NationStates Jolt Archive

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #7 :

"Sexual Freedom
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Armstrongonia

Description: 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.)."



Read this resolution thoroughly. If you don't understand what's wrong, read it again. If you don't understand it now, let me explain:

"What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state (...)" Although this statement is intended to concern the sexual life of grown-ups, it covers everything! You can sacrifice your children to "Nose-wiper god" from Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy and get away with it, if all the adults in the house consent.

Now, you may tell me: "Hey, man, it's obvious that this is about sex and stuff...". I do understand this (as I'm not a complete idiot), but I've just started studying law, and I KNOW laws have to be more specific than this. This resolution needs to be repealed and re-written!

Or what do you think?

You can do ANYTHING inside your own home?
Yep. I'm constructing antimatter weapons in my garage.

Description: 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.)."

Bolding mine.

1. How many things can happen between two consenting adults? Not just with both of them, but between.
2. About the children in the room: if they're doing something to someone, it's not in the privacy of their home, right?
3. If they are constructing something that could hurt someone, the state has a medical right to know.

Yep. I'm constructing antimatter weapons in my garage.

With the help of other consenting adults, one hopes. ;)

1. How many things can happen between two consenting adults? Not just with both of them, but between.

Debatable. That is your interpretation, yet you would be hard pressed to find a dictionary definition of the word "between" to support you. As an example,

By the combined effort or effect of: Between them they succeeded.

2. About the children in the room: if they're doing something to someone, it's not in the privacy of their home, right?

That is just plain wrong. If their home is private property, everything there happens within that privacy. The state should have the right to override it in certain circumstances, but that is against the letter of this resolution.

3. If they are constructing something that could hurt someone, the state has a medical right to know.

Again, against the letter of this law.

Again, against the letter of this law.
In my view, more against the spirit of the letter of the law. If there is a medical reason they need to know, like someone is going to get hurt [have a medical problem], then this resolution lets the government interfere.

...unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons...

It allows the authorities to enquire about the activities, not to prevent or criminalise them.

EDIT: For clarification: The authorities have the right to ask Yelda "Are you building an antimatter bomb?" The state does not have the right to go into Yelda's garage to check. Yelda does not have the duty to spontaneously report it, or even to answer truthfully should the question be raised.

It allows the authorities to enquire about the activities, not to prevent or criminalise them.
You've got a point. But since the "should" operator is used, it is optional, I think, so they can, really.

There is only one thing I disagree with in the "repeal this shit" comments so far - you can't really sacrifice your kids........or at least, it's open for criminalization.

Why?

Because when you include kids into the equation, it no longer remains solely between two or more adults - it is between two or more adults and non-adults - regardless of consent. Therefore, it is not covered by the resolution.

That said, you could have things like cloning projects happen in your bedroom.

Regardless, it IS their own home. Every human has a right to absolute privacy in their own home, and is suprises me anyone would vote for this. If this passes, the UN will have created a world exactly like that of Orwell's 1984. Do we really want to institute a global Big Brother? If the people in their home are planning to assassinate their country's president, we can just hope that the enforcement will do whatever it can to stop the crime on the assassination day. It's always been like this and it's plain unnecessary to jump to a world without any privacy. Zacherene has cameras constantly running on it's streets, and to add them in the home would completely annihilate the rights of the citizens. I strongly, strongly urge the voters to not let this heinous law pass at any cost.

*rolls eyes*

Considering a number of other resolutions that have passed, 1984 is irrelevant to this discussion. Put the fearmongering away and think

Drug Grow ops - not illegal if all adults consented to it....

*rolls eyes*

Considering a number of other resolutions that have passed, 1984 is irrelevant to this discussion. Put the fearmongering away and think

Drug Grow ops - not illegal if all adults consented to it....

That makes about as much sense as saying that we already have a bunch of crazy non-sensicle laws and will one more really matter.You have diplomatic power, so why on Earth would you choose to just watch the world go into anarchy?

