major religion is.. well, it doesn't really have a name. Anyway - our major religion is one that (most likely) no other nation follows, but that doesn not make it unworthy of protection (in our view).

And while we are not suggesting people are trying to destroy it, the bias of the UN and it's members towards "major" religions (I believe a term used was "mainstream") means that most people are happy to legislate for them, and ignore all of the little ones.

We would have issues with the Christian concept of 'sin' but are content to let them practise their faith as long they let the people of Kirisubo practice their customs and traditions.

Does that apply to all other religions? Are you happy for me to carry on my ways, if my ways include things you would find truly offensive and abhorrent?

with all the different religions and customs in the world i believe that resolution #81 is impractical for the UN to maintain, my nation and its customs. that is my main concern and although we cannot vote to bring this to quorum we will be voting in favour of a repeal if a repeal proposal comes into being.

And I would say, with all due respect, that with the number of different religions and customs in the world, ensuring that everyone has a healthy respect for all the other customs and religions in the world will go a long, long way to ensuring peaceful relationships between all nations.

Kirisubo

14-10-2005, 22:30

Pallatium

14-10-2005, 23:00

*point addressed to the delegate from Pallatium *

i have already stated that our government allows mainstream and other religions if no local laws are broken. that includes relevant UN resolutions such as child protection.

Does that answer your question?

In your nation, yes it does. But there are 30,000 other UN Members out there who might not be so accepting of other religions in their nation.

Further more, as I have previously expressed, marriage has a wider scope than religious tradition. Me and my partner (we are married, but we prefer the term partners - it's a long story) would like to be able to conduct ourself as a married couple in whatever UN Member we visit, and without this resolution it might not be possible. And while that sounds like I am putting my personal needs above the UN, there are probably a lot of other couples who feel this way.

Vitalinia

14-10-2005, 23:14

To the Nation of Forgottenlands:

First of all, I thank you for your spirited debate in this matter. It is obvious that there are two sides to the issue and both have legitimate views. However, what you fail to understand is that the overarching reason for the calling of the repeal of Resolution #81 is that it denies the basic right of sovereignty to all nations to come up with laws they see fit. Period. If you believe that bestiality or incest is okay (and from your previous posts I'm starting to think that you seem to have an interest in this matter on a personal level), then that's your government's prerogative. But as for many nations, we do not approve of being mandated what we can or can't prohibit from a world assembly that realistically can't do anything but talk about issues rather than act on the problem.

I understand that I have inadvertedly broken rules (and rather minor ones at that) in my first two proposals, but considering that this is my 4th day to play this game, you can be sure that I will fully understand how to play this game and be darn' good at it. You will see more proposals from me and I welcome your perspectives on the upcoming issues.

So for this proposal forget about everything else. The main point is that all nations have a right to sovereignty and this is the first step to getting it back. If you do not want nor care for your sovereignty, then our nation suggests that you join our region of Abokia, and the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia will happily colonize you and subject you to any laws we see fit.

Signed,
The President of the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia

Pallatium

14-10-2005, 23:32

To the Nation of Forgottenlands:

I realise this is not aimed at me, but I thought that I would reply anyway :}

First of all, I thank you for your spirited debate in this matter. It is obvious that there are two sides to the issue and both have legitimate views. However, what you fail to understand is that the overarching reason for the calling of the repeal of Resolution #81 is that it denies the basic right of sovereignty to all nations to come up with laws they see fit. Period. If you believe that bestiality or incest is okay (and from your previous posts I'm starting to think that you seem to have an interest in this matter on a personal level), then that's your government's prerogative. But as for many nations, we do not approve of being mandated what we can or can't prohibit from a world assembly that realistically can't do anything but talk about issues rather than act on the problem.

May I suggest you revise the opinion about "having an interest in this matter on a personal level" - you are skirting remarkably close to being very insulting about someone you know nothing about.

I too defend the rights of people to indulge in activities that don't hurt anyone else - and (consensual) incest hurts no one, neither does bestiality. I have no interest in them myselves, but if I spoke only for my personal position, I would not be serving the best interests of my people and my nation.

Further more ALL resolutions override local laws to some degree. If they didn't there would be no point in passing them. Outlaw Pedophillia outlaws having sex with children, The EON Convention outlaws nations dealing with their own criminals in certain cases, The Gay Rights resolution outlaws banning gay marriage and The Rights of Labour Unions outlaws a lot of government interference with unions in their nation.

The question is not whether it intereferes with national sovereignty - obviously it does - it is how much, if you can tolerate the interference and why, specifically, you dislike the interference.

As a rule, it has been my experience that people only want to repeal laws (any laws) because they prevent them from doing something. The repeal of The 40 Hour Work Week was an attempt to ensure people could be worked for more than 40 hours against their will. There is an attempt to repeal Outlaw Pedophillia so that children can be legally permitted to consent to sex with adults, and a few people suspect the nation trying to repeal it has some issues about child sex.

So why repeal a resolution that permits anyone to marry anyone else? If you can answer that question honestly, and not hide behind national sovereignty then I think it will be more revealing of you than of those who are trying to block you.

I understand that I have inadvertedly broken rules (and rather minor ones at that) in my first two proposals, but considering that this is my 4th day to play this game, you can be sure that I will fully understand how to play this game and be darn' good at it. You will see more proposals from me and I welcome your perspectives on the upcoming issues.

People learn. It is the way of things.

So for this proposal forget about everything else. The main point is that all nations have a right to sovereignty and this is the first step to getting it back. If you do not want nor care for your sovereignty, then our nation suggests that you join our region of Abokia, and the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia will happily colonize you and subject you to any laws we see fit.

I care for my sovereignty, but I do not accept that this is an intolerable intrusion on it. This does not require anyone in my nation to marry any differently than they would before it was passed, it just gives them the chance to decide for themselves who they would marry.

Let me repeat that - it takes the choice out of the hands of government, out of the hands of the UN, and puts it in the hands of the people. The true definition of democracy - people decide their own future. Instead of the government making moral and personal decisions about people they will never meet and never know, the people make their choice for themselves.

It benifits everyone, and the only people it can hurt is those who feel they are better equipped to run a person's life than that person is.

And - on a final note - I think you will find that threats work about as well as accusing other people of sleeping with their sister and their pet dog. Just my opinion, but it is not the way that governmental leaders should conduct themselves.

Anagonia

15-10-2005, 00:08

OOC:

I'm going to try a new approach here when debating in the UN Forum, so as I may conduct myself properly ICly.

Thank You.

IC:

It has come to the Attention of Anagonia that someone wishes to repeal the "Definition of Marriage" resolution voted into law by the United Nations. Anagonia would respectfully request time to vocally go over the terms discussed thereby in the resolution.

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.

With our respectful verbal look over, we would like to point out a few things in our solem opinion.

This resolution allows freedom of choice for the people, and per every resolution passed, the Republic Senate has always looked over and decided the strength of the resolution on Anagonia. Per Senate Ruling 12-44-8029, UN Resolution #81 Defines marrige between species and individuals, and therein described. If at any time the People deem otherwise, this ruling will stay in effect.

In the end, the People of Anagonia will decide whether Senate Ruling 12-44-8029 will stay in effect, and the People can decided to amend it per voting request. The Senate abides by the People, and gives them the choice to do what they will with every UN Resolution. That is our way.

There is no harm whatsoever from this resolution to the Republic of Anagonia. We see it as in our opinion, that this resolution should stay in power, and not be repealed.

Thank You.

Tekania

15-10-2005, 00:47

having followed this debate and carefully examined UNR #81 i believe we have a broad case of sovereignty violation.

Member-states do not have exclusive sovereignty in terms of international law. Sovereignty is inclusive (inclusive to the established law). Member-state exclusivity in sovereignty only exists in their capacity of determination in membership inthe first place.

Every nation has its laws, traditions and marriage customs some which may offend other nations.

Yep, right about that.

for example the Christian religion is new to Kirisubo. Our Shogun and the council of Daimyos have no problems with freedom of religion (including marriage customs) as long as no local laws are broken.

Ok...

our major religions are Buddism and Shinto (ooc: i did base my state on feudal japan and its samurai era).

Ok...

We would have issues with the Christian concept of 'sin' but are content to let them practise their faith as long they let the people of Kirisubo practice their customs and traditions.

Uhhuh...

with all the different religions and customs in the world i believe that resolution #81 is impractical for the UN to maintain, my nation and its customs. that is my main concern and although we cannot vote to bring this to quorum we will be voting in favour of a repeal if a repeal proposal comes into being.

Well, in the absolute sense, I believe ALL marriage laws (even local ones) are impractical to maintain, and are a violation of the people's inherant rights... And as soon as one were to repeal this resolution; you'll just be waiting on the CRoT to draft a resolution, and start continually pushing a prop. barring marriage from any operation of law outside of mere contract.

Enn

15-10-2005, 00:55

Well, in the absolute sense, I believe ALL marriage laws (even local ones) are impractical to maintain, and are a violation of the people's inherant rights... And as soon as one were to repeal this resolution; you'll just be waiting on the CRoT to draft a resolution, and start continually pushing a prop. barring marriage from any operation of law outside of mere contract.
OOC: Ah, I thought it was you with this opinion, just wasn't quite sure. But you'll also have to repeal Gay Rights as that also addresses marriage - and that would likely be even more hard-fought than a repeal of Definition of Marriage.

Tekania

15-10-2005, 01:19

OOC: Ah, I thought it was you with this opinion, just wasn't quite sure. But you'll also have to repeal Gay Rights as that also addresses marriage - and that would likely be even more hard-fought than a repeal of Definition of Marriage.

What better way to protect and endorse gay marriage, than to bar government interference in the institution PERIOD :> It protects the institution (as a whole) from interference from any outside party, and perversion by any outside party, to the marrital contract :D

Pallatium

15-10-2005, 01:46

What better way to protect and endorse gay marriage, than to bar government interference in the institution PERIOD :> It protects the institution (as a whole) from interference from any outside party, and perversion by any outside party, to the marrital contract :D

And I would argue that by having the UN mandate it, it prevents national governments from interfering.

Or was that your point?

Pallatium

15-10-2005, 01:47

Quaon

15-10-2005, 01:54

We of Quaon agree

Pallatium

15-10-2005, 02:21

We of Quaon agree

Agree with what? (There have been around seven different view points put forward here :})

Tekania

15-10-2005, 03:07

And I would argue that by having the UN mandate it, it prevents national governments from interfering.

Or was that your point?

Same result, different directions ;)

Defining marriage in civil terms, open to all citizens == placing defining authority at the hand of each individual citizen themselves.

By effectively creating a "barrier" upon the state setting the definintion, the definition becomes only that of the individual "people" who are entering into the contract. Would be similar effect as creating "law" which states "Government shall make no law respecting nor prohibiting the marrital union of people..." Effectively, marriage then enters contract law; enforced, and applicable under the provisions of any and all other social contracts [which already benefit from protections against non-consent, and minor-entry].... The Gay Rights Res. effectively did nothing in relation to CRoT law; and since the passage of the XVI Amendment, regarding rights of all intelligences, within our national Constitution; the DoM Res. did nothing as well.

Tekania

15-10-2005, 03:08

Agree with what? (There have been around seven different view points put forward here :})

Maybe he's Schitz, and agrees with all of them :O

Forgottenlands

15-10-2005, 03:22

There have been only a handful of posts that have gotten on my nerves. This one is definately one of them.

To the Nation of Forgottenlands:

First of all, I thank you for your spirited debate in this matter. It is obvious that there are two sides to the issue and both have legitimate views.

On that, we're agreed.

However, what you fail to understand is that the overarching reason for the calling of the repeal of Resolution #81 is that it denies the basic right of sovereignty to all nations to come up with laws they see fit.

Oh, I understand that, but this thread has posted more about what rights are granted in marriage, with only three areas about what is ACTUALLY addressed by this resolution: WHO gets to be married. These are: beastiality, polygamy, and incest. Two of those I have disproven, the third I have supported and have stated that I see it as the true flaw of the resolution.

Period. If you believe that bestiality or incest is okay (and from your previous posts I'm starting to think that you seem to have an interest in this matter on a personal level), then that's your government's prerogative.

Quote for me the line where I approved of beastiality or incest! This is the line that really got my nerves because it shows a complete failure to read the arguments given! I have stated that this resolution neither endorses NOR does it mandate beastiality, and as I said above, I agree with your stance on incest.

But as for many nations, we do not approve of being mandated what we can or can't prohibit from a world assembly that realistically can't do anything but talk about issues rather than act on the problem.

Addressed.

I understand that I have inadvertedly broken rules (and rather minor ones at that) in my first two proposals, but considering that this is my 4th day to play this game, you can be sure that I will fully understand how to play this game and be darn' good at it.

Oh, I believe you. I actually see a lot of hope in you because that quality of that resolution in terms of style and editing are very good. My comment on rules, etc, were more because it was the main failing you had (I rate quality of proposal and arguments much higher than side taken, but you succeed on the quality, so I'm gunning at arguments).

You will see more proposals from me and I welcome your perspectives on the upcoming issues.

Good to hear

So for this proposal forget about everything else. The main point is that all nations have a right to sovereignty and this is the first step to getting it back.

Nay. This is an issue of discrimination of those who don't think as you do. The resolution was meant to address that matter. It went a bit to far and hit the issue of incest instead. I would support a replacement, if I thought the moderators would accept a replacement.

And one thing you'll learn, I'm an International Federalist. NatSov arguments rarely convince me of any position.

If you do not want nor care for your sovereignty, then our nation suggests that you join our region of Abokia, and the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia will happily colonize you and subject you to any laws we see fit.

My 2 billion citizens and our combine 1.5 billion puppet nation citizens are quite content the way we are. Add on that I, forgottenlord, hold the position of Prime Minister and UN Delegate for my region, and I have an excellent record in my region for proposing laws that govern our regional government, I am rather content where I am myself.

I doubt your small nation could govern us.

Signed,
The President of the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia

Forgottenlands

15-10-2005, 03:25

Oh, and before I forget, no I don't have a personal tie to either the issues of incest or beastiality. I do, however, have issues of governments removing citizen's rights - regardless of what their traditions might dictate. I combat that by removing your right to remove those citizen's rights.

Forgottenlands

15-10-2005, 03:38

having followed this debate and carefully examined UNR #81 i believe we have a broad case of sovereignty violation.

Hardly. It is a case, but it is far from broad, and the resolution did little that hadn't already been done. You want to see a broad case, check out the now repealed resolution 17.

Every nation has its laws, traditions and marriage customs some which may offend other nations.

Agreed.

for example the Christian religion is new to Kirisubo. Our Shogun and the council of Daimyos have no problems with freedom of religion (including marriage customs) as long as no local laws are broken.

our major religions are Buddism and Shinto (ooc: i did base my state on feudal japan and its samurai era).

Fair enough

We would have issues with the Christian concept of 'sin' but are content to let them practise their faith as long they let the people of Kirisubo practice their customs and traditions.

Great

with all the different religions and customs in the world i believe that resolution #81 is impractical for the UN to maintain, my nation and its customs. that is my main concern and although we cannot vote to bring this to quorum we will be voting in favour of a repeal if a repeal proposal comes into being.

Let those religions practice their customs all they want. However, I'm a firm believer in seperation of church and state because I realize that in your nation, you don't just have those who are Shinto, Buddist or Christian. I'm sure you probably have people of all sorts of religions living within your nation. What if they have the belief that a certain type of marriage that your major religions don't agree with is morally acceptable? Should they not be allowed to do what is morally acceptable in their religion or will it be prevented because they are not a major religion. This resolution exists to recognize those who don't believe in what is taught by the major religions and truly do love someone who falls outside of what is considered morally acceptable by those religions. Certainly, there is a limit (generally when you are infringing upon another person's rights), but I do not believe that limit has been reached as I generally draw that line at rights. Joe and James aren't infringing upon Alfred's (the next door neighbor) rights by getting married. The only way you could be infringing on another's rights is forcing them into a marriage they don't agree to.

But that's already been proven irrelevant.

So there's only a single health issue that can possibly be considered as the reason to possibly repeal this resolution: the fact that a child from two people too biologically close has an obscenely high chance of being malformed. However, if this issue didn't exist, I couldn't give a damn if you married your sister. Actually, TBH (though this wasn't dealt with by the resolution), I have a REALLY hard time with Polygamy, as I just can't decide whether there is a justified reason to ban it. However, this is hardly relevant to the discussion at hand.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

15-10-2005, 04:49

As far as I'm concerned, no nation has a sanctified right to discriminate against any minority group for any reason with...perhaps...exception to skills ....This argument, of course, bears the assumption that nations do not have the right to legislate where their own internal affairs are concerned, according to widely accepted societal values and morals -- a right which to us is the bedrock of the rights of sovereign nations. Just because the United Nations can infringe upon national sovereignty in areas as these doesn't mean it should.

This is actually one of the few resolutions that I REALLY like and its because of this line (I'm actually not very fond of the effect of the resolution as a whole and feel it could be improved). It is one of the few that FULLY recognizes the various RP elements of the NS universe. It doesn't do it for all forms, but it works for most.Funny; protecting the rights of elves to marry seems like an utter waste of time to us.

My parents were not married in a church. They were raised under different religious philosophies, but both lost their belief and I'm pretty sure they're both Atheist (at best, they're "Spiritual"). Seeing as they are not part of any religion, how can they be married if its a religious institution.

You see, the concept of marriage being a religious institution is proposterous.Sorry, but the resolution (at least as originally worded) makes no judgment as to what the institution of marriage is today; it simply notes what it originated as:

-C- NOTING that marriage for better or for worse originates as a religious institution between a MAN and a WOMAN. No mainstream religion will deny this fact.

All resolutions (mostly all) interfere with national sovereignty at some level, otherwise they would not do anything.That simply is not so. Resolutions #109 Nuclear Armaments (forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110), #110 UNSA (forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384832&postcount=111), #116 Mitigation of Large Reservoirs (forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9403967&postcount=117) and #117 The Microcredit Bazaar (forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9439182&postcount=118) all are remarkably sovereignty-friendly, they do accomplish much -- and their sponsors weren't exactly dwarves among UN nations, either.

You are sure you are happy to subject the minority to your moral standards just so you can be happy about it?That particular statement is the very height of irony, don't you think?

So? Marriage is just a name for two people agreeing to live together and stay together. That's pretty much all it is. If people want to subvert it what does it matter?If you don't mind our saying so, that is a stunningly casual and nihilistic stance to take on an institution that is, for most societies, the very foundation of their family structure and social fabric.

Again - this is just you imposing your narrow moral view point on the rest of the world. I know - inherent contradiction. I am for the resolution cause it imposes a moral view point, and not supporting you for doing the same thing. The difference is the resolution, and my moral view point, doesn't stop people doing something.No, it only forces societies to accept unions they might abhor.

Yours doesNope. Sorry. Repeals don't force nations to do anything; they simply strike out existing legislation.

The whole point of the resolution you are trying to repeal is to put the definition of marriage in the hands of the individual who is getting married, without the interference of someone two thousand miles away in a different country.The inverse is true. This resolution imposes a definition of marriage on all member nations. If that isn't "the interference of someone two thousand miles away in a different country," then I don't know what is.

I suppose the key difference here is that, while we ourselves are very accepting of same-sex marriages and allow them in our laws, we respect that other nations may not share our values on the subject -- and frankly we don't think the United Nations should be legislating the definition of marriage, anyway, simply because it reeks of silliness. If matters like these are not best left to individual nations to decide, then for God's sake what matters are?

We support the repeal of Resolution #81 Definition of Marriage.

We approve of this proposed repeal .... We also encourage all sovereignty-minded nations to add their assent.Aye, and we add ours.

Vitalinia

15-10-2005, 04:52

I would like to clarify an issue made in a previous post by forgottenlord...

I do, however, have issues of governments removing citizen's rights -regardless of what their traditions might dictate. I combat that by removing your right to remove those citizen's rights.

That's all well and good, but it's important to understand that OUR nation is a Democratic Republic. Therefore, our democracy means that the majority decides on what is considered legal and illegal. The government is nothing more than the vehicle that carries out the wishes of the majority. So it does not seem right to accuse the government of removing citizen's rights. The people have the power, not the government.

But to be perfectly clear, the official stance of the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia is that people are free to live in the way they please. If you look at our nation's profile, the quality of our civil rights is indeed excellent. As far as our government is concerned all people are eligible for civil unions which offer the same basic protections as marriage unions. However, they are called civil unions as they are only recognized valid by the government. Marriage unions, as defined in our nation regardless of how the UN defines it, are recognized by both governments AND by the religious majority that consist of our great nation. So in a nutshell, the government sees civil unions and marriage on the same level legally.

Therefore, this is our stand. If you think that our nation is doing wrong by allowing the majority to dictate marriage policy in our laws, then we assert the right to do "wrong" as you assert the right for your people to enter into a "marriage" contract w/ anyone or anything they see fit, and as you assert the right to "remove" the rights of OUR nation's majority for the sake of our nation's minority.

I look forward to bringing this repeal proposal to the UN floor. As your nation embraces the virtues of International Federalism, I ask that you let us allow the majority (i.e. ALL UN members and not just UN delegates) to decide this issue. We have a spirited issue in our grasp. It would be a shame if this fails to be decided by the will of the UN majority.

Signed,
The President of the DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC of Vitalinia

Cluichstan

15-10-2005, 05:02

My 2 billion citizens and our combine 1.5 billion puppet nation citizens are quite content the way we are. Add on that I, forgottenlord, hold the position of Prime Minister and UN Delegate for my region, and I have an excellent record in my region for proposing laws that govern our regional government, I am rather content where I am myself.

I doubt your small nation could govern us.

OOC Translation: "My penis is bigger than yours."

OOC Reply: Those who claim it can rarely back it up.

Yelda

15-10-2005, 07:25

My colleague from Forgottenlands has covered all of the main points in great detail, so I shall be brief. The position of the Yeldan government is as follows:

Polygamy: Who cares? They have to be consenting adults.
Incest: Who cares? They have to be consenting adults.
Bestiality: Only if your government allows it.

We offer no support to this repeal effort.

Pallatium

15-10-2005, 13:27

This argument, of course, bears the assumption that nations do not have the right to legislate where their own internal affairs are concerned, according to widely accepted societal values and morals -- a right which to us is the bedrock of the rights of sovereign nations. Just because the United Nations can infringe upon national sovereignty in areas as these doesn't mean it should.

I accept that. But I think that the protection of the right of two people who fell in love to marry is something that everyone, the UN included, should be happy to protect.

Funny; protecting the rights of elves to marry seems like an utter waste of time to us.

You ever meet an Elf? My late friend was married to an elf before she died, because she fell in love with him. And she was as happy as I have ever seen her.

And you know - some people think protecting the right of gays to marry is an utter waste of time. That protecting the right of mixed-race couples to marry is a complete waste of time. I think protecting the right of a man and a woman to marry is a complete waste of time as it happens once in a blue moon in Pallatium. But that doesn't make them, or me, right.

That simply is not so. Resolutions #109 Nuclear Armaments (forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110), #110 UNSA (forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384832&postcount=111), #116 Mitigation of Large Reservoirs (forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9403967&postcount=117) and #117 The Microcredit Bazaar (forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9439182&postcount=118) all are remarkably sovereignty-friendly, they do accomplish much -- and their sponsors weren't exactly dwarves among UN nations, either.

MOSTLY all. Outlaw Pedophillia, Legalization of Prostitution (Sex Acts Law), The Rights Of Labour Unions, The 40 Hour Work Week - all of these are less than sovereignty friendly, but I think they all do good things.

That particular statement is the very height of irony, don't you think?

Not really. You want to opress the minority, I want to ensure that no one can do that.

If you don't mind our saying so, that is a stunningly casual and nihilistic stance to take on an institution that is, for most societies, the very foundation of their family structure and social fabric.
[/QQUOTE]

Thank you. It took a lot of time to work out the exact words I wanted.

[QUOTE]
No, it only forces societies to accept unions they might abhor.

But only if people want them. I am not putting a gun to the head of a man in your nation and saying "go marry another man". The only reason someone would want to enter in to a union that you might abhor is because they are in love. And yet while I want to let them to it, you want to stop them.

Nope. Sorry. Repeals don't force nations to do anything; they simply strike out existing legislation.

I do understand that fact, thank you. But one could aruge if certain people find these unions so abohorrent, they won't stop at banning them in their own nation.

The inverse is true. This resolution imposes a definition of marriage on all member nations. If that isn't "the interference of someone two thousand miles away in a different country," then I don't know what is.

It puts the choice of marrying, or not marrying, in the hands of the people, not in the hands of the government, or of a few religious biggots, or in the hands of people who have a very narrow view of the world.

I suppose the key difference here is that, while we ourselves are very accepting of same-sex marriages and allow them in our laws, we respect that other nations may not share our values on the subject -- and frankly we don't think the United Nations should be legislating the definition of marriage, anyway, simply because it reeks of silliness. If matters like these are not best left to individual nations to decide, then for God's sake what matters are?

They are best left ot INDIVIDUALS not Nations. Whether one person wants to marry another person is up to those two persons, not their friends, their family, nor the religion they follow nor the government of the nation they live in. It should be up to the individual. Which is what this resolution ensures.

Pallatium

15-10-2005, 13:40

That's all well and good, but it's important to understand that OUR nation is a Democratic Republic. Therefore, our democracy means that the majority decides on what is considered legal and illegal. The government is nothing more than the vehicle that carries out the wishes of the majority. So it does not seem right to accuse the government of removing citizen's rights. The people have the power, not the government.

But how often is the government elected? And do the people actually decide, or do they elect the people who decide?

Just humour me here - if this resolution is repealed will you let the people decide whether or not mixed religious marriages are legal, or will the government make the choice on behalf of the people?

And even so - it will not be a true choice of the people. If your nation has 100 people in it (it's probably bigger, I know) and 98 oppose interacial marriages, but two fo them don't - is it really fair for the 98 to decide that those two can't marry?

Therefore, this is our stand. If you think that our nation is doing wrong by allowing the majority to dictate marriage policy in our laws, then we assert the right to do "wrong" as you assert the right for your people to enter into a "marriage" contract w/ anyone or anything they see fit, and as you assert the right to "remove" the rights of OUR nation's majority for the sake of our nation's minority.

I admit, that is one of the better arguements I have seen. However I would counter it by saying that the will of the majority should not be permitted to oppress the minority, just because there are more people who disapprove than approve. Following this line of thought would say that if the majority in your nation approved of having sex with children, then you would be required to legalize that. Would you be willing to do such a thing?

I look forward to bringing this repeal proposal to the UN floor. As your nation embraces the virtues of International Federalism, I ask that you let us allow the majority (i.e. ALL UN members and not just UN delegates) to decide this issue. We have a spirited issue in our grasp. It would be a shame if this fails to be decided by the will of the UN majority.

The UN Majority has spoken. Why else do you think there is a resolution to be repealed?

Tekania

15-10-2005, 14:00

That particular statement is the very height of irony, don't you think?

If you don't mind our saying so, that is a stunningly casual and nihilistic stance to take on an institution that is, for most societies, the very foundation of their family structure and social fabric.

No, it only forces societies to accept unions they might abhor.

And now, we proseedeth with thy weewee slap.

Actually, no.... it's not ironic; it's actually quite logical.

National majority group A wants to restrict national minority group B's rights... International Majority group C, sympathetic to national minority group B; themselves more in majority than national majority group A, create law, restricting national majority group A's rights to impeded upon the rights of national minority group B.

So tell me, Dr. Schmuck, which is more ironic?

Group C using majority power to protect minority rights of group B?

or

Group A crying about not being able to discriminate against group B, because they have a majority [while screaming like babies about being outvoted, being a minority].

Group C is minorly ironic...
Group A have gone far past irony, into the realms of infantilism.

The concept here is that minority does need some protection from abuse by majority... However, no one's rights to impeded or deny another citizen their rights; will be considered valid, by any reasoned argument. And no one, inherantly, has the right to discriminate... So no one can be "Denied" such. No one, period, has a right to discriminate. And neither religion, or region can be used for such basis.

Vitalinia

15-10-2005, 18:26

To Pallatium,

If your nation has 100 people in it (it's probably bigger, I know) and 98 oppose interacial marriages, but two fo them don't - is it really fair for the 98 to decide that those two can't marry?

Well, then, let's turn the tables around... let's say 98 people would prefer to keep pedophilia banned in our country, while 2 people would like to see it legalized. In this case, it may not be "fair" for the 98 to decide that that those 2 people can't indulge their pedophilic tendencies, but is it right? You bet. So even if we say that 98 people oppose interracial marriage, then it falls unto those 2 people to put the 98 under "moral" obliquy and bring them to their side through persuasion rather than having the government or "international assembly" (whatever that means) simply dictate what is right. We have seen in countries like the USA where for a time prohibition of interracial marriages were considered "morally" tolerable. However, through the power of the people themselves, and not the government, they were able to convince others of the abhorrence of the prohibition of interracial marriage.

