NationStates Jolt Archive

The latest repeal project of the Federal Republic comes to vote in a matter of hours. Special thanks to the usual suspects, Cluichstan and Gruenberg [insert goat joke here], for helping us get this sucker to quorum.VOTE HERE >> Repeal "Gay Rights" (www.nationstates.net/page=un) << VOTE HERE
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #12 (http://www.nationstates.net/55197/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=11)
Proposed by: Omigodtheykilledkenny (www.nationstates.net/omigodtheykilledkenny)

Description: UN Resolution #12: Gay Rights (http://www.nationstates.net/55197/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=11) (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: [i]This Assembly,

AFFIRMING that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals are deserving of full and equal protection under the law;

REAFFIRMING its earlier stance in Resolution #99: Discrimination Accord, that the resolution Gay Rights "in practice does virtually nothing to protect citizens' rights";

VOICING its concern that keeping poor, ineffectual legislation such as Resolution #12 on the books will do nothing to advance the cause for human rights, and will in fact hamper this body's ability to make further strides in that arena;

ACKNOWLEDGING that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals are ALREADY afforded substantial protections under international law through past declarations of this body; protections including, but not limited to:

1) Freedom to marry individuals of the same sex or gender;
2) Freedom to express their love for persons of the same gender;
3) Freedom from imprisonment based on sexuality;
4) Freedom from discrimination;
5) Freedom of sexual privacy; thus

DEEMING the Gay Rights resolution redundant and unnecessary;

MINDFUL that it is in the interests of the United Nations to streamline and strike out superfluous and ineffective legislation;

RECOGNIZING that the enactment of this article will NOT permit member states to discriminate against gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender individuals; hereby

REPEALS Resolution #12: Gay Rights.
Proposal FAQ:

Why repeal this resolution? Removing one barrier of protection for gays will only make other protections more vulnerable, won’t it?
Well, first off, let me reiterate: This proposal does nothing, so we aren’t really removing anything. The only protections the standing resolution grants are: outlawing discrimination against gays, and allowing gay marriage. (Anti-)Discrimination Accord (Res. #99) already protects gays from discrimination, and does a much better job than this waste of paper – just as Definition of Marriage (Res. #81) does a better job at protecting gay marriage. Also, the chances of repealing those two resolutions are very slim, so the protections outlined in this proposal remain intact (and, in my humble opinion, invulnerable), even if this article is struck out.

But what if we’d rather repeal (and replace) other bad resolutions, like Rights of Minorities and Women, and Sexual Freedom? Wouldn’t repealing this as well leave a void?
No. The only resolutions Gay Rights overlaps are #81 and #99, so repealing RoMaW and SF would still leave a “void,” even without this repeal.

Seriously, why repeal something with such a lofty goal as protecting gay rights?
Because it doesn’t really protect them. All it does is give broad generalities about what the goals should be (“protect all people from discrimination,” “gay marriages should be protected”), without outlining how it should be done. Since this bill was passed, the United Nations has had the chance to improve significantly on its provisos, with the passage of (anti-)Discrimination Accord and Definition of Marriage, so this resolution is no longer necessary. This body’s (anti-)Discrimination Accord flatly states that Gay Rights “in practice does virtually nothing to protect citizens’ rights”; why would the United Nations keep a resolution it has already condemned as ineffective and unnecessary?

This repeal is prejudiced and homophobic!!!!!!!! Vote AGAINST!!!!!!! :headbang:
That’s not even a question. I’ve already explained why this isn’t a campaign to deny gay rights. Read the damn proposal. As a super-special player opined of this proposal on an off-site forum: “This repeal is undoubtedly the most sympathetic repeal anyone could imagine, and its opening paragraphs probably do more for the cause than the original proposal ever did ...”

I agree with this repeal. Gays are cute, cuddly and beloved by children everywhere, and they should have rights. :fluffle: :fluffle:
Umm, I don’t think you understand what “repeal” means. Here (http://www.m-w.com)’s a dictionary. Look it up.

I am sick of all these repeals!!!! Why can’t you guys come up with NEW legislation, instead of just repealing everything?!
(Sigh) Why don’t you write something new? No one’s holding a gun to your head not to.

I’m sick of all these repeals!!!! How do I resign?
That’s easy. See the button on the NationStates UN page labeled “Resign”? Press it.

“But the button doesn’t work!”, or
“The gnomes won’t let me out the door unless I pay my insurance deposit first! Even though I already paid it!”, or
“I’m afraid the notorious UN office raiders will steal all my stuff if I leave!”, or
“The office raiders are already banging down my door; I may not get out of the building alive!!”
Easily remedied. Simply submit ten proposals, all within minutes of each other, all just one letter long, and all in the proper order. Your first proposal should read: “T,” and your second: “H,” and your third: “E,” and so on: “U.,” N.,” “I,” “S,” “G,” “A,” “Y.” You will instantly be booted from the UN for rules violations. And security will escort you out of the building.

Will you invade me if I vote against?
What kind of silly question is that? ... Of course we will invade you! You best start sealing yourselves in your underground bunkers now, and ready yourselves for a long nuclear winter.

Y'know - I was REALLY tempted to pick 4

But at this point, considering the shittiness of the resolution, the fact that there's a dozen others, I....just don't give a shit anymore.

*is afraid*

Have I lost my interest in the UN?

Why repeal this resolution? Removing one barrier of protection for gays will only make other protections more vulnerable, won’t it?
Well, first off, let me reiterate: This proposal does nothing, so we aren’t really removing anything. The only protections the standing resolution grants are: outlawing discrimination against gays, and allowing gay marriage. (Anti-)Discrimination Accord (Res. #99) already protects gays from discrimination, and does a much better job than this waste of paper – just as Definition of Marriage (Res. #81) does a better job at protecting gay marriage. Also, the chances of repealing those two resolutions are very slim, so the protections outlined in this proposal remain intact (and, in my humble opinion, invulnerable), even if this article is struck out.

Pretty much as you stated earlier: we want the homophobes to have to repeal SIX resolutions rather then FIVE to eliminate gay rights. Repealing this also does nothing but hurt the staying-power of gay rights.

As I believe I said before (and it doesn't really fit any of your rather humorous poll options), I oppose the repeal of this resolution pretty much for sentimental reasons.

Yes, it does extremely little given the amount of overlap, but I can't help but be nostalgic about the pre-repeal days of NS, when we were all able to simply say 'Resolution 12' to the many proposals trying to outlaw gay marriage.

You have a very good argument, but I just can't bring myself to repeal this.

Since Gay Rights doesn't do anything anyway, I don't see why we need to take a strong hit to our human rights. ;)

Pretty much as you stated earlier: we want the homophobes to have to repeal SIX resolutions rather then FIVE to eliminate gay rights. Repealing this also does nothing but hurt the staying-power of gay rights.OK, let's see: Of the six, three are central components of international human rights law that secure the rights of homosexuals, protect them against discrimination and persecution, and protect their unions as well: Definition of Marriage (#81), (anti-)Discrimination Accord (#99), and Freedom of Conscience (#100-something). These are the strongest resolutions, which, in my humble opinion, have no chance of being repealed. Of the numerous attempts made on the most vulnerable of three, #81, not one has reached quorum.

The other three resolutions are worthless shit.

And you want to keep this resolution (and presumably the other two worthless ones) -- the weakest and most vulnerable of the six, which do nothing -- in order to protect the other three -- which are much stronger, much better, stand completely on their own and carry their own weight -- from repeals that will never materialize? Seems to me you'd want to stronger three to protect the weaker three, but that's just logic. It will have no place in this discussion. Mark my words.

The stat-wanking (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10331513#post10331513) stance I do not understand at all.

The Dutch Democratic Republic supports Gay Rights and stands strongly opposed to efforts to curtail the civil liberties of homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals or transgender persons.

This resolution is a kneefall to homophobes and bigots. It will only serve to narrow the basis for supporting Civil Rights for minorities in the future. Oppose the culture of Hatred that leads to gay rights repeals, and please oppose this dreadful repeal.

~Aram Koopman.

As a delegate to the NSUN I am shocked and appaled. Shocked and appaled at the absolute insanity that this institution seems to be embracing. Resolution #12 isn't worth the paper it was written on. I understand that many people are tired of these repeals and would like things to return to the way they were but we live in a time of change people. Changes that are forcing us to look at what this institution has previously done and make sure if it is necessary to keep such resolutions as resolution #12 around. And frankly, it's not. Resolution #99 is one of the best drafted resolutions on the books. It is unrepealable. There is no need to worry about gay rights being infringed upon. I am for gay, lesbian, and transgender rights. I will be one the first people to stand up and march with them. But I am not for useless legislation that just sits in these hallowed halls. We need to streamline this institution if it is to survive in this new era. What better way to start it than by starting it here and now? I urge you to join me in voting yes on this resolution, not as colleagues trying to push yet another thing through, but as humans trying save one of the institutions that keeps us together as brothers and sisters.

I'm sorry, Dundalk Bay, but what 'new era' are you talking about? I simply don't understand what you mean.

NO, because I am SICK of all these FREAKIN’ REPEALS!! YOU GO TO HELL!! YOU GO TO HELL AND YOU DIE!! :sniper:

The Dutch Democratic Republic supports Gay Rights and stands strongly opposed to efforts to curtail the civil liberties of homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals or transgender persons.

This resolution is a kneefall to homophobes and bigots. It will only serve to narrow the basis for supporting Civil Rights for minorities in the future. Oppose the culture of Hatred that leads to gay rights repeals, and please oppose this dreadful repeal.

~Aram Koopman.
wat de hel u kaashoofden deed met holloway natalie?:headbang:

The Dominion of Bmol supports this resolution, Voting Yes on #1

(And just to be a meanie I also support options #2 and #5 :D )

This recent wave of repeals is just what the UN needs, a time to stop and go over past resolutions and discard all those who are rendered obsolete by newer and better drafted ones.

I voted Yes.

I'm a very Conservative man so I have no qualms with repealing one of the many Gay Rights resolutions. However, while I may be conservative I have very many friends who are homosexual and like it has been stated before me this repeal does no more or less for homosexual people then the actual Resolution does. While it removes some of the overlapping, it also makes it so there aren't as many resolutions for Conservative nations to fight against. If everybody keeps removing these resolutions because they feel they are unnecessary or because they think they overlap we are going to be left with no resolutions supporting anything.

Next, another Nation is going to come along and remove one of the other gay resolutions because it does nothing and eventually there is going to be one resolution left, which all of us Conservatives can fight to remove.

Although, by all means, repeal it. You have my vote.

I voted Yes.

I'm a very Conservative man so I have no qualms with repealing one of the many Gay Rights resolutions. However, while I may be conservative I have very many friends who are homosexual and like it has been stated before me this repeal does no more or less for homosexual people then the actual Resolution does. While it removes some of the overlapping, it also makes it so there aren't as many resolutions for Conservative nations to fight against. If everybody keeps removing these resolutions because they feel they are unnecessary or because they think they overlap we are going to be left with no resolutions supporting anything.

Next, another Nation is going to come along and remove one of the other gay resolutions because it does nothing and eventually there is going to be one resolution left, which all of us Conservatives can fight to remove.

Although, by all means, repeal it. You have my vote.

I am not sure I get this straight. By Conservative, do you mean homophobic? How do your homosexual friends feel about your grand plan to destroy their rights?

Anyway, have fun trying. Many of us who support this repeal will fight you if that time ever comes.

if we have human rights, what we need gay-rights for? are they not human?

so nothing else to vote than "i just dont care"

if we have human rights, what we need gay-rights for? are they not human?

so nothing else to vote than "i just dont care"

Yes, that's true. A resolution stating "all humans have rights" would make redundant another stating "all gays have rights." Since rights tend to be more specific than that, your point is just silly.

As always, one more and sad repeal, i vote fort the 10th time AGAINST this horrible repeal.
I'm not gay, i don't understand how a man could love a man, a woman could love a woman, but my opinion has nothing to do with their love, they are free and repeal their right is the door for more oppressive changes, isn't it ?

Gaiah,
Delegate of France.

This is the thin end of the wedge.

If resolution 12 serves no practical purpose that has not been covered by other resolutions then its value becomes purely symbolic. However its a symbol of gay rights, which is something I wholehearted endorse. The repeal of this gay rights resolution can easily be interpreted/misinterpreted as part of a growing movement to remove all gay rights resolutions. I am not happy to see that message, even if its not the one intended by the authors of this repeal, be sent out and I am genuinely fearful of the consequences if this repeal is successful.

Sica votes NO.

This is as sad a display as I have ever seen in these halls, folks. Well, aside from the text of "Promotion of Solar Panels", but that was a special case.

Fear and sentimentality. Those are the things that are causing some nations to cast their votes against the repeal. I suggest you ask yourselves whether your fear and sentimentality actually further your cause or just make you fearful and sentimental.

Are the rights of homosexuals truly any less protected by this body once the repeal has passed? Absolutely not. There are other resolutions that protect their rights to the extent possible, and the original "Gay Rights" resolution was a mere statement of principal without even the paltry UN efficacy that so many of you crave. In addition, this repeal itself makes a statement of principal far more cogent than that of Resolution #12. There is no reason to fear, and no reason to indulge in a fear that leads you to hold on to something that is of no benefit.

This is where we come to the sentimentality. I ask you, fellow representatives to the United Nations, not to hold on to a poor quality resolution simply because it was the first one of its kind. I ask you to avoid making serious decisions about international law based on sentimentality. International law is not a teddy bear that one holds onto because it's warm and fuzzy and comforting. I ask you, in short, to make decisions about international law based instead on reason, researched and well-considered opinions, and practicality.

Please do not turn this resolution into your teddy bear.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Sica']This is the thin end of the wedge.

If resolution 12 serves no practical purpose that has not been covered by other resolutions then its value becomes purely symbolic. However its a symbol of gay rights, which is something I wholehearted endorse. The repeal of this gay rights resolution can easily be interpreted/misinterpreted as part of a growing movement to remove all gay rights resolutions. I am not happy to see that message, even if its not the one intended by the authors of this repeal, be sent out and I am genuinely fearful of the consequences if this repeal is successful.

Sica votes NO.

I agree wholeheartedly with Sica, This resolution this resolution has at its heart a value of the level of human rights we are all unwilling to negotiate with as NSUN nations. Also if the repeal writers don't value the intrinsic symbolic value that there should be a separate resolution for Gay Rights surely they can understand how this looks for all new nations now joining the UN. The mere sight of "REPEAL GAY RIGHTS" on the NSUN webpage today turned my stomach - congratulations Ohmygodtheykilledkenny for presenting as homophobic a webpage as the NSUN has ever seen. To new nations and those 80+% who don't stop to read the fine details, you've just furthered the cause of homophobes in getting their message of intolerance out. The vote on this resolution is now about damage control.