Regardless, it IS their own home. Every human has a right to absolute privacy in their own home, and is suprises me anyone would vote for this. If this passes, the UN will have created a world exactly like that of Orwell's 1984. Do we really want to institute a global Big Brother? If the people in their home are planning to assassinate their country's president, we can just hope that the enforcement will do whatever it can to stop the crime on the assassination day. It's always been like this and it's plain unnecessary to jump to a world without any privacy. Zacherene has cameras constantly running on it's streets, and to add them in the home would completely annihilate the rights of the citizens. I strongly, strongly urge the voters to not let this heinous law pass at any cost.

Repealing a law saying you can't do something is not the same as passing a law saying you HAVE to do something.

Sir Leslie Featherstonehaugh-Mickelwhaite wishes to make it known that he, his wife, plus fifty consenting scientists (it never says they have to romantically linked) are building a rather large tactical thermonuclear device in his bedroom....

Regardless, it IS their own home. Every human has a right to absolute privacy in their own home, and is suprises me anyone would vote for this. If this passes, the UN will have created a world exactly like that of Orwell's 1984.Slippery slope fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html). Try again.

Especially when you consider some other (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029598&postcount=11) Resolutions...

That makes about as much sense as saying that we already have a bunch of crazy non-sensicle laws and will one more really matter.You have diplomatic power, so why on Earth would you choose to just watch the world go into anarchy?

You misunderstand. This is a dangerous law - so your argument is illogical. Repealing it and replacing it will make it so that we remove a dangerous law and end up back with protecting the right of consenting couples to have sex. The PURPOSE of this law was to address sexual freedom, not big-brother attitudes (just holier-than-thou attitudes). As Hack just posted, there are many other resolutions that deal with Big Brother tendancies.

Now - I want you to consider something. Compared to real life, we are FAR FAR FAR from an Anarchy of the world. You want to see anarchy, stop looking at the computer screen. No nation is bounded by a law of a single nation or organization with exception to the alliances it has committed to itself. The NSUN doesn't have an equivelent in Real Life. Yet somehow, real life (while fucked up) doesn't seem to have this "George Orwell" horror story going.

NEXT.

Would a big brother program be so bad? Complete compliance with the law could be achieved if the lives of each individual in the nation were monitored for any illegal activity. If you aren't doing anything illegal, would you have anything to worry about?

Would a big brother program be so bad? Complete compliance with the law could be achieved if the lives of each individual in the nation were monitored for any illegal activity. If you aren't doing anything illegal, would you have anything to worry about?
Stop privacy intrusion means such a noble dream can as yet not be realized. We live in hope for the UN to reverse its previous irresponsibilities and endorse this sort of concern for our citizens' security, though. Keep the dream alive.

Ok, now I get what the bill is saying. All it wants to do is protect the privacy of the sex lives of adults, yes? I guess that isn't so bad. So I beleive that Zacherene will vote FOR this bill to pass, not AGAINST the bills passing.

Sorry for causing an uproar, folks. :)

Y'know, there are these massive stretches of time where you deal with one person or another spewing something stupid and you keep trying to address the stupidity, explaining your POV from 20 different angles. Then you see something like this:

Ok, now I get what the bill is saying. All it wants to do is protect the privacy of the sex lives of adults, yes? I guess that isn't so bad. So I beleive that Zacherene will vote FOR this bill to pass, not AGAINST the bills passing.

Sorry for causing an uproar, folks. :)

And it makes it all so worth it.

Ok, now I get what the bill is saying. All it wants to do is protect the privacy of the sex lives of adults, yes? I guess that isn't so bad. So I beleive that Zacherene will vote FOR this bill to pass, not AGAINST the bills passing.

Sorry for causing an uproar, folks. :)

The bill is not at vote, it was voted long ago. And what it wants to do is ok, we are discussing what it unfortunately ends up doing.