Secondly, I'm surprised you had nothing to say about the second paragraph of my letter:

But to be perfectly clear, the official stance of the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia is that people are free to live in the way they please. If you look at our nation's profile, the quality of our civil rights is indeed excellent. As far as our government is concerned all people are eligible for civil unions which offer the same basic protections as marriage unions. However, they are called civil unions as they are only recognized valid by the government. Marriage unions, as defined in our nation regardless of how the UN defines it, are recognized by both governments AND by the religious majority that consist of our great nation. So in a nutshell, the government sees civil unions and marriage on the same level legally.

I hope this clarifies our position that the government is doing its best to have a compromise between religious groups and the right of people to live as and w/ whom they please. If people are granted the same rights in civil unions as those who are bound by the marriage union, then everyone wins. There is always a compromise that can be made. So what's the problem?

However I would counter it by saying that the will of the majority should not be permitted to oppress the minority, just because there are more people who disapprove than approve.

How is the majority "oppressing" the minority? Is it because they're not giving them the same rights to do what they do in your nation? Again, I use the argument that if 98 people "oppress" the 2 people by disapproving/prohibiting them to indulge their pedophilic desires, is it fair? No. But is right? You bet. It's funny how you also used the pedophilia argument which contradicts your line of reasoning in your third paragraph. However, I shall answer your question. For the sake of argument let's say that the majority do approve of pedophilia. However, pedophilia by its very nature threatens the well-being of the children who are BEING PHYSICALLY HARMED as a result of pedophilia. Therefore, the government has the power to override the majority in this case. The simple argument stating that gays will be emotionally offended that their union is only recognized as a civil union rather than a marriage union is not strong enough to warrant government override.

Furthermore, in the real world, there is evidence of developing countries (which are part of the real UN) that do not have laws against pedophilia. Is it abhorrent? Of course. Therefore, it becomes incumbent upon those that oppose pedophilia to bring those people to their side through persuasion and petitions to the government which is already being done in places such as sub-Saharan Africa.

The UN Majority has spoken. Why else do you think there is a resolution to be repealed?

Oh really? Then why don't we test it out? The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for the good people to do nothing. So it's ridiculous to say that since no one has proposed a repeal of the resolution that everyone agrees with it. Ever heard of the silent majority?

Signed,
The President of the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia

Vitalinia

15-10-2005, 18:30

By the way, the answer to your question is yes. The people will be free to decide whether to allow religiously mixed marriages. The government will only act as a vehicle to carry out the will of the majority.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

15-10-2005, 19:27

*snip*Do forgive the snip. I'm not up to producing another lengthy ping-pong post. Instead, I wish to further explain the Federal Republic's position in a way that I hope will answer all of your points.

There is a fundamental difference between our government's concept of marriage and yours': Whereas you tend to get caught up in emotion and bemoan "people in love" being denied their "rights," we recognize that marriage is a matter of law. It is a legal contract; it is not a "right," but a privilege extended by governments, and in most cases sanctified by clergy; and as such, social and legal concerns must hold supremacy. In marriage, as in all legal contracts, there should be reasonable limitations, and in regulating such limitations national governments (or, in our case, state governments) are obligated to legislate according to broadly accepted values and morals of the society at large -- not according to the whim of a UN majority.

In your case, the government, adhering to social custom, has elected to accept same-sex unions, and consequently women may marry each other, or even if they wish, honeymoon in my nation and get hitched there, without fear that their own nation will not recognize their union when they return home. This comports to the widely accepted values of both of our peoples. But why must we impose our values upon all member nations? Because our values are "superior"? Are we so arrogant?

There is at play here a threat greater than foreign nations refusing to recognize unions you may cherish: That of the UN becoming so habitually disposed to infringing upon the rights of independent nations that we see no problem whatsoever even in dictating to member nations whom they can and cannot marry. You yourself acknowledge this danger when you express your fear that proponents of this repeal "(may not) stop at banning (same-sex unions) in their own nation." (And here this is likely another example of your emotions governing your policy, in assigning motive to those who seem genuinely committed to national sovereignty, not bigotry.)

In truth, you do fear that the UN may go too far in imposing certain values on all member states, but so long as the UN is imposing your values on them, you fear is abated.

That, my dear, is irony.

Marriage is the cornerstone of most nations' societies; therefore, when addressing this issue, the United Nations must give due deference to the cultural traditions and norms in each individual nation, and not seek to impose its own will. We must all look beyond the emotions conveyed by the pretty picture of two smiling, waving cuties of the same sex standing outside the courthouse door.

Vitalinia

15-10-2005, 20:09

And now, we proseedeth with thy weewee slap...So tell me, Dr. Schmuck, which is more ironic?

Wow. Just wow. It's comforting to know that a civilized society such as yours is not above name calling or juvenile taunting.

But allow me to cut to the chase:

National majority group A wants to restrict national minority group B's rights... International Majority group C, sympathetic to national minority group B; themselves more in majority than national majority group A, create law, restricting national majority group A's rights to impeded upon the rights of national minority group B.

The problem with this argument is that you believe that the international majority has a right to dictate what is "right" to the national majority who is "oppressing" the national minority... let's contextualize this. Suppose that a mother and a father are "oppressing" their son by mandating him to go to bed at an earlier time than what the boy wants. You and your friends (who just so happen to outnumber the parents 5 to 2) hear of this "injustice" being done to this poor little boy and you march into the house of this set of parents and order them to let the boy choose his own bedtime because you believe that it would be best for the boy. What parent in their right mind wouldn't give you and your friends a fat lip??

It is hypocritical to assume that the international majority knows what's best for each individual nation. The exact opposite occurs when applied to the real world. Tell me, PLEASE... how many goals did the REAL UN accomplish when it set its Millenium Goals back in 1990? Answer: ZERO. When 2000 rolled around, they simply pushed the deadline to 2015. Did the REAL UN do anything significant in trying to halt the genocide in Rwanda? Did the REAL UN do anything to cause the collapse of the Soviet Union? No. The Soviet Union collapsed from the inside... FROM THE VERY MINORITY that was being oppressed by the majority. So what on earth makes you think that the International Body will do more good than harm by making these sweeping mandates? Each nation is different so therefore uniform mandates will cause more trouble than good. If there is injustice in an individual nation, more often than not, the wrongly oppressed take action without waiting for a mandate from an international body.

Signed,
The President of the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia

Pallatium

15-10-2005, 21:11

Well, then, let's turn the tables around... let's say 98 people would prefer to keep pedophilia banned in our country, while 2 people would like to see it legalized. In this case, it may not be "fair" for the 98 to decide that that those 2 people can't indulge their pedophilic tendencies, but is it right? You bet. So even if we say that 98 people oppose interracial marriage, then it falls unto those 2 people to put the 98 under "moral" obliquy and bring them to their side through persuasion rather than having the government or "international assembly" (whatever that means) simply dictate what is right. We have seen in countries like the USA where for a time prohibition of interracial marriages were considered "morally" tolerable. However, through the power of the people themselves, and not the government, they were able to convince others of the abhorrence of the prohibition of interracial marriage.

Firstly, I am going to stop and gasp at the audacity of someone who compares gay marriage to pedophillia.

Secondly - marriage is two people making a life. Pedophillia is raping a child. My defence of this resolution means that two people have a choice who they spend their life. It is something that should be in the hands of the two people - and not ANYONE ELSE. Pedophillia is not something two people chose, it is something that one adult forces on a child.

The reason the 98 people can morally chose to stop someone raping a child, is because the child has no say. The reason those same 98 people should NOT be able to interfere in marriage is that it has sod all to do with the 98. Two people, of age, making a choice to be together.

How can you justify putting your happyness above the happyness of two other people who have done nothing to you, and done nothing to anyone else other than fall in love?

Secondly, I'm surprised you had nothing to say about the second paragraph of my letter:

If you were the only nation this affects I would say go nuts. But there are a whole bunch of right-wing, fascist nations ruled by religious nutcases who think they have the right to impose their narrow, biggoted, moralistic view point on someone they will never meet, and someone who can never hurt them in anyway, except in their tiny little infantine minds.

I hope this clarifies our position that the government is doing its best to have a compromise between religious groups and the right of people to live as and w/ whom they please. If people are granted the same rights in civil unions as those who are bound by the marriage union, then everyone wins. There is always a compromise that can be made. So what's the problem?

Ok - now you have lost me. Marraige is a civil union, according to this. So you want to repeal this so you can grant more rights to people who still want civil unions?

Seriously - what are you trying to do?

How is the majority "oppressing" the minority? Is it because they're not giving them the same rights to do what they do in your nation? Again, I use the argument that if 98 people "oppress" the 2 people by disapproving/prohibiting them to indulge their pedophilic desires, is it fair? No. But is right? You bet. It's funny how you also used the pedophilia argument which contradicts your line of reasoning in your third paragraph. However, I shall answer your question. For the sake of argument let's say that the majority do approve of pedophilia. However, pedophilia by its very nature threatens the well-being of the children who are BEING PHYSICALLY HARMED as a result of pedophilia. Therefore, the government has the power to override the majority in this case. The simple argument stating that gays will be emotionally offended that their union is only recognized as a civil union rather than a marriage union is not strong enough to warrant government override.

Opression means to take the rights away from someone that they should enjoy by virtue of being citizens. Now I might be wrong, but no one really has the right to rape a child. But two people should have the right to marry - if you assume that a man and a woman can marry, why can't a man and a man. Why must they be consigned to a "lesser union" just because some people find it morally offensive? Why can't those people just grow up and accept that maybe they don't have all the answers.

And - to answer your question - if two men both go to church, both believe in god and are both good christian people, the fact they are not permitted to marry in the sight of their god and the sight of their friends and in the church they go to every week is not just a fact of being "emotianally offended" - it is actually an offensive suggestion. Would you be happy if churches started banning men and women from marrying under the same conditions, or would you just laugh it off as being "emotionally offensive"?

Furthermore, in the real world, there is evidence of developing countries (which are part of the real UN) that do not have laws against pedophilia. Is it abhorrent? Of course. Therefore, it becomes incumbent upon those that oppose pedophilia to bring those people to their side through persuasion and petitions to the government which is already being done in places such as sub-Saharan Africa.

Again - pedophillia is a non-consensual act of rape that can severly harm a child. Gay marraige is two people in love deciding to be together, that doesn't hurt anyone else or cause any harm to anyone. And the fact you think you can justify banning one and another in the same breath says a way lot more about you than about this resolution.

Oh really? Then why don't we test it out? The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for the good people to do nothing. So it's ridiculous to say that since no one has proposed a repeal of the resolution that everyone agrees with it. Ever heard of the silent majority?

EVIL? This resolution is EVIL? Gay marraige is EVIL?

Anyway - the current resolution did not pass by people doing nothing.

The last proposal (before Diplomatic Immunity) failed, because people voted against it. A total of 14,000 (ish) votes were cast, and it was voted down bya round 50% each way.

The Definition of Marriage had more votes against it than The WEA did, and yet it passed because it had FAR MORE support for it than opposition to it.

It was passed in to law because people supported it, not because people did nothing. So while you can argue that the silent majority were not heard, obviously the didn't actually care to be heard, otherwise they would have voted.

Further more people are taking action. If they refuse to endorse the repeal - because they find it a waste of time, an abhorrent act of biggotry, a matter that is not something they want to support or an act of stupidity that has no equal in recent history - then they are saying that they don't agree with you, and the resolution should stay.

And I, for one, applaud them for their inaction.

Cluichstan

15-10-2005, 22:21

And now, we proseedeth with thy weewee slap.

So tell me, Dr. Schmuck, which is more ironic?

Not wishing to hear any more of this juvenile rubbish, the people of Cluichstan no longer recognise the representative from Tekania.

(OOC: Ignore function utilised in the UN forum for the first time.)

Vitalinia

15-10-2005, 22:46

Goodness, where do I begin?

Firstly, I am going to stop and gasp at the audacity of someone who compares gay marriage to pedophillia.

How did I compare gay marriage to pedophilia? I was responding to this quote of yours:

If your nation has 100 people in it (it's probably bigger, I know) and 98 oppose interacial marriages, but two fo them don't - is it really fair for the 98 to decide that those two can't marry?

I was using your same argument with different examples. Where was gay marriage in this? So if you're going to gasp at the audacity of someone who compares gay marriage to pedophilia, well then congratulations, you just gasped at the audacity of YOURSELF.

Secondly - marriage is two people making a life. Pedophillia is raping a child. My defence of this resolution means that two people have a choice who they spend their life. It is something that should be in the hands of the two people - and not ANYONE ELSE. Pedophillia is not something two people chose, it is something that one adult forces on a child.

I understand that. What you fail to understand is that we are not forcing people to live in a certain way. Our nation is just choosing to define marriage in the way they feel it should be properly defined. With all due respect, this is our nation's prerogative. Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins have been making a life for themselves for almost 20 years. They must be married... oh wait, they're not.

How can you justify putting your happyness above the happyness of two other people who have done nothing to you, and done nothing to anyone else other than fall in love?

This is where you're mistaken. I'm not justifying "putting my own happiness" above the happiness of two other people. What I'm saying is that our nation has a right to define marriage based on how the majority deems it should be. AGAIN, I RE-ITERATE THAT IN OUR NATION PEOPLE ARE FREE TO LIVE AS THEY PLEASE. I challenge you to go to our nation's profile and see the quality of civil rights for yourself. I don't know how much simpler I could put this because I am almost certain that you're going to argue the same thing you have been arguing for the past three or four posts that I believe have already explained.

there are a whole bunch of right-wing, fascist nations ruled by religious nutcases who think they have the right to impose their narrow, biggoted, moralistic view point on someone they will never meet, and someone who can never hurt them in anyway, except in their tiny little infantine minds.

Yes, and there are also a whole bunch of left-wing, fascist nations ruled by uber-liberal nutcases who think they have the right to impose their narrow, bigoted, "I'm-liberal-therefore-I-must-be-right" view point on the majority of a nation they will never meet who for better or for worse have a set of moral standards that are being threatened by being forced to accept unions that they do not consider legitimate.

Marraige is a civil union, according to this. So you want to repeal this so you can grant more rights to people who still want civil unions?

Seriously - what are you trying to do?

If you had been paying attention to my previous posts, you would've understood by now. Civil Unions are identical to marriage unions with the exception that only governments recognize civil unions but marriage unions are recognized by BOTH the government and religious institutions. However, they are still granted the EXACT SAME LEGAL RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES. I really don't know how to put this anymore simply, because I've said this several times yet you still don't understand.

Opression means to take the rights away from someone that they should enjoy by virtue of being citizens.

If this is the case, then our nation is being oppressed by the United Nations by taking away OUR RIGHTS to make our own marriage laws. So why haven't you come to our aid? Hypocrisy perhaps?

EVIL? This resolution is EVIL? Gay marraige is EVIL?

No, Resolution #81 is evil. Next?

The Definition of Marriage had more votes against it than The WEA did, and yet it passed because it had FAR MORE support for it than opposition to it.

Oh just because a lot of people supported it THEN means that public opinion never changes, huh? I challenge you... if you're confident in the strength of the international majority, then please, help me put in on the UN floor. I don't see what you have to lose except running the risk of perhaps being wrong.

Signed,
The President of the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia

Pallatium

15-10-2005, 22:58

Do forgive the snip. I'm not up to producing another lengthy ping-pong post. Instead, I wish to further explain the Federal Republic's position in a way that I hope will answer all of your points.

I will listen, but not hold my breath :}

There is a fundamental difference between our government's concept of marriage and yours': Whereas you tend to get caught up in emotion and bemoan "people in love" being denied their "rights," we recognize that marriage is a matter of law. It is a legal contract; it is not a "right," but a privilege extended by governments, and in most cases sanctified by clergy; and as such, social and legal concerns must hold supremacy. In marriage, as in all legal contracts, there should be reasonable limitations, and in regulating such limitations national governments (or, in our case, state governments) are obligated to legislate according to broadly accepted values and morals of the society at large -- not according to the whim of a UN majority.

Then that is why I entirely disagree with your position. Marriage has nothing to do with law, legal status or contracts. It is about two people sharing their love. So I guess if we don't agree on that, we are never going to agree on anything to do with marriage.

In your case, the government, adhering to social custom, has elected to accept same-sex unions, and consequently women may marry each other, or even if they wish, honeymoon in my nation and get hitched there, without fear that their own nation will not recognize their union when they return home. This comports to the widely accepted values of both of our peoples. But why must we impose our values upon all member nations? Because our values are "superior"? Are we so arrogant?

Firstly - it wasn't so much chosing to let women marry. Since there are no men in Pallatium, we didn't realise that men married women at all. That was quite a big change for us - but one we accepted since to do otherwise would be morally wrong.

Secondly - that is what the UN is for. Did you not read the preface to it?

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.

But I am not asking for everyone to worship the Divine Three, nor am I asking for everyone to practice with their boomerang every day at noon. Instead I am asking for every UN nation (and they chose to join and stay in the UN, so they can't say these resolutions are forced upon them) to let the individuals in their nation decide if they want to marry, and who they want to marry.

I am not forcing values upon them - if an entire nation objects to gay marriage, then no one will marry. I am just saying that, since marriage is a personal choice and not a governmental or international choice, this resolution lets it be that. Which is why I don't want it overturned.

There is at play here a threat greater than foreign nations refusing to recognize unions you may cherish: That of the UN becoming so habitually disposed to infringing upon the rights of independent nations that we see no problem whatsoever even in dictating to member nations whom they can and cannot marry. You yourself acknowledge this danger when you express your fear that proponents of this repeal "(may not) stop at banning (same-sex unions) in their own nation." (And here this is likely another example of your emotions governing your policy, in assigning motive to those who seem genuinely committed to national sovereignty, not bigotry.)

Firstly - this resolution only bans marriage for one reason and one reason alone - age. It means that people can't use this resolution to marry children off before they come of age. No one else is banned from marrying - it is left down to personal (not governmental) choice.

Secondly - it is not my emotions governing my policy, but my ability to learn from history.

A resolution was once proposed to ban homosexuality. Another one to ban all religions. A third to ban capitalism. A fourth to (from what I can gather) enforce Catholisicm on everyone.

Now these proposals might not have got much support, and might not have had a hope of passing - but all four were proposed.

It is not fear that people are going to try to ban gay marriage - it is experience.

In truth, you do fear that the UN may go too far in imposing certain values on all member states, but so long as the UN is imposing your values on them, you fear is abated.

Nope. The UN has imposed on my values. Fair Trial, Protect Historical Sites, Use Of Landmines, Alternative Fuels, Habeus Corpus, Rights Of Minorities and Women, The Computer Crimes Act - all examples of resolutions that my people found bad to begin with. But we changed our laws and accepted them, because the benifits of being in the UN outweigh the downside. And we have adapted to these resolutions, and in most parts the resolutions have made our country better. But they definitely imposed on our values to start with. And I accept that - it is what the UN must to do make the world better.

That, my dear, is irony.

I am not your dear.

Marriage is the cornerstone of most nations' societies; therefore, when addressing this issue, the United Nations must give due deference to the cultural traditions and norms in each individual nation, and not seek to impose its own will. We must all look beyond the emotions conveyed by the pretty picture of two smiling, waving cuties of the same sex standing outside the courthouse door.

If I was basing this purely on emotions, I would not be making the arguement I am now. This is based on what I consider universal social justice - if one couple has the right to marry, you can not deny it to another couple based on arbitrary values. It is not fair, and it is not just.

Pallatium believes in equality and justice for all. Equal rights, equal treatment, equal pay and certainly equal status in marriage for those that want it. Not because we like the picture of two women waving and holding hands, and certainly not because of the fact that should the UN ban same sex marriages every single person in my nation would rebel. If those were my concerns I would say that my arguement would be spurious. No - my arguement is universal justice, and it is one that I truly, honestly believe it is one worth fighting for.

Forgottenlands

15-10-2005, 23:19

OOC Translation: "My penis is bigger than yours."

No:

Translation: be careful what claims you make about colonization

OOC Reply: Those who claim it can rarely back it up.

All you need to do is look up my three nations and Vitalinia's nation to prove my statements.

Pallatium

15-10-2005, 23:35

I was using your same argument with different examples. Where was gay marriage in this? So if you're going to gasp at the audacity of someone who compares gay marriage to pedophilia, well then congratulations, you just gasped at the audacity of YOURSELF.

I apologise then. You were comparing interacial marriage to pedophillia. That makes it so much less offensive.

I understand that. What you fail to understand is that we are not forcing people to live in a certain way. Our nation is just choosing to define marriage in the way they feel it should be properly defined. With all due respect, this is our nation's prerogative. Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins have been making a life for themselves for almost 20 years. They must be married... oh wait, they're not.

I say that it stops being the nation's perogative when they start using it to discriminate against people they don't like.

This is where you're mistaken. I'm not justifying "putting my own happiness" above the happiness of two other people. What I'm saying is that our nation has a right to define marriage based on how the majority deems it should be. AGAIN, I RE-ITERATE THAT IN OUR NATION PEOPLE ARE FREE TO LIVE AS THEY PLEASE. I challenge you to go to our nation's profile and see the quality of civil rights for yourself. I don't know how much simpler I could put this because I am almost certain that you're going to argue the same thing you have been arguing for the past three or four posts that I believe have already explained.

And again - if you were the only nation in the world, there would not be a problem. But you aren't.

Yes, and there are also a whole bunch of left-wing, fascist nations ruled by uber-liberal nutcases who think they have the right to impose their narrow, bigoted, "I'm-liberal-therefore-I-must-be-right" view point on the majority of a nation they will never meet who for better or for worse have a set of moral standards that are being threatened by being forced to accept unions that they do not consider legitimate.

Yup. Cause I put the choice in the hands of the entire population of a nation, and not just the few who have the power. And I am damn happy to do that.

If you had been paying attention to my previous posts, you would've understood by now. Civil Unions are identical to marriage unions with the exception that only governments recognize civil unions but marriage unions are recognized by BOTH the government and religious institutions. However, they are still granted the EXACT SAME LEGAL RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES. I really don't know how to put this anymore simply, because I've said this several times yet you still don't understand.

that still doesn't deny the fact there must be a difference between the two, otherwise you would not need two names for them. So why should some people be allowed one, but not others?

If this is the case, then our nation is being oppressed by the United Nations by taking away OUR RIGHTS to make our own marriage laws. So why haven't you come to our aid? Hypocrisy perhaps?

Cause you are wrong. (Not my best arguement, I know, but it sums it up pretty neatly)

No, Resolution #81 is evil. Next?

:}

Oh just because a lot of people supported it THEN means that public opinion never changes, huh? I challenge you... if you're confident in the strength of the international majority, then please, help me put in on the UN floor. I don't see what you have to lose except running the risk of perhaps being wrong.

Because I would say that it is a law that benifits millions of people worldwide, and if there are people in the UN who feel they are so threatened by two people getting to make a choice about their own lives, then they should quit the UN and go back to living in fear on their own.

If all that is required for evil/bad/wrong to triumph is for good men to do nothing, it is also true that anyone who takes any action in support of evil must be deserving of equal contempt as those who stand and watch. To support this repeal would be a betrayal of everything I personally hold dear, and everything my people fought and died for when Queen Leonara was on the throne. And while you are right, in that putting it before the floor would prove my point, even contemplating supporting this would be so far against my moral and ethical code that I would be required to resign in shame at the betrayal of my people.

So - no, I am not going to support a repeal.

Forgottenlands

16-10-2005, 00:00

I would like to clarify an issue made in a previous post by forgottenlord...

That's all well and good, but it's important to understand that OUR nation is a Democratic Republic. Therefore, our democracy means that the majority decides on what is considered legal and illegal. The government is nothing more than the vehicle that carries out the wishes of the majority. So it does not seem right to accuse the government of removing citizen's rights. The people have the power, not the government.

I, too, should clarify. I'm protecting your minority from a potentially sinister majority (sinister from my perspective). Everything else has been stated by Tekania.

But to be perfectly clear, the official stance of the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia is that people are free to live in the way they please. If you look at our nation's profile, the quality of our civil rights is indeed excellent.

I care not for your stats. Your stats are irrelevant to your position. I too have good stats (admittedly, my civil rights stats are not as good as yours, but I never bring stats to this message board). What your past holds, what your nation shows as a generalization, is irrelevant to what position you hold on the floor, as it is your position that matters in debates. To deteriorate an argument into discussing someone's track record is to lose sight of the argument.

You'll never see me use stats as my argument.

As far as our government is concerned all people are eligible for civil unions which offer the same basic protections as marriage unions. However, they are called civil unions as they are only recognized valid by the government. Marriage unions, as defined in our nation regardless of how the UN defines it, are recognized by both governments AND by the religious majority that consist of our great nation. So in a nutshell, the government sees civil unions and marriage on the same level legally.

So why are they different? What is the point? Doesn't it imply a social level that is seperate from that of those that are married? "You are unworthy of being considered married, so we aren't going to say you are married".

Therefore, this is our stand. If you think that our nation is doing wrong by allowing the majority to dictate marriage policy in our laws, then we assert the right to do "wrong" as you assert the right for your people to enter into a "marriage" contract w/ anyone or anything they see fit, and as you assert the right to "remove" the rights of OUR nation's majority for the sake of our nation's minority.

Are you saying that if a majority wanted to increase their power base at the expense of a minority, you would do so? Are you saying that everything the majority wants is to be done even if it comes at the expense of the minority? Your JOB as a government is not just to fufil the wishes of the majority, but to protect ALL your citizens - including the minority from the majority.

I look forward to bringing this repeal proposal to the UN floor. As your nation embraces the virtues of International Federalism, I ask that you let us allow the majority (i.e. ALL UN members and not just UN delegates) to decide this issue. We have a spirited issue in our grasp. It would be a shame if this fails to be decided by the will of the UN majority.

I look foreward to seeing the UN's first contest over Gay Marriage laws since I rejoined her ranks. However, history through several resolutions (all of which would have to be undone for your laws to be legal within the UN resolution system) has shown that the UN rarely votes against gay rights.

Signed,
The President of the DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC of Vitalinia

------------------------------------------

This argument, of course, bears the assumption that nations do not have the right to legislate where their own internal affairs are concerned, according to widely accepted societal values and morals -- a right which to us is the bedrock of the rights of sovereign nations. Just because the United Nations can infringe upon national sovereignty in areas as these doesn't mean it should.

I wholeheartedly support the UN's attempts to infring upon National Sovereignty and I don't believe a government should govern based upon pure morality or values held by the society as a whole, but understand the society's individual components.

Funny; protecting the rights of elves to marry seems like an utter waste of time to us.

It doesn't. It protects nation's rights to protect the elves. Please stop uttering these false statements about special issues.

Sorry, but the resolution (at least as originally worded) makes no judgment as to what the institution of marriage is today; it simply notes what it originated as:

What it originated as is irrelevant to what it is today - seeing as our past has some rather abhorent beliefs that no one supports today.

That simply is not so. Resolutions #109 Nuclear Armaments, #110 UNSA, #116 Mitigation of Large Reservoirs and #117 The Microcredit Bazaar all are remarkably sovereignty-friendly, they do accomplish much -- and their sponsors weren't exactly dwarves among UN nations, either.

Of course, and then there's resolution 49 which pretty much was an attempt to set in stone the moderated beliefs. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the resolutions do, in fact, infringe upon sovereignty issues. I actually find this rather humorous that it comes up so heavily in this debate when it was proposed alongside a not so NatSov friendly resolution by the same author.

That particular statement is the very height of irony, don't you think?

I always have fun with that argument, because I'm well aware of the minor irony. However, considering my position is looking at your minorities - the citizens that are minorities, the PEOPLE - I consider this irony irrelevant.

Sheesh, I sound like a borg

If you don't mind our saying so, that is a stunningly casual and nihilistic stance to take on an institution that is, for most societies, the very foundation of their family structure and social fabric.

And yet, so many couples do not have families, or remain married well after their family has fallen apart, or get married after the family already exists, or.....

Please :rolleyes: What a romanticized view of the world

No, it only forces societies to accept unions they might abhor.

For a government to accept them, that's one thing. However, it forces the society to accept nothing. The society is not the government.

Nope. Sorry. Repeals don't force nations to do anything; they simply strike out existing legislation.

Point

The inverse is true. This resolution imposes a definition of marriage on all member nations. If that isn't "the interference of someone two thousand miles away in a different country," then I don't know what is.

Actually, it's 30,000 :p

(The original argument is....ridiculous)

I suppose the key difference here is that, while we ourselves are very accepting of same-sex marriages and allow them in our laws, we respect that other nations may not share our values on the subject -- and frankly we don't think the United Nations should be legislating the definition of marriage, anyway, simply because it reeks of silliness. If matters like these are not best left to individual nations to decide, then for God's sake what matters are?

What rights are granted by a marriage. End of story.