As for those who see this as "streamlining the UN for a new era" I ask two questions. Firstly if you get rid of historic resolutions such as these you make it easier for bigots such as Valori to get in more repeals for, for example, the "Definition of Marriage" resolution, with some blurb saying "we just want to remove the part about gay marriage here, but we swear we're ok with the rest of gay rights...honest", which will intime reveal itself for what it is, a fully fledged attack on all gay rights. Art reflecting life, n'est pas?

Secondly if you think don't care about gay rights, or simply feel they are undeserving of their own resolution (as Ohmygodtheykilledkenny obviously feels), be it repetition or not, then just read the wise words of Pastor Martin Niemöller, a Lutheran priest who was imprisoned in a concentration camp for his outspoken attacks on the Nazis.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.


If you think this repeal is not an attack to weaken all human rights resolutions then you are sadly mistaken.

I urge all of you to vote NO for damage control, on all our (now-blemished) human rights resolutions.

I agree wholeheartedly with Sica, This resolution this resolution has at its heart a value of the level of human rights we are all unwilling to negotiate with as NSUN nations. Also if the repeal writers don't value the intrinsic symbolic value that there should be a separate resolution for Gay Rights surely they can understand how this looks for all new nations now joining the UN. The mere sight of "REPEAL GAY RIGHTS" on the NSUN webpage today turned my stomach - congratulations Ohmygodtheykilledkenny for presenting as homophobic a webpage as the NSUN has ever seen. To new nations and those 80+% who don't stop to read the fine details, you've just furthered the cause of homophobes in getting their message of intolerance out. The vote on this resolution is now about damage control.

As for those who see this as "streamlining the UN for a new era" I ask two questions. Firstly if you get rid of historic resolutions such as these you make it easier for bigots such as Valori to get in more repeals for, for example, the "Definition of Marriage" resolution, with some blurb saying "we just want to remove the part about gay marriage here, but we swear we're ok with the rest of gay rights...honest", which will intime reveal itself for what it is, a fully fledged attack on all gay rights. Art reflecting life, n'est pas?

Secondly if you think don't care about gay rights, or simply feel they are undeserving of their own resolution (as Ohmygodtheykilledkenny obviously feels), be it repetition or not, then just read the wise words of Pastor Martin Niemöller, a Lutheran priest who was imprisoned in a concentration camp for his outspoken attacks on the Nazis.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.


If you think this repeal is not an attack to weaken all human rights resolutions then you are sadly mistaken.

I urge all of you to vote NO for damage control, on all our (now-blemished) human rights resolutions.

We vote on laws, not on titles. I suggest that accusing most of the UN of being illiterate is not the best way to gather support.

Incidentally, your post proves you are one of the 80+% who doesn't give a damn about details. I would try to describe your attitude, but TH has already done it much more eloquently than I could ever hope to. Anyway, I can't be bothered to refute slippery sloped appeals to emotion.

I agree wholeheartedly with Sica, This resolution this resolution has at its heart a value of the level of human rights we are all unwilling to negotiate with as NSUN nations. Also if the repeal writers don't value the intrinsic symbolic value that there should be a separate resolution for Gay Rights surely they can understand how this looks for all new nations now joining the UN. The mere sight of "REPEAL GAY RIGHTS" on the NSUN webpage today turned my stomach - congratulations Ohmygodtheykilledkenny for presenting as homophobic a webpage as the NSUN has ever seen. To new nations and those 80+% who don't stop to read the fine details, you've just furthered the cause of homophobes in getting their message of intolerance out. The vote on this resolution is now about damage control.
That argument is why I made this: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=466081

Judging a proposal solely by its title is incredibly stupid and dangerous. TilEnca once made a "children's rights" proposal, a sub-clause of which enforced mandatory child prostitution, to test the extent to which delegates read proposals. I believe it got a few approvals. But assuming people actually do only judge the title is equally flawed. If they did, no repeal would ever be passed. If they did, no one would have protested the citizenship aspects of the Banishment Ban, the bad science of Promotion of Solar Panels. How could 92% vote for Female Genital Mutilation without reading it?

Yours is a fallacious and damaging assertion, and it frankly disgusts me you have so little respect for the rest of the UN. If we try to pin ourselves to the lowest common denominator all the time, then we will continue to pass flawed and stupid resolutions. If we play to the substance, and raise the level of debate, and lose our inhibitions about ridding ourselves of redundant crap, then we will see a correlating rise in the level of UN activity as a whole. Dumbing down does accomplishes nothing.

Incidentally, under your logic, the following scenario emerges.

Original resolution. Title, "Gay Rights"; Content, "LOL Gays shouldn't have rights let's shoot them".

Repeal. Title, "Repeal Gay Rights"; Content, "Er...gays are perfectly deserving of rights".

What a homophobic bastard the repeal author is!

As for those who see this as "streamlining the UN for a new era" I ask two questions. Firstly if you get rid of historic resolutions such as these you make it easier for bigots such as Valori to get in more repeals for, for example, the "Definition of Marriage" resolution, with some blurb saying "we just want to remove the part about gay marriage here, but we swear we're ok with the rest of gay rights...honest", which will intime reveal itself for what it is, a fully fledged attack on all gay rights. Art reflecting life, n'est pas?
Quite right: ce n'est pas.

The author of this repeal doesn't hate gays, or want to deprive them of rights. I helped with this repeal. I don't hate gays, or want to deprive them of rights. We hate dolphins, sure. But not gays. The argument you're making is one big slippery slope. No one has managed to repeal Definition of Marriage, or any other anti-discrimination resolutions. And yes, there is one that should be repealed - Rights of Minorities and Women (again, lovely title, what a fucker for repealing it) is an abomination.

You can't judge a repeal based on what you think might come next. Plenty of people opposed to bio weapons bans voted for the repeal of the original resolution, even though they knew Reformentia would try to replace it. Then they turned around and voted against his proposal. You have to deal with a proposal on its merits, not on speculation about actions which you haven't seen any evidence for. Bear in mind, also, Gay Rights protects gay marriage. It doesn't protect most other aspects of life. The door, in most cases, was already open.

Secondly if you think don't care about gay rights, or simply feel they are undeserving of their own resolution (as Ohmygodtheykilledkenny obviously feels),
What the fuck is that? I expect you to apologise for this slander. How do you know what he 'obviously feels'? And how is that relevant? What matters is the repeal. Which no one is willing to discuss.

There is ONE question. Do we strike out redundant, poor legislation, even though it protects valuable rights, legislating in a controversial area?

So far, no one seems willing to oppose that. They're willing to oppose homophobia. They're willing to oppose strawmen which they set supporters up as. They're willing to oppose a constant slew of unoriginal repeals. But oppose what this repeal is actually arguing?

No. And it's a shame, because it's something worth arguing over.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Actually, we've already gone for the trade unionists.

Fluff, and a fluffy Godwin's law fallacy at that.

Go away, or come back with some real arguments instead of pathetic emotive irrelevanices.

I agree wholeheartedly with Sica, This resolution this resolution has at its heart a value of the level of human rights we are all unwilling to negotiate with as NSUN nations.Stuff and nonsense. This Resolution does jack all except give people warm fuzzies. Warm fuzzies are nice and all, but they aren't binding law.

Also if the repeal writers don't value the intrinsic symbolic value that there should be a separate resolution for Gay RightsSymbolism is not law, and therefore has no place enshrined in UN law. Thank you for admitting that there is no rational basis for having this law.

The mere sight of "REPEAL GAY RIGHTS" on the NSUN webpage today turned my stomach - congratulations Ohmygodtheykilledkenny for presenting as homophobic a webpage as the NSUN has ever seen.Appeal to emotion. Please try again.

To new nations and those 80+% who don't stop to read the fine details, you've just furthered the cause of homophobes in getting their message of intolerance out. The vote on this resolution is now about damage control.More appeal to emotion.

Firstly if you get rid of historic resolutions such as these you make it easier for bigots such as Valori to get in more repeals for, for example, the "Definition of Marriage" resolution, with some blurb saying "we just want to remove the part about gay marriage here, but we swear we're ok with the rest of gay rights...honest", which will intime reveal itself for what it is, a fully fledged attack on all gay rights.Please tell me you don't actually believe all this tripe.

Secondly if you think don't care about gay rights, or simply feel they are undeserving of their own resolutionYou fail at reading comprehension. Please try again reading the words that were actually written, not what you think is being said.

(as Ohmygodtheykilledkenny obviously feels)Projection is bad.

If you think this repeal is not an attack to weaken all human rights resolutions then you are sadly mistaken.Since the Resolution does nothing removing it doesn't weaken anything.

VOICING its concern that keeping poor, ineffectual legislation such as Resolution #12 on the books [...] will in fact hamper this body's ability to make further strides in that arena;


It's presented as a "fact" that Resolution #12 will hamper the UN, but I see no justification for this strong assertion. In what way, exactly, does Resolution #12 hamper the UN? And is it really hampering the UN more than spending several days on a vote which, according to the FAQ, "does nothing"?


MINDFUL that it is in the interests of the United Nations to streamline and strike out superfluous and ineffective legislation;


This, too, is an unjustified assertion. It seems to me that superfluous legislation poses no threat to the UN - but this stream of regressive repeal proposals certainly does harm the UN's ability to move forward.

Landreth urges all UN members to vote NO to this proposal. It is based on unjustified assertions, and far from "doing nothing" as the proponent disingenuously asserts, passing it would be a statement of sympathy for homophobes and those who would like to see the other anti-discrimination legislation rememoved. A yes vote is a vote of encouragement for discrimination - that is the issue we are really voting on here.

It's presented as a "fact" that Resolution #12 will hamper the UN, but I see no justification for this strong assertion. In what way, exactly, does Resolution #12 hamper the UN? And is it really hampering the UN more than spending several days on a vote which, according to the FAQ, "does nothing"?
You're making the point yourself. Until resolution #99, Discrimination Accord (which was voted in by an overwhelming majority of UN members, and which cited Resolution #12 as a failure), gays were not actually well-protected under UN law. However, there is little way that the UN can improve this situation, without a repeal: the proposal would be deleted for redundancy. If we have bad laws, then it hampers our public image as an agent of good international law. That seems fairly simple to me.

This, too, is an unjustified assertion. It seems to me that superfluous legislation poses no threat to the UN - but this stream of regressive repeal proposals certainly does harm the UN's ability to move forward.
Bear in mind, this proposal is not associated with any other. I don't believe the Federal Republic was aware of the labor unions repeal until it nearly hit quorum; equally, the people who campaigned for this repeal campaigned for the next proposal too, which is not a repeal. You talk about a 'stream', but it's simply that as of late, the delegates have been approving more repeals than proposals. Some repeals probably have been regressive. But I fail to see how this one is, given it doesn't go back at all.

Again, it comes down to: do you want trash as law, for the sake of not upsetting anyone? If yes, then ok, vote against the repeal.

Landreth urges all UN members to vote NO to this proposal. It is based on unjustified assertions, and far from "doing nothing" as the proponent disingenuously asserts, passing it would be a statement of sympathy for homophobes and those who would like to see the other anti-discrimination legislation rememoved.
No, passing it would be a statement of support for the following clause:

"AFFIRMING that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals are deserving of full and equal protection under the law;"

Why do you disagree with this?

A yes vote is a vote of encouragement for discrimination - that is the issue we are really voting on here.
No. It's. Not. You've made that obvious yourself, by finding in the repeal only two bones of contention: both to do with the legitimacy of repealing ineffectual legislation. That's good, and I'm glad you raised those points, because that's what we're debating.

As this is a repeal of a resolution and it's dealing with others resolutions, here are they:

-----
#12
Gay Rights

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

We, the People's Republic of Kundu and the other peoples of the world wishing for the preservation of freedom and the respect of all hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life. We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.
-----

-----
#81
Definition of Marriage

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.
-----

-----
#99
Discrimination Accord

The United Nations,

NOTING the precedent of international law towards greater human rights and equality for all,

RECALLING the sentiments of such documents as “Universal Bill of Rights”, “Definition of Marriage”, “Freedom and Equality”, and “Sexual Freedom” in the separation of governments from discriminatory practices and ideologies,

UPSET by the lack of previous legislation (at the time of this document’s composition) directly prohibiting governments from discriminatory practices,

CITING as a possible cause of such oversight the incorrect interpretation of the “Gay Rights” document, which in practice does virtually nothing to protect citizens’ rights:

RESOLVES upon protecting all persons and groups in member nations from discrimination by their respective member governments;

REQUIRES member governments to fairly and equally apply the following rights of citizens as they are upheld by international and national law:

1. The right to protection under law, especially protection from harassment and violence,

2. The right to participate in government,

3. The right to fair judicial proceedings and law enforcement application especially as guaranteed by international law,

4. Any social dividends paid out to or provided for persons or groups deemed by member national or international government to be in social need (unemployment benefits, health care, etc.), including, but not limited to, those social dividends secured by international law,

5. Any other rights granted citizens of a member government by requirement of international law;

COMMITS to fighting ignorance and prejudice, MANDATING member nations create or allow large-scale education programs of ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity;

ENCOURAGES all nations to work towards eliminating “hate crimes”, or violent, malicious crimes spurned on by a lack of tolerance of cultural, ethnic, racial, or other differences;

URGES regional awareness of cultural, racial, and cultural differences, given the often close ties of a nation’s diversity with its region’s diversity;

CLARIFIES the United Nation’s position by reiterating the following:

§ The UN condemns discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in recognized religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, age, language, school of thought, or intelligence.

§ The UN disallows member governments from discriminating the previously described rights (protection under law, participation in government, etc.) based upon such differences.

§ The UN also recognizes the need, at times, for member governments to differentiate upon these difference during extreme security risks or other especial events or conditions, and allows for member governments to differentiate treatment to a reasonable degree (as can be justified by the risk), provided the treatment of all returns to an equal state once the risk or state of extreme condition has passed.
-----


So, please forgive me to ask, but thanks if you tell if i'm correct about what those resolution does about marriage and help me to understand, as i'm not sure:

Nowadays?
- All nations have to recognize gay marriage but not to grant it(12)
- as definition of marriage include same-sex and opposite sex marriage (81), same-sex and opposite sex marriage are both recognized in all members
- nations are not mandated to grant marriage (only to recognize them), they only need to grant same sex marriage if they grant opposite sx marriage or vice versa.

If repeal of #12 gay rights pass?
- nations will not mandated to grant or recognize marriage, as #81 definition of marriage only define marriage including same-sex and opposite sex marriage (81),
- they only need to grant same sex marriage if they grant opposite sex marriage or vice versa, or recognize same sex marriage if they recognize opposite sex marriage or vice versa

Is the situations correctly summarized or not?

Yes. And that makes sense to me: if heterosexual marriage doesn't exist, why should homosexual marriage? Law should be about equality.

The Ministry of United Nations Affairs for the Fuel-Injected Federation of Texan Hotrodders is proud to announce that it will distribute a cute and cuddly teddy bear to all those who vote against the repeal. Apparently, Minister Jones believes quite strongly that you need one.

Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

Yes. And that makes sense to me: if heterosexual marriage doesn't exist, why should homosexual marriage? Law should be about equality.