We support the repeal of Resolution #81 Definition of Marriage.

Fair enough

----------------------------------

To Pallatium,

Well, then, let's turn the tables around... let's say 98 people would prefer to keep pedophilia banned in our country, while 2 people would like to see it legalized. In this case, it may not be "fair" for the 98 to decide that that those 2 people can't indulge their pedophilic tendencies, but is it right? You bet.

Actually, this is QUITE a bit different. Those two wish to infringe upon the rights of others within the nation. However, those two interracial couples are not infringing upon the rights of the 98 non-interracial couples by getting married.

So even if we say that 98 people oppose interracial marriage, then it falls unto those 2 people to put the 98 under "moral" obliquy and bring them to their side through persuasion rather than having the government or "international assembly" (whatever that means) simply dictate what is right. We have seen in countries like the USA where for a time prohibition of interracial marriages were considered "morally" tolerable. However, through the power of the people themselves, and not the government, they were able to convince others of the abhorrence of the prohibition of interracial marriage.

Considering my parents were married before they would have been recognized as such in the US (since they are an interracial couple), I find this to be an abhorent example and one more that proves just how socially backwards the US is and was by current Industrialized Nation standards

Secondly, I'm surprised you had nothing to say about the second paragraph of my letter:

I did Addressed

I hope this clarifies our position that the government is doing its best to have a compromise between religious groups and the right of people to live as and w/ whom they please. If people are granted the same rights in civil unions as those who are bound by the marriage union, then everyone wins. There is always a compromise that can be made. So what's the problem?

Stated above, think it over

How is the majority "oppressing" the minority? Is it because they're not giving them the same rights to do what they do in your nation? Again, I use the argument that if 98 people "oppress" the 2 people by disapproving/prohibiting them to indulge their pedophilic desires, is it fair? No. But is right? You bet. It's funny how you also used the pedophilia argument which contradicts your line of reasoning in your third paragraph. However, I shall answer your question. For the sake of argument let's say that the majority do approve of pedophilia. However, pedophilia by its very nature threatens the well-being of the children who are BEING PHYSICALLY HARMED as a result of pedophilia. Therefore, the government has the power to override the majority in this case. The simple argument stating that gays will be emotionally offended that their union is only recognized as a civil union rather than a marriage union is not strong enough to warrant government override.

We are agreed on that point, however a marriage does nothing to someone who does not know the married couple, as such this argument is irrelevant.

Real life international politics are irrelevant in this game. Considering that every attempt to emulate real life resolutions/treaties/etc in this UN has failed at either a technical or legal level, I think you are failing to realize the VERY BASIS of the difference. The RL UN cannot mandate ****. We can.

[QUOTE]Oh really? Then why don't we test it out? The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for the good people to do nothing. So it's ridiculous to say that since no one has proposed a repeal of the resolution that everyone agrees with it. Ever heard of the silent majority?

Alright, test it all you want. However, you'll first need the endorsements and those endorsements must also come from those that support it - or people like WZ Forums who want to vote on everything.

----------------

The problem with this argument is that you believe that the international majority has a right to dictate what is "right" to the national majority who is "oppressing" the national minority

Yeah, I do. The problem you have is you don't believe the international government is a legitamite government - I do.

'nuf said

That's all for this long post

Vitalinia

16-10-2005, 02:49

I could probably think of a few more constructive things to waste my time on, but I couldn't resist myself...

I'm protecting your minority from a potentially sinister majority (sinister from my perspective).

Quite frankly, your perspective doesn't matter in my country as you are not a citizen of my country. (Whether that's good or bad for you, it matters not to me)

I care not for your stats. Your stats are irrelevant to your position. I too have good stats (admittedly, my civil rights stats are not as good as yours, but I never bring stats to this message board). What your past holds, what your nation shows as a generalization, is irrelevant to what position you hold on the floor, as it is your position that matters in debates. To deteriorate an argument into discussing someone's track record is to lose sight of the argument.

You'll never see me use stats as my argument.

Congratulations. You just did.

So why are they different? What is the point? Doesn't it imply a social level that is seperate from that of those that are married? "You are unworthy of being considered married, so we aren't going to say you are married".

Good question. Why is there a distinction between French Canadians and "regular" Canadians? Aren't they all Canadians the same? But to answer your question, all it means is that civil unions do not have to be deemed legitimate by religious institutions. (If you actually practiced what you preached in READING previous posts, you wouldn't have to ask such a redundant question) And why should they if it's a union that violates religious doctrine? Churches, synagogues, and mosques have that prerogative. I know it might be "prejudiced" but that's just how it is.

Are you saying that if a majority wanted to increase their power base at the expense of a minority, you would do so?

Funny, that's exactly what the United Nations is trying to do.

I look foreward to seeing the UN's first contest over Gay Marriage laws since I rejoined her ranks. However, history through several resolutions (all of which would have to be undone for your laws to be legal within the UN resolution system) has shown that the UN rarely votes against gay rights.

First time for everything.

Actually, this is QUITE a bit different. Those two wish to infringe upon the rights of others within the nation. However, those two interracial couples are not infringing upon the rights of the 98 non-interracial couples by getting married.

Now, this quote was from a letter not directed to you, but you have the right to spend your time in any way you want even if it means me having to address something that otherwise I wouldn't need to. To refute the above mentioned quote, those two actually do infringe on the rights of others because it forces others (in this case religious groups) to accept the legitimacy of something that to THEM is religiously abhorrent.

Considering my parents were married before they would have been recognized as such in the US (since they are an interracial couple), I find this to be an abhorent example and one more that proves just how socially backwards the US is and was by current Industrialized Nation standards.

Relevance????

Real life international politics are irrelevant in this game. Considering that every attempt to emulate real life resolutions/treaties/etc in this UN has failed at either a technical or legal level, I think you are failing to realize the VERY BASIS of the difference. The RL UN cannot mandate ****. We can.

Well, there is something in common between the real UN and nationstates UN... they're both useless and ineffective. (And the UN gives me protection to say that)

The problem you have is you don't believe the international government is a legitamite government - I do.

Yup, and in my nation, my beliefs matter far more than yours. (And I believe it works vice versa)

By the way, for the sake of argument if my nation doesn't comply w/ the UN even if I'm a member, what can the UN do to me?

ANSWER: Not a single thing. They can kick me out, but I still keep my sovereignty. Either way, I win. I only joined the UN to try to get my agenda across. I believe the same goes for everybody even if they don't admit it.

'nuf said

I was hoping for more...

By the way, if a small island such as England could rule massive colonies such as India, Canada, Pakistan, to name a few, colonizing YOUR countries would be a walk in the park. Cheers!

Signed,
The President of the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia

Forgottenlands

16-10-2005, 03:14

I could probably think of a few more constructive things to waste my time on, but I couldn't resist myself...

Welcome to the UN

Quite frankly, your perspective doesn't matter in my country as you are not a citizen of my country. (Whether that's good or bad for you, it matters not to me)

*sighs*

Congratulations. You just did.

No, I did not. I used my stats to end the stats discussion. If I had said "I have equal qualifications to talk about this" by saying my civil rights stats are about equal to yours, then that would be using my stats as an argument. However, that is not the case.

Good question. Why is there a distinction between French Canadians and "regular" Canadians? Aren't they all Canadians the same?

What's the difference between blacks and whites.

At a governmental level, nothing (theoretically)
At a societal level, one hell of a lot of different stereotypes.

The same is true about French Canadians. There aren't policies that are aimed at "French Canadians", though there are policies that are aimed to make the minority that is French Canadians feel like they are equal in our society and policies that are fairly specific to Quebec. Please

But to answer your question, all it means is that civil unions do not have to be deemed legitimate by religious institutions.

Marriages do not have to be deemed legitamite by religious institutions. My parent's marriage isn't deemed legitamite by several religious institutions because they DIDN'T get married in a church. There's all sorts of marriages that are recognized by various governments that are not deemed legitamite by religious institutions TODAY, you just don't hear about them.

(If you actually practiced what you preached in READING previous posts, you wouldn't have to ask such a redundant question)

When you argue my post directly, you better have read those arguments. If you're going to argue against my post when there's another post later on that you have neither read nor addressed, I don't go after you. Know the difference.

And why should they if it's a union that violates religious doctrine?

You're right, and they don't have to, neither does this resolution force them to.

Churches, synagogues, and mosques have that prerogative. I know it might be "prejudiced" but that's just how it is.

*sighs*

Funny, that's exactly what the United Nations is trying to do.

What? I have a power base by forcing you to accept this resolution? How? Please, show me your reasoning.

First time for everything.

Don't take my arguments as attempts to stop you. Like I said, my concentration is on style first, arguments second. The reason is style you can submit - regardless of your arguments. If I disagree with your arguments, I have no right to stop you from submitting for it (I can make recommendations), all I can do is give you my opinion, and debate my opinion and why I feel it is more right than yours on the UN floor. Regardless, don't be surprised when it fails.

Now, this quote was from a letter not directed to you,

My record has shown that I don't care who its addressed to. If I think the argument is ludicrous, I will attack it. If you think that makes my argument any less legitamite, that's your problem. The UN body will be the deciders of whether they believe it themselves.

but you have the right to spend your time in any way you want even if it means me having to address something that otherwise I wouldn't need to. To refute the above mentioned quote, those two actually do infringe on the rights of others because it forces others (in this case religious groups) to accept the legitimacy of something that to THEM is religiously abhorrent.

They need to accept it? Heck no! The GOVERNMENT != SOCIETY/CITIZEN/RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION/ETC. We are not forcing them to do anything! We are not forcing them to perform these marriages, so if they don't perform them, and they don't accept them (nor are they forced to by this resolution as it only addresses CIVIL marriages - meaning government-recognized marriages as opposed to religious marriages which are recognized by the church), then we are not forcing them to do squat. You still haven't read my arguments of posts you've debated.

Relevance????

Using the US as an example will not win you any points. Their track record, especially on discrimination issues, is abhorent for an industrialized nation.

[QUOTE]Well, there is something in common between the real UN and nationstates UN... they're both useless and ineffective. (And the UN gives me protection to say that)

Prove it. You are required to follow UN resolutions. Anything else is considered godmodding/wanking/etc.

Yup, and in my nation, my beliefs matter far more than yours. (And I believe it works vice versa)

By the way, for the sake of argument if my nation doesn't comply w/ the UN even if I'm a member, what can the UN do to me?

There are these amazing things called UN Gnomes that pretty much work as the "UN override". Now the actions they take and how they act isn't clearly defined at any level, and when is difficult to pinpoint, but pretty much....its an RP issue. Generally speaking, if you RP as failing to comply with UN resolution both intentionally or unintentionally, then you generally are looking at being ignored as an RPer for "wanking"/"godmodding"/etc. You can find loopholes to resolutions that you can use, but otherwise you have to follow them to the letter.

ANSWER: Not a single thing. They can kick me out, but I still keep my sovereignty. Either way, I win. I only joined the UN to try to get my agenda across. I believe the same goes for everybody even if they don't admit it.

That is.....a failure to play by the rules of RP. People who do stuff like that are seen as...well....irrelevant.

I was hoping for more...

Signed,
The President of the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia

Well here you go.

On a side note:
-as an author, you have excellent marks for style and quality
-as a debater, you have promise, but your failings are more in "newbie wings" than anything else. Stuff like non-compliance debates shows this.

Enn

16-10-2005, 03:41

Perhaps it is time to point out that marriage has existed separate from the church(/es) for several hundred years. That's how long various forms of civil and common law marriage have existed. So arguing that 'marriage is all about the church' or somesuch really doesn't hold much water.

Definition of Marriage does not require religious leaders to sanctify gay marriage. It is about the civil law, not religious edict. If theocracies have a problem with that, well, there are many more reolutions that also strive to separate civil and religious law in deed if not in word.

Separate but equal, in my opinion, is hypocritical. There is no equality in requiring a different term - if they are the same, why need a change in name.

Vitalinia

16-10-2005, 22:37

I apologise then. You were comparing interacial marriage to pedophillia. That makes it so much less offensive.

You still don't understand that I'm not comparing anything. I'm just using two opposite issues (i.e. allowance interracial marriage as being right and allowance of pedophilia as being wrong) to contextualize how your argument could work either way. Goodness, it seems like you read my posts in the way you want to read it.

I say that it stops being the nation's perogative when they start using it to discriminate against people they don't like.

It's not discrimination, it's compromise. It's been said that Resolution #81 does not require churches to marry couples that don't meet the criteria for what is deemed a "legitimate" marriage, but it doesn't explicitly state it, thus leaving room for argument. This proposed resolution takes care of that problem as well as a host of other problems that Resolution #81 brings up.

And again - if you were the only nation in the world, there would not be a problem. But you aren't.

Clarify... how would giving states the right to make marriage laws as they see fit a problem? In your nation, it would matter not to me if you abolish, let's say, heterosexual marriages since it is your prerogative to make that law.

Yup. Cause I put the choice in the hands of the entire population of a nation, and not just the few who have the power.

So giving power to the MAJORITY is giving power to the FEW, huh? Wow. It's comforting to know that the leaders of your nation are skilled at differentiating quantities.

that still doesn't deny the fact there must be a difference between the two, otherwise you would not need two names for them. So why should some people be allowed one, but not others?

Umm... yes, there is a difference between the two therefore the need for different names. There may be a difference socially, but not one legally. My government can only control the legal aspects of our country. The social aspects have to be decided by, well, society.

Cause you are wrong. (Not my best arguement, I know, but it sums it up pretty neatly)

Incredible. Whether I'm wrong or right is irrelevant. What matters is the principle of oppression of the minority that you say that "you care about." But that one sentence quoted above is the PARADIGM FOR HYPOCRISY. When I first read this part of your post I wanted to vomit. Any lingering assurances of whether your policies are governed by logic and not by your personal emotions and beliefs just flew out the window with that statement. It appears that with the absence of a male population in your nation there is an absence of common sense and integrity as well.

To support this repeal would be a betrayal of everything I personally hold dear, and everything my people fought and died for when Queen Leonara was on the throne.

So your Queen fought to have her nation subjected to an international body who has no real concern for the unique needs of your people? Doesn't sound like a good leader to me.

Signed,
The President of the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia

Pallatium

16-10-2005, 23:12

You still don't understand that I'm not comparing anything. I'm just using two opposite issues (i.e. allowance interracial marriage as being right and allowance of pedophilia as being wrong) to contextualize how your argument could work either way. Goodness, it seems like you read my posts in the way you want to read it.

But marriage is a consensual issue between two adults of age, and a fair number of people think that it should stay that way and the government should keep out of it. Pedophillia, however, is neither consensual, between adults of age and something that almost everyone would think the government should enforce. Plus most people see pedophillia as inherently evil, where as marraige is not, so the two are not comparable in examples.

Further more there are some people (not you, obviously) who would start to associate interacial marriage with the same thoughts as they have regarding pedophillia, which would not help the cause I support at all.

It's not discrimination, it's compromise.

Someone said that compromise is another word for surrender.

It's been said that Resolution #81 does not require churches to marry couples that don't meet the criteria for what is deemed a "legitimate" marriage, but it doesn't explicitly state it, thus leaving room for argument. This proposed resolution takes care of that problem as well as a host of other problems that Resolution #81 brings up.

Where you see "thus leaving room for arguement", I see "thus leaving room for the government to get in and stamp their authority". Which is, from what I gather, what you want to do.

Clarify... how would giving states the right to make marriage laws as they see fit a problem? In your nation, it would matter not to me if you abolish, let's say, heterosexual marriages since it is your prerogative to make that law.

Are you sure it wouldn't matter? And would it matter if two of your people (a man and a woman) came to my nation, and slept in the same bed and were consequently arrested for having a marriage in violation of my laws? A violation that carried the death penalty?

Further more - that is a remarkably limited view point. The UN is here to make the world a better place, and accept biggotry and discrimation in other nations, even though it does not exist in your own, is not a good way to make the world better. Freedom should mean freedom for everyone.

So giving power to the MAJORITY is giving power to the FEW, huh? Wow. It's comforting to know that the leaders of your nation are skilled at differentiating quantities.

What I mean is that if Mr Smith wants to marry Mr Jones, they will be able to because the choice about marriage will be in the hands of the individual, not in the hands of the state, the government, the church or any other group that is not the whole country.

Power to the people in the truest sense of the word. Democracy in the truest sense of the word - one person, one choice.

Umm... yes, there is a difference between the two therefore the need for different names. There may be a difference socially, but not one legally. My government can only control the legal aspects of our country. The social aspects have to be decided by, well, society.

Firstly - if there is no legal difference there should be no need for different names. Society can call marriage what ever it wants, but if the government is using two different names, then there has to be a governmental reason, not a social one.

Secondly : again - you are not the only nation. While I am happy (now) that you are not going to run amok and start banning various marriages all over the place, other nations might not be so kind. And before you know it lots of people are banned not only socially but legally.

If I were just looking out for my nation, I would have given this fight up a long time ago. But I am not - I am looking out for all those who can't speak up for themselves.

Incredible. Whether I'm wrong or right is irrelevant. What matters is the principle of oppression of the minority that you say that "you care about." But that one sentence quoted above is the PARADIGM FOR HYPOCRISY. When I first read this part of your post I wanted to vomit. Any lingering assurances of whether your policies are governed by logic and not by your personal emotions and beliefs just flew out the window with that statement. It appears that with the absence of a male population in your nation there is an absence of common sense and integrity as well.

Ok. I will explain it better (I have slept since then, and am much more awake)

Imagine a country that kept slaves. It would be fair to say that some nations (including mine) would see them as oppressing the rights of the slaves. So we get a law passed that makes slavery illegal.

Now we are oppressing the government of the country, because they no longer have the right to keep slaves. So why are we better than them? Or why do we have the right to opress them?

Because people have the right to be free, and to decide their own future as individuals. Slaves are not free - they are owned.
And if someone does not have the right to decide if they can marry someone else or not, they are not free to decide their own future.

So while I admit the UN is opressing your country in not allowing you to decide marriage terms when you would be nice to everyone, it is also opressing a whole bunch of other countries who would not be so nice, and who would want to ban marriage left, right and center. So you are not permitted to rule your country on this matter because the common good dictates otherwise.

And the other thing is the UN is voluntary. If you were really so wound up about this marriage thing, you would quit.

So your Queen fought to have her nation subjected to an international body who has no real concern for the unique needs of your people? Doesn't sound like a good leader to me.

(grin). Queen Leonara was the most heinous criminal in our history. The people I referred to were the people who fought against HER and got Pallatium back it's freedom - the freedom to chose their own destiny and the freedom from excessive governmental interference in their personal lives.

(But you are right - Queen Leonara was not a good leader)

My point is the people of Pallatium are behind me on this. As their Queen (Queen Lily, not Queen Leonara) it would be betraying their memory, and the people's wishes, to support anything that could lead to such a massive loss of human rights.

And we didn't get subjected to an international body - we chose to join the UN and abide by it's rules, for better or worse. And we will continue to do so until a resolution passes that we can't accept. Then we get it repealed, or we leave so we can still be free. A choice available to all UN members.

Vitalinia

17-10-2005, 00:44

Firstly, our nation wishes to express its gratitude for the magnanimous comments made by Queen Lily about the benevolence of our government towards its people. Your last post has pleased our nation greatly in that although we may have differing view points we know that we still share a common goal of making this world better.

Allow us, therefore, to keep on this spirit of debate in discussing points made in your previous post.

Someone said that compromise is another word for surrender.

I respectfully disagree. I am sure that you have made compromises with your significant other (co-Queen of Pallatium? I don't know) of issues in your relationship that would hardly be deemed as surrender. I know that I have made compromises with the First Girlfriend of Vitalinia (yes, it is an official title) that have helped our relationship for the better rather than being seen as shameful surrender.

Where you see "thus leaving room for arguement", I see "thus leaving room for the government to get in and stamp their authority". Which is, from what I gather, what you want to do.

Again, you are misreading what I said. "Leaving room for argument" means that hypothetically a gay couple could legally force a church to allow them to have their ceremony in their building as long as they can pay for the use of the building despite the church's objections due to their abhorrence of homosexuality. This is the argument I'm talking about.

Are you sure it wouldn't matter? And would it matter if two of your people (a man and a woman) came to my nation, and slept in the same bed and were consequently arrested for having a marriage in violation of my laws? A violation that carried the death penalty?

We regret the fact that a young teenage Vitalinian was recently executed by a nation that had strict rules on narcotics possession. Therefore, we cannot object as it is your prerogative if you decide to impose capital punishment for heterosexual relationships. We will, however, work for extradition when it does happen and post travel advisories for tourists who wish to visit your beautiful nation.

Further more - that is a remarkably limited view point. The UN is here to make the world a better place, and accept biggotry and discrimation in other nations, even though it does not exist in your own, is not a good way to make the world better. Freedom should mean freedom for everyone.

It is quite pretentious to say that the UN has the capability to completely change the world. There is always a trade-off for everything even if done with the best intentions. However, I believe returning sovereignty is a trade-off for a lesser evil. There are also member nations in the UN that are categorized as "psychotic dictatorships." It's obvious that they're not following UN mandates. If there is a nation that is doing something that others feel is abhorrent, then moral persuasion is the best route rather than authoritarian mandates.

Power to the people in the truest sense of the word. Democracy in the truest sense of the word - one person, one choice.

I highly (but respectfully) disagree with you on that definition. DEMO is a Greek word meaning many. CRACY is Greek for government. Therefore Democracy means a government of the many. Not one person, but many persons who elect officials based on the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group. This is what the UN is, is it not?

Firstly - if there is no legal difference there should be no need for different names. Society can call marriage what ever it wants, but if the government is using two different names, then there has to be a governmental reason, not a social one.

The governmental reason for using two different names is to appease the majority who call for a compromise (again I use the word) to allow anyone to marry who they please yet respecting the rights and beliefs of the religious majority. If people get what they want despite the semantics, then what's wrong with that? This is not only binding for gay people. Civil unions can be categorized to let's say foreigners who wish to marry Vitalinian nationals in order to get immigrant status, marry for tax purposes, boredom, etc. We don't discourage any of that since it is their right to marry (even if it is called something different) for any reason they want. It's just an issue of semantics.

And the other thing is the UN is voluntary. If you were really so wound up about this marriage thing, you would quit.

Yes, I am quite wound up about the issue of state sovereignty, that is why I'm working through the legal circuits to get it restored. I understand resignation is always an option, but then how will we help shape world politics for the better? (Or for worse, it's relative)

Signed,
The President of the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia

Pallatium

17-10-2005, 01:19

Firstly, our nation wishes to express its gratitude for the magnanimous comments made by Queen Lily about the benevolence of our government towards its people. Your last post has pleased our nation greatly in that although we may have differing view points we know that we still share a common goal of making this world better.

(grin) It's good to get along, isn't it :}

I respectfully disagree. I am sure that you have made compromises with your significant other (co-Queen of Pallatium? I don't know) of issues in your relationship that would hardly be deemed as surrender. I know that I have made compromises with the First Girlfriend of Vitalinia (yes, it is an official title) that have helped our relationship for the better rather than being seen as shameful surrender.

My partner, and she has no official title (there is a long explanation for this, but I am not sure this is the place to go in to it).

And yes - compromise on a personal level is fine, and we (my partner and I) have both done it. But, as with most things, there is a matter of scale. Compromising on what side of the bed we sleep on is one thing, compromising on what we consider basic human rights is another. And further more compromise is only compromise when both people get something out of it - when one side gets everything they asked for, and the other side gets nothing, it's not compromise, it's surrender.

Again, you are misreading what I said. "Leaving room for argument" means that hypothetically a gay couple could legally force a church to allow them to have their ceremony in their building as long as they can pay for the use of the building despite the church's objections due to their abhorrence of homosexuality. This is the argument I'm talking about.

Right. That makes more sense. Sorry :}

We regret the fact that a young teenage Vitalinian was recently executed by a nation that had strict rules on narcotics possession. Therefore, we cannot object as it is your prerogative if you decide to impose capital punishment for heterosexual relationships. We will, however, work for extradition when it does happen and post travel advisories for tourists who wish to visit your beautiful nation.

Firstly - it was hypothetical, and hopefully you (and anyone reading this) understood that.

Secondly - I understand. I expect my people to obey the laws of the nation they are in, because my law doesn't extend outside my borders. However it strikes me as almost unbelievable that if I were to go to another nation, my partner and I would not be permitted to act as though we were married simply because we are of the same sex. How can that not be fundementally wrong?

It is quite pretentious to say that the UN has the capability to completely change the world. There is always a trade-off for everything even if done with the best intentions. However, I believe returning sovereignty is a trade-off for a lesser evil. There are also member nations in the UN that are categorized as "psychotic dictatorships." It's obvious that they're not following UN mandates. If there is a nation that is doing something that others feel is abhorrent, then moral persuasion is the best route rather than authoritarian mandates.

To answer that, let me quote you one of my favourite sources.

"There's a promise that I ask everyone who works here to make. Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful and commited citizens can change the world. You know why?"
"It's the only thing that ever has" (Bartlet and Bailey, The West Wing)

Words are the best tool in the world for affecting change, but sometimes when words fail, you need a stronger force. Trade sanctions are all well and good, as is diplomatic preassure, but I find that the UN is good for changing the world pretty effectively.

Take us for example - we have changed somewhat since we joined, with all the new laws we have to obey, and we think our nation is better. We have faith in the UN that it will do what is right. (Ok - sometimes we have very little faith, but we still have faith)

I highly (but respectfully) disagree with you on that definition. DEMO is a Greek word meaning many. CRACY is Greek for government. Therefore Democracy means a government of the many. Not one person, but many persons who elect officials based on the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group. This is what the UN is, is it not?

I guess it is a matter of perspective. Some people will tell you that democracy is "one man, one vote". Others will argue as you do - that democracy implies you elect the people who decide.

I would say that when it comes to matters that are a purely personal basis - marriage, religion, sexuality and so forth - the decision should stay with the person, and not with the government.

The governmental reason for using two different names is to appease the majority who call for a compromise (again I use the word) to allow anyone to marry who they please yet respecting the rights and beliefs of the religious majority. If people get what they want despite the semantics, then what's wrong with that? This is not only binding for gay people. Civil unions can be categorized to let's say foreigners who wish to marry Vitalinian nationals in order to get immigrant status, marry for tax purposes, boredom, etc. We don't discourage any of that since it is their right to marry (even if it is called something different) for any reason they want. It's just an issue of semantics.

Something we will have to disagree on (it's part of the whole compromise/surrender thing)

Yes, I am quite wound up about the issue of state sovereignty, that is why I'm working through the legal circuits to get it restored. I understand resignation is always an option, but then how will we help shape world politics for the better? (Or for worse, it's relative)

(grin) I know. I just thought I would point it out :}

I have no plans to resign if it would be repealed. I think the only things that would make me resign are a UN Mandated death penalty, a UN Mandated ban on gay marriage, a UN Mandated law about following one religion and a UN Mandated law banning abortion. (Or other such things).

I know - the fact there are some things that I believe the UN should not do in my nation indicates I have some desire for national sovereignty. But all of these things are laws that would strip human rights away from individuals to an alarming degree. However requiring nations to accept marriage as something between two people doesn't do that - infact it does the opposite - bestows human rights on people they might not otherwise have.

Forgottenlands

17-10-2005, 01:31

You still don't understand that I'm not comparing anything. I'm just using two opposite issues (i.e. allowance interracial marriage as being right and allowance of pedophilia as being wrong) to contextualize how your argument could work either way. Goodness, it seems like you read my posts in the way you want to read it.

If that wasn't a comparison between Interracial Marriages and Pediophilia, you need to check your definition of comparison. Let's say 98% of your population supported pediophilia - would you support it then? Why? Should the majority always rule?

Pallatium used a case of interracial marriage as a reflection on an issue of same-sex marriages, using a very similar debate issue but with a different set of moral judgements attached to it. YOU, however, used an issue that wasn't even sort of related to marriages. You chose an issue that involves RAPE and ABUSE OF CHILDREN - two of the most frowned upon aspects of our society. In fact, many would consider both to be greater crimes than unjustified homocide (actually, myself included) - and combines them. Do you honestly think this is morally equivelent or morally neutral to that of interracial marriages or even same-sex marriages? Think it through a bit more.

It's not discrimination, it's compromise.

Enn's short post says all that needs to be said on that line.

It's been said that Resolution #81 does not require churches to marry couples that don't meet the criteria for what is deemed a "legitimate" marriage, but it doesn't explicitly state it, thus leaving room for argument.

You need only follow the letter of the law. We are telling you what the letter of the law states. If you read beyond the letter of the law, that is the short-sighted opinions of your government, not the actions of the UN Gnomes forcing you to comply.

This proposed resolution takes care of that problem as well as a host of other problems that Resolution #81 brings up.

Because resolutions 12 (Gay Rights) isn't going to be in your way and perhaps some various clauses in other resolutions will also not prevent you from making marriage between a man and women only (I'm thinking Discrimination Accord above all, but others may come into play - including say.....#26, #69, #80.....).