Actually, if you said my former post is correct (i'm not sure about it, it was a question), they you have to recognize that today laws are about equality as:

- nations are not mandated to grant marriage (only to recognize them), they only need to grant same sex marriage if they grant opposite sex marriage or vice versa.


So what will change, will be that nations will not have to recognize that married persons are married (but if they will do so they will have to not recognize it for both same sex and opposite sex)?



PS: Another question to fully understand, if #12 was "gay marriage be protected" "instead of "gay marriages be protected", would all members were mandated to grant gay marriage?

So what will change, will be that nations will not have to recognize that married persons are married (but if they will do so they will have to not recognize it for both same sex and opposite sex)?
Well, yes. This is what we said to you when you raised this in drafting; why would it have changed?

OOC: Bear in mind, though, almost every society in history has recognised some form of marriage.

Another question to fully understand, if #12 was "gay marriage be protected" "instead of "gay marriages be protected", would all members were mandated to grant gay marriage?
I don't really understand the question. But Resolution #12 offers no definition of what constitutes marriage. Definition of Marriage does a much better job of recognising the equality of sexual preference in marriage.

I understand the points on both sides of this debate. The view of The People's Republic of Reaz is that you can NOT have too many resolutions protecting any form of human rights. It does not matter which resolution was stronger the fact that there were as many as there were were extra united barriers that would have to be crossed. If this is repealed than we have one less barrior for those who may want to limit or eliminate gay rights.

So we say, leave the "useless" resolution there. Do not remove it just because it is covered elsewhere. Let it stand so it can be one more shield, one more stone in the foundation of the U.N. allowing the U.N. to be a grand castle of human rights.

The United Socialist States of Nomorra voted YES on this proposition. It simplifies gay rights and helps get rid of useless Resolutions that shouldn't have been passed in the first place.

Since Gay Rights doesn't do anything anyway, I don't see why we need to take a strong hit to our human rights. ;)

If it doesn't do anything, repealing it doesn't hit human rights at all. :p

As Delegate for the Mighty Region of Derlavai. I must vote no for two reasons;

1. Like many of you, i voted no for the fact that though the resolution is overlaping and there are stronger ones in the UN it is the princible that these resolution where made to protect rights, and though this one has no "teeth" it still should be kept for the fact that, we the UN have to stand up for human rights even if it means making multi-resolutions on the matter.

2. I also voted no cause I'm sooo tried of resolutions being repealed all the time and just keeps us from getting to real issue that actually pushes the un forward instead of backwards.

Signed,
Tom Sova
Foreign Minister of King Gainibu XVI and Ambassador to the UN from the Kingdom of Greater Valmiera

Pazu-Lenny is surprised by some words by the author of this repeal:

He told us that:

Definition of Marriage (Res. #81) does a better job at protecting gay marriage

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10331153&postcount=1

But then, qualified it as:

worthless shit

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10332065&postcount=6


Furthermore, if he think that "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals are deserving of full and equal protection under the law", why does he in the 1st post on this thread qualify #12 as:

waste of paper

If the author think there is a redudancy, no pb, but, if he's is recognizing the need of protection for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals, why does he need to use such words again a proposal which was passed before other resolution on the same topic, and which bring protection for long time?

Actually, if you said my former post is correct (i'm not sure about it, it was a question), they you have to recognize that today laws are about equality as:

- nations are not mandated to grant marriage (only to recognize them), they only need to grant same sex marriage if they grant opposite sex marriage or vice versa.

Um...what's the difference between granting and recognising?


So what will change, will be that nations will not have to recognize that married persons are married (but if they will do so they will have to not recognize it for both same sex and opposite sex)?

That's not a change at all.

Pazu-Lenny is surprised by some words by the author of this repeal:

He told us that:



http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10331153&postcount=1

But then, qualified it as:



http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10332065&postcount=6
No, he stated that the other three resolutions were "worthless shit" (i.e. not including Definition of Marriage).

The Ministry of United Nations Affairs for the Fuel-Injected Federation of Texan Hotrodders is proud to announce that it will distribute a cute and cuddly teddy bear to all those who vote against the repeal. Apparently, Minister Jones believes quite strongly that you need one.

Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

I believe Minister Jones is looking forward to the passing of another proposal currently under debate.

As Delegate for the Mighty Region of Derlaiva. I must vote no for two reasons;

1. Like many of you, i voted no for the fact that though the resolution is overlaping and there are stronger ones in the UN it is the princible that these resolution where made to protect rights, and though this one has no "teeth" it still should be kept for the fact that, we the UN have to stand up for human rights even if it means making multi-resolutions on the matter.

No, we most certainly do not. Having a slew of resolutions addressing the same issue (or in the case of the one we're aiming to repeal here, not addressing any issue at all really) does nothing but make this austere body look confused and sloppy. Furthermore, the human rights "protected" by "Gay Rights" aren't protected at all, because, as you yourself noted, the resolution has no teeth.

2. I also voted no cause I'm sooo tried of resolutions being repealed all the time and just keeps us from getting to real issue that actually pushes the un forward instead of backwards.

For crying out loud, not this again. Give it a rest.

No, he stated that the other three resolutions were "worthless shit" (i.e. not including Definition of Marriage).

Ok, thanks for correcting me
That said i don't understand the need of qualifying 3 resolution of worthless sheet without arguments.

[Riley is shocked at Pazu-Lenny's irrepressible penchant for obfuscating and complicating simple issues, and a perceived inability to comprehend simple statements, or even to read: Riley had qualified "Rights of Minorities and Women," "Gay Rights," and "Sexual Freedom" as worthless shit; "Definition of Marriage" he had actually called one of "three ... central components of international human rights law that secure the rights of homosexuals, protect them against discrimination and persecution, and protect their unions as well ...." Furthermore, the mere fact that Riley believes that gays are deserving of equal rights under the law does not take away from the fact that this resolution is a waste of paper, and does nothing to protect gay rights. Riley also fears that if he must answer any more irrelevant queries from the LAE delegation, he should shoot himself.]

The Ministry of United Nations Affairs for the Fuel-Injected Federation of Texan Hotrodders is proud to announce that it will distribute a cute and cuddly teddy bear to all those who vote against the repeal. Apparently, Minister Jones believes quite strongly that you need one.We kindly ask that the members of Kenny delegation also be gifted with cute and cuddly teddy bears, because after reading some of the "arguments" presented by some of the recipients of your teddy bears, we all feel we may need one.Sincerely,
Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

[Riley is shocked at Pazu-Lenny's irrepressible penchant for obfuscating and complicating simple issues, and a perceived inability to comprehend simple statements, or even to read: Riley had qualified "Rights of Minorities and Women," "Gay Rights," and "Sexual Freedom" as worthless shit; "Definition of Marriage" he had actually called one of "three ... central components of international human rights law that secure the rights of homosexuals, protect them against discrimination and persecution, and protect their unions as well ...." Furthermore, the mere fact that Riley believes that gays are deserving of equal rights under the law still does not take away from the fact that this resolution is a waste of paper, and does nothing to protect gay rights. Riley also fears that if he must answer any more irrelevant queries from the LAE delegation, he should shoot himself.]


Even if Pazu-Lenny understand the desire of repealing redundant legislation, he's shoked by Riley attitude to qualify the "# 12 gay right resolution" as "worthless shit".
When #12 passed it was obviously not redundant and this proposal assured the protection of gay marriages for long, and Riley think it's "worthless shit"? We are far from the clause 1 of the repeal.
Is there no difference between "not longer needed" and "worthless shit"

When #12 passed it was obviously not redundant ...So what? It is redundant now.

... and this proposal assured the protection of gay marriages for long, ...No it didn't. "Gay Rights" did nothing and does nothing.

... and Riley think it's "worthless shit"? We are far from the clause 1 of the repeal.Quick language lesson: the goal of "gay rights" and the resolution "Gay Rights" are not the same thing. "Gay rights" may be an admirable goal, but the resolution "Gay Rights" did nothing and does nothing to protect gay rights.

Is there no difference between "not longer needed" and "worthless shit"There may be a difference, but Gay Rights (the resolution) is unique in that it is both.

Let's get this resolution passed quickly. My office is out of toilet paper and I could desperately use the paper on which "Gay Rights" is written.

So what? It is redundant now.

When i read some of your words, I begin to wonder

No it didn't. "Gay Rights" did nothing and does nothing.

Quick language lesson: the goal of "gay rights" and the resolution "Gay Rights" are not the same thing. "Gay rights" may be an admirable goal, but the resolution "Gay Rights" did nothing and does nothing to protect gay rights.

You may think that, but "#12" was the 12th resolution, it did things for long, and if, as you states you have some concern about gays, maybe you will not have the need to qualify it as "worthless shit"

This is as sad a display as I have ever seen in these halls, folks. Well, aside from the text of "Promotion of Solar Panels", but that was a special case.

Fear and sentimentality. Those are the things that are causing some nations to cast their votes against the repeal. I suggest you ask yourselves whether your fear and sentimentality actually further your cause or just make you fearful and sentimental.

Are the rights of homosexuals truly any less protected by this body once the repeal has passed? Absolutely not. There are other resolutions that protect their rights to the extent possible, and the original "Gay Rights" resolution was a mere statement of principal without even the paltry UN efficacy that so many of you crave. In addition, this repeal itself makes a statement of principal far more cogent than that of Resolution #12. There is no reason to fear, and no reason to indulge in a fear that leads you to hold on to something that is of no benefit.

This is where we come to the sentimentality. I ask you, fellow representatives to the United Nations, not to hold on to a poor quality resolution simply because it was the first one of its kind. I ask you to avoid making serious decisions about international law based on sentimentality. International law is not a teddy bear that one holds onto because it's warm and fuzzy and comforting. I ask you, in short, to make decisions about international law based instead on reason, researched and well-considered opinions, and practicality.

Please do not turn this resolution into your teddy bear.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Here! here! This is first responce that moved me from revulsion and pity(of course it always warms my heart to see that deep down all people are equally contemptable), to optimism. THis resolution is redundant, with better civil rights protection on the books. Furthermore I'm getting really tired of the cries of "HOMOPHOBE!!" everytime somebody wants to repeal this law. So much for the vaunted toleration of the fluffies, lefties and liberals. Can you people not read? I found this proposal quite clear and well thought out. There is no prejudice and bias in the drafting of this resolution...unless it was a bias towards badly written and toothless resolutions. Can you clueless fluffies name one freedom Homosexuals will loose if this is repealed? Looking at the Laws still on the books I cannot find one. Unfortunately that does not seem to matter with this repeal. Funny, I thought holding onto the past and resisting change was a conservative vice. The Palentine UN Office proudly casts its vote for the repeal, and warmly thanks Ambassador Riley,and the rest of those who helped draft this repeal and get it to vote.

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla
Palentine UN Office

Let's get this resolution passed quickly. My office is out of toilet paper and I could desperately use the paper on which "Gay Rights" is written.

At least, that's clear

You may think that, but "#12" was the 12th resolution, it did things for long,No it didn't. It hasn't done anything for any length of time.

and if, as you states you have some concern about gays, maybe you will not have the need to qualify it as "worthless shit"It is because of my concern for gays that I raise my objection to the United Nations issuing such meaningless fluff as Resolution #12 and trying and pass it off as "human rights" law.

Look, if you're against this repeal, please just vote against, and stop wasting the sponsor's and the General Assembly's time with your endless bickering over microscopic points of argument.

We kindly ask that the members of Kenny delegation also be gifted with cute and cuddly teddy bears, because after reading some of the "arguments" presented by some of the recipients of your teddy bears, we all feel we may need one.Sincerely,
Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State


I think something stronger will be needed. I've got some Old Crow, Wild Turkey, Yeldan Brandy(TM) and Fine St.Edmund's Old Navy Rum(TM) in my desk, mate(I stocked up, figuring they would be needed:p ). Just leave some for me, I think I'll be needing some soon.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

And, as always, there's plenty of Cluichstani whiskey in our office (the broom closet on the 5th floor).

No it didn't. It hasn't done anything for any length of time.

We, the People's Republic of Kundu and the other peoples of the world wishing for the preservation of freedom and the respect of all hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life. We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.

It may not be well written, but the UN comitment is very clear.

Furthermore, I was told that even if "#12" was not asking nations to grant gay marriage it was asking recognition of already celebrated gay marriages.

So, yes it did things, even if you may think that as not enough.

We, the People's Republic of Kundu and the other peoples of the world wishing for the preservation of freedom and the respect of all hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life. We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.

It may not be well written, but the UN comitment is very clear.

Furthermore, I was told that even if "#12" was not asking nations to grant gay marriage it was asking recognition of already celebrated gay marriages.

So, yes it did things, even if you may think that as not enough.

*takes a long, generous slug from a bottle of Cluichstani whiskey*

We, the People's Republic of Kundu and the other peoples of the world wishing for the preservation of freedom and the respect of all hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life. We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.

It may not be well written, but the UN comitment is very clear.

Furthermore, I was told that even if "#12" was not asking nations to grant gay marriage it was asking recognition of already celebrated gay marriages.

So, yes it did things, even if you may think that as not enough.
Mr Pazu-Lenny, your repeated attempts to paint the supporters of this repeal as homophobes are getting tiresome. Let's get back to the question:

Do you feel we should strike out redundant legislation?

Some people in this thread have said no. That's fine; that's their opinion, and they have a right to it. Voting no because you don't think we should is wholly correct. But this is the issue, the sole issue, in this debate, and we'd appreciate an answer from you.

Mr Pazu-Lenny, your repeated attempts to paint the supporters of this repeal as homophobes are getting tiresome. *snip*

Moreover...

AFFIRMING that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals are deserving of full and equal protection under the law;

If that's homophobia, then I'm Antigone Morgan (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Antigone_Morgan).

Do you feel we should strike out redundant legislation?

I guess it depends on whether the legislation is cuddly or not. We like redundant cuddliness.

(what, the question was not for me? ok)

Ahem, carry on.

I guess it depends on whether the legislation is cuddly or not. We like redundant cuddliness..
Well that's just it. It's not about cudliness.

Incidentally, if I wanted to oppress gays, I would not repeal Gay Rights. I'd leave it in place, because it does so little, and go for Discrimination Accord or something.

Well that's just it. It's not about cudliness.

Incidentally, if I wanted to oppress gays, I would not repeal Gay Rights. I'd leave it in place, because it does so little, and go for Discrimination Accord or something.

OK, I will rephrase. We like sarcastic cuddliness.

I do like all these repeals. As I see it, the citizens of my country belong to me and I can do what i damn well like with them. Thanks to this welcome repeal it becomes that little bit easier to force my citizens to be straight whether they like it or not, so that everyone is producing children which I can then put to use in the national interest, for example take them off to a barracks and train them to be little killing machines.

I do like all these repeals. As I see it, the citizens of my country belong to me and I can do what i damn well like with them. Thanks to this welcome repeal it becomes that little bit easier to force my citizens to be straight whether they like it or not, so that everyone is producing children which I can then put to use in the national interest, for example take them off to a barracks and train them to be little killing machines.