Your resolution repeals a resolution that is protected by thousands of layers of redundancy, so don't think that this repeal is the end-all, be-all of all same-sex marriage repeals.

The only thing your "resolution" does is repeal an existing resolution. That doesn't mean it "takes care" of the problems in resolution 81 if the "problems" of resolution 81 are inherent in other resolutions as well. Just a thought.

Clarify... how would giving states the right to make marriage laws as they see fit a problem? In your nation, it would matter not to me if you abolish, let's say, heterosexual marriages since it is your prerogative to make that law.

Here's one. Two citizens of mine are married under my country's marriage laws. Let's say in both of our countries, my citizens would have the right to make medical choices for each other if they were married. However, let's say if (after all the marriage resolutions are cleaned up), my citizens are not recognized as being married in your country. Let's say that the civil union that you have also fails to come into play for some reason or another, and they got into a serious accident while they were tourists in your country. One of them is unconscious and a medical decision that would normally be given to the closest relative needs to be made. All of a sudden, the partner of the citizen sitting on the bed is facing a horrible scenario - he/she/it can't make this decision for his/her/its partner because your laws do not recognize their marriage.

Wow, doesn't that screw it all up.

However, let's take a real life example into play. Late 90s, Yugoslavia. Milosovich is executing thousands because they are of a different religion than he is. We, of course, call it genocide - discrimination at its most extreme form. In fact, its the only form of murder I consider more abhorent than rape or child abuse (mostly because those often occur in the process). Instead of standing back because it didn't affect their respective nations, NATO bombed the **** out of Yugoslavia.

Of course, this is an extreme case. But my point is that we do not consider discrimination acceptable and have acted on issues of governmental discriminations. Since this is not the extreme form, the UN's course of action to address this issue of discrimination is to legislate on it rather than to attack. In the real world, we don't have that power - but you still see things like this happening (American refusal to use South African ports due to Aparthied - not to mention extreme pressure from MANY governments, condemnations from many governments and the UN of other countries for their discrminatory actions, etc).

So yes, I care about YOUR discrimination against YOUR citizens.

So giving power to the MAJORITY is giving power to the FEW, huh?

How are we giving the few power over the majority. We are removing the majority's ability to subjugate the few. However, we are not countering this by giving the minority the right to subjugate the many.

Wow. It's comforting to know that the leaders of your nation are skilled at differentiating quantities.

It's comforting to know that leaders are considerate of their minorities, regardless of what their majorities may believe. It's comforting to know that the leaders are aware that their minorities are human beings too and should be AFFORDED the rights given to the minorities. It's comforting to know that the leaders are recognizing the issues that exist with the discriminatory beliefs that are held against minorities.

Umm... yes, there is a difference between the two therefore the need for different names. There may be a difference socially, but not one legally. My government can only control the legal aspects of our country. The social aspects have to be decided by, well, society.

Ah, you have just admitted what we've been telling you. You ENCOURAGE discrimination by doing so.

Incredible. Whether I'm wrong or right is irrelevant. What matters is the principle of oppression of the minority that you say that "you care about." But that one sentence quoted above is the PARADIGM FOR HYPOCRISY. When I first read this part of your post I wanted to vomit. Any lingering assurances of whether your policies are governed by logic and not by your personal emotions and beliefs just flew out the window with that statement. It appears that with the absence of a male population in your nation there is an absence of common sense and integrity as well.

Pallatium's argument should've been a bit more verbose than that, perhaps (and I note, she was much more verbose in the reiteration), but let me explain.

You are a government. As a government, your rights are the right to rule to the level allowed by a government above you. This is true of EVERY level of government (check your provinicial or state governments - do they have the right to rule outside what is allowed by your federal level?) Of course, you hear about the arguments of State's Rights, etc. However, have you ever seen a nation condemn another nation for failure to address issues of State's Rights? No! But do they get pissed about another nation's treatment of its people? Heck yes.

So your Queen fought to have her nation subjected to an international body who has no real concern for the unique needs of your people? Doesn't sound like a good leader to me.

Signed,
The President of the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia

That sounds like a responsible leader to me. You have two jobs as a leader of a nation - to fight for your citizens, and to promote your beliefs at a global scale. You both are doing an excellent job at this - so don't you DARE tell someone that they are being irresponsible as a leader.

Pallatium

17-10-2005, 02:20

As a further incentive not to repeal this resolution, I give you this :-

Description: UN Resolution #7: Sexual Freedom (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: it is unatural and should nto be allowed to happen. Imagine if everyone decide to be with the same sex the world would hav no people left.
Unite to fight this disease

and this

Description: UN Resolution #81: Definition of Marriage (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The UN should repeal the resolution "Definition of Marriage" for a better resolution that specifically defines marriage and its specifics.

After this resolution is repeal I will propose another resolution be passed that narrows the definition of marriage.

Now I am fully aware that Vitalinia is not about to ban gay marriage or homosexuality in general (see - I am paying attention to your posts), but from these two proposals - which are current, not historic like the others I quotes - it is apparent that there are some in the UN who might want to do that.

At the moment they can't - because of this resolution, and because of Gay Rights (and a few others).

So why keep this resolution if others protect the same thing? (I hear you ask)

Well - (and this is quite a bad analogy, but it will do for now) imagine you have a safe with all the money in the world in. Now imagine you are in charge of protecting the money in the safe. Do you go for a simple lock and key? or do you put as much protection round it as you can?

And then - if one level of protection is breached, do you think "well - I have the rest" or do you try to repair it?

I believe this resolution protects something that is really worth protecting, and that although there is a cost for that protection, it is not a cost that disturbs me. I understand that others disagree - that they think the cost is too high. And while I understand their view, I (obviously) disagree with it because of what *might* happen should the resolution be repealed. There are somethings that are worth the gamble, but I am not convinced, nor do I think I ever will be, that this is one of them.

Forgottenlands

17-10-2005, 02:30

We regret the fact that a young teenage Vitalinian was recently executed by a nation that had strict rules on narcotics possession. Therefore, we cannot object as it is your prerogative if you decide to impose capital punishment for heterosexual relationships. We will, however, work for extradition when it does happen and post travel advisories for tourists who wish to visit your beautiful nation.

Whether you regret it or not, most nations would have very strained relations with other nations for holding something that they might see a misdemeanors.

However, if you are going to execute someone from my nation on a policy of discrimination, you can be assured that there will be hell to pay. Thankfully this situation has never come up, but I wouldn't just be dealing with issues of extradition, I'd be heavilly debating military extraction. My citizens would have my head if I didn't. At the most, I would accept a nation exiling someone for such an action (and, actually, that is often the policy that most nations would hold when there's a crime of that nature).

It is quite pretentious to say that the UN has the capability to completely change the world. There is always a trade-off for everything even if done with the best intentions. However, I believe returning sovereignty is a trade-off for a lesser evil. There are also member nations in the UN that are categorized as "psychotic dictatorships." It's obvious that they're not following UN mandates. If there is a nation that is doing something that others feel is abhorrent, then moral persuasion is the best route rather than authoritarian mandates.

*sighs* You'll learn as time goes on that using stats as a manner to debate powers of the UN is pretty much useless. When it comes to powers of the UN, RP is much more important than real-power. When it comes to what is stated in the text of a resolution, RP is the ONLY consideration. The real power of the text of the resolution is.....none. The headers of the resolution state the resolution's real power. You are using a real-power argument against a RP issue. Not smart.

Also, I note that Psychotic dictatorships are allowed by the UN and can never be made illegal by this United Nations.

My girlfriend's nation is a Psychotic dictatorship (or was before she lost interest). However, I can assure you it was in full compliance with all resolutions.

I highly (but respectfully) disagree with you on that definition. DEMO is a Greek word meaning many. CRACY is Greek for government. Therefore Democracy means a government of the many. Not one person, but many persons who elect officials based on the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group. This is what the UN is, is it not?

Yes....and no. Democracy means government of the many, as you so helpfully pointed out, when you break it down into its base. However, that is not to say that it is the government of the majority, just that it is a government with many voices. As in, more than a few.

We are a government of 30,000. That's how many voices we have. There are trillions that are represented by these 30,000 voices - but few of them have much say. Some don't even have any say. You yourself pointed out that we have Psychotic dictatorships that are represented within our halls.

In a true non-direct democracy, however, the voices of the people ask the many to represent them. The many make their decisions from there. They may choose to decide based upon what their people want, or what they think is right.

The governmental reason for using two different names is to appease the majority who call for a compromise (again I use the word) to allow anyone to marry who they please yet respecting the rights and beliefs of the religious majority. If people get what they want despite the semantics, then what's wrong with that?

They want to be recognized as equals. You give them equal rights, but you do not recognize them as such. That is the difference.

This is not only binding for gay people. Civil unions can be categorized to let's say foreigners who wish to marry Vitalinian nationals in order to get immigrant status, marry for tax purposes, boredom, etc.

We've already dealt with issues of tax, boredom, immigration, etc. These are posts that you responded to so they are well within your scope of consideration, and they have all been proven irrelevant to resolution 81. Don't dig up old BS that you didn't disprove the counter-argument to.

We don't discourage any of that since it is their right to marry (even if it is called something different) for any reason they want. It's just an issue of semantics.

A black man is hereby called a "charcoal"
A white man is hereby called a "chalk"
All other men are still considered to be men
A black man is not eligable for being considered a man.
A white man is not eligable for being considered a man.
We grant all categories equal rights. No one may deny them service based upon whether they are a man or a charcoal or a chalk. No one may do anything to them based upon whether they are a man or a charcoal or a chalk.

Now you tell me - is that discrimination, and why or why not?

Yes, I am quite wound up about the issue of state sovereignty, that is why I'm working through the legal circuits to get it restored. I understand resignation is always an option, but then how will we help shape world politics for the better? (Or for worse, it's relative)

Signed,
The President of the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia

There's a lot of answers to that question, but I shall not give you them. However, I don't debate this with you because I think that it will change the vote. I debate this with you because someone is going to read this - whether it be you, or Pallatium, or James Xenoland, or Canada6, or Mittsville - and think "this guy is right". I hope that person is you, and certainly I've successfully changed the opinion of two different people on this issue previously (that I know of), but whether I am successful or not, I will still debate this with you.

Forgottenlands

17-10-2005, 02:34

As a further incentive not to repeal this resolution, I give you this :-

and this

Now I am fully aware that Vitalinia is not about to ban gay marriage or homosexuality in general (see - I am paying attention to your posts), but from these two proposals - which are current, not historic like the others I quotes - it is apparent that there are some in the UN who might want to do that.

At the moment they can't - because of this resolution, and because of Gay Rights (and a few others).

So why keep this resolution if others protect the same thing? (I hear you ask)

Well - (and this is quite a bad analogy, but it will do for now) imagine you have a safe with all the money in the world in. Now imagine you are in charge of protecting the money in the safe. Do you go for a simple lock and key? or do you put as much protection round it as you can?

And then - if one level of protection is breached, do you think "well - I have the rest" or do you try to repair it?

You remind me of someone, who's name I cannot remember right now. However, he too believed in the multiple layers of government and it being better to have many resolutions than 1.

Personally, I'm in favor of just getting a bloody single resolution that addresses all forms of discrimination. However, I have yet to acquire the time and energy to do so.

I believe this resolution protects something that is really worth protecting, and that although there is a cost for that protection, it is not a cost that disturbs me. I understand that others disagree - that they think the cost is too high. And while I understand their view, I (obviously) disagree with it because of what *might* happen should the resolution be repealed. There are somethings that are worth the gamble, but I am not convinced, nor do I think I ever will be, that this is one of them.

This is why they have the NatSov resolutions as of late. I just plain dislike those ones though.

Vitalinia

17-10-2005, 04:55

I decided to just respond to this one over the other since I'm learning to pick my battles. (i.e. I'm spending too much time here) However, I'd like to bring up one thing from your post before this one:

Two citizens of mine are married under my country's marriage laws. Let's say in both of our countries, my citizens would have the right to make medical choices for each other if they were married. However, let's say if (after all the marriage resolutions are cleaned up), my citizens are not recognized as being married in your country. Let's say that the civil union that you have also fails to come into play for some reason or another, and they got into a serious accident while they were tourists in your country. One of them is unconscious and a medical decision that would normally be given to the closest relative needs to be made. All of a sudden, the partner of the citizen sitting on the bed is facing a horrible scenario - he/she/it can't make this decision for his/her/its partner because your laws do not recognize their marriage.

Wow, doesn't that screw it all up.

Not really. On the contrary, your citizens would be looked upon as having a civil union thus afforded all the rights and privileges that all married and civilly united couples have. I don't see a problem.

You'll learn as time goes on that using stats as a manner to debate powers of the UN is pretty much useless.

Pray tell, what "stat" did I use? If you were talking about my reference to the UN, i was talking about the nationstates UN, and it still is pretentious to believe they can change the whole world when many nations in nationstates still have crime, poverty, and inequality.

You are using a real-power argument against a RP issue. Not smart.

Then I give you YOUR quote:

However, let's take a real life example into play. Late 90s, Yugoslavia. Milosovich is executing thousands because they are of a different religion than he is. We, of course, call it genocide - discrimination at its most extreme form. In fact, its the only form of murder I consider more abhorent than rape or child abuse (mostly because those often occur in the process). Instead of standing back because it didn't affect their respective nations, NATO bombed the **** out of Yugoslavia.

Tell me, who's using real-power examples? (Notice I'm not going to ad-hominem attacks like you did)

My girlfriend's nation is a Psychotic dictatorship (or was before she lost interest). However, I can assure you it was in full compliance with all resolutions.

This statement is contradictory. Psychotic dictatorship BY ITS VERY DEFINITION means that the autocrat makes all the decisions DESPITE the opinions of other people and certainly despite the mandates of international bodies. Use your common sense on that one.

They want to be recognized as equals. You give them equal rights, but you do not recognize them as such.

And again, I re-iterate that IN THE EYES OF THE LAW, THEY ARE EQUAL. If they are not equal, what tangible benefits are they not receiving that others are not? The approval of religious groups? Please. Don't you think that members of one religion aren't looked down upon by members of another religion in my country? Yet they are still looked upon as equals in the eyes of the law. No more, no less.

We've already dealt with issues of tax, boredom, immigration, etc. These are posts that you responded to so they are well within your scope of consideration, and they have all been proven irrelevant to resolution 81. Don't dig up old BS that you didn't disprove the counter-argument to.

What??? I have no recollection of us EVER talking about these issues with you or anyone else in the three days I've been here. So don't try to obfuscate the argument. You're starting to sound bitter.

A black man is hereby called a "charcoal"
A white man is hereby called a "chalk"
All other men are still considered to be men
A black man is not eligable for being considered a man.
A white man is not eligable for being considered a man.
We grant all categories equal rights. No one may deny them service based upon whether they are a man or a charcoal or a chalk. No one may do anything to them based upon whether they are a man or a charcoal or a chalk.

Now you tell me - is that discrimination, and why or why not?

The definition of discrimination is "unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice" Prejudice means "a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation." Notice in your quote that there is no partiality when it comes to legal issues. Thus, no prejudice. Also notice that there is no unfair treatment based on said prejudice. Thus, no discrimination. And what does being considered a "man" mean? I thought what makes a man a man is because he has the male genitalia. But that's just me though. What a ridiculous argument.

Question: Why the need for distinction between MALE and FEMALE if both are granted equal rights? Think about it.

There's a lot of answers to that question, but I shall not give you them.

Perhaps because you don't have them.

and certainly I've successfully changed the opinion of two different people on this issue previously (that I know of)

Congratulations. Feel free to give yourself a cookie.

In all honesty, I'm just eager for the deadline to roll around so we can put this to thread to rest. If it doesn't pass to the floor, at least I know I did my part in trying to push my agenda. All I can do is to put it out there, and I can't control the rest.

Signed,
The (very tired and will retire to bed after this posting, and probably editing of this post) President of the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia

Omigodtheykilledkenny

17-10-2005, 06:43

Marriage has nothing to do with law, legal status or contracts. It is about two people sharing their love.Pardon me, but "law, legal status or contracts" is precisely what marriage is. If "love is all you need," why need governments issue marriage licenses at all?

Secondly - that is what the UN is for. Did you not read the preface to it?

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.But I am not asking for everyone to worship the Divine Three, nor am I asking for everyone to practice with their boomerang every day at noon. Instead I am asking for every UN nation (and they chose to join and stay in the UN, so they can't say these resolutions are forced upon them) to let the individuals in their nation decide if they want to marry, and who they want to marry.

I am not forcing values upon them - if an entire nation objects to gay marriage, then no one will marry. I am just saying that, since marriage is a personal choice and not a governmental or international choice, this resolution lets it be that. Which is why I don't want it overturned.

...

Nope. The UN has imposed on my values. Fair Trial, Protect Historical Sites, Use Of Landmines, Alternative Fuels, Habeus Corpus, Rights Of Minorities and Women, The Computer Crimes Act - all examples of resolutions that my people found bad to begin with. But we changed our laws and accepted them, because the benifits of being in the UN outweigh the downside. And we have adapted to these resolutions, and in most parts the resolutions have made our country better. But they definitely imposed on our values to start with. And I accept that - it is what the UN must to do make the world better.So lemme get this straight: There's nothing wrong with imposing your values on all nations via UN resolutions, because that's what some slogan says; there's nothing wrong with the fact that this resolution does infringe upon national sovereignty, because most resolutions infringe upon sovereignty anyway -- but of course you aren't imposing your values on all nations with this resolution?!

If you're gonna defend imposing your values on all nations and infringing on national sovereignty, do try to be consistent. It's awful damn hard to infringe upon sovereignty while not imposing your values through UN resolutions. If you seek for all nations to accept your view of marriage, regardless of whatever local cultural concerns may lead some nations to disagree, then you are imposing your values on them. Is that so hard to understand?

It doesn't. It protects nation's rights to protect the elves. Please stop uttering these false statements about special issues.And I suppose there was some movement afoot to deny nations their right to allow elves, warlocks, satyrs and woodland nymphs to marry? A waste of time. :rolleyes:

And yet, so many couples do not have families, or remain married well after their family has fallen apart, or get married after the family already exists, or.....

Please :rolleyes: What a romanticized view of the worldNot romanticization, but reality. I'm speaking of marriage the institution, not individual marriages or family situations. Like it or not, most families are formed around marriage; it is an essential institution in most societies, and local customs and morals must take precedence here. The point is, in legislating on marriage, the United Nations is the body farthest removed from understanding how marriage works and what role it plays in individual societies, so what business does it have in demanding that all nations comport to its value system where marriage is concerned? It seems to me that individual nations understand their own societies better than the United Nations does, so they must be the governments best equipped to regulate such matters.

Denying that essential right of sovereign nations -- to govern their own societies -- is not only culturally insensitive, it's disturbing.

Pallatium

17-10-2005, 10:08

Pardon me, but "law, legal status or contracts" is precisely what marriage is. If "love is all you need," why need governments issue marriage licenses at all?

That is a question I have been asking a lot in the past few weeks. But since governments are hell-bent on intruding in their lives of their citizens, the least the UN can do is ensure they intrude fairly.

So lemme get this straight: There's nothing wrong with imposing your values on all nations via UN resolutions, because that's what some slogan says; there's nothing wrong with the fact that this resolution does infringe upon national sovereignty, because most resolutions infringe upon sovereignty anyway -- but of course you aren't imposing your values on all nations with this resolution?!

Huh?

If you're gonna defend imposing your values on all nations and infringing on national sovereignty, do try to be consistent. It's awful damn hard to infringe upon sovereignty while not imposing your values through UN resolutions. If you seek for all nations to accept your view of marriage, regardless of whatever local cultural concerns may lead some nations to disagree, then you are imposing your values on them. Is that so hard to understand?

Again..... huh?

I know I am imposing my values. But if no one in Hyrule (for example) wants to marry the same sex, then no one will - even if they have the absolute right to do it. This resolution does not point a gun at people's heads and say "MARRY" - it just means that should someone realise they are in love with Mr Jones, they can marry Mr Jones (should Mr Jones agree).

I am confused as to what your point is :}

And I suppose there was some movement afoot to deny nations their right to allow elves, warlocks, satyrs and woodland nymphs to marry? A waste of time. :rolleyes:

Not so much a movement ot prevent Elves marrying, but to prevent Elves marrying humans, or marrying dwarves - I have seen such a thing in the past.

Not romanticization, but reality. I'm speaking of marriage the institution, not individual marriages or family situations. Like it or not, most families are formed around marriage; it is an essential institution in most societies, and local customs and morals must take precedence here. The point is, in legislating on marriage, the United Nations is the body farthest removed from understanding how marriage works and what role it plays in individual societies, so what business does it have in demanding that all nations comport to its value system where marriage is concerned? It seems to me that individual nations understand their own societies better than the United Nations does, so they must be the governments best equipped to regulate such matters.

And it seems to me if you leave it up to the individual nations, then it is a lot easier for those nations to be biggotted and discriminatory.

Further more it seems to me that while a nation might know better what goes on in it's own borders than the UN does, a PERSON knows better what goes on in their own mind than the nation does. And since (as I might have mentioned once or twice before) marriage is a PERSONAL decision, the nation has no part in saying that someone is not permitted to marry.

Denying that essential right of sovereign nations -- to govern their own societies -- is not only culturally insensitive, it's disturbing.

And telling someone they can't marry because the government disapproves of homosexuality is not disturbing? Telling a black man that he can't marry a white woman is not disturbing?

Pallatium

17-10-2005, 10:10

Personally, I'm in favor of just getting a bloody single resolution that addresses all forms of discrimination. However, I have yet to acquire the time and energy to do so.

"The Rights Of Minorities And Women"

except it is the most god-awful resolution ever written, because it tries to cover every form of discrimination in one go.

Enn

17-10-2005, 10:43

If you are basing your argument on a falsehood, then any such argument is fundamentally flawed.
I highly (but respectfully) disagree with you on that definition. DEMO is a Greek word meaning many. CRACY is Greek for government. Therefore Democracy means a government of the many.
This is not true. Demos is the Attic Greek* word for 'People'. 'Krato' is the Attic Greek word for 'I rule' (in the sense of law, not measurement). Democracy does not mean 'government of the many'**, it means, literally, Rule of the People.

*Attic Greek is the correct name for the language used by Athenians (in the polis of Attica) in the 5th and 4th centuries BC. It is from this language that we get nearly all terms usually referred to as 'Greek-based'. Attic Greek is sometimes referred to as 'Classical Greek', though this term can also be used in reference to Ionic Greek, the language used by Herodotus (among others), as well as Doric Greek, the language used in Sparta at the time. Thus ends the lesson in the Greek language tree for today.

**What you seemed to define would technically be called a polygarchy, as distinct to an oligarchy. While there are similarities between democracy and polygarchy, there are also differences, just as there are both similarities and differences between oligarchy (rule of the few) and aristocracy (rule of the best). Thus ends the lesson in Classical Greek political terms for today.

Tekania

17-10-2005, 12:33

Wow. Just wow. It's comforting to know that a civilized society such as yours is not above name calling or juvenile taunting.

But allow me to cut to the chase:

The problem with this argument is that you believe that the international majority has a right to dictate what is "right" to the national majority who is "oppressing" the national minority... let's contextualize this. Suppose that a mother and a father are "oppressing" their son by mandating him to go to bed at an earlier time than what the boy wants. You and your friends (who just so happen to outnumber the parents 5 to 2) hear of this "injustice" being done to this poor little boy and you march into the house of this set of parents and order them to let the boy choose his own bedtime because you believe that it would be best for the boy. What parent in their right mind wouldn't give you and your friends a fat lip??

It is hypocritical to assume that the international majority knows what's best for each individual nation. The exact opposite occurs when applied to the real world. Tell me, PLEASE... how many goals did the REAL UN accomplish when it set its Millenium Goals back in 1990? Answer: ZERO. When 2000 rolled around, they simply pushed the deadline to 2015. Did the REAL UN do anything significant in trying to halt the genocide in Rwanda? Did the REAL UN do anything to cause the collapse of the Soviet Union? No. The Soviet Union collapsed from the inside... FROM THE VERY MINORITY that was being oppressed by the majority. So what on earth makes you think that the International Body will do more good than harm by making these sweeping mandates? Each nation is different so therefore uniform mandates will cause more trouble than good. If there is injustice in an individual nation, more often than not, the wrongly oppressed take action without waiting for a mandate from an international body.

Signed,
The President of the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia

Your illustration is non-functional. Unlike your illustration. You have entered into an agreement to subjugate your laws to international determinations. These determinations include the capacity for national majority to be over-ruled by international majority consensus.

Forgottenlands

17-10-2005, 18:32

I decided to just respond to this one over the other since I'm learning to pick my battles. (i.e. I'm spending too much time here) However, I'd like to bring up one thing from your post before this one:

Not really. On the contrary, your citizens would be looked upon as having a civil union thus afforded all the rights and privileges that all married and civilly united couples have. I don't see a problem.

Did anyone note that I had specifically stated in the post that for some odd reason, the civil union DOES NOT APPLY? Let's say, for sake of argument, that those citizens are in an incestuous relationship - does that get covered by your civil union?

Pray tell, what "stat" did I use? If you were talking about my reference to the UN, i was talking about the nationstates UN, and it still is pretentious to believe they can change the whole world when many nations in nationstates still have crime, poverty, and inequality.

Sorry, I realized after the fact that I had already countered my own argument and provided a much firmer argument in the same post - bloody back-editing. Argument withdrawn

Then I give you YOUR quote:

Tell me, who's using real-power examples? (Notice I'm not going to ad-hominem attacks like you did)

*sighs* I earned that one. Please still look at the argument.

This statement is contradictory. Psychotic dictatorship BY ITS VERY DEFINITION means that the autocrat makes all the decisions DESPITE the opinions of other people and certainly despite the mandates of international bodies. Use your common sense on that one.

Where in the UN do we require a government to be a democracy? Where in the UN do we require the people to have the say? Where in the UN do we outlaw a Psychotic dictatorship? Believe me, we didn't, and Citizen Rule Required doesn't (before you bring it up). Psychotic Dictatorships are still able to function fully within the guidelines given - and believe me, I've watched a nation do so. Don't give me that crap.

And again, I re-iterate that IN THE EYES OF THE LAW, THEY ARE EQUAL. If they are not equal, what tangible benefits are they not receiving that others are not? The approval of religious groups? Please. Don't you think that members of one religion aren't looked down upon by members of another religion in my country? Yet they are still looked upon as equals in the eyes of the law. No more, no less.

Who said religion? Have you seen me argue for forcing religion to do ****? Have you seen me talk about ANYTHING regarding religion except removing the belief that religions would be force to do **** by this resolution? Please, you insult my intelligence!

They are referred to by different terms. In they eyes of the law, they are not the same, therefore they are not equal. Look at Enn's post on the top of page 5.

What??? I have no recollection of us EVER talking about these issues with you or anyone else in the three days I've been here. So don't try to obfuscate the argument. You're starting to sound bitter.

You may, perchance, recall a person who spoke on page 1. I immediately shot back with disproving several of the comments from that person and you responded to that post - with the same arguments. In fact, that was the same post in which your response included the implication that I had a personal connection to either an incestuous or polygamous relationship. I think you might recall that post.

The definition of discrimination is "unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice" Prejudice means "a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation." Notice in your quote that there is no partiality when it comes to legal issues. Thus, no prejudice. Also notice that there is no unfair treatment based on said prejudice. Thus, no discrimination. And what does being considered a "man" mean? I thought what makes a man a man is because he has the male genitalia. But that's just me though. What a ridiculous argument.

:D Reference please

dis·crim·i·na·tion Audio pronunciation of "discrimination" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-skrm-nshn)
n.

1. The act of discriminating.
2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.

I can find definitions too. The very fact you use a different term means you are making a distinction between the two - even if the legalities of the two are the same. Oh, yeah, that's discrimination.

Question: Why the need for distinction between MALE and FEMALE if both are granted equal rights? Think about it.

Ah, but you see, that's why my marriage laws say "any person can marry any other person". Your marriage laws, as you'd like to see them, are "man and woman". So, which of us is making the distinction between the two?

Perhaps because you don't have them.

No, they're there. Anyone who's been around long enough knows them. Heck, half of the UN Old Guard is doing it. I have the answers, I just don't think you're worthy of them.

Congratulations. Feel free to give yourself a cookie.

In all honesty, I'm just eager for the deadline to roll around so we can put this to thread to rest. If it doesn't pass to the floor, at least I know I did my part in trying to push my agenda. All I can do is to put it out there, and I can't control the rest.

Signed,
The (very tired and will retire to bed after this posting, and probably editing of this post) President of the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia

Your exhaustion is evident in your post. Sweet dreams.