*Sen. Sulla cracks open a bottle of Wild Turkey, and pours a shot*

The Socialist Republic would gladly vote for this repeal if it were a member of the United Nations, but due to the existence of stupid resolutions like Resolution #12 we were forced to resign some time ago. Still, we are heartened to see these attempts at moving in the right direction which will hopefully open the way for Xanthal to join the United Nations again in the future.

Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

I agree that resolution #12 is very poorly worded, but how many more repeals are going to be put through the UN before we actually discuss serious topics?

I agree that resolution #12 is very poorly worded, but how many more repeals are going to be put through the UN before we actually discuss serious topics?
Well, the next proposal is about terrorism, then there's a repeal of Abortion Rights, then there's one about workplace safety.

Well, the next proposal is about terrorism, then there's a repeal of Abortion Rights, then there's one about workplace safety.

And I'm going to have another try at getting 'Meteorological Cooperation' to quorum soon...

I agree that resolution #12 is very poorly worded, but how many more repeals are going to be put through the UN before we actually discuss serious topics?

We are discussing a serious topic: getting rid of a useless resolution.

On behalf of the Republic of Westenwales, I will vote for this repeal. I believe the protection of the rights of homosexual peoples to be a worthy cause, but I must admit that the resolution this proposal seeks to nullify does not do this noble cause justice.

I feel that the UN should indeed seek to uphold equality, justice, etc., but not at the expense of the efficacy of its body of legislation. Clinging to this weak and ineffective law based out of fear that a repeal will only lead to the continued and increasing detriment to the welfare of mankind is what some would call a "slippery slope"--a logical fallacy.

So saying, I vote for this repeal in hopes of improving the way in with UN resources are spent--allowing the continuing presence of ineffectual (or purely symbolic) laws is, at the very least, a poor use of funding and gnome-power, and a slight to the reputation of this body.

As a member of the Region of Gay, you would imagine that our voice would perhaps be an important one in this argument. When we were asked how we felt about this repeal, we VERY STRONGLY opposed it, for a variety of reasons. Most of those I see have seen listed here, and very inadequately addressed in the supposed "FAQ" of this resolution.

Here's the truth of the matter - whether you mean for it to be or not, this is a homophobic repeal that those who are against gay rights will jump on. Unfortunately, by also attempting to sway voters who are interested in "cleaning up" old legislation, you will be handing a victory to them.

I think this is really evidenced by the fact that, as the leading LBGTA region in the game, our voices were TOTALLY IGNORED in this debate. You asked how we felt, and then did the COMPLETE OPPOSITE. If that isn't homophobic, then I don't know what is. Straight people thinking they know better than those who will be affected by this legislation? I'm sorry, but I'm going to call a spade a spade.

~Merric
Regional Secretary, Region of Gay

Here's the truth of the matter - whether you mean for it to be or not, this is a homophobic repeal that those who are against gay rights will jump on. Unfortunately, by also attempting to sway voters who are interested in "cleaning up" old legislation, you will be handing a victory to them.
It's not a homophobic repeal. It's a repeal. It's a block of text. It doesn't have opinions, or emotions, or attitudes, or interesting new perspectives on Foucault's relevance in the post-modern age. It has some words, and that's about it. Now, some of the people who support it may be homophobic: the proposal, and its author, can't help that. Some of the people who supported the repeal of Elimination of Bio Weapons wanted to use biological weaponry; I doubt it deterred Reformentia that they voted for it. Some of the people who voted for Civilian Casualty Records had no intention of collecting such records: did Unstable Former Nuns protest, and ask them to oppose?

If this repeal passes, another resolution (the first, incidentally, which cannot be removed by any process) will be added to the UN history, stating that "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals are deserving of full and equal protection under the law". Homophobes, I suspect, would choose to vote against such an aberration to their principles.

I think this is really evidenced by the fact that, as the leading LBGTA region in the game, our voices were TOTALLY IGNORED in this debate. You asked how we felt, and then did the COMPLETE OPPOSITE. If that isn't homophobic, then I don't know what is. Straight people thinking they know better than those who will be affected by this legislation? I'm sorry, but I'm going to call a spade a spade.
1. You don't know the sexuality of the proposer and supporters of this legislation.
2. 'Affected'? How? What will this do?
3. Oh shit, sorry for, you know, respecting the fundamental principles of democracy. But no, you're right, we should let minority interest groups rule the day. Under your logic, we'd be bigoted if we went to a homophobic region, and then didn't submit the repeal.

Find some real arguments, come back, and try again.

We just need one resolution that grants all people equal rights across the board regardless of sex, race, planet they are from, how many toes they have, if they are dating their mothers. Instead of making resolutions for each group and just making things more complicated. </my 2 cents>

As a member of the Region of Gay, you would imagine that our voice would perhaps be an important one in this argument. When we were asked how we felt about this repeal, we VERY STRONGLY opposed it, for a variety of reasons. Most of those I see have seen listed here, and very inadequately addressed in the supposed "FAQ" of this resolution.

Actually, the FAQ is more than adequate, if you can get past your baseless over-emotional ranting.

Here's the truth of the matter - whether you mean for it to be or not, this is a homophobic repeal that those who are against gay rights will jump on. Unfortunately, by also attempting to sway voters who are interested in "cleaning up" old legislation, you will be handing a victory to them.

Yeah, there's some serious homophobia here:

AFFIRMING that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals are deserving of full and equal protection under the law;

How dare we?!?

I think this is really evidenced by the fact that, as the leading LBGTA region in the game, our voices were TOTALLY IGNORED in this debate. You asked how we felt, and then did the COMPLETE OPPOSITE. If that isn't homophobic, then I don't know what is. Straight people thinking they know better than those who will be affected by this legislation? I'm sorry, but I'm going to call a spade a spade.

No, what you're doing is simply hurling insults. First, sooooooooooo sorry that your advice wasn't taken in the drafting of this proposal. Your advice was sought, at least. It just wasn't heeded. There's nothing homophobic about that, though I have no doubt that you will continue to rant and rave that there is. Clearly, you do not know what homophobic is. If we were having a party here in the UN and asked everyone what flavour ice cream they preferred, and you said chocolate, I suppose we'd all be homophobes then were we to not heed your advice and serve vanilla instead, right? As for "straight people thinking they know better than those who will be affected by this legislation," as my Gruenberger friend already noted, you're making broad assumptions about those who support this proposal, but you're also missing the point: no one will be affected by a repeal of this resolution, because the resolution doesn't do anything.

I agree that resolution #12 is very poorly worded, but how many more repeals are going to be put through the UN before we actually discuss serious topics?

Can't resist...

http://personal.lse.ac.uk/goncalva/ns/diy.jpg

We just need one resolution that grants all people equal rights across the board regardless of sex, race, planet they are from, how many toes they have, if they are dating their mothers. Instead of making resolutions for each group and just making things more complicated. </my 2 cents>

We already have many, and would like to keep all of them. :rolleyes:

(Though, the planet one is probably not addressed, Rights of Biological Sapients did not pass :( )

AFFIRMING that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals are deserving of full and equal protection under the law...

(Emphasis mine -- would that it were unnecessary.)

If you vote "no" on this sensible repeal of a vestigial, archaic and worthless resolution, you are OPPOSING the above statement.

Can we now agree that chopping off dead wood is NOT EQUAL to homophobia?

Failing that, can you understand that we no longer use things like bakelite for telephones because though it was innovative for its time (the first real plastic), it's too brittle and too heavy in the face of modern plastics? How about no longer using the wire wing-warp method to steer airplanes with (we have hydraulic ailerons and other control surfaces now)? One more -- we no longer use steam to power large engines because diesel-electric motors are far more efficient and safe. OLD AND OUTDATED THINGS WHICH HAVE BEEN SUPERSEDED BY MORE EFFICIENT, MORE BENEFICIAL AND BETTER THINGS NEED TO BE PLACED IN MUSEUMS OR OTHERWISE TAKEN OUT OF SERVICE! Sexuality and the rights of those practicing their own mode of it IS NOT AT ISSUE with this repeal, as is CLEARLY stated in the above excerpt.

I urge my fellow delegates to abandon petty appeals to emotion and read the texts in question. You will soon see that #12 needs to go.

Vote YES.

Frankly, the lies promoted by the YES-camp are appalling

Fact is, it matters fuck-all if there is nice and fluffy language in a repeal. The text of a repeal is meaningless, because it cannot contain any new legislation.

The repeal offers no protections under the law, so I urge the yes-camp to stop using the text of the repeal as an argument. The FAQ is also misleading in this respect and it should include a fair and balanced interpretation.

~Aram Koopman

The repeal offers no protections under the law, so I urge the yes-camp to stop using the text of the repeal as an argument.

A repeal can't offer any protections. What's the excuse for the resolution not providing any?

A repeal can't offer any protections. What's the excuse for the resolution not providing any?

The repeal offers clear and broad protections against discrimination of any kind. The other resolutions merely give special rights in a broader context, vulnerable to repeal.

Just leave this resolution alone. It does no harm to anyone, yet it gives the homophobic bigots an easy victory.
~Aram Koopman.

Frankly, the lies promoted by the YES-camp are appalling
Could you point out a lie someone in the yes camp has told, or retract this comment please? Not saying you're wrong, just asking for some evidence. :)

The FAQ is also misleading in this respect and it should include a fair and balanced interpretation.
It does: "it doesn’t really protect them."

Mr Koopman, do you think we should strike out redundant legislation?

The YES-camp has repeatedly stated that the repeal "does more for the cause of gay rights than the resolution ever did" (the FAQ employs such language for example) when a repeal does nothing whatsoever to protect anything. This is, therefore, a lie. I expect a retraction of that statement from those who have employed it.

The resolution, on the contrary, protects minorities in a very broad fashion by banning discrimination. This is a clear and present purpose, and I therefore see no reason whatsoever to remove the resolution because - aditionally - nothing in it is objectionable to anyone who claims to support the fluffy language of the repeal.

~Aram Koopman

The YES-camp has repeatedly stated that the repeal "does more for the cause of gay rights than the resolution ever did" (the FAQ employs such language for example) when a repeal does nothing whatsoever to protect anything. This is, therefore, a lie. I expect a retraction of that statement from those who have employed it.
It opens up the possibility of more progressive legislation. Anything dealing with gay rights in the fashion of Resolution #12 would be deleted at present. It also makes a statement: the UN wishes to defend gay rights, and in doing so, it is necessary to sometimes repeal popular resolutions with impressive titles.

The resolution, on the contrary, protects minorities in a very broad fashion by banning discrimination. This is a clear and present purpose, and I therefore see no reason whatsoever to remove the resolution because - aditionally - nothing in it is objectionable to anyone who claims to support the fluffy language of the repeal.
Doesn't ban discrimination. It merely asks for laws to 'protect them from discrimination', which is sufficiently vague that people could easily RP round it. If you can point any way in which states can oppress gays where they couldn't if the repeal didn't pass, then:
1. You should have reported it for deletion.
2. Demonstrate it with an example, and I'll change my vote. I have no desire to support a false statement. But all I'm getting from you is emotive hyperbole.

If you vote "no" on this sensible repeal of a vestigial, archaic and worthless resolution, you are OPPOSING the above statement.

Uh, no. You can disagree with anything in the proposal, heck, even the author of the proposal, when deciding to vote against. We agree with the statement that you provided (not your statements), though we are still opposing this resolution. Please, next time, make your point without typing in 72-font.

It opens up the possibility of more progressive legislation. Anything dealing with gay rights in the fashion of Resolution #12 would be deleted at present. It also makes a statement: the UN wishes to defend gay rights, and in doing so, it is necessary to sometimes repeal popular resolutions with impressive titles.

Doesn't ban discrimination. It merely asks for laws to 'protect them from discrimination', which is sufficiently vague that people could easily RP round it. If you can point any way in which states can oppress gays where they couldn't if the repeal didn't pass, then:
1. You should have reported it for deletion.
2. Demonstrate it with an example, and I'll change my vote. I have no desire to support a false statement. But all I'm getting from you is emotive hyperbole.

The possibility for more progressive legislation is a phantom, and I certainly have not detected even a hint of willingness by the author of this resolution to support a replacement. Several subsequent resolutions have built on the resolution now being repealed, so there is no reason whatsoever to assume that "more progressive legislation" requires a repeal of this resolution.

The resolution is quite broad, but it sets a general purpose for the United Nations which bigots and homophobes cannot go explicitly against. It may not solve the problem of discrimination and oppression in a single stroke, but it provides a worthy contribution to the cause of equality and integration of minorities.

As the resolution exists mainly to make sure that things do not happen, it is fairly impossible to given an example of where it stopped oppression. You, however, are of course perfectly aware of this so it is a useless rhetorical question.

~Aram Koopman

The possibility for more progressive legislation is a phantom, and I certainly have not detected even a hint of willingness by the author of this resolution to support a replacement. Several subsequent resolutions have built on the resolution now being repealed, so there is no reason whatsoever to assume that "more progressive legislation" requires a repeal of this resolution.
That's because none's been proposed. So propose it.

The resolution is quite broad, but it sets a general purpose for the United Nations which bigots and homophobes cannot go explicitly against. It may not solve the problem of discrimination and oppression in a single stroke, but it provides a worthy contribution to the cause of equality and integration of minorities.
Your very statement is self-defeating. In admitting that there are bigots and homophobes within the NSUN, you are describing the impotence of this resolution. It sets a general purpose for those who want it to do so, but there are those who oppose it, and as such all its intentions are irrelevant. Law has one purpose: practical function. Pieces of paper which say nice things are worthless.

As the resolution exists mainly to make sure that things do not happen, it is fairly impossible to given an example of where it stopped oppression. You, however, are of course perfectly aware of this so it is a useless rhetorical question.
Ok. I asked that before I realized you were you so willing to concede the uselessness of this resolution,

Knootoss is quite satisfied with the protections of gay rights afforded by the UN right now, as long as this resolution is included. I am therefore not buying your 'more progressive legislation' phantom promise.

The fact that some governments are bigoted and homophobic does not make this resolution useless as it puts forward some very concrete courses of action which governments have to take. It also prevents governments from adopting policies which conflicts with this resolution, and it prevents the United Nations from adopting future resolutions which conflict with this resolution. I have made this point before and I ask that the delegate from Gruenberg stop twisting my words.

~Aram Koopman

I believe the definition of marriage should should be left to an individual, not government. Herever, there are many resolutions that protect gay rights, so this resolution only circumvents the democratic process.

The Gay Rights Resolution is a resolution that is DEFINITIVELY about gay rights. It does not matter that other resolutions cover rights, because they do it as minor premises. It is not the main objective of other resolutions to protect specifically gay rights.

Beyond the fact that this Resolution gives The GLBT community their own haven, it was the earliest instance of their rights being granted by this body.

So how is it redundant and arbitrary? The newer resolutions are indirectly related to gay rights, and overlapping. The original, and most solid, is the one being called to repeal here.

If the proposal is to repeal BECAUSE it's redundant, then the proposal is based on a fallacy.