Forgottenlands

17-10-2005, 18:53

"The Rights Of Minorities And Women"

except it is the most god-awful resolution ever written, because it tries to cover every form of discrimination in one go.

It's a godaweful resolution not because it tries to get them all at once but because it tries to do so in 3 lines. I'm thinking of a resolution that's pushing the character limit.

Forgottenlands

17-10-2005, 19:34

That is a question I have been asking a lot in the past few weeks. But since governments are hell-bent on intruding in their lives of their citizens, the least the UN can do is ensure they intrude fairly.

Huh?

Huh?

NatSov argument: if you want to complain about us imposing our beliefs upon our citizens, why do you deal with this issue by imposing your values upon our governments and therefore our citizens. It's a good argument, and is only contradictory IF the citizens have anything imposed upon them by this resolution.

(To Kenny) We are complaining about the government not recognizing and treating the citizens equally and fairly, using a belief they have as justification and the citizens that disagree with this belief are wrong, yadayadayada. We are saying that your government has no right to infringe upon their rights and removing that right from you. We are not infringing upon the rights of your own citizens, we are protecting some of your citizens at the expense of only your - and my - governments.

Again..... huh?

Same thing.

I know I am imposing my values. But if no one in Hyrule (for example) wants to marry the same sex,

You're from Hyrule? Hello ally!

then no one will - even if they have the absolute right to do it. This resolution does not point a gun at people's heads and say "MARRY" - it just means that should someone realise they are in love with Mr Jones, they can marry Mr Jones (should Mr Jones agree).

I am confused as to what your point is :}

There's the argument

Not so much a movement ot prevent Elves marrying, but to prevent Elves marrying humans, or marrying dwarves - I have seen such a thing in the past.

Not to mention that it only makes a side reference that basically acts as acknowledging the nations RPing at an FT level. Considering that the very text of the resolution is by rules an RP consideration, considering RPers that don't RP the way you do is a good thing, not a waste of time.

Not romanticization, but reality. I'm speaking of marriage the institution, not individual marriages or family situations. Like it or not, most families are formed around marriage; it is an essential institution in most societies, and local customs and morals must take precedence here. The point is, in legislating on marriage, the United Nations is the body farthest removed from understanding how marriage works and what role it plays in individual societies, so what business does it have in demanding that all nations comport to its value system where marriage is concerned? It seems to me that individual nations understand their own societies better than the United Nations does, so they must be the governments best equipped to regulate such matters.

No,no,no, you miss my point. You're looking at this from the aspect that the family unit is based upon a marriage. I'm looking at this from not all marriages are a family unit.....per se and oversimplification. If all Snits are Snicks, are all Snicks Snits? No. But this law deals with Snicks so why are you arguing with Snits?

Denying that essential right of sovereign nations -- to govern their own societies -- is not only culturally insensitive, it's disturbing.

I don't see it as an essential right. Over the past 2.5-3 millenia, we have gone from civic governments and city states ruled the land to the point where national governments are in command. I believe in taking it to the next level where a full international government is in control. If the framework was possible, I would happilly make it a planetary government, but that is not possible. Federal governments somehow don't give the right of their states to govern themselves as they see fit. They place restrictions and perhaps overrule some of the cultural beliefs held by those regions. Believing in an International government, I think it is far from disturbing for a similar position to be held by this United Nations.

Texan Hotrodders

17-10-2005, 19:56

I know I am imposing my values. But if no one in Hyrule (for example) wants to marry the same sex, then no one will - even if they have the absolute right to do it. This resolution does not point a gun at people's heads and say "MARRY" - it just means that should someone realise they are in love with Mr Jones, they can marry Mr Jones (should Mr Jones agree).

Are you proposing, Your Majesty?

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Forgottenlands

17-10-2005, 20:09

Are you proposing, Your Majesty?

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

No, just that someone else should have the right to if he/she/it is so inclined to feel love towards you :P

Texan Hotrodders

17-10-2005, 20:16

No, just that someone else should have the right to if he/she/it is so inclined to feel love towards you :P

OOC: Shh. My character is trying to get with a queen here. And she already has a partner, but he doesn't know that even though I do Out-of-Character. :D

Pallatium

17-10-2005, 20:57

Are you proposing, Your Majesty?

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

I am proposing we don't repeal this.

As for anything else...... well my partner is much better with the boomerang than I am, and can WHIP my ass at fencing. So I think.... not :}

Cluichstan

17-10-2005, 21:33

Pallatium

17-10-2005, 22:00

Though the people of Cluichstan do not agree with the religious arguments laid out in the repeal proposal, we still want Resolution #81 repealed, as the UN has no business defining marriage in the first place. As such, we will support this repeal proposal but will fight any proposal aimed at replacing it.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

Ok - this is the problem I have with that arguement.

Most nations want this repealed, because they feel it is the governments job, not the UNs to define marriage in their nation.

But if the UN has no business defining marriage, then it follows that the government of a nation has no business defining marriage.

Either it is a governmental thing, or it isn't - so either the UN has a business to define marriage, as it acts as a sort of government that people agree to adhere to the rules of, or no nation should be permitted to define marriage within it's borders.

I would agree with the above arguement - that the UN, and the goverment, has no business trying to define what marriage, and what love, is. But while governments (generally controlled by biggots of the worst sort) will overstep their bounds and ban various marriages because they think they have the right, then the UN can equally overstep it's bounds to stop them doing it.

So - no support for the repeal, without a signed letter from each and every government in the UN that it will not try to enact laws that go against the spirit of the standing resolution should it be repealed.

Tekania

17-10-2005, 22:02

The DoM enacts the capacity for people (specifically citizens; and thereby non-minors) to enter into marrital unions with other citizens regardless of sex, race, and religion (and even species within some of our states).

Q. Is it "discriminatory" upon anyone; that is, does it specifically penalize the rights of any person or persons?

A. No, since it enacts a capacity for people to marry, but in no way forces any person to enter into such a union against their will; it cannot be construed to be dicriminatory.

Q. But doesn't it discriminate against national majorties that which to deny marriage to group X?

A. No, there is no such thing as a right to impose discrimination. National majorites are not forced to enter homosexual, or otherwise, marrital unions by the DoM. If citizens did not want to enter in these unions, they would not. Thus, it is anti-discriminatory [that is, it opperates in opposition to discriminatory tactics]. If your citizens did not want homosexuals marriages, and the like, it would be a non-issue; since none of your citizens would enter into them. Since this is, in light of the presetn arguments, something which is being opposed; it is obvious that a segment of your citizens do in fact want these, and your opposition is against your own citizenry.

Q. But, doesn't a nationstate have the right to do whatever it wants with its own citizens?

A. Yes and no. A rogue state, not in membership; may govern and operate in what-ever manner it sees fit. This is the yes. It may also ultimately govern in the sense that the state itself has the final say-so in NSUN membership. To the "No" however; once a state has entered into membership, it has subjected its local legislation to the possible over-site by International Legislation. In this sense, arguing local-majority is an absurdity... If a state is so absolutely keen on not having its local-majority trumped; they would not have entered the UN [or remained in it] in the first place. After-the-fact argument over local-majority, is merely rulership of the sour [those who cannot stand being overruled (even in cases such as this, where they have EFFECTIVELY AGREED to being overruled before they it even occured)]..

Q. Marriage is a cultural thing! It has no business in international law! Isn't it!?

A. Yes, and no... Marriage is determined by culture; but it is also of international import. Since it's a contractural union entered between two parties, it is important that, amongst unified states (such as in the UN); that marrital contracts be recognized accross borders; as this can effect how citizens are treated in foreign states. In this sense, the DoM ensures, that as married citizens from one member-state travel abroad, they have the same basic rights they have at home, and the same recognition of their union, as well as the same basic transfer of custodial rights if one party suffered injury in said state.... UN Culture is non-uniform; and there is no way to legislate "culture"; since it has already been placed into subjection by the Rights and Duties resolution.

Cluichstan

17-10-2005, 22:05

Ok - this is the problem I have with that arguement.

Most nations want this repealed, because they feel it is the governments job, not the UNs to define marriage in their nation.

But if the UN has no business defining marriage, then it follows that the government of a nation has no business defining marriage.

Either it is a governmental thing, or it isn't - so either the UN has a business to define marriage, as it acts as a sort of government that people agree to adhere to the rules of, or no nation should be permitted to define marriage within it's borders.

Um...no. You are failing to see the difference between a national matter and an international matter. My nation my want, for example, to set a speed limit of 65 mph on all of its highways, but is it appropriate for the UN to set one for all countries? No.

I would agree with the above arguement - that the UN, and the goverment, has no business trying to define what marriage, and what love, is.

This line of debate just needs to stop now. We're talking here about a law regarding marriage. The law does not deal with touchy-feely notions of love. In the eyes of the law, marriage is nothing more than a contract between two persons -- period.

Vitalinia

17-10-2005, 22:21

Did anyone note that I had specifically stated in the post that for some odd reason, the civil union DOES NOT APPLY? Let's say, for sake of argument, that those citizens are in an incestuous relationship - does that get covered by your civil union?

As a matter of fact it is covered by civil unions, as I'm assuming is covered by marriage union laws in your country.

*sighs* I earned that one. Please still look at the argument.

Thank you. And as you requested, I will still look at your argument.

Psychotic Dictatorships are still able to function fully within the guidelines given - and believe me, I've watched a nation do so. Don't give me that crap.

Pardon my skepticism, but I find it very hard to believe that a psychotic dictator who refers to his people as "his/her little playthings" (my sister's country was a psychotic dictatorship, so I have seen one in action) could actually be honoring UN mandates that give a universal bill of rights for humans.

In fact, that was the same post in which your response included the implication that I had a personal connection to either an incestuous or polygamous relationship. I think you might recall that post.

Dear sir, if you're going to play this game, you're going to need to be a little less sensitive and learn to not take EVERYTHING you hear so personally. If it would make you feel better, I apologize for being so derisive. I thought it was all in the spirit of fun and debate. And by the way, I didn't imply you to a connection to a polygamous relationship. I recall implying a bestial relationship. There is a difference.

They are referred to by different terms. In they eyes of the law, they are not the same, therefore they are not equal. Look at Enn's post on the top of page 5.

Firstly, the assumption you make, sir, is that ALL forms of discrimination is abhorrent. I say it is not. Let me give you an example. The National University of Vitalinia is one of three most prestigious institutions of higher learning in my country. 50,000 students apply each year while only 1,000 are offered admission. Let us assume that there is one spot left that two students, Student A and Student B, are competing for it. Let us assume that their credentials are virtually equal except in their mandatory IQ tests, Student A scores a 180, while Student B scores a 140. Therefore, the admissions board will DISCRIMINATE in favor of Student A for the final spot. Now, contextualizing your argument, for the sole reason that all applicants are people and are citizens of my country that they SHOULD all have the right to matriculate at the National University. However, this is not the case. Is it fair? No. But is it right? You bet.

Secondly, there is such a thing as separate but equal. It's called public men's restrooms and women's restrooms.

Reference please

Here you go...
Discrimination:1. treating people differently through prejudice. (MSN Encarta Dictionary)
Prejudice: 1. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts. (American Heritage Dictionary)
I had to word it my own way in the previous post so I wouldn't be accused of plagiarism.

The very fact you use a different term means you are making a distinction between the two - even if the legalities of the two are the same. Oh, yeah, that's discrimination.

Addressed. Next?

Ah, but you see, that's why my marriage laws say "any person can marry any other person". Your marriage laws, as you'd like to see them, are "man and woman". So, which of us is making the distinction between the two?

It's not how I would like to see them. It's how they are.

I have the answers, I just don't think you're worthy of them.

Well, far be it for me to call you a liar.

Your exhaustion is evident in your post.

I have not yet begun to fight.

Signed,
The President of the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia

Pallatium

17-10-2005, 22:54

Um...no. You are failing to see the difference between a national matter and an international matter. My nation my want, for example, to set a speed limit of 65 mph on all of its highways, but is it appropriate for the UN to set one for all countries? No.

I disagree (not about the speed limit thing - that is not my next big idea!). If something is a governmental matter, than it can be argued the UN can be involved. If something is not a governmental matter, then the UN should not be involved.

To me - it's one way or the other. You can't have it both ways :}

This line of debate just needs to stop now. We're talking here about a law regarding marriage. The law does not deal with touchy-feely notions of love. In the eyes of the law, marriage is nothing more than a contract between two persons -- period.

Then why do some nations care about marriages that are arranged so someone can stay in the country. It's clear Susan doesn't love Sophie, but in order for Sophie not to be deported, they can get married. If marriage is nothing but a contract - and both Sophie and Susan agree to this - why should some government stop them?

Further more - if love is just a contract and nothing to do with love or anything else, why are so many people adamant about banning gay marriage? Two men agree to a contract - what is so wrong with that?

There has to be something else in the idea of marriage, otherwise people would not be so insistant that men can't marry men and women can't marry women. And by pandering to the prejudices of the many, the government are accepting that it is not just a legal contract, but something bigger. Otherwise they would tell the uptight biggots to shut up and sit down.

Further more - if it is just a contact, what business is it of anyone elses? If Mr Smith and Mr Jones enter in to a contract, what does it matter to The Rev Harley Lawson? Why should he want to stop two men entering in to a contract that they both want?

I don't buy it. The government has to believe there is more to marriage than a contract, otherwise they would not be so discriminatory about who they let enter in to this contract.

Pallatium

17-10-2005, 22:57

And by the way, I didn't imply you to a connection to a polygamous relationship. I recall implying a bestial relationship. There is a difference.

(entirely OOC) As comebacks go, that has to be one of the more entertaining ones I have read recently :}

In fact, it is quite entertaining on so many levels that I don't think I could explain them all :}

Forgottenlands

17-10-2005, 23:30

As a matter of fact it is covered by civil unions, as I'm assuming is covered by marriage union laws in your country.

Considering that its covered by the UN resolution in question, your assumption would be correct.

Thank you. And as you requested, I will still look at your argument.

Still waiting

Pardon my skepticism, but I find it very hard to believe that a psychotic dictator who refers to his people as "his/her little playthings" (my sister's country was a psychotic dictatorship, so I have seen one in action) could actually be honoring UN mandates that give a universal bill of rights for humans.

You will find that the rights afforded to the average citizen are fairly minimal. Pretty much, they have the right to live and choose, be free from discrimination, and not be abused by their nation. She actually got her ranking more from her policy regarding many crimes.... basically her rather excessive use of the death penalty ("population control" as she called it - far from illegal by UN resolutions). Being drunk is a crime and being a drunk driver is worthy of death. These are areas that are not legislated on by this United Nations, and thus she could be in full compliance while performing what many would consider to be rather abhorent acts.

Dear sir, if you're going to play this game, you're going to need to be a little less sensitive and learn to not take EVERYTHING you hear so personally. If it would make you feel better, I apologize for being so derisive. I thought it was all in the spirit of fun and debate. And by the way, I didn't imply you to a connection to a polygamous relationship. I recall implying a bestial relationship. There is a difference.

Dear sir, if you think I am frustrated or annoyed by your postings, or that my words in any way suggest that I am, you are fooling yourself. I am actually rather humored by your position more than anything.

Firstly, the assumption you make, sir, is that ALL forms of discrimination is abhorrent. I say it is not. Let me give you an example. The National University of Vitalinia is one of three most prestigious institutions of higher learning in my country. 50,000 students apply each year while only 1,000 are offered admission. Let us assume that there is one spot left that two students, Student A and Student B, are competing for it. Let us assume that their credentials are virtually equal except in their mandatory IQ tests, Student A scores a 180, while Student B scores a 140. Therefore, the admissions board will DISCRIMINATE in favor of Student A for the final spot. Now, contextualizing your argument, for the sole reason that all applicants are people and are citizens of my country that they SHOULD all have the right to matriculate at the National University. However, this is not the case. Is it fair? No. But is it right? You bet.

Ah, you speak of discrimination based upon skill - and yes, intelligence is skill. No, I do not deny that all forms of discrimination is totally abhorent, nor do I think that all forms of discrimination is abhorent in all cases. Stating they are homosexual is not abhorent. How you TREAT them, and basing this upon a discriminatory nature, that is something completely different. You may prefer one over the other, but you still must treat them both as a human being.

Now, where did you get the idea that I made such a distinction? I am humored that instead of addressing the point that Enn brought forth that you are still discriminating by bringing forth a new term instead, you start saying that SOME forms of discrimination is all right. So let me ask you this:

Let's say that there are two couples that want to get married. One of them has an average IQ of 140 and the other has an average IQ of 180. Does your government have the right to reject EITHER of their requests for marriage based upon IQ? Based upon skills? Based upon anything that is accepted as an allowable form of "discrimination"? I think not.

Secondly, there is such a thing as separate but equal. It's called public men's restrooms and women's restrooms.

Why do you think my government buildings all have coed toilets? Oh yeah, that's right, because my government is blind to gender. If the company that owns the building wants to recognize the different genders, that its perogative.

Here you go...
Discrimination:1. treating people differently through prejudice. (MSN Encarta Dictionary)
Prejudice: 1. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts. (American Heritage Dictionary)
I had to word it my own way in the previous post so I wouldn't be accused of plagiarism.

If you're referring to an intellectual piece of data - and certainly something such as definitions, I recommend referencing it. Then it's not plagiarism, and it is considered as a valid argument. Regardless, as you can see, there is more than one definition for discrimination. In the definition I put forth, yours is #3, mine is #2, both are discrimination. You want to claim that your single definition is more correct in this case? Both definitions are relevant, so they both count.

Addressed. Next?

Excellent, you admit its discrimination. Now we can make some progress

It's not how I would like to see them. It's how they are.

If you want to be called a godmodder or wanker, keep stating that

Well, far be it for me to call you a liar.

:) I am far from lieing, but the community knows what I speak of so I need not prove it to you.

I have not yet begun to fight.

Signed,
The President of the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia

Its been a while since I was this relaxed during a debate on Same Sex marriage.

Forgottenlands

17-10-2005, 23:37

Ok - this is the problem I have with that arguement.

Most nations want this repealed, because they feel it is the governments job, not the UNs to define marriage in their nation.

But if the UN has no business defining marriage, then it follows that the government of a nation has no business defining marriage.

Hardly. The levels of government each have different areas of power. Civic governments generally are in charge of their public transportation systems while states/provinces or occasionally federal governments are in charge of health care. Different countries have a different set of beliefs of what should be at different levels of government. As such, just because a country doesn't believe it should be at the international level doesn't mean they believe it shouldn't be in the hands of government.

Personally, I see this as completely a discrimination issue. Discrimination, I fully believe, is an issue that is completely and totally within the jurisdiction of the HIGHEST level of government. Currently, that's the international government (The United Nations). If we had a Federated States of Earth that was a central government for the entire planet, I would expect it to be addressed at that level. If we had an inter-galactic government above us, I would want that government to be addressing it. However, with exception to a few FT empires, this is not the case, and thus the UN is the highest form of government, so this is where I believe the discrimination issue should be addressed.

Vitalinia

17-10-2005, 23:59

Pretty much, they have the right to live and choose, be free from discrimination, and not be abused by their nation.

I highly doubt that a dictator who believes his people exist purely for his own amusement (thus referred to as "playthings") is not abusing his people.

Dear sir, if you think I am frustrated or annoyed by your postings, or that my words in any way suggest that I am, you are fooling yourself.

Then I give you back YOUR quote from #38:

There have been only a handful of posts that have gotten on my nerves. This one is definately one of them.

You were referring to a post of mine, were you not?

Let's say that there are two couples that want to get married. One of them has an average IQ of 140 and the other has an average IQ of 180. Does your government have the right to reject EITHER of their requests for marriage based upon IQ? Based upon skills? Based upon anything that is accepted as an allowable form of "discrimination"? I think not.

In theory, the government has the right if the majority mandate it. But I highly doubt that will happen in my country as it is extreme, non-sensical situation.

Why do you think my government buildings all have coed toilets? Oh yeah, that's right, because my government is blind to gender.

Whether YOUR government buildings have coed toilets or not is irrelevant. The point is that you say ANY seperate but equal policies are wrong when I say it isn't. Although of course there are separate but equal policies that are atrocious (such as on the basis of race) but my nation believes this isn't one of them. Besides, many, MANY nations still have men's and women's bathrooms. They must not be as "progressive" as yours. Please, get your head out of your self-righteous a**. :P

You want to claim that your single definition is more correct in this case? Both definitions are relevant, so they both count.

Therefore, we're both right on this point. So from this point on, don't accuse me of discriminating in the way you feel is wrong. We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

Excellent, you admit its discrimination. Now we can make some progress.

Yes, but not the bad kind (as I just pointed out).

I am far from lieing, but the community knows what I speak of so I need not prove it to you.

If you won't state your argument then what's the point of trying to debate?? I could simply say "I'm right, period" and cease correspondence. Would that make me right?

Its been a while since I was this relaxed during a debate on Same Sex marriage.

Too relaxed if you ask me considering the lack of strength in your points. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one too.

Signed,
The President of the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia

Forgottenlands

18-10-2005, 00:44

I highly doubt that a dictator who believes his people exist purely for his own amusement (thus referred to as "playthings") is not abusing his people.

Abusing her people? You seem to think that one line description shows how all psychotic dictatorships treat their people. The thing is that those titles are based upon your stats - both the main 3 categories and I believe a few other stats as well (though I've heard it said that there are exactly 27 which would indicate it is completely just the main 3 categories). It is from these stats that everything is decided.

A Psychotic dictatorship receives poor marks in everything. Its economy is useless (no UN resolution requires otherwise), its citizens have few freedoms (doable if you work your way around it very carefully) and little political freedoms (not dealt with at a significant level by any one resolution). So yes, sir, Psychotic dictatorship are quite permissable in this United Nations by our current resolutions.

Then I give you back YOUR quote from #38:

There have been only a handful of posts that have gotten on my nerves. This one is definately one of them.

I note the emphasis

You were referring to a post of mine, were you not?

You see, my comment on my last post was regarding this thread in general. However, this thread has since more than doubled in length so to claim that my statement is false because I indicated a single post infuriated me, that is quite a bit different.

In theory, the government has the right if the majority mandate it. But I highly doubt that will happen in my country as it is extreme, non-sensical situation.

In theory. Would you approve of it? Would the UN? Considering the Rights of the Disabled or whatever that resolution is called, I think not. So you feel that this is acceptable? At what point does it not become acceptable, or is the majority's belief on what marriage should be that important?

Whether YOUR government buildings have coed toilets or not is irrelevant. The point is that you say ANY seperate but equal policies are wrong when I say it isn't. Although of course there are separate but equal policies that are atrocious (such as on the basis of race) but my nation believes this isn't one of them. Besides, many, MANY nations still have men's and women's bathrooms. They must not be as "progressive" as yours. Please, get your head out of your self-righteous a**. :P

What makes this one unique? Or, perhaps, what makes the racial one less acceptable than this situation? Don't say majority. You already know I don't care about the majority's opinion on basis of discrimination.

Therefore, we're both right on this point. So from this point on, don't accuse me of discriminating in the way you feel is wrong. We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

Oh, nonono. Your point was that it is NOT discrimination because it doesn't match the definition you selected. I acknowledged there was more than one definition and stated that it was discrimination under a different definition. It's not a pick or choose thing. It's a logical "OR" function. If either one is true, the entire statement is true. Just because it doesn't match one definition doesn't mean it fails to match them all. With the vast variety of definitions in the english language for any given word, to suggest such a thing is ridiculous at best, moronic at worst.

Please, can we try to be a bit more logical here? This isn't a difference of opinion, this is a case of hiding the facts.

Yes, but not the bad kind (as I just pointed out).

You see, if you admit its discrimination, that's a crucial step in trying to get you realize it is bad discrimination. So now, let's work on why it's the BAD kind. (Not here, other arguments in this post are already working on that)

If you won't state your argument then what's the point of trying to debate?? I could simply say "I'm right, period" and cease correspondence. Would that make me right?

Says who I'm debating that point. I'm merely stating a fallacy in your statement. Nothing more, nothing less.

Too relaxed if you ask me considering the lack of strength in your points. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one too.

Signed,
The President of the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia

Lack of strength? Really. Between the two of us, I've been gunned at by one person outside yourself on this thread. You, however, have twice been corrected about something from one poster, and been gunned at by several posters on this thread several different times. Considering we're definately 2 of the top 3 posters on this thread, I find that rather odd. If my arguments lack so much strength, why doesn't someone come on here and just end all my arguments with one fell swoop of logic?

Vitalinia

18-10-2005, 01:48

Abusing her people? You seem to think that one line description shows how all psychotic dictatorships treat their people. The thing is that those titles are based upon your stats - both the main 3 categories and I believe a few other stats as well (though I've heard it said that there are exactly 27 which would indicate it is completely just the main 3 categories). It is from these stats that everything is decided.

Weren't you the one who said before that stats are irrelevant? Although that argument has been nullified (by you), I will humor you in your doubt that psychotic dictatorships abuse their people. There is a saying by Lord Acton that goes, "Absolute Power corrupts absolutely." What does corruption equal? The abuse and the withholding of basic human rights of people. That's human nature, and you're pretty dang naive if you continue to deny it.

In theory. Would you approve of it? Would the UN? Considering the Rights of the Disabled or whatever that resolution is called, I think not. So you feel that this is acceptable? At what point does it not become acceptable, or is the majority's belief on what marriage should be that important?

Would I personally approve of it? No. However, since I get ONE vote like everybody else, then if the people decide that that's what they want and since our Congress passes the laws and that's what Congress decides I'll abide by it. Would the UN approve? Well, Resolution #81 states it quite clearly. As far as my nation is concerned it does not become acceptable when rights become unequal. And besides the difference in the name of the two unions, everyone is getting what they want. I don't know how much simpler I could put that for you to understand.

What makes this one unique? Or, perhaps, what makes the racial one less acceptable than this situation? Don't say majority. You already know I don't care about the majority's opinion on basis of discrimination.

The racial one was unacceptable in that the physical qualities of separated facilities in apartheid were unequal. The bathrooms of the colored people were dirtier and less maintained than the bathrooms for whites. The schools of colored people were not as high quality as the schools for the whites. However, the bathrooms in our country are both in excellent shape since the government is very strict on the equally high maintenance level of both bathrooms. Thus, this situation is unique.

Your point was that it is NOT discrimination because it doesn't match the definition you selected. I acknowledged there was more than one definition and stated that it was discrimination under a different definition. It's not a pick or choose thing. It's a logical "OR" function. If either one is true, the entire statement is true. Just because it doesn't match one definition doesn't mean it fails to match them all. With the vast variety of definitions in the english language for any given word, to suggest such a thing is ridiculous at best, moronic at worst.

and:

You see, if you admit its discrimination, that's a crucial step in trying to get you realize it is bad discrimination. So now, let's work on why it's the BAD kind. (Not here, other arguments in this post are already working on that)

You're using circular reasoning and it's not getting us anywhere. As I said, I recognized it as discrimination. However, again I state that you seem to think that ALL discrimination is bad when it's not (recall the National University example).

Says who I'm debating that point. I'm merely stating a fallacy in your statement.

Okay, first of all I don't understand what you mean in your first sentence, and
secondly, I don't know what "fallacy" you're referring to.

Between the two of us, I've been gunned at by one person outside yourself on this thread. You, however, have twice been corrected about something from one poster, and been gunned at by several posters on this thread several different times. Considering we're definately 2 of the top 3 posters on this thread, I find that rather odd. If my arguments lack so much strength, why doesn't someone come on here and just end all my arguments with one fell swoop of logic?

I can think of at least three people that's gunned at you off the top of my head (Kirisubo, Listeneisse, and Omigodtheykilledkenny). But this argument is pointless. Isn't it obvious that nations who don't agree with what I say will naturally come and try to attack my points? It is a logical fallacy to believe that just because more people are attacking my points diminish the legitimacy of what i'm saying. As far as I'm concerned I will not rely on the vindication of others as compensation for having crappy arguments. Furthermore, I did not say that you have crappy arguments in general. But the arguments you presented in that specific post truly were.

Lastly, you're wondering why someone doesn't just end all your arguments with one fell swoop of logic? That's because you believe the issue is so simple when it's not. If it was so simple to come up with a resolution that ends ALL discrimination, you would've done it by now. We've been arguing over and over about definitions and logic that isn't as easy to come to a mutual consensus as you think it is. Here's a hint: try to see where I'm coming from and try to win me over with logic formed from that understanding. Then you may have a shot.

Signed,
The President of the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia

Enn

18-10-2005, 02:01

On the subject of toilets...

They aren't 'separate but equal'. This is a false analogy.

If they are equal in size and facility, then the queue for the ladies will take approximately 5-9 times as long to work through. Obviously not equal.

If they are equal in time it takes, then the ladies toilets would have to be about 5-9 times the size of the gents.

Listeneisse

18-10-2005, 02:09

Pallatium

18-10-2005, 02:22

The vilification of the sensible and useful word "discriminate" needs to stop.

What most people use the word for is in the prejudicial sense, i.e., to make a decision based upon one criteria without analysis of other facts.

However, all governments discriminate in one form or another. They make choices, which mean they do not make other choices.

The problem with the original resolution is that it does not discriminate, so that we cannot tell what a 'civil joining' actually is comprised of, what it means, nor how that can be achieved or voided (such as by annulment or divorce).

Is a civil joining based in common law? Judicial ceremony? Religious ceremony? Or is it even a contract covered under business law?

The problem with the original resolution is that it purports to set forth to define what a marriage is, without ever actually defining it in clear and legally-meaningful terms.

'Civil joining' therefore is a contestable legal phrase and thus the entire resolution is null and void.

While we usually apply common sense to UN Resolutions, in this case we are baffled by its very precept, unsure of its interpretation, and patently offended by its egregious destructive force on the well-established laws of marriage in our state.

Ok -- aside from the last paragraph, it is easy to explain.

My partner and I had a small ceremony with friends. We can call ourselves married because, in the eyes of the government (which, okay, is me in this case) we are.

Mr Jones and Mr Smith had a large ceremony in a church in Hyrule, and they can call themselves married, cause in the eyes of the government of Hyrule, they are.

Toriella and her partner (may the goddesses protect them) had a civil ceremony in a registry office in TilEnca (before it was destroyed), and they can call themselves married because in the eyes of the government of Tilenca, they are.

And because all three nations are UN Members, all three nations are REQUIRED to accept all three marriages.

Further more, the law to divorce and seperation in each country is exactly the same as it was before the resolution was passed/the country joined the UN. Why? Because all three couples are married as defined by the laws of the nations, because the UN says so.

Seriously - this is not that hard to understand.

And the reason people are using the word discrimination is because to let Toriella and her partner marry, but not my Partner and I, or Mr Jones and Mr Smith, is not the governmen merely "making a choice", but actively supressing the human rights of a group that it disapproves of. Which - you will find - is discrimination.

Pallatium

18-10-2005, 02:29

Is a civil joining based in common law? Judicial ceremony? Religious ceremony? Or is it even a contract covered under business law?

(sorry - extra stuff)

What do you define a civil joining as?

I define it (and since I am sole ruler of my nation, I think that my definition is acceptable) as two people coming together, infront of witnesses (friends, family, me sometimes) to affirm their commitment to one another, and signing the "register of the wedded" to indicate to the government they have done such a thing. That is the basis of a civil joining in my nation. Now - you can do more than that - you can have it in one of the Churches of The Goddesses, you can swear before The Divine Three that you will love each other, but as long as you get the basic part - the register and the witnesses - it is still a civil joining.

Now maybe in other nations it's different. Maybe you need a licence, and medical test and other such stuff. But every nation must have a definition of what it means to the government when two people marry. And that is the basis of this - once they complete that part of the requirement, they can call themselves married under UN law. It will vary from nation to nation, but it can not be refused to people just cause they share the same gender, different genders, different races, creeds or hairstyles.

Seriously - this is not that complicated a resolution, as resolutions go. Try reading some of the others and then see if this one makes any more sense or not :}

Mighty able

18-10-2005, 02:47

The Definition of Marriage is a simple act.

This repeal however violates several UN rules on repeals.

for one thing you cannot redefine marriage by repeal.

referring to defining a marrage as a man and woman.

that has to be enacted in a differenet act

i don't even know why i am commenting on this as this will probably never make it to the UN for a vote

Vitalinia

18-10-2005, 02:53

Fellow UN member,

I am not asking for a new definition of marriage. All I'm asking is to repeal this resolution as to give back sovereignty to the states to decide their own definition of marriage.

I hope this clarifies the issue.

Signed,
The President of the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia

Vitalinia

18-10-2005, 02:59

Quote by Pallatium:

I define it (and since I am sole ruler of my nation, I think that my definition is acceptable) as two people coming together, infront of witnesses (friends, family, me sometimes) to affirm their commitment to one another, and signing the "register of the wedded" to indicate to the government they have done such a thing. That is the basis of a civil joining in my nation. Now - you can do more than that - you can have it in one of the Churches of The Goddesses, you can swear before The Divine Three that you will love each other, but as long as you get the basic part - the register and the witnesses - it is still a civil joining.

Thank you! Basically our nation's civil union is just that. Two people coming together, infront of witnesses (friends, family, etc.) to affirm their commitment to one another, and signing the "union register" to indicate to the government they have done such a thing. Then, if couples are eligible, they can have a religious ceremony in a church, synagogue, or mosque, depending on their religion, thus considered a marriage union. But as long as you get the basic part (i.e. legal recognition) it is valid and legal with all the rights and privileges appertaining to. In conclusion, no rights are lost by any party whatsoever.

Regards to the Queendom of Pallatium,
The President of the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia

Vitalinia

18-10-2005, 03:05

They aren't 'separate but equal'. This is a false analogy.

They are equal in the physical and material sense of the word. As in equality in the layout, number of toilets and sinks, and in the level of cleanliness and functionality. In our nation, 50% are male and 50% are female. Therefore, the government cannot control the fact that perhaps women use the bathroom more frequently than men. We will however make it equal as far as the government is able to. This isn't a perfect world, but we're doing the best we can.

Regards,
The President of the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia

Mighty able

18-10-2005, 03:26

sorry I misread them repeal

the act made an appeal to religion argument in section C
that confused me somewhat

by the way appeal to religion is a logical fallicy

I don't see the real need to repeal the marrage act thou.

it is up your nation to define what a civil joining is.

there is no single law that really defines what a marrage is.

it is actually a web of laws and customs of a nation.

all the act does is specify that according to goverment functions; is that a marriage is a civil joining. That is regulable under the laws of civil joining.

if you want to remove the possiblity of same sex unions, write those laws of a civil union to exclude them. Maybe make it a requirement that all civial unions require a license, and to obtain a license a single man and women is required to obtain it.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

18-10-2005, 04:57

if you want to remove the possiblity of same sex unions, write those laws of a civil union to exclude them. Maybe make it a requirement that all civial unions require a license, and to obtain a license a single man and women is required to obtain it.Or, the next time Issue #32 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6711729&postcount=5) rotates into your outstanding issues folder, simply elect Option #2:

2. "This is nothing more than sexual deviants using religion as a pretext for perversion!" says Reverend @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Marriage is one man, one woman, and death do we part. What's so hard to get? Anything else is a perversion, and must be banned."It's just that easy. :cool:

Enn

18-10-2005, 06:38

They are equal in the physical and material sense of the word. As in equality in the layout, number of toilets and sinks, and in the level of cleanliness and functionality. In our nation, 50% are male and 50% are female. Therefore, the government cannot control the fact that perhaps women use the bathroom more frequently than men. We will however make it equal as far as the government is able to. This isn't a perfect world, but we're doing the best we can.

Regards,
The President of the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia
Hang on... your female toilets have urinals? Or am I missing something?

Again, this is a false analogy.

Listeneisse

18-10-2005, 10:36

Pallatium,

Your definition sounds reasonable. However, this resolution makes it impossible to define marriage as what you describe.

Because marriage, according to the resolution, could be three people, or thirty three. You cannot limit it to two. Because that criteria -- already being married -- is not in the listed criteria of those reasons why people cannot be wed.

While we understand that there are nations that allow polygamy, this resolution demands that all nations are now de facto supporting polygamous relations.

Your nation cannot do anything to limit freedom for an individual that so long as this resolution exists. What this UN Resolution does is makes such policy choices illegal for nations.

They are 'civil joinings' without any other characteristics besides the ones listed.

While it does not permit nations to make other policy choices, obviously member nations are violating this Resolution on a common basis, and likely should.

The Resolution does not, for instance, actually say anywhere it is a joining between two people. Nor does it say that it needs to be a consensual joining.

It does not say "man and woman" either.

It just says "civil joining."

We believe that nations do have the right to make marriage law within their sovereign areas of jurisdiction. We also believe nations are breaking this resolution, wittingly or unwittingly, by making marriage based on anything more than what was written into the "definition."

It is a poorly-worded resolution that makes no legal sense.

While we can ignore it and do whatever we want anyway, and apparently member nations are being encouraged to do so above, it would be better to repeal the present resolution and pass one that actually made more clear definition of what marriage is, so that it was not a legal loophole for tax evasion, problematic for inheritence and divorce proceedings, or a risk to children in muddled and confused adult custody considerations.

If nations wish to permit polygamy or arranged marriages that should be their own business. If they wish to permit incestuous marriages or beastiality, that should be their own business. If they wish to declare marriage in their own nation as only one man and one woman, that should be their business. If they wish to consider it any two consenting adults who are not otherwise married or related regardless of gender, they should be able to do so. If the wish to consider it a secular civil union, they should be able to do so. If they wish to consider it a sacred religious union, they should be able to do so.

But in all cases, marriage custom and law should be controlled within respective member nations, and UN provisions should not be written that flagrantly and expressly violate the prevailing beliefs or considerations of member nations.

Enn

18-10-2005, 10:40

The Resolution does not, for instance, actually say anywhere it is a joining between two people. Nor does it say that it needs to be a consensual joining.
I know for a fact that Vastiva was attempting to avoid pissing off the people who believe in arranged marriages.

This is a base-line for a Definition of Marriage. There is nothing to say that governments cannot base their laws on this, and then add furter qualifications, provided they do not go against the words (not the intentions) of the proposal.

Listeneisse

18-10-2005, 10:42

Tekania

18-10-2005, 11:54

The vilification of the sensible and useful word "discriminate" needs to stop.

What most people use the word for is in the prejudicial sense, i.e., to make a decision based upon one criteria without analysis of other facts.

However, all governments discriminate in one form or another. They make choices, which mean they do not make other choices.

The problem with the original resolution is that it does not discriminate, so that we cannot tell what a 'civil joining' actually is comprised of, what it means, nor how that can be achieved or voided (such as by annulment or divorce).

Is a civil joining based in common law? Judicial ceremony? Religious ceremony? Or is it even a contract covered under business law?

The problem with the original resolution is that it purports to set forth to define what a marriage is, without ever actually defining it in clear and legally-meaningful terms.

'Civil joining' therefore is a contestable legal phrase and thus the entire resolution is null and void.

While we usually apply common sense to UN Resolutions, in this case we are baffled by its very precept, unsure of its interpretation, and patently offended by its egregious destructive force on the well-established laws of marriage in our state.

Where UN law is silent; national law reigns supreme.

What does civil joining mean? It means joining of parties under the applicable civil procedures of a state.

Is a civil joining based on common law? It could be.
Is a civil joining based on Judicial ceremony? It could be.
Is a civil joining based on religious ceremony? It could be.
Is a civil joining based upon contract law? It could be.
[Each of the above could be covered by the laws of individual states... Is there really a need to define, or limit how people are married on an internatonal level. The above argument is actually useless; any one, multiple or all of the above can be applicable in any number of member-states... The purpose of the DoM was to define the constitutent applicable parties of such a union; and not to define the entire process by which it is drafted.]

How is it achieved? By whatever legal measures are applicable in a state.

How is it annuled? By the appropriate system of law of a state.

The "sorry, it doesn't say enough" system of annuling resolutions does not work. A resolution does not have to [nor can it] cover all details. It handles those of import to the international community; smaller details are handled, still, by member-state laws themselves.

The DoM defines WHAT a marriage is.... As to the ceremonies, legal licensure, and annuling [or dissolution] processes; they are details covered by each member state's own laws.

Tekania

18-10-2005, 12:03

Tekania

18-10-2005, 12:18

-snip-

Actually yes, means nothing...

The above just illustrates that your King is not compitent enough to rule...

We will be, for the time being, reviewing your state for possible interventionary actions.

Pallatium

18-10-2005, 12:43

Pallatium,

Your definition sounds reasonable. However, this resolution makes it impossible to define marriage as what you describe.

WHY?

Because marriage, according to the resolution, could be three people, or thirty three. You cannot limit it to two. Because that criteria -- already being married -- is not in the listed criteria of those reasons why people cannot be wed.

And?

While we understand that there are nations that allow polygamy, this resolution demands that all nations are now de facto supporting polygamous relations.

Permitting? Yes. Supporting? No.

Your nation cannot do anything to limit freedom for an individual that so long as this resolution exists. What this UN Resolution does is makes such policy choices illegal for nations.

Yes. I know.

They are 'civil joinings' without any other characteristics besides the ones listed.

I get that too.

While it does not permit nations to make other policy choices, obviously member nations are violating this Resolution on a common basis, and likely should.

Why?

The Resolution does not, for instance, actually say anywhere it is a joining between two people. Nor does it say that it needs to be a consensual joining.

Actually - it says "member of any nation" - which would imply that it is a person. The nation can chose to extend it (to elves, dwarves and - in my case - men - but they don't have to)

And no - it idoesn't say consensual because otherwise arranged marriages would be illegal, as would marriages to end wars.

It does not say "man and woman" either.

I don't want to say "WELL DUH" but I will - the whole point of this is to prevent nations from banning bay marriage.

It just says "civil joining."

I can read you know.

We believe that nations do have the right to make marriage law within their sovereign areas of jurisdiction. We also believe nations are breaking this resolution, wittingly or unwittingly, by making marriage based on anything more than what was written into the "definition."

Nope. I can define a civil union as being enacted when two people slap each other round the fact. You can define it as when they jump off a bridge together.

The Resolution DOES NOT define how you make a civil union, it defines what you can't do to stop it (no gay marriage, no interacial marriage etc)

It is a poorly-worded resolution that makes no legal sense.

11000 people, plus all the people in this thread who disagree with you, would disagree with you.

While we can ignore it and do whatever we want anyway, and apparently member nations are being encouraged to do so above, it would be better to repeal the present resolution and pass one that actually made more clear definition of what marriage is, so that it was not a legal loophole for tax evasion, problematic for inheritence and divorce proceedings, or a risk to children in muddled and confused adult custody considerations.

You really can't. You can not deny the right to marry to anyone. That is the purpose of the resolution.

If nations wish to permit polygamy or arranged marriages that should be their own business. If they wish to permit incestuous marriages or beastiality, that should be their own business. If they wish to declare marriage in their own nation as only one man and one woman, that should be their business. If they wish to consider it any two consenting adults who are not otherwise married or related regardless of gender, they should be able to do so. If the wish to consider it a secular civil union, they should be able to do so. If they wish to consider it a sacred religious union, they should be able to do so.

And hey - if no one wants to marry someone of their own sex, they won't. This resolution measn that the people who think they know best about what is moral, what is right, what is decent and what is good won't be able to screw up someone elses life who wants to be with the one they love.

But in all cases, marriage custom and law should be controlled within respective member nations, and UN provisions should not be written that flagrantly and expressly violate the prevailing beliefs or considerations of member nations.

Yeah - you are wrong about that. Cause the UN does it quite a lot for what a lot of people consider the common good. Child Labour laws for example. Gay Marriage laws for example. Scientific Freedom laws for example.

Listeneisse

18-10-2005, 12:48

Show how the resolution actually supports any of what you say.

In fact, it does not.

It just says 'a civil joining.'

A business partnership is also a civil joining.

A business merger is also a civil joining.

A municipal incorporation is also a civil joining.

There needs to be a more precise definition to what marriage is, or is not, for it to be a definition of "marriage."

Otherwise, it fails in its purpose: to define marriage.

The rest of what you say is implicit based on common sense or national preference, which, unfortunately, the resolution in question does not actually permit.

Cluichstan

18-10-2005, 12:54

I disagree (not about the speed limit thing - that is not my next big idea!). If something is a governmental matter, than it can be argued the UN can be involved. If something is not a governmental matter, then the UN should not be involved.

To me - it's one way or the other. You can't have it both ways :}

No, no, no, no, no! Not every national (or state, municipal, etc.) government matter is something in which the UN should be involved. You brush aside my example of a speed limit, but why? By your standard, it would be perfectly acceptable for the UN to pass a resolution setting a world speed limit. Is that ludicrous? Of course, it is.

Then why do some nations care about marriages that are arranged so someone can stay in the country. It's clear Susan doesn't love Sophie, but in order for Sophie not to be deported, they can get married. If marriage is nothing but a contract - and both Sophie and Susan agree to this - why should some government stop them?

That's up to the invidual governments to decide.

Further more - if love is just a contract and nothing to do with love or anything else, why are so many people adamant about banning gay marriage? Two men agree to a contract - what is so wrong with that?

There has to be something else in the idea of marriage, otherwise people would not be so insistant that men can't marry men and women can't marry women. And by pandering to the prejudices of the many, the government are accepting that it is not just a legal contract, but something bigger. Otherwise they would tell the uptight biggots to shut up and sit down.

Further more - if it is just a contact, what business is it of anyone elses? If Mr Smith and Mr Jones enter in to a contract, what does it matter to The Rev Harley Lawson? Why should he want to stop two men entering in to a contract that they both want?

I don't buy it. The government has to believe there is more to marriage than a contract, otherwise they would not be so discriminatory about who they let enter in to this contract.

Those arguing against such marriages are doing so for what they see as moral (often religious) reasons. It's not the UN's role to weigh in on these debates. This resolution seeks to impose a single morality on all nations, and despite the fact that the people of Cluichstan have no problem with Jim marrying Susan, Jim marrying Steve, or even Jim marrying his hamster Fluffy, we do not believe the the UN has the right to legislate morality.

Pallatium

18-10-2005, 12:55

I hereby declare that I am now married to the Ambassador from Omigodtheykilledkenny.

1. No, I did not need to get his consent. There is no provision requiring the consent, or even the knowledge, of the parties involved. In fact, I do not even know his name.

2. It was sort of an arranged marriage. It does not even have my approval. I went to speak to my employer, His Majesty King Parzival XIV of Listeneisse. He ordered me to do this. By royal decree, he has declared that the Ambassador of Omigodtheykilledkenny and I are married until this UN Resolution is repealed. I even tried to cite that for our internal national policies we just passed that we are not allowing arrangement of marriages by parents. The King pointed out that he's not my father. Then he pointed out that he is my King, and so long as I am in his service I shall obey his decrees and orders. (Points taken.)

3. Omigodtheykilledkenny cannot pass laws to prevent my declaring this. Nor can Listeneisse for that matter.

4. He's a wonderful fellow. I encourage you all to marry the Ambassador from Omigodtheykilledkenny.

5. We are joined in civil union so long as Resolution #81 is in existence, or so long as his nation or my nation are part of the United Nations which requires that the definition of marriage be limited solely to the phrase "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."

6. It doesn't really mean anything that I am married to him. He has no legal responsibility towards the marriage, since responsibility of marriage is not definied in the resolution to defining marriage.

7. If divorced by Omigodtheykilledkenny, King Parzival will just declare us married again. There is nothing preventing him from doing so, according to the UN Resolution on the "Definition of Marriage."

8. No, we will not be sharing cohabitation or conjugal bliss any time soon, as far as I'm concerned.

Sadly, some of you might be amused at this so greatly that you'll refuse to pass the repeal just to get a good laugh out of my predicament.

Sir Nasciens d'Hermitage
UN Ambassador of the Kingdom of Listeneisse
UN Delegate, Warzone of the Defenders
Mandated Statement by Royal decree: Happily Married Husband of the UN Ambassador of Omigodtheykilledkenny, a civil joining permitted as per UN Resolution #81.

My sister and her partner have been dating since they were 12. They are now 15 and plan to be married within the year. However this resolution was repealed, and now every nation is free to decide what marriage is. My sister and her partner (Jessica) love each other, have been faithful to each other, and Jessica is now bearing a child. They were going to go to Hyrule for their honeymoon, but Hyrule, under the new authority of the UN, banned marriage between two people of the same sex. So if they go to Hyrule, they will not be permitted to sleep in the same room, they will not receive recognition of their marriage, and - should anything befall either of them - they will not be treated as a married couple in the eyes of the law, stripping away the rights they both hold while in my nation.

Obviously there is little I can do. God intended marriage to be between a man and a woman, and despite the fact it wasn't my God who decreed it, I should obviously bow to the will of that God (even though I don't think he exists) and accept that my marriage, my sister's marriage and all the marriages in Hyrule are wrong and bad because one little jumped up freak thought that he could decide whether or not my sister and Jessica should be allowed to be married, even though he lives in another town, in another nation, and who will never meet the two women who's lives he has ruined, says so.

But to sum up - I hope you and Kenny will be very happy together, just as my sister and Jessica will be.

Pallatium

18-10-2005, 13:00

Show how the resolution actually supports any of what you say.

I did. Assuming you were replying to me, cause it wasn't entirely clear.

In fact, it does not.

It does.

It just says 'a civil joining.'

I know. Still with the reading.

A business partnership is also a civil joining.

Yes.

A business merger is also a civil joining.

Yes.

A municipal incorporation is also a civil joining.

Yes.

There needs to be a more precise definition to what marriage is, or is not, for it to be a definition of "marriage."

There really doesn't. The above three examples are all different, and all have different laws and ceremonies pertaining to them. So marriage, while at it's heart remains a civil joining (or a business agreement, one might say), it can also have other ceremonies and so forth. Nothing is stopping churches from performing marriages as long as they are recognized as a civil joining.

So far there have been two arguements in this thread - 1) Marriage is nothing more than a legal contract and 2) Marriage is more than a legal contract.

So either you are wrong, or the person making the other arguement is wrong.

Otherwise, it fails in its purpose: to define marriage.

It really doesn't.

The rest of what you say is implicit based on common sense or national preference, which, unfortunately, the resolution in question does not actually permit.

Why? We have a "Common Sense" resolution in the UN.

Listeneisse

18-10-2005, 13:32

Sir Nasciens d'Hermitage pinched the bridge of his nose but posted what his King bid him do....

I hereby declare that I am now (also) wed to the Ambassador from Tekania and the Ambassador from Pallatium until such a time as this Resolution is repealed or the nations in question apologize for their questioning of the wisdom of the sovereign of the ancient and esteemed Kingdom of Listeneisse.

He has pointed out to me that the United Nations is also a "civil joining," but that it should not normally constitute a condition of marriage. There are additional limitations, such that, for instance, only nations can join the UN. Therefore, a marriage might wish to limit itself to individuals, and perhaps allow nations to limit the number of individuals as they see fit.

Until such a time as there is a sucessful repeal, apparently he will keep this up so long as "people support bad policy, continue to question the obvious, and make insults and threats."

I believe, or sincerely hope, he does not mean this in earnest mockery of anyone in specific, but to show generally how this resolution does not really provide any of what you purport it to contain. The resolution reads as it reads. If it does not read what you say it reads, you cannot add to that your desires. In fact, the resolution bars "any other characteristic," such as, but not limited to, personal consent, foreknowledge, national juridiction of law, or even formal legal process, to be used for determining what is forbidden as a marriage.

It is an argument ad absurdum to show that the resolution is wrongful as it presently stands. Because there is nothing in the resolution prohibiting such actions, and in fact, it states that you cannot bar such.

Unless any of the Ambassadors to the UN are minors, in which case it would be disallowed.

Sir Nasciens d'Hermitage
UN Ambassador from the Kingdom of Listeneisse
UN Delegate from the Warzone of the Defenders
Mandated Statement by Royal decree: Happily Married Husband of the UN Ambassador of Omigodtheykilledkenny, the UN Ambassador from Tekania and the UN Ambassador from Pallatium, a civil joining permitted as per UN Resolution #81.

(ooc: If anyone feels truly offended by this, and considers it harrassing in an OOC sense, please just let me know; I'll drop them from the list -- we can handwave that it was taken care of through diplomatic channels. It's to make a point IC, but not to make people feel bad OOC as players.)

Pallatium

18-10-2005, 14:02

No, no, no, no, no! Not every national (or state, municipal, etc.) government matter is something in which the UN should be involved. You brush aside my example of a speed limit, but why? By your standard, it would be perfectly acceptable for the UN to pass a resolution setting a world speed limit. Is that ludicrous? Of course, it is.

I would disagree. If something is a governmental matter, then someone can argue the UN should have a say in it. Not everyone would argue that, but some would.

And - by the way - a world speed limit might have merit :}

Those arguing against such marriages are doing so for what they see as moral (often religious) reasons. It's not the UN's role to weigh in on these debates. This resolution seeks to impose a single morality on all nations, and despite the fact that the people of Cluichstan have no problem with Jim marrying Susan, Jim marrying Steve, or even Jim marrying his hamster Fluffy, we do not believe the the UN has the right to legislate morality.

But those arguing against slavery do it for moral reasons. Those arguing against child abuse do it for moral reasons. Those arguing against privacy intrusion do it for moral reasons. Practically everything that is passed in to UN law is for moral reasons.

The current resolution - diplomatic immunity - again it's being voted on because someone decided that morally, diplomats should be treated a different way from other visitors to the nation.

Even the Taxation Ban is moral - someone decided the UN has no moral right to tax citizens, so they made a law.

Just because something is done for moral reasons, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

Hell - this repeal is done on moral grounds - you think it is immoral to force various marriages on a nation.

Pallatium

18-10-2005, 14:04

Pallatium

18-10-2005, 14:59

Just for information (and I could be wrong about this) here is a list of things that would be permitted if this repeal was passed.

Gay Marriage : It would still be legal in every nation, due to the Gay Rights resolution and - in some part - The Rights Of Minorities and Women

Interacial Marriage : It can actually be banned, because I can't find a resolution that specifically protects any rights based on race. While Rights Of Minorities and Women nods in that direction, it doesn't really do anything.

Incestous Marriages : They can be banned (even between relatives of the same sex) because there is no protection. However you would not be able to prevent the couple from living together "in sin" so to speak due to "Privacy Intrusion" and "Sexual Freedom"

Interspecies Marriages : (Noting that this was originally for sentient species, not pets) They can be banned, as nothing explicitly protects them. Though it can be argued that anyone who has the protection of the Universal Bill Of Rights should not be discriminated against in any UN Member Nation.

Inter-religious marriages : These can be banned, although it would be a slap in the face of "Religious Tolerance"

Intercountry Marriages : Again, they are not protected under any specific legislation (from what I can tell), however the UBR should protect the rights to marry.

So basically any nation who is trying to repeal this on the grounds that they deserve to chose has to decide whether the above categories are things they would ban (discounting the first one, which they can't). And if you are not going to ban any of these, then I would argue that doing this "for the principal of the thing", rather than for a set goal (such as banning interspecies marriage), then you are risking a lot of people's rights just so you can feel morally good about yourself.

That is all I have to say.

Cluichstan

18-10-2005, 15:06

I would disagree. If something is a governmental matter, then someone can argue the UN should have a say in it. Not everyone would argue that, but some would.

And - by the way - a world speed limit might have merit :}

Good Ralph! The people of Cluichstan have to get out of this debate.

*snip*
Hell - this repeal is done on moral grounds - you think it is immoral to force various marriages on a nation.

No, the people of Cluichstan have determined that such issues are outside the bounds of international law. Morality enters not at all into said determination. We have never said anything to indicate a moral position one way or the other. Indeed, we have stated quite firmly that we do not believe in the religious grounds for repealing this resolution and are supporting it simply to the resolution repeal and will never support another resolution to replace it.

And with that, the people of Cluichstan humbly withdraw from this debate, as it has gone beyond all reason.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

Pallatium

18-10-2005, 15:22

No, the people of Cluichstan have determined that such issues are outside the bounds of international law. Morality enters not at all into said determination. We have never said anything to indicate a moral position one way or the other. Indeed, we have stated quite firmly that we do not believe in the religious grounds for repealing this resolution and are supporting it simply to the resolution repeal and will never support another resolution to replace it.

Those arguing against such marriages are doing so for what they see as moral (often religious) reasons. It's not the UN's role to weigh in on these debates. This resolution seeks to impose a single morality on all nations, and despite the fact that the people of Cluichstan have no problem with Jim marrying Susan, Jim marrying Steve, or even Jim marrying his hamster Fluffy, we do not believe the the UN has the right to legislate morality.

Your words. And while you might not be repealing it for moral reasons, a lot of other people might be.

The UN is not legislating morallity. People might pass the laws for moral reasons, the UN is not actually saying what is morally right and wrong. It is just saying what is.

And with that, the people of Cluichstan humbly withdraw from this debate, as it has gone beyond all reason.

Wow. Something we can agree on :}

Listeneisse

18-10-2005, 15:37

Omigodtheykilledkenny

18-10-2005, 15:56

I would disagree. If something is a governmental matter, then someone can argue the UN should have a say in it. Not everyone would argue that, but some would.

And - by the way - a world speed limit might have merit :}And therein lies the problem: You operate under the assumption that just because something might have merit, the UN must legislate. Well, I got news for you, babe: The UN is not here to enshrine into law every single little pet cause of yours. You even favored the Worldwide Media Act, an absurdity on all counts, and withdrew from your home region because it was not voting your way. I told you during that debate that I don't give a fuck if the people of your nation aren't able to watch Hyrulian DVDs, because it was not a matter to which the UN should have involved itself. I tell you again (with all due respect, of course), I don't give a fuck if honeymooning cuties in your nation cannot marry in Hyrule, or even if Hyrule will not recognize marriages performed in your country should your citizens later decide to move there. That is a diplomatic matter for you to sort out with Hyrule. Some matters remain best left to individual nations to regulate, speed limits, marriage and media rights being among the foremost.