Norderia votes NO, with a vengeance.

The possibility for more progressive legislation is a phantom, and I certainly have not detected even a hint of willingness by the author of this resolution to support a replacement. Several subsequent resolutions have built on the resolution now being repealed, so there is no reason whatsoever to assume that "more progressive legislation" requires a repeal of this resolution.

Why should the author of this repeal supportr a replacement? There already is a replacement in the books. It's resolution #99. Don't you get it? That is why resolution #12 isn't needed. Resolution #99 is the replacement for resolution #12. Since we have #99 we can now get rid of #12. It's no longer needed.

This republic is not swayed by the redundancy argument. More nations in this international body hold homphobic agendas then any of us would care to think about, and they can and will be pushing this with a vengance, not as a spring-cleaning thing, but as another step to strip these people of their rights and protections. Redundancies are sometimes nessecary to ensure something gets done.

Resolution 12 simply offers a blanket statement on the protections and rights offered by the UN. It is the oldest and admittedly simplest gay-rights resolution. Nothing is harmed by having this resolution on the books, but at the same time it may provide the most concise defense of gay rights, particularly if, heaven forbid, the other two resolutions are ever repealed.

With full respect to the purpose of the sponsor of this repeal and many of its supporters, I can only see fit to vote in favor of the fullest possible protection of gay rights, and not to unintentionally undercut it with the excuse of clearing out old resolutions which aren't hurting this body in any way. Minnechusettsfornia votes NO to this repeal.

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

This is an excerpt from resolution #12. Please tell me where it actually establishes rights for gays. I see where it says that we should make laws that protect rights but it does nothing to actually protect the rights of gays. Resolution #99 is the resolution that actually protects gays. This is a useless resolution. It needs to be repealed so that we can clean up the books on this matter.

It needs to be repealed so that we can clean up the books on this matter.
Why is "cleaning up the books" so important? I can see why we want to repeal "Stop Dumping -- Start Cleaning", and "The Law of the Sea" and so forth, because they clear the way for better legislation. However, this will do no such thing, because #99 already covers it. This is just repealing for the sake of repealing. Why?

Why is "cleaning up the books" so important? I can see why we want to repeal "Stop Dumping -- Start Cleaning", and "The Law of the Sea" and so forth, because they clear the way for better legislation. However, this will do no such thing, because #99 already covers it. This is just repealing for the sake of repealing. Why?
Because

"it is in the interests of the United Nations to streamline and strike out superfluous and ineffective legislation"

Because

"it is in the interests of the United Nations to streamline and strike out superfluous and ineffective legislation"
Oh. Well, I don't agree. ;)

I am not sure I get this straight. By Conservative, do you mean homophobic? How do your homosexual friends feel about your grand plan to destroy their rights?

Anyway, have fun trying. Many of us who support this repeal will fight you if that time ever comes.

If I was homophobic I wouldn't have gay friends, nor would I be here talking about all the scary gay people, although, please resort to elementary responses.

I have no grand plan to destroy their rights I just don't believe in what they are doing and afterall aren't I supposed to support what I believe in? Are you not arguing here because of something you believe in? I don't think they are going to hell, and I don't care if some gentlemen wants a boyfriend however, the point here is for me to support what I believe and I believe it is wrong. For nations, such as your own, that don't care about homosexuals getting married then by all means let your homosexuals get married and do whatever else they may want to do.

However, regardless of my beliefs this resolution still weakens the fence protecting gay rights. People are now repealing everything, and there are many other gay rights resolutions that say the same exact thing as another. The point is, that when you remove this one and that one you are left with few barriers which given a force large enough can be broken. This repeal is as useless as a resolution, although it makes it easier for me to run my nation with my beliefs so I support it.

However, regardless of my beliefs this resolution still weakens the fence protecting gay rights. People are now repealing everything, and there are many other gay rights resolutions that say the same exact thing as another. The point is, that when you remove this one and that one you are left with few barriers which given a force large enough can be broken. This repeal is as useless as a resolution, although it makes it easier for me to run my nation with my beliefs so I support it.

We aren't weakening the fence that protects gay rights because this resolution does nothing to protect gay rights in the first place. If you actually read resolution #12 (I have posted an excerpt on here and I believe there is a link to it somewhere else in this thread) it states that member nations of the NSUN should make laws protecting the rights of homosexuals. It does nothing to actually protect the rights of homosexuals. Please stop using the barrier argument because this isn't any part of a barrier that actually protects anyones rights.

If I was homophobic I wouldn't have gay friends, nor would I be here talking about all the scary gay people, although, please resort to elementary responses.

Yeah, that makes sense. So you are not homophobic. OK, noted. I will resort to elementary responses, don't worry. You already admitted to being a "Conservative," wouldn't want to overdose you.

I have no grand plan to destroy their rights

Of course, because you are not homophobic. I misunderstood your intention to repeal all protections for gay rights as a plan, but I shouldn't assume forethought without reason. My mistake.

I just don't believe in what they are doing and afterall aren't I supposed to support what I believe in? Are you not arguing here because of something you believe in?

Yes, it is commendable that you defend your beliefs. Even if they are bigotted, selfrighteous, and homophobic. Oh wait, sorry, you are not homophobic. My mistake.

I don't think they are going to hell, and I don't care if some gentlemen wants a boyfriend however, the point here is for me to support what I believe and I believe it is wrong.

Contradiction. You believe it is wrong, you argue against it, and yet you don't care if they do it. You should use more elementary logic with the rest of us. Because what you just said can be misinterpreted as homophobic.

For nations, such as your own, that don't care about homosexuals getting married then by all means let your homosexuals get married and do whatever else they may want to do.

Thank you, we have craved for decades for your enlightened support. The thing is, we are not as magnanimous as you are: we quite enjoy forcing you to give them rights, whether you want to do it or not. Shouldn't pose too much of a problem, right? After all, you are not really homophobic, and you don't really care what they do.

However, regardless of my beliefs this resolution still weakens the fence protecting gay rights.

You should have phrased it as "...regardless of my non-homophobic beliefs..." It would be less ambiguous for the simple-minded among us.

People are now repealing everything, and there are many other gay rights resolutions that say the same exact thing as another. The point is, that when you remove this one and that one you are left with few barriers which given a force large enough can be broken.

Ah, but you see, people with your special kind of non-homophobic beliefs are in minority. You will always be in minority. So if you EVER try to repeal a resolution that actually protects gay people, many of us will unleash mayhem and deliever the wrath of the Apocalypse upon you. We shall win, and you shall lose.

This repeal is as useless as a resolution, although it makes it easier for me to run my nation with my beliefs so I support it.

Way too many holes in your logic. Can't be bothered to refute it. But those non-homophobic beliefs again, hein?

I just noticed something. While you repeatedly mention your very "Conservative" beliefs, you haven't even attempted to outline an argument for why gay people should not be free to follow their nature. Maybe you are not the fanatic homophobic biggot you seemed to be. My mistake.

On the other hand, I sense some tension in your arguments. I once heard (http://www.psych.org/pnews/96-09-20/phobia.html) that the most fervent homophobes are likely to be repressed homosexuals. Oh wait, you are not homophobic. Ignore it.

I just don't believe in what they are doing and afterall aren't I supposed to support what I believe in? Are you not arguing here because of something you believe in?

While I agree with the idea of supporting what you believe and not supporting what you don't believe, I fail to understand what that has to do with this repeal. This repeal fails to make any big changes. The resolution it opposes is little good other than sentimental value. Sentimental value may have a place in someone's "memory box", but it should not be a part of the United Nations.

This repeal does not support the rights of homosexuals, nor does it oppose them. It serves the purpose of removing superfluous materials.

As The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel excellently summarized:


Nowadays?
- All nations have to recognize gay marriage but not to grant it(12)
- as definition of marriage include same-sex and opposite sex marriage (81), same-sex and opposite sex marriage are both recognized in all members
- nations are not mandated to grant marriage (only to recognize them), they only need to grant same sex marriage if they grant opposite sx marriage or vice versa.

If repeal of #12 gay rights pass?
- nations will not mandated to grant or recognize marriage, as #81 definition of marriage only define marriage including same-sex and opposite sex marriage (81),
- they only need to grant same sex marriage if they grant opposite sex marriage or vice versa, or recognize same sex marriage if they recognize opposite sex marriage or vice versa

The only difference is, because of a wordy loophole, a government does not have to recognize marriage. This should be the biggest opposition to the Repeal of Resolution #12. But those who are publically opposing the repeal fail to even acknowledge this point. Instead, they are attempting to sway public opinion by saying this is part of a shield holding up gay rights (or other such nonsense).

If this Resolution is removed, it isn't a crippling blow against the rights of homosexuals. It would take either a removal of both "The Definition of Marriage Resolution" and "The Descrimination Accord Resolution" or a rewording of both to actually do any such damage. But it is at the proposals that do that, where you should be bringing up a homophobic argument, not here. This resolution has one purpose and does one thing, let us not confuse that with "might-happens" and "could-be" situations. It removes a resolution which no longer serves a purpose.

And, to briefly bring up a common occuring 'reason' people are voting against the repeal.

This is just repealing for the sake of repealing.

No. It's not. It's repealing for the sake of not looking sloppy. We wouldn't have a dozen resolutions saying the same thing (even it was a really good 'thing'), why would we have have two?

The US is a Christian nation.
No, people, it isn't. There's a concept introduced in a letter by Thomas Jefferson - separation of Church and State. Though the phrase never appears in the Bill of Rights, that's irrelevant - it says right there in the first amendment that "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excerise thereof". Of course, that's in 200-year-old-legal-talk. In plain English, that basically says "Congress can't prevent people from practicing their religion; nor can it declare a national religion, or make any law concerning a religious establishment." When you legally favor one religion above others, even when there are people petitioning against it... well, don't tell me that isn't sponsorship.

It doesn't matter - the founding fathers were Christian, we should respect their beliefs!
It should be mentioned here that a goodly number of them were deist, not Christian. That is, however irrelevant. Do you really want to be governed by 200+ year old morals? They also kept slaves and we got rid of slavery within a hundred years.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Gays can have civil unions, though.
So. Basically, you're stating that gays should have civil unions with equal benefits - but that they should keep their unions separate from marriage?
Y'know, segregation was outlawed many years ago on the grounds that "separate but equal is inherently unequal" - a supreme court ruling. This, the idea of "separate" civil unions with benefits just as good is, well, just not allowed.

Gays can't reproduce, it just can't happen. So why should they be allowed to get married?
Marriage isn't just for having children, you know. It's also about love, and to an extent the legal benefits you get from it. If you're saying that marriage is all about reproduction... well, then why should infertile men or women above 50 be allowed to get married either?

Gay people can get married, fine. But they can't have kids, and they shouldn't be able to adopt - children need a mother and father to grow up well!
First off. In an orphanage, unadopted, a child will have neither a mother nor a father. Adopted by a gay or lesbian couple, they'll have either two fathers or two mothers. Which do you find worse? I'd pick having same-sex parents over having none any day, myself.
Second, my parents are separated. Have been for some time now. I'm not growing up with a mother and father, and it's perfectly legal. Same goes for widows raising children, et cetera.

Oh, and third, as to the common argument that being raised by a gay couple will "make you gay" - well, it'll encourage tolerance of gays, but it won't make you gay. See, if you hadn't noticed, not all straights raise straight children.

OMFG >:( I r have homophobia, dis is just gross!!13413!$!#!!
This is probably the stupidest argument of them all. Some people hate the color red, doesn't mean red shirts should be outlawed.

Gay marriage, what's next after this? Legalizing bestiality?!
This is a common, old argument and it's as stupid as the day it was first coined. "If we let the woman vote, why not pigs or cattle? If we free the slaves, what about pack animals?" It's offensive and illogical. I notice, incidentally, that since the woman suffrage movement succeeded, we have yet to let animals vote. Such is the stupidity of this argument.

Homosexuality is a choice, whatever scientists say! They deserve everything they get!
How's this, then? Right now, just for a moment, choose to be gay. Or if you feel uncomfortable doing that - choose to fall in love. Pick anyone, better yet someone you aren't attracted to in the least, and choose to fall in love with them. Does it work?

Gays are despoiling the sanctitity of traditional marriage.
Yes, despoiling that wonderful sanctity of marriage, that marriage which millions of people divorce from. Because, as we all know, people like Britney Spears, who get married for about a day and a half just for fun, aren't hurting its 'sanctity' at all.

Hyperial: While I do agree with the points you raise (or quote without attribution, as I'm certain I've seen that exact wording used many a time before), they don't really have much to do with the repeal in question. At the very least, a sentance of explanation for why you posted that would be helpful, and show that you have indeed read the text of the repeal.

I like cut and paste trolling!
Care to actually discuss the resolution?

It isn't a 100% in response to the repeal.

It isn't a 100% in response to the repeal.
So post it 0%.

No

Ok, like what we told the environmental die-hards....


*takes deep breath*

ITS ONE FREAKING PARAGRAPH

The purpose of a resolution is to put forward IDEAS and methods of implementation that are substantiated with evidence, logic and good old common sense.

This resolution must be repealed to allow a much more detailed proposal to be put forth that further reduces any discrimination.

Ok, like what we told the environmental die-hards....


*takes deep breath*

ITS ONE FREAKING PARAGRAPH

The purpose of a resolution is to put forward IDEAS and methods of implementation that are substantiated with evidence, logic and good old common sense.

This resolution must be repealed to allow a much more detailed proposal to be put forth that further reduces any discrimination.

Article one of the Knootian Constitution (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=397903) ((and the Dutch one too)) simply says: All sentient beings in Knootoss shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted. That is just a single line. One line. But it provides a basic and fundamental protection for all the peoples in the Dutch Democratic Republic.

It is nonsense to say that a resolution only has validity if it erects some sort of bureaucratic agency with fancy definitions and restrictive norms.

And please. Stop yelling. It is not dignified at all.

~Aram Koopman

Hyperial...your post has nothing to with what this discussion is about. You may be talking about gay rights but you're not talking about gay rights in terms of the resolution which is what this area is intended for so please keep your posts to the topic at hand which is the resolution, not homosexual rights in the real world.

While I agree that gay rights are already guaranteed by other UN legislation, I still believe that this proposal shiuld not be supported. To start with, it creates a precedent to other repeals of human rights resolutions (some of which might not be adequately covered elsewhere; but it's also a matter of PR. Despite the fact that this proposal changes absolutely nothing, the general public will only see headlines like "UN Repeals Gay Rights Resolution" - which might me a public relations nightmare. I recommend leaving the resolution safely where it is now - somewhere deep in the UN archives.

While I agree that gay rights are already guaranteed by other UN legislation, I still believe that this proposal shiuld not be supported. To start with, it creates a precedent to other repeals of human rights resolutions (some of which might not be adequately covered elsewhere; but it's also a matter of PR. Despite the fact that this proposal changes absolutely nothing, the general public will only see headlines like "UN Repeals Gay Rights Resolution" - which might me a public relations nightmare. I recommend leaving the resolution safely where it is now - somewhere deep in the UN archives.

Not again... Please use your brain and vote on the text of resolution & repeal. Do not use the assumed illiteracy of "the general public" as an excuse to behave in an even more illiterate manner.

Make poverty history!!!
Description: Kill all poor people.

Or vote for this, it is great PR!

No. The people of Toy Eys are right. This IS a defeat of a gay rights resolution. There *will* be backlash.

Not again... Please use your brain and vote on the text of resolution & repeal. Do not use the assumed illiteracy of "the general public" as an excuse to behave in an even more illiterate manner.
Alas, until the full general public can be trusted to actually read UN resolutions (or, for that matter, national legislation), I'd prefer to stick to a little PR just for now, thank you very much. And yes, I know that's a populist aproach to (inter)national politics - but so what?

No. The people of Toy Eys are right. This IS a defeat of a gay rights resolution. There *will* be backlash.Knoot, please... actually read the text, man. It's a simple logical progression:

Gay Rights does nothing.
Other Resolutions actually protect gay rights.
Therefore, repealing Gay Rights changes nothing.

Quit getting hung up on the emotion and the name of the Resolution and look at the texts. Gay Rights doesn't actually protect a damn thing. The UN Rules, existing in their meta-state, do more to protect gay rights than the Resolution. It has no method of enforcing the law; no solid mandate of action; nothing. If all other Resolutions were wiped from existance, and only Gay Rights existed, there would be nothing in UN law preventing descrimination against homosexuals. How on earth does this Resolution provide a haven for homosexuals? Because of its name?

Would you rather have a Resolution with the word "Gay" in its title, or a Resolution that actually forbids descrimination against homosexuals? I haven't seen a single argument that's anything more than a decorated appeal to emotion. While warm fuzzies are all well and good, they don't actually stop abuse or mandate marriage.

This is the sorriest debate I've seen since the Repeal of that Save The Forests Of The World nonsense.

Please, help me out here. How, exactly does the text of Gay Rights protect homosexuals? I'll change my UN puppet's vote if someone can show how this thing does anything. Don't tell me that other Resolutions are lacking; tell me what Gay Rights does as a matter of law, because I'm not seeing a damn thing.

This is the sorriest debate I've seen since the Repeal of that Save The Forests Of The World nonsense.

Please, help me out here. How, exactly does the text of Gay Rights protect homosexuals? I'll change my UN puppets vote if someone can show how this thing does anything. Don't tell me that other Resolutions are lacking; tell me what Gay Rights does as a matter of law, because I'm not seeing a damn thing.
It doesn't, as has been pointed out repeatedly. But really, am I the only one who believes that policy-making should me more than cold, clinical technocrat procedures? Public opinion is not, unfortunately, part of NationStates, I grant you that. But is that a reason to ignore it altogether?

Who is this 'Knoot' you speak of?
~Aram Koopman, UN ambassador

I'll change my UN puppets vote if someone can show how this thing does anything.

OOC: I hope that plural was an accident... I will report you otherwise! ;)

It doesn't, as has been pointed out repeatedly.Then it is worthless tripe that should be removed.

But really, am I the only one who believes that policy-making should me more than cold, clinical technocrat procedures?Nothing technocratic about it. Wanting laws based on a rational and logical process is indeed important. Hyperbolic and breathless law does nobody any good, and indeed leads to bad law being passed.

But is that a reason to ignore it altogether?Yes, yes it is. Relying solely on emotion and public opinion is how you get harmful law. Think about the emotion tossed out by many pro-life activists. Would you want law based on that? Unlikely. So why should we have law based on emotion from the other end of the political spectrum?

Who is this 'Knoot' you speak of?
~Aram Koopman, UN ambassadorSigh.

OOC: I hope that plural was an accident... I will report you otherwise!Bah... forget the tick.

Yes, yes it is. Relying solely on emotion and public opinion is how you get harmful law. Think about the emotion tossed out by many pro-life activists. Would you want law based on that?
Yet, the resolution is not harmful at all. Why fix something that isn't broken? The only possible result of the proposal is a public outcry - an unreasonable one, but an outcry nonetheless.

Yet, the resolution is not harmful at all. Why fix something that isn't broken? The only possible result of the proposal is a public outcry - an unreasonable one, but an outcry nonetheless.Chaff is harmful. Pap is harmful. The continued existance of nonsense that does nothing is harmful. At best, it fills the UN with tripe. At worst, it prevents meaningful legislation from being introduced due to the Proposal rules.

And doesn't it bother you that you're defending a worthless Repeal that you know is worthless? It almost smacks of cynical pandering, especially when you admit that you know it's worthless.

Chaff is harmful. Pap is harmful. The continued existance of nonsense that does nothing is harmful. At best, it fills the UN with tripe. At worst, it prevents meaningful legislation from being introduced due to the Proposal rules.

And doesn't it bother you that you're defending a worthless Repeal that you know is worthless? It almost smacks of cynical pandering, especially when you admit that you know it's worthless.
And the fact that clearly ineffective proposals are being discussed instead of something that might actually DO something does not "prevent meaningful legislation from being introduced"?

This proposal shouldn't have been made in the first place! However, now it's here, I'm trying to make the best of it - and in my humble opinion, removal is not a very good option.

[QUOTE=The Most Glorious Hack]Stuff and nonsense. This Resolution does jack all except give people warm fuzzies. Warm fuzzies are nice and all, but they aren't binding law.QUOTE]

The vitriol and ad hominem arguments I've seen relating to this repeal demonstrate to me that there is considerably more going on here than simply the elimination of well-intended fluff that does nothing.

Folks, even if the PRO voters' motives are pure, it is clear that the CON voters, including gays like me, deeply value this resolution. If it doesn't hurt one side, but is valued by the other, shouldn't a sensitive conscience allow it to continue?

BTW, I'm a logic professor.

[QUOTE=The Most Glorious Hack]Stuff and nonsense. This Resolution does jack all except give people warm fuzzies. Warm fuzzies are nice and all, but they aren't binding law.QUOTE]

The vitriol and ad hominem arguments I've seen relating to this repeal demonstrate to me that there is considerably more going on here than simply the elimination of well-intended fluff that does nothing.

Folks, even if the PRO voters' motives are pure, it is clear that the CON voters, including gays like me, deeply value this resolution. If it doesn't hurt one side, but is valued by the other, shouldn't a sensitive conscience allow it to continue?

BTW, I'm a logic professor.
My thoughts exactly.

Hear hear! Solidarity!

~Aram Koopman.

The vitriol and ad hominem arguments I've seen relating to this repeal demonstrate to me that there is considerably more going on here than simply the elimination of well-intended fluff that does nothing.

The vitriol seems to be on both sides. I don't see it as evidence of anything. But feel free to dream up your own ad hominem, in the form of a nice conspiracy theory.

Folks, even if the PRO voters' motives are pure, it is clear that the CON voters, including gays like me, deeply value this resolution. If it doesn't hurt one side, but is valued by the other, shouldn't a sensitive conscience allow it to continue?

No. Law is not about emotion. If I believe the resolution is worthless and does not protect gay rights, I will defend my position irrespectively of the value others place on it. You will need a lot more than appeal to emotion to convince me otherwise. (In case you think I am a homophobe with a hidden agenda, check my previous posts.)

BTW, I'm a logic professor.

Good for you, but irrelevant. BTW, I am a ski instructor and a bunny killer.

*snip*
Folks, even if the PRO voters' motives are pure, it is clear that the CON voters, including gays like me, deeply value this resolution. If it doesn't hurt one side, but is valued by the other, shouldn't a sensitive conscience allow it to continue?

BTW, I'm a logic professor.

Okay, then, are there any other pet issues upon which we could legislate for you? Said legislation doesn't have to have any legal ramifications. We just want to make you happy.

BTW, your logic is flawed.

Okay, then, are there any other pet issues upon which we could legislate for you? Said legislation doesn't have to have any legal ramifications. We just want to make you happy.

BTW, your logic is flawed.
Flawed where, exactly?

How can you value a resolution that does nothing?

You will still have your rights, everything will be the same as it was before if this repeal passes. So the gay rights resolution is a waste of space. I visited the Gay region and they all seem to be against this repeal.

"The much feared gay rights repeal is now on the UN floor. Jump into the offical discussion on the subject in the UN forum and start making well reasoned arguments against it! Perhaps we can persuade enough people to keep the wolves at bay."

"Hello. I've moved in here to make sure that my delegates vote is lodged against this dreadful repeal."

I don't know if your fellow region mates understand that this repeal won't do jack crap to them. So why they're all mad is beyond me.


This is like if you had a bunch of pool sticks, and one of them was completely broken, keeping it around instead of throwing it away. You have many other perfectly good pool sticks so there's no reason to keep a broken one around wasting space. The same thing is going on here.

If a resolution was passed that stated "I like dogs LOL" and a repeal went against it, would you guys be arguing that we should keep it because it does no harm?

The point is not that this resolution does nothing... this resolution would act as a signal, and nothing more. Yes, I'm against the proposal for sentimental reasons - and there's nothing wrong with that.

As this resolution currently is, absolutely nobody is opposed to anything that's in it. Furthermore, many people (the vast majority of which are, of course, gay themselves) actually value it as it is. So why the hell should you remove it? It's perfectly harmless, it's appreciated by a great many people, and had not someone dug it up to deliver the current proposal, no one else would have bothered about it.

Does that sound logical, perhaps?

Really, if there was any real reason whatsoever to remove this resolution, I would fully support the current proposal. However, there is not, so I won't.

OOC: I just moved my puppet into 'Gay' too in the expectation that the delegate will lodge his vote against. Basically you are telling gay people to "get over it, pussies, because this resolution is not important." This is one of these issues that a minority thinks is very important but which the breeder majority could care less for. Frankly, if the majority is in no way negatively affected we should keep it.

I say gayness is a blessing upon our world, with more "gays" there are less babies, and with less babies, it means more room. More room for me and the steaming forward of a new era of machine and logic.

To all whom oppose,
:sniper:

The vitriol and ad hominem arguments I've seen relating to this repeal demonstrate to me that there is considerably more going on here than simply the elimination of well-intended fluff that does nothing.

BTW, I'm a logic professor.Then you should know that attacking an arguement is not ad hominem.

You should also be familiar with "appeal to authority"...

While this resolution may technically do nothing, it's still one of the central pieces of the UN's anti-discrimination series of resolutions. It would also send out the wrong signal to repeal this resolution.

We are therefor against and urge everybody to vote against this repeal.

Flawed where, exactly?

Because it's not logic at all but simply emotional sentimentality.

To you perhaps. And what is really the pain in leaving something be that a lot of people cherish and hold dear? How do gay rights negatively affect Cluichistan?
~Aram Koopman

It negatively affects the UN because it is a waste of bureaucracy; it is also an embarrassment, in that it purports to be the central document of international law protecting gay rights, but it's a meaningless piece of fluff. It is in everybody's interest to strike out bad law, primarily once it's been replaced with legislation that actually does something to protect gays from discrimination and persecution.

OOC: I just moved my puppet into 'Gay' too in the expectation that the delegate will lodge his vote against. Basically you are telling gay people to "get over it, pussies, because this resolution is not important." This is one of these issues that a minority thinks is very important but which the breeder majority could care less for. Frankly, if the majority is in no way negatively affected we should keep it.

My dear Mr. Koopman, I would've thought you'd be above the use of such derisive terms. And could you please explain why this resolution is is important, given that it doesn't do anything?

To you perhaps. And what is really the pain in leaving something be that a lot of people cherish and hold dear? How do gay rights negatively affect Cluichistan?
~Aram Koopman

They don't. Cluichstan has always defended equality of everyone under the law.

Our reason for supporting the repeal is precisely that of the repeal's author:

It negatively affects the UN because it is a waste of bureaucracy; it is also an embarrassment, in that it purports to be the central document of international law protecting gay rights, but it's a meaningless piece of fluff. It is in everybody's interest to strike out bad law, primarily once it's been replaced with legislation that actually does something to protect gays from discrimination and persecution.

Frankly, this whole repeal circus is the waste of bureaucracy. It was not costing anyone in particular anything when it was left on the record. If you want to talk about bureaucracy I have a whole list of resolutions which call for useless administrative procedures and centralisation for somewhat shaky causes. This resolution does not mandage the employment of millions of civil servants, so the argument is quite moot.

You cannot simultaniously maintain that the resolution does nothing, and that the resolution is bad. For pities sake, and for the sake of those who do see its purpose, I implore on behalf of my government that you leave it be.

And, on another note, does Cluichstan consider Gay Rights to be 'special rights' now or am I reading your words wrong?

~Aram Koopman

Perhaps it would be more constructive if we concede that there MAY be a possibility that this repeal will send a negative signal towards resolutions for human rights.

But those here who are FOR this resolution could agree to refine and support a replacement for the "Gay rights" resolution, should anyone decide to draft a replacement.

Fair enough?

it's a meaningless piece of fluff.
It is in everybody's interest to strike out bad law

Maybe the author may tell us why it is intrinsically so bad and so fluff, for a resolution for protecting gay marriages and being a strong message against discriminations.
#12 was passed before the related other discriminations, and replacement resolutions are also sadly not possible.
You may want to replace a resolution if you think it’s covered by one passed later, but is it, alone, a reason for it to be bad and fluff?

But those here who are FOR this resolution could agree to refine and support a replacement for the "Gay rights" resolution, should anyone decide to draft a replacement.

If this resolution were repealed and submitted today, I would bet that it would be deleted for duplication. Which is exactly what the cold, logic text of the repeal is stating.

If anyone manages to pull out of their hat a well-written resolution preventing any sort of discrimination, and it actually does something not yet enshrined in international law, you can be sure I will support it.

*snip*

For pities sake, and for the sake of those who do see its purpose, I implore on behalf of my government that you leave it be.

But my dear Mr. Koopman, you have yet to explain precisely what the resolution's purpose is...

And, on another note, does Cluichstan consider Gay Rights to be 'special rights' now or am I reading your words wrong?

I'm not sure if you mean "gay rights" as a concept or the resolution "Gay Rights," but the answer, essentially, is the same. The problem with the concept of "gay rights" is that it is based on the assumption that homosexual people are somehow a different class of people. We are all people, and as such, we are all entitled to the same rights regardless of gender, race, creed, colour, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, and favourite flavour of ice cream. None of these things matters. We are all people.

The notion that we have to legislate upon rights of a certain "defined class of people" serves only to draw unnecessary and artificial distinctions between people. This is undesirable for two reasons. First, if we're going to legislate upon specific rights for homosexuals, as in this case, where does it end? Must we then, to be fair and consistent, pass a resolution outlining specific rights for blacks, too? What about the followers of Wena? Or the Fonzolanders? Or people who prefer pistachio ice cream? Surely, they, too, are deserving of rights, no?

Secondly, passing such legislation for a "defined class of people" actually runs counter to what should really be the ideal here: eliminating discrimination and prejudice. By defining a certain group of people as "different" somehow, we are codifying into law the very perceived distinctions between people that we hope someday will be eliminated.