As it is: Marriage continues to be a local custom governed by local laws, UN intervention or no. There are several daily issues involving marriage, and individual nations are free to legislate on those matters as they see fit. The UN really doesn't have the power to force you to answer daily issues in a certain way. So, seeing as how this matter is already covered by daily issues, which the UN has no jurisdiction over, wouldn't it be best to repeal this law?

Omigodtheykilledkenny

18-10-2005, 15:57

Ecopoeia

18-10-2005, 16:17

A recent poll in Ecopoeia on the merits or otherwise of the resolution in question returned what might be described an inconclusive verdict, since the sum total of respondents numbered less than fifty.

We choose to view this as, ahem, conclusive proof that Ecopoeians don't give a damn either way and have adopted a policy of automatic abstention on the issue.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Pallatium

18-10-2005, 17:14

Remember that the definition of marriage as per UN Resolution #81 does not require any form of protocol, ceremony, local law, licensing, or even foreknowledge or consent of the parties or their family relations or even other existing spouses. It is merely a 'civil joining,' which cannot require any other condition besides the ones it explicitely spells out.

I would disagree. It says that marriage is a civil union that can not be forbidden to anyone on various grounds.

It does not say that the nation can not require some kind of ceremony or records to go along with it. After all - most legal contracts have some kind of records, otherwise it could be anyone.

In fact, it specifically precludes any other limiting characteristic to be added to the civil union's permissibility, such as requirements of protocol, ceremony, local law, licensing, or foreknowlege or consent. The only limitation is if you are not old enough to get married. Otherwise, anything goes.

Actually - it doesn't.

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;

That doesn't preclude ceremonies relating to the individual, or legal requirements relating to the individual. And - should you so desire - you can say no person can be married until they have killed a dragon. But as long as you apply that to everyone, regardless of the characteristics, then you are not in breach of the act.

So we are still married, dearest. At least, as far as Resolution #81 goes.

Did you sign the Register of Weddings in my nation? No? Then we ain't hitched in Pallatium then.

Pallatium

18-10-2005, 17:16

And therein lies the problem: You operate under the assumption that just because something might have merit, the UN must legislate. Well, I got news for you, babe: The UN is not here to enshrine into law every single little pet cause of yours. You even favored the Worldwide Media Act, an absurdity on all counts, and withdrew from your home region because it was not voting your way. I told you during that debate that I don't give a fuck if the people of your nation aren't able to watch Hyrulian DVDs, because it was not a matter to which the UN should have involved itself. I tell you again (with all due respect, of course), I don't give a fuck if honeymooning cuties in your nation cannot marry in Hyrule, or even if Hyrule will not recognize marriages performed in your country should your citizens later decide to move there. That is a diplomatic matter for you to sort out with Hyrule. Some matters remain best left to individual nations to regulate, speed limits, marriage and media rights being among the foremost.

As it is: Marriage continues to be a local custom governed by local laws, UN intervention or no. There are several daily issues involving marriage, and individual nations are free to legislate on those matters as they see fit. The UN really doesn't have the power to force you to answer daily issues in a certain way. So, seeing as how this matter is already covered by daily issues, which the UN has no jurisdiction over, wouldn't it be best to repeal this law?

The UN is here to enact what it's members require it to, by virtue of the resolutions they pass. So if I think something has merit, and several thousand other nations agree with me, the UN can legislate on it.

(And to be fair, I withdrew from my region cause it is a steaming mass of corruption, not just cause they didn't vote my way)

Pallatium

18-10-2005, 17:17

Some matters remain best left to individual nations to regulate, speed limits, marriage and media rights being among the foremost.

And some matters are best left to the individual PERSON to regulate - whether or not someone wants to marry should be one of those.

Yelda

18-10-2005, 17:23

Mandated Statement by Royal decree: Happily Married Husband of the UN Ambassador of Omigodtheykilledkenny, the UN Ambassador from Tekania and the UN Ambassador from Pallatium, a civil joining permitted as per UN Resolution #81.
Ummm, this is sort of a delicate matter, but uhhhh ... who gets to be the "man"?
So where are all of you going on honeymoon?

This, of course, is a perfectly silly argument. You can't just declare yourself to be married to someone. Even in culture's where marriages are arranged, there is consent from the families involved. If what you say is true, then I can declare that I am a member of this marraige. In fact, I could declare that I am married to every ambassador in the NSUN, as well as their staff.

Yelda remains opposed to this repeal attempt.

Powerhungry Chipmunks

18-10-2005, 18:56

And some matters are best left to the individual PERSON to regulate - whether or not someone wants to marry should be one of those.
Yup, but there's a difference between allowing people to determine whom the marry, and what constitutes a marriage themselves, and forcing all national governments to define marriages the same way. That's what I see this repeal aimed at. It's not necessarily oppossed to peoples' choosing whom to marry, just oppossed to the universalism which has persisted in the UN and seems to slither about this resolution.

Forgottenlands

18-10-2005, 20:25

Wow. This kind of exploded.....and I don't have that much time these days....

Weren't you the one who said before that stats are irrelevant? Although that argument has been nullified (by you), I will humor you in your doubt that psychotic dictatorships abuse their people.

Stats are irrelevant in a Role playing argument. A Psychotic dictatorship status for a nation is a gameplay situation (though it can lead into a RP issue). Stats are gameplay issues. This forum is an OOC role play forum - which seems really odd. Why? Because by the rulings of the moderators and the design of the game, when a UN resolution passes, the headers (category, strength, industry affected, etc) are aimed at gameplay and will change your stats accordingly. The TEXT of the resolution is a Roleplaying issue. Roleplay can be used to change your stats and such, however you can't use your stats to change your roleplay. My gf used the roleplayed texts of the resolution when answering her gameplay questions. If there were any loopholes in the resolution or points that were completely unaddressed, she would abuse them. In the end, she ended up being a psychotic dictatorship at a gameplay level. At a gameplay level, it is completely and totally feasable to be a psychotic dictatorship. At a roleplay level, a psychotic dictatorship is a theory, but we will never refer to it. We will acknowledge a dictatorship. We will not pass judgement on whether its psychotic or not.

At a roleplay and gameplay level, my nation is more or less the same. This is not true of others. The Eternal Kawaii, if you check her nation, is a Corporate Police State. However, there is not a single regular on these forums that would classify her government as anything but a theocracy. Her use of religious arguments is extraordinary and she has earned the respect of many because she can stand to her religious arguments so well while arguing her beliefs - to the point that I have great difficulty debating with her.

There is a saying by Lord Acton that goes, "Absolute Power corrupts absolutely." What does corruption equal? The abuse and the withholding of basic human rights of people. That's human nature, and you're pretty dang naive if you continue to deny it.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Corruption doesn't mean you abuse your people, and the mere fact that they are members of THIS United Nations means they do not have absolute power. Their power is restricted by the text of our resolutions.

cor·rupt Audio pronunciation of "corrupt" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-rpt)
adj.

1. Marked by immorality and perversion; depraved.
2. Venal; dishonest: a corrupt mayor.
3. Containing errors or alterations, as a text: a corrupt translation.
4. Archaic. Tainted; putrid.

v. cor·rupt·ed, cor·rupt·ing, cor·rupts
v. tr.

1. To destroy or subvert the honesty or integrity of.
2. To ruin morally; pervert.
3. To taint; contaminate.
4. To cause to become rotten; spoil.
5. To change the original form of (a text, for example).
6. Computer Science. To damage (data) in a file or on a disk.

Oh look, it uses the term immoral. That is not abusing people, that's just simply immoral actions. Immoral CAN be abusing people, but it doesn't have to be.

Would I personally approve of it? No. However, since I get ONE vote like everybody else, then if the people decide that that's what they want and since our Congress passes the laws and that's what Congress decides I'll abide by it. Would the UN approve? Well, Resolution #81 states it quite clearly. As far as my nation is concerned it does not become acceptable when rights become unequal. And besides the difference in the name of the two unions, everyone is getting what they want. I don't know how much simpler I could put that for you to understand.

I don't know how much simpler I could put if for you to understand. They don't just want the rights, they want to be EQUALS. You put it under a different name, they aren't equals. You are completely disregarding this argument.

The racial one was unacceptable in that the physical qualities of separated facilities in apartheid were unequal. The bathrooms of the colored people were dirtier and less maintained than the bathrooms for whites. The schools of colored people were not as high quality as the schools for the whites. However, the bathrooms in our country are both in excellent shape since the government is very strict on the equally high maintenance level of both bathrooms. Thus, this situation is unique.

Oh, so if they had to use seperate bathrooms but maintain them at exactly the same level of equality, if their schools were of the same quality, etc, then it would be acceptable?

and:

You're using circular reasoning and it's not getting us anywhere. As I said, I recognized it as discrimination. However, again I state that you seem to think that ALL discrimination is bad when it's not (recall the National University example).

Oh no, I don't think all forms of discrimination are bad. I think it matters upon the RELEVANCE of the discrimination. There is, IMO, no relevance to discriminate against the person who is homosexual for any reason. There IS relevance to discriminating against someone because you think he will not be as successful in his work for you - when your need is to be successful. I think the area we are most discriminatory on is when it pertains to the emotion of love - and that I definately don't disapprove of.

Okay, first of all I don't understand what you mean in your first sentence, and
secondly, I don't know what "fallacy" you're referring to.

I made a comment, and you fired back and turned it into a debate - then blasted me for not debating it. The fallacy is that you think you can't have an effect on the UN if you're not in the UN.

I can think of at least three people that's gunned at you off the top of my head (Kirisubo, Listeneisse, and Omigodtheykilledkenny).

I don't remember Kirisubo, but Listeneisse didn't gun me. He took your proposal and expanded on it - never turned his attention to me once.

But this argument is pointless. Isn't it obvious that nations who don't agree with what I say will naturally come and try to attack my points? It is a logical fallacy to believe that just because more people are attacking my points diminish the legitimacy of what i'm saying. As far as I'm concerned I will not rely on the vindication of others as compensation for having crappy arguments. Furthermore, I did not say that you have crappy arguments in general. But the arguments you presented in that specific post truly were.

I am really enjoying this debate

Lastly, you're wondering why someone doesn't just end all your arguments with one fell swoop of logic? That's because you believe the issue is so simple when it's not. If it was so simple to come up with a resolution that ends ALL discrimination, you would've done it by now.

Hardly. I consider it a third-tier priority due to the very nature of the entire endevour. I would need to repeal half a dozen resolutions as a minimum while maintaining a campaign for people reaching to as many delegates as is permissable and drafting a full replacement. All in all, I have several MONTHS worth of work, and a LOT of work on top of that, even before we consider the debate issues. I simply don't have the time right now to do that sort of thing.

We've been arguing over and over about definitions and logic that isn't as easy to come to a mutual consensus as you think it is. Here's a hint: try to see where I'm coming from and try to win me over with logic formed from that understanding. Then you may have a shot.

Signed,
The President of the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia

Hmm, I could do a psychological outline on this debate regarding you, but I've got much bigger fish to fry, as is evident by the rapid expansion of this thread.

Forgottenlands

18-10-2005, 20:34

The vilification of the sensible and useful word "discriminate" needs to stop.

What most people use the word for is in the prejudicial sense, i.e., to make a decision based upon one criteria without analysis of other facts.

However, all governments discriminate in one form or another. They make choices, which mean they do not make other choices.

The problem with the original resolution is that it does not discriminate, so that we cannot tell what a 'civil joining' actually is comprised of, what it means, nor how that can be achieved or voided (such as by annulment or divorce).

Is a civil joining based in common law? Judicial ceremony? Religious ceremony? Or is it even a contract covered under business law?

The problem with the original resolution is that it purports to set forth to define what a marriage is, without ever actually defining it in clear and legally-meaningful terms.

'Civil joining' therefore is a contestable legal phrase and thus the entire resolution is null and void.

While we usually apply common sense to UN Resolutions, in this case we are baffled by its very precept, unsure of its interpretation, and patently offended by its egregious destructive force on the well-established laws of marriage in our state.

I was going to take on one of your other posts (the declaration of marriage with OMGTKK), but I realized this is a bit more fundamental so......

The way the UN works is you need only follow the letter of the law. If the UN fails to be specific, you can be specific yourself. DLE spent the majority of her time debating on these forums in such a manner that she could completely maneuver around any resolution because of its lack of specifics. When I was trying to appeal the ruling on resolution 110, the final word from Hack was that it should stand because the UN MUST be specific when it deals with nations. If it fails to be specific, then the nations can do whatever they want.

As such, since civil joining is not defined in this resolution, YOUR government can define it. The logical choice would be to make it based upon a pair that signed a contract. If you choose a method that is less consentual in nature, then the problem is NOT with this resolution, it is with YOUR government's understanding of the resolution - which is why I was going to attack the marriage declaration.

OMGTKK's nation doesn't have to recognize a marriage just because two people declared they're married. If they believe that a marriage needs to have a contract signed, so be it. Something that was pointed out in a seperate thread on this resolution is that you don't even have to HAVE marriage at a civil level (something the Alberta government has considered). As such, point 3 is only valid if OMGTKK's nation decides it. The rest is merely a situational failure of your own nation's handling of the resolution.

Oh - and the resolution is quite clear on it being a joining of 2 people. It isn't clear on whether you can be joined to more than one person though - but again, that's something for your nation to define.

Look back at I think post 18 where I last addressed your arguments.
Edit: Sorry - look at post 16

Listeneisse

18-10-2005, 20:40

Dearest Spouse of Yelda,

Apparently we are now wed.

Dearest Spouse of Omigodtheykilledkenny,

We are both men.

Sir Nasciens d'Hermitage
UN Ambassador of the Kingdom of Listeneisse
UN Delegate of the Warzone of the Defenders
Mandated Statement by Royal decree: Happily Married Husband of the UN Ambassador of Omigodtheykilledkenny, the UN Ambassador from Tekania and the UN Ambassador from Pallatium, and the UN Ambassador of Yelda, a civil joining permitted as per UN Resolution #81.

Tekania

18-10-2005, 20:54

Listeneisse

18-10-2005, 21:01

Listeneisse

18-10-2005, 21:10

"Oh for heaven's sake!" Sir Nasciens sighed. But the King sent a messenger to him to inform him of the new ruling.

Dearest being from Tekania,

The King has proclaimed that in your case, as per UN Resolution #81, that we are wed. He passes his congratulations to you, and asks if you have a favorite china pattern.

Dear Ambassador from the Forgottenlands,

Apparently you are also now declared my spouse for argumentation's sake.

My King points out that there is still no provision in the "Definition of Marriage" for consent having to be granted by either or both parties, nor does it state whether there needs to be a locus of jurisdiction.

Sir Nasciens d'Hermitage
UN Ambassador for the Kingdom of Listeneisse
UN Delegate for Warzone of the Defenders
Mandated Statement by Royal decree: Happily Married Husband of the UN Ambassador of Omigodtheykilledkenny, the UN Ambassador from Tekania and the UN Ambassador from Pallatium, the UN Ambassador of Yelda, and the UN Ambassador from Forgottenlands, a civil joining permitted as per UN Resolution #81.

Pallatium

18-10-2005, 21:55

Yup, but there's a difference between allowing people to determine whom the marry, and what constitutes a marriage themselves, and forcing all national governments to define marriages the same way. That's what I see this repeal aimed at. It's not necessarily oppossed to peoples' choosing whom to marry, just oppossed to the universalism which has persisted in the UN and seems to slither about this resolution.

Except there isn't. If you deny the right for me to marry my partner - you tell me it would be illegal under the laws of a said nation - then you are not giving me the choice to marry who I chose.

Cluichstan

18-10-2005, 21:56

Pallatium

18-10-2005, 22:00

You have every right to marry whomever you choose -- in your own country.

And if I marry her (which I did) and go to another nation we are what? no longer married? So everyone who is married in my nation may not go to another country?

May I also remind you, and everyone else, of the attempt to ban homosexualtiy and the attempt to ban gay marriage as the reason we need this resolution in place. If it gets repealed then the next week I will find that I am actually not married at all, cause the UN says so.

Would that make you happier about this resolution?

Cluichstan

18-10-2005, 22:15

And if I marry her (which I did) and go to another nation we are what? no longer married? So everyone who is married in my nation may not go to another country?

You are under no obligation to go to another country that does not share your beliefs and, in this specific case, your definition of marriage.

May I also remind you, and everyone else, of the attempt to ban homosexualtiy and the attempt to ban gay marriage as the reason we need this resolution in place. If it gets repealed then the next week I will find that I am actually not married at all, cause the UN says so.

Would that make you happier about this resolution?

No, it would simply make me work to repeal any ban of homosexuality or gay marriage, as neither of these issues should be addressed by the UN.

Also, don't you find it a bit troubling that member states are giving such broad, overreaching powers to the UN, to the point where this austere body is concerning itself with your marriage?

Pallatium

18-10-2005, 22:19

You are under no obligation to go to another country that does not share your beliefs and, in this specific case, your definition of marriage.

And the fact I am Queen, and head Diplomat of my nation doesn't have any affect on that?

And the fact that my citizens should not feel like they are required to stay at home just cause the rest of the world hasn't cottoned on to the idea of human rights?

And the fact it's just plain wrong?

No, it would simply make me work to repeal any ban of homosexuality or gay marriage, as neither of these issues should be addressed by the UN.

Yeah - but they will be. They have been in the past, and they will again. I get the idea that there is a principal at stake - you think that you should have the right to decide if gay marriage is legal in your nation. But when there is the chance (however small) that it might be banned across the globe, just because you want to stick to your principal, you don't think that maybe, just maybe you are taking it a step too far?

Also, don't you find it a bit troubling that member states are giving such broad, overreaching powers to the UN, to the point where this austere body is concerning itself with your marriage?

The right to chose whom I marry is part of the right of self-determination that every sentient being should have as part of it's birthright.

So - no.

Cluichstan

18-10-2005, 22:27

And the fact I am Queen, and head Diplomat of my nation doesn't have any affect on that?

And the fact that my citizens should not feel like they are required to stay at home just cause the rest of the world hasn't cottoned on to the idea of human rights?

And the fact it's just plain wrong?

No, on all counts.

Yeah - but they will be. They have been in the past, and they will again. I get the idea that there is a principal at stake - you think that you should have the right to decide if gay marriage is legal in your nation. But when there is the chance (however small) that it might be banned across the globe, just because you want to stick to your principal, you don't think that maybe, just maybe you are taking it a step too far?

Again, no. I'm just being consistent here. As I've already noted, Cluichstan permits gay marriage. But we also believe that should another nation not choose to do so, that is within that nation's rights.

The right to chose whom I marry is part of the right of self-determination that every sentient being should have as part of it's birthright.

So - no.

The right to marry is a birthright? Um...no.

Vitalinia

18-10-2005, 23:38

It truly has been an honor debating with a worthy nation such as yours. However, as our proposal has failed to reach the UN floor, I regrettably declare that our nation shall bow out from this argument and turn to other pressing national matters.

I shall however, address points from your last post addressed to me one final time.

Oh look, it uses the term immoral. That is not abusing people, that's just simply immoral actions. Immoral CAN be abusing people, but it doesn't have to be.

And there are some nations that are immoral that ARE abusing their people. That's a fallacy of composition. When a psychotic dictatorship makes organ donation COMPULSORY (like my sister's nation when she was a psychotic dictatorship) is that not abuse?

I don't know how much simpler I could put if for you to understand. They don't just want the rights, they want to be EQUALS. You put it under a different name, they aren't equals. You are completely disregarding this argument.

I don't know how much simpler I could put if for you to understand. They don't just want the rights, they want to be EQUALS. You put it under a different name, they aren't equals. You are completely disregarding this argument.

And I don't know how much simpler I could put it for you to understand. THEY ARE EQUALS. In the eyes of the LAW they ARE EQUALS. Taking another glance at Resolution #81, it defines marriage as a "civil joining." As it turns out, our nation had been following the letter of the law to begin with. As it only defines marriage as a "civil joining," then as long as the criteria for "civil joining" is met (as it is in our country) in terms of rights and privileges, then our nation has the freedom to call it whatever we want or categorize it in any way, shape or form we want. Therefore, our nation will continue to call unions that are sanctioned by both the government and religions as a marriage union and unions that are sanctioned by the government ONLY, will be called civil unions.

Oh, so if they had to use seperate bathrooms but maintain them at exactly the same level of equality, if their schools were of the same quality, etc, then it would be acceptable?

Right now, our nation has historically black-only universities as well as historically female-only universities. It has yet to pose a problem for us. Also, please note that there was a bill before our Congress to segregate facilities by a radically racist political party in our country. But since it was struck down I take it that our nation does not want it. So to answer your question, no, it would not be acceptable because OUR MAJORITY (yes, I will use that word again whether you like it or not) does not find it acceptable.

no relevance to discriminate against the person who is homosexual for any reason.

*Sigh*. We are not discriminating AGAINST anyone. We may be discriminating, but to discriminate is to just note the difference. As you said that being "immoral" doesn't necessarily mean you're abusing the people, I will say that discriminating doesn't necessarily mean that we're not treating everyone equally. We're just acknowledging there is a difference. Period. Same rights all around. I speak for my nation when we say that ALL are treated EQUAL in the eyes of the law.

I don't remember Kirisubo, but Listeneisse didn't gun me. He took your proposal and expanded on it - never turned his attention to me once.

I suggest you go back and read it again and this time more carefully. Thanks.

I am really enjoying this debate

Me too! It's a shame that the proposal is over and this correspondence must cease. But I'm sure you'll get by. Your incestous, polygamous relationships must keep you very busy anyway. (Just kidding! I couldn't resist)

I simply don't have the time right now to do that sort of thing.

Yeah, having to please all those wives/relatives must be really time consuming. (Sorry, really, please disregard that)

Anyways, I should be wrapping this up. Again, please don't think that I really mean what I said about your relationships. Just a joke to end this argument on a light note. I'm sure you have a respectable, wonderful relationship w/ whoever you're with. I look forward to having debates with you on other issues in the future.

Regards,
The President of the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia

Pallatium

18-10-2005, 23:43

The right to marry is a birthright? Um...no.

The right to self-determination. To have the power and the right to be able to make the choices that affect your future.

Slavery takes it away, no freedom of religion takes it away. And no right to marry the person you love takes it away.

It's all a part of the same thing. And the right to marry should be a part of it. Marrying is what seperates us from the non-sentient creatures (or some of them) of the word - and marrying one we chose to marry even more so.

But as this proposal has failed to make it to the floor (a fact we celebrated in Pallatium with an evening of songs and merry making) I am willing to bring the discussion to a close, cause I am not going to agree with you, you are not going to agree with me and I think we both might have better things to do than go round and around and.... well you get the idea :}

Have a cookie :}

Militia Enforced State

18-10-2005, 23:47

I don't like the sounds of this repeal. I agree with the bother-sister and similar situations, and human-animal marriages. However, same sex marriage should be kept. And forget religion; There is no country that has its citizens all believe in the same religion, so it would be a bias against those who disagree.

Forgottenlands

18-10-2005, 23:47

Forgottenlands,

We remember clearly how Ban Chemical Weapons was revoked because it was not specified overtly whether non-lethal, non-persistent agent such as tear gas and pepper spray were or were not covered by the ban. Many believed that since it banned 'all chemical weapons,' that these agents were indeed banned.

While at that time I argued vociferously that they were not, the UN overruled me and others who also thought that CS and OC should be allowable through interpretation of the ruling. Since it was not clearly excluded by the language of the Resolution, it was argued by the community that it was banned.

This was actually a failure by the community, and many still went WTF over this argument.

RESOLVES to ban all production and trafficking in chemical weapons, and to take steps towards the ultimate decommissioning of all chemical weapons currently in existence

Considering there was no definition of what a chemical weapon was, the truth is that a chemical weapon is then defined by the nation. However, most nations took this to mean that either all weapons were chemical weapons, or no weapons were chemical weapons. Certainly, the repeal took the position of the former, and DLE certainly took the position of the latter.

The comment from Hack that is relevant:

The Rights & Duties clause essentially acts like the 9th Ammendment to the US Constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, it's the UN that needs to be specific, not the nation. The UN has no laws, for example, mandating the number of cats crazy old ladies (COLs) can have. If a nation lets COLs have 50 cats, it's fine. Should the UN pass a COL Control Mandate that restricts cat-count to 25, the nation's law will have to change. If the UN states that no state shall restrict COLs to less than 100 cats, the nation will, again, have to change. As long as the UN remains silent on an issue, it is up to the state.

A majority of UN nations, concerned over the clarity of the issue, as well as wanting to maintain their national sovereignty, repealed that legislation.

A very slim majority, and the margin is narrow enough that people like myself who realized the resolution was simply useless also had an effect on the votes for. However, the resolution was simply false to begin with

RECOGNIZING that mace and pepper sprays, which are vital chemical mechanisms for innocent civilians in defending themselves from dangerous criminals (especially in cases of robbery, assault, and rape), are banned by “Ban Chemical Weapons”,

Why is this false? The resolution in question is a global disarmament resolution. As such, civilian possession and ownership of chemical weapons would've still been permissible. The very fact that this line is included nullifies the accuracy of the text.

Add on that repeals set little in terms of precedence. They can do a nice job in terms of showing arugments that work, but they do little for the purpose of determining the roleplay environment of the UN.

In #81, the "Definition of Marriage" is similarly unclear, yet is unambiguous that no other characteristic to forbid a marriage can be introduced other than the age of the two parties.

That is all.

Only age.

If one or the other is of a minority, then that is the only thing that can be banned. No other characteristic of the persons can be used as a criteria to prevent marriage. No other terms can be used to define a marriage. This is the whole sum of the definition of marriage as per the United Nations. A 'civil joining' of persons other than a minor.

It does permit the expansion of the term to include marriages to non-humans. That is all. It does not permit anything else.

This is a badly written resolution and should be repealed.

On that, we are agreed. However, defacing it with false statements is not the way to do it. I support a replacement of the resolution (though I'm uncertain if the moderators will allow a replacement due to issues of duplication of other resolutions). Unless I see a replacement draft and consent from the moderation team to allow the draft go through should a repeal succeed, then I will support a repeal. Until then, the answer remains no. It needs work, but it isn't a horrible resolution.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

19-10-2005, 01:28

The UN is here to enact what it's members require it to, by virtue of the resolutions they pass. So if I think something has merit, and several thousand other nations agree with me, the UN can legislate on it.That's just not so. Proposals "not worthy of the UN's consideration" are deleted from the proposal list all the time. Not to mention the fact that proposals are confined to twelve categories, meaning you cannot propose something that doesn't fit into any of them. Por ejemple, the last proposal we defeated was barely legal as it is, as there wasn't an appropriate category for it.

Now, bearing in mind that we are limited in the proposals we can pass, doesn't it also stand to reason that we should limit ourselves as to the "in-bounds" legislation we consider? Just because we can legislate something doesn't mean we should. And in my humble opinion, we should not pass legislation that 1) is already covered under daily issues, and 2) infringes on the right of nations to set rules for their own societies.

You have returned to your purely emotional argument about other nations imposing their values on you and your marriage in the event this legislation is repealed, I see. The great double-standard of the "international federalists" certainly is striking, isn't it? Other nations should not be able to impose their values on you, but it's certainly fine for you to impose your values on them.

The Eternal Kawaii

19-10-2005, 03:10

The right to self-determination. To have the power and the right to be able to make the choices that affect your future.

Slavery takes it away, no freedom of religion takes it away. And no right to marry the person you love takes it away.

It's all a part of the same thing. And the right to marry should be a part of it. Marrying is what seperates us from the non-sentient creatures (or some of them) of the word - and marrying one we chose to marry even more so.

That the "right to marry one whom we choose to marry" is part of the right of self-determination is obvious. But it's also irrelevent. What's at issue here is the right to have that "marriage" recognized by society. And that is not part of the right of self-determination, since none of us are the whole of society.

Resolution #81 is flawed in that it takes the prejudices of a number of NationStates over what is and is not a socially acceptable marriage, and imposes that prejudice over all of the other NSUN states, regardless of those states' individual cultures and values. This is why it must be repealed.

Cobdenia

19-10-2005, 03:19

Official Broadcast From The Governor-General of Cobdenia, His Excellency Air Chief Marshall Sir Clive Cholmondsey-Cholmondsey-Smythe, KCMG, KCRC, RAF

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/cobdencoat.gif
The Office of the Governor-General

Dear Sirs,

I couldn't give a stuff either way

Yours,

His Excellency Air Chief Marshall Sir Clive Cholmondsey-Cholmondsey-Smythe, KCMG, KCRC, RAF
The Governor-General of Cobdenia

Forgottenlands

19-10-2005, 03:25

The great double-standard of the "international federalists" certainly is striking, isn't it? Other nations should not be able to impose their values on you, but it's certainly fine for you to impose your values on them.