Now, as for the second possible interpretation of your question, that of whether or not the resolution "Gay Rights" constitutes "special rights," I refer you to the above. Clearly the resolution does create special rights, because we're not extending those rights to others as well -- at least, not with the resolution in question -- thus creating a de facto set of special rights for a specific group of people.

Maybe the author may tell us why it is intrinsically so bad and so fluff, for a resolution for protecting gay marriages and being a strong message against discriminations.
#12 was passed before the related other discriminations, and replacement resolutions are also sadly not possible.
You may want to replace a resolution if you think it’s covered by one passed later, but is it, alone, a reason for it to be bad and fluff?

If we give you a remittance, would you read the arguments that have already been presented and stop with this nonsense?

I agree that resolution #12 is very poorly worded, but how many more repeals are going to be put through the UN before we actually discuss serious topics?


next one up for vote is very important for international security,. Cluich's Anti Terrorist Act.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

The possibility for more progressive legislation is a phantom, and I certainly have not detected even a hint of willingness by the author of this resolution to support a replacement.
*SNIP*


Well pardon the hell out of me. I didn't think it was the responcibility of the author of a repeal to offer, or support a replacement. That's the rest of the UN's job mate.
EXclesior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

next one up for vote is very important for international security,. Cluich's Anti Terrorist Act.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Thank you for the cheap plug, Senator.

Yet, the resolution is not harmful at all. Why fix something that isn't broken?

I'll bet that's what our ancestors said before they left the trees, and started walking on the ground upright.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

The only possible result of the proposal is a public outcry - an unreasonable one, but an outcry nonetheless.

OOC: What public outcry???? Whether you like it or not in NS you are basically a dictator who does not have to listen to anyone except yourself. The Public does not exist.

I'll bet that's what our ancestors said before they left the trees, and started walking on the ground upright.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Actually, I believe the exact quote was something along the lines of this: "Ugh ooga muggugh."

I keep seeing the same emotional argument put forth by those who don't support the repeal. "It doesn't negatively affect you so why repeal it?" or "We value it so please don't repeal it." Come on. So it doesn't negatively affect me. I agree. It doesn't positively affect you. Why keep it if it does nothing? Oh yeah. That's right. Because you value it. I valued my first car. I loved it to death. But then one day I realised that there were new cars out there. I realised that these new cars were much better than my old car. So do I keep the old car which now doesn't run just based on sentimental reasons? No. I go with the new ones that work. Repeal #12, numbers 99, Disrcimination Accord, and 81, Definition of Marriage are working and actually do something. If logic and well thought out arguments don't appeal to you though, please, continue to submit to your emotions.

I keep seeing the same emotional argument put forth by those who don't support the repeal. "It doesn't negatively affect you so why repeal it?" or "We value it so please don't repeal it." Come on. So it doesn't negatively affect me. I agree. It doesn't positively affect you. Why keep it if it does nothing? Oh yeah. That's right. Because you value it. I valued my first car. I loved it to death. But then one day I realised that there were new cars out there. I realised that these new cars were much better than my old car. So do I keep the old car which now doesn't run just based on sentimental reasons? No. I go with the new ones that work. Repeal #12, numbers 99, Disrcimination Accord, and 81, Definition of Marriage are working and actually do something. If logic and well thought out arguments don't appeal to you though, please, continue to submit to your emotions.

For some reason my friend, I don't think they are listening. Here this will help out with the frustration.*passes over 3/4 drunk bottle of Old Crow, and a teddy bear flitched from Texas Hotrodders*
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla
Palentine UN office

Thanks for the drink and the teddy bear...I think I'll go take a nap now and suck on my thumb or something.

Thank you for the cheap plug, Senator.

As the rep said to the senator. Will you still have the right to do this after the repeal?

As the rep said to the senator. Will you still have the right to do this after the repeal?

No, absolutely not, because without this resolution, gay sex will be illegal the world over. :rolleyes:

Come now, sir, I would've thought you'd be above such juvenile fearmongering...

No, absolutely not, because without this resolution, gay sex will be illegal the world over. :rolleyes:

Just teasing :p

Come now, sir, I would've thought you'd be above such juvenile fearmongering...

"Sir"?

OOC: and as we haven't had anything sex-related up in the UN for a while, I really needed to get some juvenile remark out. The plug was just too good to leave it. Sorry :)

Just teasing :p



"Sir"?

OOC: and as we haven't had anything sex-related up in the UN for a while, I really needed to get some juvenile remark out. The plug was just too good to leave it. Sorry :)

OOC: No problem. Just said that IC. I actually got a good laugh about it. ;)

Well, I'm more inclined not to vote for a proposal introduced by a guy named "OMGWTFBBQKEENYRDEADLOOLZ" or whatever the hell his name is

Well, I'm more inclined not to vote for a proposal introduced by a guy named "OMGWTFBBQKEENYRDEADLOOLZ" or whatever the hell his name is

Hey Cluich, I think I'm going to be needing to raid your liquor supply soon. I'm running low. And my Deputy Ambassador is caught in traffic with the resupply.
*pours last shot of Wild Turkey*
Exclesior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Well, I'm more inclined not to vote for a proposal introduced by a guy named "OMGWTFBBQKEENYRDEADLOOLZ" or whatever the hell his name is
...you've never watched South Park? Heathen!

Ladies and gentlemen of the assembly,

Let us return to the matter at hand and move away from the smokescreen that is being cast out by the ‘yes-camp’; a camp which casually opposes the Gay Rights which were fought hard for in this General Assembly, long ago.

Let us recall that the resolution now being repealed resolves that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life. It is flexible in not forcing a mini-managed system of laws upon member states, yet it does have a clear instruction for member states, forcing them to take concrete action against discrimination; an action which is not called for in other resolutions.

The resolution that the yes-camp would have you repeal is an important safeguard, a protection of the openness of the institute of marriage, by stating explicitly that marriages have to be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations regardless of sexual orientation. The resolution they would have you repeal is the very hallmark which established the NSUN as pro-civil rights and anti-discrimination.

Does the yes-camp believe the resolution is somehow negatively affecting them? No.

Do they know of the positive effects that the Civil Rights movement in the UN attaches to it? Yes. But, ladies and gentlemen, they do not care. Instead we get annoyed outbursts that we shouldn’t be valuing our hard-fought Resolution as dearly as we do.

Instead of our beloved resolutuon, we get an entire bureaucratic circus and a painful and divisive debate because a part of the UN system of Rights which does not cause any sort of bureaucracy, is ‘bureaucratic’. This, ladies and gentlemen, is a prime example of the sort of conservative doublethink which makes me doubt the motives of those repealing this legislation.

The Cluichistani ambassador, in his reactionary considerations on civil rights, conveniently forgets that Fonzolanders and people who prefer pistachio ice cream are not being persecuted by governments of the United Nations and that no pressing need exists to give special attention to safeguarding their universal human rights! If Fonzolanders were being put into concentration camps or denied the right to marry based on their ethnicity alone, I would indeed favour a UN resolution to be passed safeguarding the Rights of Fonzolanders; I would be fighting for a resolution banning genocide or denial-of-marriage on ethnic grounds. In fact, I would find in resolution #12 a grounds for telling those oppressive nations that they are mandated by the UN to take measures against discrimination of any kind, because it does not limit itself to discrimination of gays!

A resolution safeguarding the right to marry regardless of sexual preference fits a system of universal rights street perfectly. The yes-camp is calling a resolution that mandates laws to outlaw discrimination, discriminatory. This is yet another example of conservative doublethink which I will leave for the General Assembly to judge.

To Senator Sulla I would only like to say… that there is indeed no moral obligation for the author to offer a replacement, but it is even worse that there is not even a willingness expressed by the author to support one! Will the Yes-camp please cease to propagandise with regards to this mystic ‘more progressive legislation’ that will never come? Where is Dundalk Bays new car? I want to see my god-damn new car before I ditch my old one.

~Aram Koopman, Knootian ambassador to the NSUN
"If the United Nations is a country unto itself, then the commodity it exports most is words."

http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG

OOC: @ Palentine: Yes. Public outcry. Some people do role-play their nations you know.

Ladies and gentlemen of the assembly,

Let us return to the matter at hand and move away from the smoke curtain that is being cast out by the ‘yes-camp’; a camp which casually opposes the Gay Rights which were fought hard for in this General Assembly, long ago.

Let us recall that the resolution now being repealed resolves that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life. It is flexible in not forcing a mini-managed system of laws upon member states, yet it does have a clear instruction for member states, forcing them to take concrete action against discrimination; an action which is not called for in other resolutions.

The resolution that the yes-camp would have you repeal is an important safeguard, a protection of the openness of the institute of marriage, by stating explicitly that marriages have to be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations regardless of sexual orientation. The resolution they would have you repeal is the very hallmark which established the NSUN as pro-civil rights and anti-discrimination.

Does the yes-camp believe the resolution is somehow negatively affecting them? No.

Do they know of the positive effects that the Civil Rights movement in the UN attaches to it? Yes. But, ladies and gentlemen, they do not care. Instead we get annoyed outbursts that we shouldn’t be valuing our heart-fought Resolution as dearly as we do.

Instead of our beloved resolutuon, we get an entire bureaucratic circus and a painful and divisive debate because a part of the UN system of Rights which does not cause any sort of bureaucracy, is ‘bureaucratic’. This, ladies and gentlemen, is a prime example of the sort of conservative doublethink which makes me doubt the motives of those repealing this legislation.

The Cluichistani ambassador, in his reactionary considerations on civil rights, conveniently forgets that Fonzolanders and people who prefer pistachio ice cream are not being persecuted by governments of the United Nations and that no pressing need exists to give special attention to safeguarding their universal human rights! If Fonzolanders were being put into concentration camps or denied the right to marry based on their ethnicity alone, I would indeed favour a UN resolution to be passed safeguarding the Rights of Fonzolanders; I would be fighting for a resolution banning genocide or denial-of-marriage on ethnic grounds. In fact, I would find in resolution #12 a grounds for telling those oppressive nations that they are mandated by the UN to take measures against discrimination of any kind, because it does not limit itself to discrimination of gays!

A resolution safeguarding the right to marry regardless of sexual preference fits a system of universal rights street perfectly. The yes-camp is calling a resolution that mandates laws to outlaw discrimination, discriminatory. This is yet another example of conservative doublethink which I will leave for the General Assembly to judge.

To Senator Sulla I would only like to say… that there is indeed no moral obligation for the author to offer a replacement, but it is even worse that there is not even a willingness expressed by the author to support one! Will the Yes-camp please cease to propagandise with regards to this mystic ‘more progressive legislation’ that will never come? Where is Dundalk Bays new car? I want to see my god-damn new car before I ditch my old one.

~Aram Koopman, Knootian ambassador to the NSUN
"If the United Nations is a country unto itself, then the commodity it exports most is words."



OOC: Now that's quality rehetoric. (You're always a good writer, Knoot.) I'm trying to bring that back, though I prefer to use less of the ad-hominem.

Ladies and gentlemen of the assembly,

*SNIP*
To Senator Sulla I would only like to say… that there is indeed no moral obligation for the author to offer a replacement, but it is even worse that there is not even a willingness expressed by the author to support one! Will the Yes-camp please cease to propagandise with regards to this mystic ‘more progressive legislation’ that will never come? Where is Dundalk Bays new car? I want to see my god-damn new car before I ditch my old one.

~Aram Koopman, Knootian ambassador to the NSUN
"If the United Nations is a country unto itself, then the commodity it exports most is words."

http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG

OOC: @ Palentine: Yes. Public outcry. Some people do role-play their nations you know.

*Sigh* To quote a great American Ronald Reagan, "There You go Again!" Can you not read the damned laws aready on the books. Gays have rights , are protected from discrimination, and can marry whoever and whatever they want. As others(as well as myself) have said this "law" is redundant, and would be deleted if proposed today. Apparently this does not matter to you, so I shall have nothing more to do with you. Consider yourself snubbed. I'd rather spend my time responding to delegates with legitimate concerns.

Sen. Horatio Sulla

OOC: as a responce to your rather condescending OCC reply I shall respond in kind with a quote from The Shootist
"Pardon the Hell out of me."
-J.B.Books

OOC: @Hotrod... thanks for the compliment. In fact, now that you mention it, I discussed the matter with Cluich on IRC and I decided to add more ad hominem because my original draft was really explaining my position far too nicely, which would have been completely out of character for Aram Koopman to do. ;)

@Palentine: you are pardoned OOC. And snubbed IC.

1) Resolution #12 is NOT redundant because resolution #99 does not have protection of gay rights, specifically, as its express intention. Resolution #12 is the only resolution specifically designed to address the real issue of anti-gay discrimination (in all facets of life, and not just marriage).

2) This doesn't mean "special rights," it means specific acknowledgement of equal rights for a group that faces systematic discrimination.

3) As for the claim that the purpose of law is to have practical effects and not to make a statement of principles, the opposite is true. The UN, like any legislative or quasi-legislative body, is a debating society with no magical power to compel real-life instantiation of its decisions, and it is only indirectly that the positions we take here set the tone that governs the de facto operations of social systems of control such as police, courts, families, prisons, churches, schools, etc.

4) Anyone who considers Ronald Reagan "a great American" is being disingenuous in claiming to support gay rights.

OOC:

3) As for the claim that the purpose of law is to have practical effects and not to make a statement of principles, the opposite is true. The UN, like any legislative or quasi-legislative body, is a debating society with no magical power to compel real-life instantiation of its decisions, and it is only indirectly that the positions we take here set the tone that governs the de facto operations of social systems of control such as police, courts, families, prisons, churches, schools, etc.
Not the NSUN. It does have magical power - the UN Gnomes - to compel compliance. When a resolution passes, you will be informed of such by the Compliance Ministry.

4) Anyone who considers Ronald Reagan "a great American" is being disingenuous in claiming to support gay rights.
That's neither true nor fair. It is possible to believe he is great for his economic and foreign policy, and attribute his ignorance of AIDS as beyond his control.

Let us recall that the resolution now being repealed resolves that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life. It is flexible in not forcing a mini-managed system of laws upon member states, yet it does have a clear instruction for member states, forcing them to take concrete action against discrimination; an action which is not called for in other resolutions.

The reason these other resolutions do not ask member nations to create laws is because the other resolutions make the laws themselves. And #12 does not state that member nations will make laws but that they should make laws. It's like your mother saying that you shouldn't take cookies from the cookie jar. Don't tell me you didn't take at least one cookie. I'll admit it. I did.

The resolution that the yes-camp would have you repeal is an important safeguard, a protection of the openness of the institute of marriage, by stating explicitly that marriages have to be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations regardless of sexual orientation. The resolution they would have you repeal is the very hallmark which established the NSUN as pro-civil rights and anti-discrimination.