I will not comment about Pallatium's point, but I certainly do not shy away from the threat that a resolution will be passed that I don't agree with. Such sweeping generalizations are insulting from the position of an international federalist. I fully acknowledge that as a world government, this United Nations may pass things that I disagree with. There are things that I do believe belong at the National level. However, civil marriage I consider to be a matter of rights - and to revoke this right to any group for any reason I consider to be discrimination. Discrimination I believe falls under the jurisdiction of these United Nations. If this United Nations were to both repeal this resolution (and all like it) and propose a new resolution that bans same sex marriage, I will not shy away from the UN, I will fight it with every ounce of strength in me, and should it pass, I would do everything within my power to repeal it.

Certainly we have only 12 categories, only 10 of which are able to get any proposals to the floor (not that they all have, but the other two - gambling and gun control - have almost no chance in hell of garnering enough support - recreational use drugs also deals with tylenol, etc so it does have a few fields to work with). However, I note that Max Berry has previously stated he's considering looking at adding categories and that many proposals that don't fit any categories sit under the gun of moderator review for a bit for debate. Rarely is one deleted because it doesn't fit any category (I can only think of one example historically, and I think if it went under moderator review for a while, the moderators might find an appropriate category for it).

The "Unworthy of UN Time" deals with generally arbitrary items that have little consequence at a global level. Pop-culture/sports/etc generally fall under that category (especially if they're annoyingly specific). Moderators DO allow just about any issue you would normally find in a government into the UN - as long as they don't break any of the other rules (specificallly, contradiction, duplication, RL references and ammendment).

Forgottenlands

19-10-2005, 03:28

Dear Ambassador from the Forgottenlands,

Apparently you are also now declared my spouse for argumentation's sake.

My King points out that there is still no provision in the "Definition of Marriage" for consent having to be granted by either or both parties, nor does it state whether there needs to be a locus of jurisdiction.

The Empire of Forgottenlands nor any of her puppet nations nor the United Nations of Aberdeen recognize your decree of marriage and shall not acknowledge it until you can prove consent. As the resolution does not decree consent is not needed for marriage, our nations have declared that consent must exist on the behalf of both parties for marriage.

Law 4 of the United Nations of Aberdeen says as much.

Listeneisse

19-10-2005, 04:52

Dearest spouse of the Forgottenlands,

While that may be true, the UN is on sovereign territory where national laws do not necessarily hold sway.

The issue with this resolution is that such contentions as marriage without consent are arguably valid based on its minimalist language.

While this is (I pray) a facetious attempt to point out the ludicrous claims that can be made based on the current resolution, there can be cases where such claims are made in earnest.

There were centuries past where there were claims made on women and men, and attempts made to make persons marry without consent. Kidnaps and abductions were used to steal brides and grooms away from their lands.

Under such a definition of marriage as this, such a forced marriage, into say a large harem, is as valid as two consenting adults.

We have already noted that these "marriages" have no meaningful effect, and thus are rendered lawfully useless in any regard. We have no legal responsibility, since the definition of marriage does not include definitions of the responsibility of marriage.

We believe it is a reasonable request to draw up a replacement. Therefore, we shall take to undergo that in a following message.

Yelda

19-10-2005, 06:14

Listeneisse

19-10-2005, 09:34

Here is a preliminary draft of what we thought is should comprise and more formally express a true "Definition of Marriage."

It is understood that the current draft, at over 2,900 characters, might be a bit too long for the present limitations of form.

However, this is offered to give an idea to other UN Ambassadors and Delegates what we would prefer to see rather than the present Resolution #81.

We, the United Nations,

DESIRING to create a common definition of marriage all member nations may adhere to without unduly impinging upon societal laws and customs while balancing the rights of individuals and religious communities,

DECLARES marriage as the union of private individuals which, for purposes of the state, grants various customary and legal statuses, rights and responsibilities, including (but not limited to) forms of address, naming and personal expression, domestic partnership and cohabitation, sexual relations, parental authority over children (if any), and applications to business, tax, contract, property and probate law,

REQUIRES marriage take place between consenting legal adults (even if the marriage was arranged or contracted by others),

AFFIRMS each nation’s right to maintain laws regarding marriage, such as (but not limited to) granting or withholding specific status, rights and responsibilities associated with the union of marriage, setting the number of permissible simultaneous partners, requisites of exogamy or endogamy, the entry into or ending of marriage based on life status (alive or dead), relations between species and entities beyond human, laws of separation, annulment, divorce and post-marriage relations, and to allow local laws regarding marriage practices so long as they conform to all UN Resolutions,

ENCOURAGES nations recognize each others' marriage practices, and grant legal recognition to individuals married by foreign laws, so long as those practices abide by UN Resolutions,

PROHIBITS laws limiting or requiring marriage on the basis of the individual’s ethnicity, religion, age (other than requiring adulthood), gender, sexual orientation, or fertility,

UPHOLDS the rights of each state to set forth its own proceedings for civil marriage, such as who may perform a wedding and under what circumstances, and requisites such as personal counseling, testing for health purposes, public witness, and formal licensing,

REQUIRES states permit each religious community to maintain its own definition and practice of marriage customs and ceremonies in accord with its faith, which it may apply to members of its denomination, and which may differ from those of the state,

RECOGNIZES states may confer legal recognition upon marriages performed by religious ceremony, or withhold recognition if those practices contradict national or local law, and may require a civil marriage irrespective of a religious marriage ceremony,

UPHOLDS the rights of religious leaders to conduct marriage ceremonies, and if the state so grants, to simultaneously serve in the role of actor for the state in the conduct of civil marriage,

UPHOLDS the rights of each state to recognize or not, as they so deem fit, a common law marriage, wherein a verbal or written contract is made between partners, without a religious ceremony or civil marriage license.

Pallatium

19-10-2005, 10:37

We, the United Nations,

DESIRING to create a common definition of marriage all member nations may adhere to without unduly impinging upon societal laws and customs while balancing the rights of individuals and religious communities,

Ok so far.

DECLARES marriage as the union of private individuals which, for purposes of the state, grants various customary and legal statuses, rights and responsibilities, including (but not limited to) forms of address, naming and personal expression, domestic partnership and cohabitation, sexual relations, parental authority over children (if any), and applications to business, tax, contract, property and probate law,

The existing resolution can do this. No where does it say that marriage doesn't relate to tax law.

REQUIRES marriage take place between consenting legal adults (even if the marriage was arranged or contracted by others),

Again there is the "marriage at the end of a war" thing, but I can let that go for now.

AFFIRMS each nation’s right to maintain laws regarding marriage, such as (but not limited to) granting or withholding specific status, rights and responsibilities associated with the union of marriage, setting the number of permissible simultaneous partners, requisites of exogamy or endogamy, the entry into or ending of marriage based on life status (alive or dead), relations between species and entities beyond human, laws of separation, annulment, divorce and post-marriage relations, and to allow local laws regarding marriage practices so long as they conform to all UN Resolutions,

Most of this is covered already. Divorce law probably has no place in "definition of marriage" and there is the whole polygamy thing.

ENCOURAGES nations recognize each others' marriage practices, and grant legal recognition to individuals married by foreign laws, so long as those practices abide by UN Resolutions,

Must be stronger - has to be "mandates" or "requires" otherwise the whole purpose of this is pointless.

PROHIBITS laws limiting or requiring marriage on the basis of the individual’s ethnicity, religion, age (other than requiring adulthood), gender, sexual orientation, or fertility,

Nationality, IQ level, whether they speak the same language or not, how many nations they have visited in their life, which schools they went to, social class, height, weight - you get the idea. You have set a limit on what you can't ban, and opened up a whole slew of new things to ban.

You would have to add "includes, but is not limited to" for this to have any worth at all.

UPHOLDS the rights of each state to set forth its own proceedings for civil marriage, such as who may perform a wedding and under what circumstances, and requisites such as personal counseling, testing for health purposes, public witness, and formal licensing,

That is still permissable under the current resolution

REQUIRES states permit each religious community to maintain its own definition and practice of marriage customs and ceremonies in accord with its faith, which it may apply to members of its denomination, and which may differ from those of the state,

Still permissble under the current resolution.

RECOGNIZES states may confer legal recognition upon marriages performed by religious ceremony, or withhold recognition if those practices contradict national or local law, and may require a civil marriage irrespective of a religious marriage ceremony,

I guess this is arguably okay, except that to some degree it violates religious tolerance.

UPHOLDS the rights of religious leaders to conduct marriage ceremonies, and if the state so grants, to simultaneously serve in the role of actor for the state in the conduct of civil marriage,

Again - nothing that can't happen under the current resolution.

UPHOLDS the rights of each state to recognize or not, as they so deem fit, a common law marriage, wherein a verbal or written contract is made between partners, without a religious ceremony or civil marriage license.

Again, nothing that can't happen under the current resolution.

So basically this does almost nothing the current resolution does, while managing to permit nations to ban a whole load of marriages that they can't currently ban.

Not sure this is an improvement :}

Powerhungry Chipmunks

19-10-2005, 13:02

Except there isn't. If you deny the right for me to marry my partner - you tell me it would be illegal under the laws of a said nation - then you are not giving me the choice to marry who I chose.
You don't seem to be listening. I'm not talking about denying anyone the right to marry. I'm talking about the definition of marriage. They're two different issues. A nation could easily allow you "marry" in whatever way you want, and just officially recognize certain types, or enact nationwide civil unions.

The issues are seperate.

Listeneisse

19-10-2005, 13:41

The existing resolution doesn't say anything about what marriage actually is. For a defintion of marriage resolution, you'd think the UN could actually do a fair bit better.

Again there is the "marriage at the end of a war" thing, but I can let that go for now.
Yes, you had better. Because a woman can still chose to not marry even though her nation is conquered. If she chooses to marry the victor, she can do so to, hopefully, repair the relationship between the nations. But there are UN provisions against slavery.

Most of this is covered already. Divorce law probably has no place in "definition of marriage"...
It most certainly does. Some nations might not allow divorce, which thereby defines marriage quite differently than nations that permit it.

...and there is the whole polygamy thing.
Covered under "setting the number of permissible simultaneous partners." To help you with the math, "2" is the usual number of people partnered in a marriage. Polygamy would have "3 or more."

Must be stronger - has to be "mandates" or "requires" otherwise the whole purpose of this is pointless.
No. Just because you allow people to marry their pet goldfish does not require me to honor the marriage.

In fact, we believe that it is better to simply encourge them, allowing nations to have sovereignty over what they accept and what they do not accept.

Nationality, IQ level, whether they speak the same language or not, how many nations they have visited in their life, which schools they went to, social class, height, weight - you get the idea. You have set a limit on what you can't ban, and opened up a whole slew of new things to ban.
In terms of nationality, immigration laws actually do hold up marriages so that people cannot marry without proper approval. You would be shoaling population and naturalization laws if you did not take nationality into account.

That turns it from a domestic issue into an international issue. It can be regulated by national governments.

Yes, we also did not include IQ level, because some nations do have laws that might limit the marriage of those of extremely low IQs. They might have additional provisions to go through, or even be barred from marriage.

Right now, nations are free to ban all those things anyway. What this was doing was guaranteeing certain protections. You're ignoring the point.

You would have to add "includes, but is not limited to" for this to have any worth at all.
No, it's fine as it is, thank you. It means what it means.

So basically this does almost nothing the current resolution does, while managing to permit nations to ban a whole load of marriages that they can't currently ban.
Correct. We wish to allow nations to reasonably control what they define as a marriage, to give clear meanings which would allow them to toss out ridiculous claims, and to ensure that in the future no one tries to take away those national rights by making them guaranteed by the UN.

Not sure this is an improvement :}
We're not sure if you actually are required to be catered to.

Yet we respond so that others who are reading this can see that here is the requested response. A clear and true definition of marriage.

While it can be improved upon, and may need to be shortened, and we would welcome comments on what might be improved, we are hoping that this shows for all why we feel that the present resolution #81 is an insufficient definition of "marriage," and how it fails to guarantee each nation's sovereign definition and use of the term.

Pallatium

19-10-2005, 13:58

You don't seem to be listening. I'm not talking about denying anyone the right to marry. I'm talking about the definition of marriage. They're two different issues. A nation could easily allow you "marry" in whatever way you want, and just officially recognize certain types, or enact nationwide civil unions.

The issues are seperate.

They really aren't.

Ok - if I define men as male people with red hair, and only those people may call themselves men, and only those people are entitled to the rights of men, what do all the male people without red do?

By the same extention if a nation (or the UN - and this has been attempted) defines marriage as being a man and a woman, and says only those unions that fall in that category are called "marriages" then I am not longer classed as being married to my partner in the eyes of the UN. And further more it would mean my sister can not marry her girlfriend in a years time, because it wouldn't be a marriage.

I know - it's semantics. What is the difference between having a union that is called a marriage, and having a union that is called a union if they both have the same rights and privileges in the nation?

Well - there must *be* a difference otherwise why would certain people be trying so hard to ensure that that situation occurs?

Pallatium

19-10-2005, 14:11

Yes, you had better. Because a woman can still chose to not marry even though her nation is conquered. If she chooses to marry the victor, she can do so to, hopefully, repair the relationship between the nations. But there are UN provisions against slavery.

A matter of perspective. But - as I said - I will let it go for now.

It most certainly does. Some nations might not allow divorce, which thereby defines marriage quite differently than nations that permit it.

How?

Covered under "setting the number of permissible simultaneous partners." To help you with the math, "2" is the usual number of people partnered in a marriage. Polygamy would have "3 or more."

Why thank you - I had wondered why my budget was always wrong, but now I know!

That wasn't what I meant. I meant that without a specific reference to permitting polygomy, some other person will pass a resolution saying it can only be between two people.

No. Just because you allow people to marry their pet goldfish does not require me to honor the marriage.

In fact, we believe that it is better to simply encourge them, allowing nations to have sovereignty over what they accept and what they do not accept.

Again leading to the stripping away of what some would consider basic human rights.

In terms of nationality, immigration laws actually do hold up marriages so that people cannot marry without proper approval. You would be shoaling population and naturalization laws if you did not take nationality into account.

Again - something I would disagree with. If only because of the REPEATED claim that marriage is not to do with love or affection, but a legal document.

That turns it from a domestic issue into an international issue. It can be regulated by national governments.

I think you are seeing where I am going with this :}

Yes, we also did not include IQ level, because some nations do have laws that might limit the marriage of those of extremely low IQs. They might have additional provisions to go through, or even be barred from marriage.

Right now, nations are free to ban all those things anyway. What this was doing was guaranteeing certain protections. You're ignoring the point.

Actually - they aren't. If you read this :-

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;

The "ANY OTHER CHARACTERISTIC" part means that you can not do it based on IQ, height, weight or any other thing that can be used as a "get out clause" so you can infact ban it based on sex, gender and so forth. (eg - you can marry someone of the same sex, as long as you are the same height and weight)

No, it's fine as it is, thank you. It means what it means.

Except for the get out clause above, that measn it is perfectly easy to find a reason not to permit people to marry if you disapprove of their life style.

Correct. We wish to allow nations to reasonably control what they define as a marriage, to give clear meanings which would allow them to toss out ridiculous claims, and to ensure that in the future no one tries to take away those national rights by making them guaranteed by the UN.

So basically the resolution currently protects all these, you want to repeal it, and replace it with on that protects them, just not as well.

Good plan.

We're not sure if you actually are required to be catered to.

I am a member of the UN, and as such my voice deserves to be heard. And since I offer the same respect to other members, including the racist, homophobic, intolerant and stupid, I would expect the same to be offered to me.

Yet we respond so that others who are reading this can see that here is the requested response. A clear and true definition of marriage.

We have that.

While it can be improved upon, and may need to be shortened, and we would welcome comments on what might be improved, we are hoping that this shows for all why we feel that the present resolution #81 is an insufficient definition of "marriage," and how it fails to guarantee each nation's sovereign definition and use of the term.

Or - as some would phrase it - to allow the petty little biggots who believe that god hates gay people to write that in to their own laws, but to allow a;; the other members of the NSUN to feel good about themselves, cause they are not petty little biggots, even though they are implicitly condoning the discrimination and homophobia and should be ashamed of themselves.

Forgottenlands

19-10-2005, 15:48

Dearest spouse of the Forgottenlands,

While that may be true, the UN is on sovereign territory where national laws do not necessarily hold sway.

The issue with this resolution is that such contentions as marriage without consent are arguably valid based on its minimalist language.

While this is (I pray) a facetious attempt to point out the ludicrous claims that can be made based on the current resolution, there can be cases where such claims are made in earnest.

There were centuries past where there were claims made on women and men, and attempts made to make persons marry without consent. Kidnaps and abductions were used to steal brides and grooms away from their lands.

Back then, citizenship was a much different standard. There wasn't a piece of paper saying "I belong to X". You were a citizen of pretty much whichever city or nation you were residing in. Today, should someone try to kidnap a citizen for marriage, it would create an international maelstorm and we would have fun watching as one nation tries to recognize an arbitrary forced marriage while the other refuses.

To some degree, your replacement does little more than that aside from being explicit.

Speaking of which, AD will probably kill us if we don't add "Gender Identity" to the list.

We believe it is a reasonable request to draw up a replacement. Therefore, we shall take to undergo that in a following message.

I looked at it and it looks fairly good. I'll do a more thorough analysis later.

Vitalinia

19-10-2005, 21:08

Let it be known that the sovereign nation of the Democratic Republic of Vitalinia wholeheartedly endorse and welcome the Kingdom of Listeneisse's proposal to give a more extensive, satisfactory definition to marriage, which (with just a few minor edits) will give a tremendous balance between state sovereignty and civil freedom for all wishing to be civilly joined.

We wish to see this proposal on the UN floor as soon as possible.

Signed,
Hakim Zilativ
Ambassador General of the DR of Vitalinia

Pallatium

20-10-2005, 09:46

Unless there is a repeal this is never coming to the floor.

Further more, for someone who believes the UN should stay out of marriage, your support for this proposal seems a tad contradictory to your previous statements.

Powerhungry Chipmunks

20-10-2005, 14:56

They really aren't.

Ok - if I define men as male people with red hair, and only those people may call themselves men, and only those people are entitled to the rights of men, what do all the male people without red do?

I'm just going to stop responding to this, as it doesn't seem you're very interested in understanding my point of view (this being the second or third time you've brought up examples which are not really relevant to my point of view). I'll just leave it at the official statement fromDan Yeoman's desk: "We support this repeal because We think Definition of Marriage ill-written and overstepping. We feel it attempts to force cultural universalism upon UN peoples, which is unnecessary in the UN promoting or even enforcing the recognition of gay and other 'non-traditional' marriages in member nations."

Love and esterel

20-10-2005, 15:07

I'm just going to stop responding to this, as it doesn't seem you're very interested in understanding my point of view (this being the second or third time you've brought up examples which are not really relevant to my point of view). I'll just leave it at the official statement fromDan Yeoman's desk: "We support this repeal because We think Definition of Marriage ill-written and overstepping. We feel it attempts to force cultural universalism upon UN peoples, which is unnecessary in the UN promoting or even enforcing the recognition of gay and other 'non-traditional' marriages in member nations."

We will tend to agree that this proposition is not well written

is "traditonal" an argument?

Society evolves, not so long ago in a powerful nation i like very much, it was very not well considered for someone with a white skin color to marry someone with a black skin color, and vice-versa.

Pallatium

20-10-2005, 15:12

I'm just going to stop responding to this, as it doesn't seem you're very interested in understanding my point of view (this being the second or third time you've brought up examples which are not really relevant to my point of view). I'll just leave it at the official statement fromDan Yeoman's desk: "We support this repeal because We think Definition of Marriage ill-written and overstepping. We feel it attempts to force cultural universalism upon UN peoples, which is unnecessary in the UN promoting or even enforcing the recognition of gay and other 'non-traditional' marriages in member nations."

Believe it or not, I do understand your point. Or I think I do at least. I just disagree with it.

1) If gay couples can have a civil union, that has the equivelence of marriage but isn't called that, what's the problem?

2) If gay couples can have a "gay marriage" that is called marriage, but is not recognized by the government, what's the problem?

3) Why should my nation be required to allow gay marriage when the majority disapproves of it?

4) Why should the UN get to define marriage anyway - it is a matter way outside it's jurisdiction?

I think those are all the arguements I have heard, and responded to (not just from you, but from everyone)

Have I missed one?

Powerhungry Chipmunks

20-10-2005, 15:18

We will tend to agree that this proposition is not well written

But why does only traditional marriages should prevail?
is "traditonal" an argument?

Society evolves, not so long ago in a powerful nation i like very much, it was very not well considered for someone with a white skin color to marry someone with a black skin color, and vice-versa.
Well, I'm not saying "traditional" marriages should prevail, per se. I'm more saying that government should stay out of marriage altogether, and when there's a need to recognize marriages (scuh as tax benefits to marriages), the civil aspect of it shoulkd probably be universally recognized. That is an impossibility now that DoM has forced our governments to take a certain stand on marriage, which is really a cultural/religious issue.

Love and esterel

20-10-2005, 15:26

Well, I'm not saying "traditional" marriages should prevail, per se. I'm more saying that government should stay out of marriage altogether, and when there's a need to recognize marriages (scuh as tax benefits to marriages), the civil aspect of it shoulkd probably be universally recognized. That is an impossibility now that DoM has forced our governments to take a certain stand on marriage, which is really a cultural/religious issue.

why not, but the problem is that if government stay out of marriages, how religious (or not) people non-belonging to a religion will be able to marry?

Forgottenlands

20-10-2005, 21:35

Well, I'm not saying "traditional" marriages should prevail, per se. I'm more saying that government should stay out of marriage altogether, and when there's a need to recognize marriages (scuh as tax benefits to marriages), the civil aspect of it shoulkd probably be universally recognized. That is an impossibility now that DoM has forced our governments to take a certain stand on marriage, which is really a cultural/religious issue.

PC: Vastiva made the resolution not with the intention to force nations to have marriages but if they HAD marriages, those marriages had to be available to everyone equally. Read through the text - you are not required to have ANY marriages whatsoever.

Powerhungry Chipmunks

21-10-2005, 13:13

PC: Vastiva made the resolution not with the intention to force nations to have marriages but if they HAD marriages, those marriages had to be available to everyone equally. Read through the text - you are not required to have ANY marriages whatsoever.
I have read through the text, and I'm not sure I see what you're talking about.

Tekania

21-10-2005, 14:17

I have read through the text, and I'm not sure I see what you're talking about.

What he is saying, is the DoM defines "what marriage is"; and thus mandates a LEGAL DEFINITION; however, it does not actually mandate anything regarding legality of marriage within law (no where does the DoM state that a state MUST have civil unions or marriages, nor indicate what rights/responsibilities are connected should it have one)...

IOW: The DoM says either you have civil union/marriage which is not discrimintory, or you do not have civil union/marriage at all (within the national laws). If the state is going to control marriage [civil law... sic. civil union]; it cannot discriminate... But there is no mandate that the state MUST contol marriage in its civil laws. A commonlaw state would not have to change ANYTHING, based from the DoM; though a state totally reliant on civil law, would.

You're not "seeing it" simply because "it's not there"... I.E. it's an assumption being "written in" by the minds of readers, that the DoM actually necessitates the application of civil marriage laws by all(or any) states... The application is not there... at all... Thus, if there is no direct action to apply civil law.... (Note NatSov, and the R&D...) and no one is required to actually have civil unions/marriages in laws (by this Res.).... I think you can finish it.

Actually, the Gay Rights res. is far more problematic. It leans far more to ENSHRINING marriage laws into nations than the DoM does... Thus FORCING states to adopt civil marrital laws... And should be more directed for repeal for the sake of natsov, than the DoM.

Forgottenlands

21-10-2005, 19:23

Actually, the Gay Rights res. is far more problematic. It leans far more to ENSHRINING marriage laws into nations than the DoM does... Thus FORCING states to adopt civil marrital laws... And should be more directed for repeal for the sake of natsov, than the DoM.

Absolutely.

Cluichstan

21-10-2005, 19:26

Powerhungry Chipmunks

22-10-2005, 06:40

What he is saying, is the DoM defines "what marriage is"; and thus mandates a LEGAL DEFINITION; however, it does not actually mandate anything regarding legality of marriage within law (no where does the DoM state that a state MUST have civil unions or marriages, nor indicate what rights/responsibilities are connected should it have one)...

IOW: The DoM says either you have civil union/marriage which is not discrimintory, or you do not have civil union/marriage at all (within the national laws). If the state is going to control marriage [civil law... sic. civil union]; it cannot discriminate... But there is no mandate that the state MUST contol marriage in its civil laws. A commonlaw state would not have to change ANYTHING, based from the DoM; though a state totally reliant on civil law, would.
Ok, I think I get your argument Tekania and I largely agree with it, especially given my fairly loose understanding of UN compliance. I suppose Vastiva could've been a little clearer in the text, and I'm still pretty sure there are reasons for theocracies to object being subject to such a definition, but I can see where it doesn't eliminate the "civil union" compromise that I thought it had earlier. That was what largely made me not like it, that thought that it was just over-zealously placing one idea atop another, eliminating compromise and democracy. I'm still unsure about the resolution (and would probably support a better worded version), but I definitely see the point you raise, Tekania.

SLI Sector

22-10-2005, 06:50

SLI Sector:

"We support this resolution and hope it reaches quorom. I will talk to my regional delegate about supporting the resolution."
---
International TaxSchemersRUS Inc.:

We are against this resolution. This resolution shall destroy a legit and totally legal business like us, creating a loss of jobs and a rise in unemployment. It will also decrease the economy of the countries we deal with.

But most importantly, rich billionaries will never be able to marry their gerbils...how sad!

We ask all sane citizens not to accept this repeal.

We also ask all billionares with debts to consider sending us a TG about arranging a marraige with a gerbil today! Remember, a gerbil is not just a loyal pet, it is also a loyal spouse!

Aroden

22-10-2005, 08:52

Hardly sanctified, hardly violation, hardly relevant to socially proper. Marriage laws at a state level have a lot of rights attached to them - basically, you sign a contract when you're getting married. This contract entails you to a number of rights and lets you make decisions together. However, the details of the contract are still left to the nations by this resolution. The ONLY thing that is dealt with is who is eligable - and that is an issue of discrimination. As far as I'm concerned, no nation has a sanctified right to discriminate against any minority group for any reason with...perhaps...exception to skills (you can't force an office to accept a mentally retarded guy to design a bridge, they need proper skills to do this) and age/maturity.

Add on that resolution 81 doesn't even require nations to have marriage, it just says that nations that do have marriage have to make it for two consenting adults - regardless of what gender they are.

Add on that resolution 81 does not have jurisdiction over churches, just governments.

You may have a point about the relatives, but the animal concern is irrelevant.

This is actually one of the few resolutions that I REALLY like and its because of this line (I'm actually not very fond of the effect of the resolution as a whole and feel it could be improved). It is one of the few that FULLY recognizes the various RP elements of the NS universe. It doesn't do it for all forms, but it works for most. Why is this point necessary?

Because not all members of the UN are human. Not all citizens of UN nations are human.

The lines ALLOWS governments to make the expansion to include other species, but does not require it. If your government doesn't have non-humans as part of your citizenry, then you need not worry. However, I know many nations that have various other species and want to grant these rights of marriage to all species.

That's because no mainstream religion wants to lose their hold on that. However, many governments have gone "are you nuts?"

My parents were not married in a church. They were raised under different religious philosophies, but both lost their belief and I'm pretty sure they're both Atheist (at best, they're "Spiritual"). Seeing as they are not part of any religion, how can they be married if its a religious institution.

You see, the concept of marriage being a religious institution is proposterous. When so many religions have a belief in marriage, a similar idea of the fundamentals of marriage, but VARIED ideas of what a marriage entails, to claim it is a religious institution is ridiculous. How many mainstream religions let the man have more than one wife? But do you see that in North America or most of Europe? Nope, because it's considered unacceptable in this society (in contrast, the Middle East has many men in that boat).

The government has taken the task of regulating the legalities under its jurisdiction - it did this a LONG time ago. That's what the government does: provides laws. It standardizes what is expected for a marriage. This may provide more permissabilities than certain religious institutions might believe in, while others it will restrict. As such, a CIVIL marriage - which is addressed in resolution 81 - is not, in any way, shape, or form a religious institution.

No. But I admit that resolution 81 should be rewritten to make it clear that it does not push any church to agree to this law.

Whatever. This happens all the time. Couldn't care less

Nay. I defend the minority of your country backed by the majority of UN nations.

Branding, illegal, will be deleted

It'll be deleted.

what he/she/it said.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Proposal: Repeal "Definition of Marriage"