Oh the issue of marriage. Marriage is a beautiful thing. Marriage wasn't created to bind two people together because they are able to procreate. Marriage was created to bind two people together because they love another. If it so happens that a man loves a man then so be it. I am happy that they found each other and are able to love. Love is one of the most beautiful things, if not the most beautiful thing, in the world. Repealing this amendment won't jeapordize those bonds between people no matter what sexual orientation they are because of resolution #81, the Definition of Marriage. It's still safeguarded.

Does the yes-camp believe the resolution is somehow negatively affecting them? No.

Do they know of the positive effects that the Civil Rights movement in the UN attaches to it? Yes. But, ladies and gentlemen, they do not care. Instead we get annoyed outbursts that we shouldn’t be valuing our hard-fought Resolution as dearly as we do.

Thank you. Thank you for helping me out. You said it your self, "the positive effects that the Civil Rights movement in the UN attaches to it." The resolution itself does nothing to affect the Civil Rights movement. Rally around #99 or #81, resolutions which actually do something.

To Senator Sulla I would only like to say… that there is indeed no moral obligation for the author to offer a replacement, but it is even worse that there is not even a willingness expressed by the author to support one! Will the Yes-camp please cease to propagandise with regards to this mystic ‘more progressive legislation’ that will never come? Where is Dundalk Bays new car? I want to see my god-damn new car before I ditch my old one.

In regards to a replacement resolution there is already one in place. Resolution #99 protects gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people along with everyone else in the world. Isn't that what you want? For homosexuals to be considered human just like everyone else. It doesn't matter what they do in their bedrooms. I honestly don't care. All I care about is that they get fair treatment under the law. And they do. It's provided by resolutions #99 and #81. Now, in regards to your car. I think we could make some sort of arrangements for you to get a new car. After all, who doesn't want a new car?

1) Resolution #12 is NOT redundant because resolution #99 does not have protection of gay rights, specifically, as its express intention. Resolution #12 is the only resolution specifically designed to address the real issue of anti-gay discrimination (in all facets of life, and not just marriage).

2) This doesn't mean "special rights," it means specific acknowledgement of equal rights for a group that faces systematic discrimination.

3) As for the claim that the purpose of law is to have practical effects and not to make a statement of principles, the opposite is true. The UN, like any legislative or quasi-legislative body, is a debating society with no magical power to compel real-life instantiation of its decisions, and it is only indirectly that the positions we take here set the tone that governs the de facto operations of social systems of control such as police, courts, families, prisons, churches, schools, etc.

4) Anyone who considers Ronald Reagan "a great American" is being disingenuous in claiming to support gay rights.


Seconded, on all accounts. I keep seeing the insistence from the yes-camp that the opposition read the resolutions. #12 set a precedence for Gay Rights. #99 is broader, without the specific objective of #12. BOTH #12, and #99 are necessary.

And it sends a disturbing chill down my spine that not even death can shut Ronald Reagan up.

In regards to a replacement resolution there is already one in place. Resolution #99 protects gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people along with everyone else in the world. Isn't that what you want? For homosexuals to be considered human just like everyone else. It doesn't matter what they do in their bedrooms. I honestly don't care. All I care about is that they get fair treatment under the law. And they do. It's provided by resolutions #99 and #81. Now, in regards to your car. I think we could make some sort of arrangements for you to get a new car. After all, who doesn't want a new car?

#99 does not specifically say GLBT people are protected. #12 does. #12 is stronger for GLBT.

Edit: Furthermore, #81 does not do anything but define marriage. It does not grant rights, nor does it defend against other discrimination.

No, this repeal should NOT be passed, gays are people too. The U.N. should have rights for people who are out of the norm, and that basic rights legislation don't extend to.

#99 does not specifically say GLBT people are protected.Erm, it doesn't?:

CLARIFIES the United Nation’s position by reiterating the following:

§ The UN condemns discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in recognized religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, age, language, school of thought, or intelligence.

§ The UN disallows member governments from discriminating the previously described rights (protection under law, participation in government, etc.) based upon such differences.

Erm, it doesn't?:
Well, no, actually. There's more to GLBT than just orientation, particularly regarding the 'T' of 'GLBT'. To say otherwise is really quite insulting.

Well, no, actually. There's more to GLBT than just orientation, particularly regarding the 'T' of 'GLBT'. To say otherwise is really quite insulting.


Yes, thank you for clarifying, that is something I should have specifically mentioned.

Though I will allow the bit about sexual orientation. Pardon my dyslexia.

Any proposal that moves against civil or political rights is a bad idea.
Even is that's not the intention, it looks bad. Noone is harmed by upholding the rights of a majority. I urge everyone to vote against the resolution.

I meant to say that no one is harmed by upholding the rights of any MINORITY.

I meant to say that no one is harmed by upholding the rights of any MINORITY.

The thing is that #12 doesn't uphold anyone's rights. It says that gay rights are something that should be upheld but doesn't actually uphold them itself. #99 actually upholds the rights of gays. #12 says we should be "protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life". Where does it say anything about gays? Hmm...that's odd. The only thing that say anything about gays is the title which really isn't part of the law since the body of the proposal is what is actually enacted.

A problem I have with repealing resolutions that have good intentions, for the sake of making a newer, and more concise resolution, to be more effective, is that the repeals happen before the new resolutions.

If this repeal passes, I will draft a new resolution for the protection of GLBT peoples.

And in the future, it is my sincerest hope that replacement resolutions be drafted before repeals of out-dated or ineffecient resolutions. This will secure the notion that the repealing nations are not hiding a true intention of striking out the original resolution's purpose.

If this repeal passes, I will draft a new resolution for the protection of GLBT peoples.
I'd be interested to see that. I suspect it would be deleted for redundancy, but would be a good barometer of whether this repeal actually changes anything.

Well, no, actually. There's more to GLBT than just orientation, particularly regarding the 'T' of 'GLBT'. To say otherwise is really quite insulting.And where, exactly, does #12 mention transgenders?

Y'know - I was REALLY tempted to pick 4

OOC: I wasn't afraid, and my nation is a card carrying observer in the National Sovereignty Organization. But you know fun polls are meant to be fun. Though I actually love the FAQ Kenny wrote for the repeal and feel it should be carried over to NSWiki.

If you are getting burnt on the UN, I would invite you to participate more in NSWiki ... I've been developing my nation's ecology, and hope later this week to introduce the world to Solace Chamomile and the array of candies and tea that come from the weed.

You are welcome to carry to FAQ over to the wiki and place wherever you think it fits. Frankly, I wouldn't know where to put it.

I voted yes, because I do agree with repealing wasteful resolutions, but it is pretty boring doing nothing but repealing things resolution after resolution...

You are welcome to carry to FAQ over to the wiki and place wherever you think it fits. Frankly, I wouldn't know where to put it.
I think it could be good as a 'structured intro', similar to the ones some of the earlier resolutions have.


Votes For: 4,254

Votes Against: 3,011

Voting Ends: Sat Feb 4 2006

If you are getting burnt on the UN, I would invite you to participate more in NSWiki ...
Good advice Mik, I think I'll go do that.

You are welcome to carry to FAQ over to the wiki and place wherever you think it fits. Frankly, I wouldn't know where to put it.

The UN Debate for the repeal ... it is essentially your government's opening statements, and in fact, a smaller sub-heading called "Opening Statements" could be put at the top. But no matter what I think it is worthwhile archiving for future UN players to see.

I'd be interested to see that. I suspect it would be deleted for redundancy, but would be a good barometer of whether this repeal actually changes anything.

The new proposal would bring to light the lack of mention of transgenders in any of the non-discrimination resolutions, and would perhaps be an elaboration and extension to #99, a good, but still incomplete resolution.

If you are getting burnt on the UN, I would invite you to participate more in NSWiki ... Good advice Mik, I think I'll go do that.Indeed. I hope to have Kenny's (nation) wiki page completed at long last very soon.

The new proposal would bring to light the lack of mention of transgenders in any of the non-discrimination resolutions, and would perhaps be an elaboration and extension to #99, a good, but still incomplete resolution.
Ok. But that's not a 'replacement', that's an entirely separate issue, which would have been legal (The Transgender Equality Act was voted on by the UN) before the repeal.

The new proposal would bring to light the lack of mention of transgenders in any of the non-discrimination resolutions, and would perhaps be an elaboration and extension to #99, a good, but still incomplete resolution.Been tried, and failed (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_Transgender_Equality_Act) (speaking of NSwiki).

Ok. But that's not a 'replacement', that's an entirely separate issue, which would have been legal (The Transgender Equality Act was voted on by the UN) before the repeal.

Well before I continue my idea for the resolution, I'll go through ALL of the past resolutions again to be sure I'm not being redundant. But it would be replacement, as I would be including the rest of the GLBT within those protections. It seems that there is enough support for a definitively protective resolution for GBLT to make one that both strengthens #99 and further develops a solid statement of protections of rights for GBLT.

So let me get to sleep and do some reasearch of the NSUN over the next few days before this gets discussed any further.

Edit: "This" being my involvement in a new resolutions for GBLT rights.

And where, exactly, does #12 mention transgenders?
That was mainly in response to Kenny's claim, but yes, I get your point.

Well before I continue my idea for the resolution, I'll go through ALL of the past resolutions again to be sure I'm not being redundant. But it would be replacement, as I would be including the rest of the GLBT within those protections. It seems that there is enough support for a definitively protective resolution for GBLT to make one that both strengthens #99 and further develops a solid statement of protections of rights for GBLT.

So let me get to sleep and do some reasearch of the NSUN over the next few days before this gets discussed any further.

Edit: "This" being my involvement in a new resolutions for GBLT rights.
Ok, but again, that's not a replacement. It's a NEW RESOLUTION. If you replace Gay Rights, the proposal will be deleted for redundancy. Ergo, your proposal must cover different ground.

That was mainly in response to Kenny's claim, ....And it wasn't entirely relevant ...

Kenny, I'll continue this discussion at UNOG - I don't think it should clog up this topic.

Well, I'm more inclined not to vote for a proposal introduced by a guy named "OMGWTFBBQKEENYRDEADLOOLZ" or whatever the hell his name is

Brilliant reasoning that... :rolleyes:

Brilliant reasoning that... :rolleyes:

Its actually on par with the other reasoning given by the opposition, and probally more honest.:p However I've been taking note of the oppositions responces and have almost decided to use the gist of their own arguments to submit and defend a proposal giving special protections to Conservatives and Libertarians. I said almost because I then came to my sences and figured that Hack, Fris and the other mods have better things to do that delete another idiotic, do nothing, proposal, and ban me from the forums.:D

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

BTW. I raided your liquor supply, heres some replacement to your stock. My Deputy finally arrived.*hands over a case of Wild Turkey, and a gallon bottle of suspiciously clear liquid.*

Its actually on par with the other reasoning given by the opposition, and probally more honest.:p However I've been taking note of the oppositions responces and have almost decided to use the gist of their own arguments to submit and defend a proposal giving special protections to Conservatives and Libertarians. I said almost because I then came to my sences and figured that Hack, Fris and the other mods have better things to do that delete another idiotic, do nothing, proposal, and ban me from the forums.:D

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

BTW. I raided your liquor supply, heres some replacement to your stock. My Deputy finally arrived.*hands over a case of Wild Turkey, and a gallon bottle of suspiciously clear liquid.*

OOC: Yeah, I wouldn't do that. My submission of the Midget Protection Act got my original nation booted from the UN, forcing me to create the Cluichstani UN Mission as my UN puppet.

Back IC...

Yes, Senator. This is true. The honesty of the representative of Bobary is actually rather refreshing, given the torrent of disingenuous arguments put forth by the opposition.

And thanks for replacing the liquor. You're welcome to help yourself to the liquor cabinet in my office anytime.

Instead of our beloved resolutuon, we get an entire bureaucratic circus and a painful and divisive debate ...With all due respect, Mr. Koopman, we're not the ones who have made this debate "painful and divisive."

In my country, we don't care if you're gay. You'll probably end up being raped by several black metal bands regardless of your gender.

In my country, we don't care if you're gay. You'll probably end up being raped by several black metal bands regardless of your gender.

And your stance is...:rolleyes:

As the new member of the UN I am shocked that such a great body would vote for discrimination. 50 years ago in most of the countries on this planet. Gays were ridiculed,discrminated against, and sometimes killed. In those 50 years we have seen leaps and bounds of progress. We should guarantee that Gay people can live without fear. So dont repeal this motion. Dont give in to certain countries who would take away your moral center. dont have a heart of stone.Vote no on the repeal. I thank you and the country of Winterbreeze thanks you.

As the new member of the UN I am shocked that such a great body would vote for discrimination. 50 years ago in most of the countries on this planet. Gays were ridiculed,discrminated against, and sometimes killed. In those 50 years we have seen leaps and bounds of progress. We should guarantee that Gay people can live without fear. So dont repeal this motion. Dont give in to certain countries who would take away your moral center. dont have a heart of stone.Vote no on the repeal. I thank you and the country of Winterbreeze thanks you.
Did you even read this thread? Did you read the Resolutions to which this thread has referred?

*heavy sigh*

Alright, dammit, pass the Wild Turkey. I'm out of Intangelonian Rum.

As the new member of the UN I am shocked that such a great body would vote for discrimination. 50 years ago in most of the countries on this planet. Gays were ridiculed,discrminated against, and sometimes killed. In those 50 years we have seen leaps and bounds of progress. We should guarantee that Gay people can live without fear. So dont repeal this motion. Dont give in to certain countries who would take away your moral center. dont have a heart of stone.Vote no on the repeal. I thank you and the country of Winterbreeze thanks you.

Thank you for coming in here and voicing your opinion. You may want to read the present repeal, the resolution being repealed, and resolution #99 before voicing your opinion. This resolution does nothing to protect gay rights, resolution #99 does. Repealing this resolution is just getting rid of an unnecessary law that does nothing to protect anybody. Resolutions #99 and #81 still stand and will always stand.

As the new member of the UN I am shocked that such a great body would vote for discrimination. 50 years ago in most of the countries on this planet. Gays were ridiculed,discrminated against, and sometimes killed. In those 50 years we have seen leaps and bounds of progress. We should guarantee that Gay people can live without fear. So dont repeal this motion. Dont give in to certain countries who would take away your moral center. dont have a heart of stone.Vote no on the repeal. I thank you and the country of Winterbreeze thanks you.

I'm guessing you didn't read a single word of this thread before posting... :rolleyes:

You should not repeal any gay rights. Unless you are unaware of the fact, gays and lesbians (and any other non-heterosexual groups) are human beings as well and deserve as many rights as anyone else!

Please, people: there's a FAQ (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10331153&postcount=1). It's there for a reason. Read it before spouting off irrelevant garbage.

You should not repeal any gay rights. Unless you are unaware of the fact, gays and lesbians (and any other non-heterosexual groups) are human beings as well and deserve as many rights as anyone else!

And read my statement here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10341311&postcount=138).

If your concern is that the current law doesnothing to outline how gay rights will be protected, why not just refine the law rather than completely repealing it?

If your concern is that the current law doesnothing to outline how gay rights will be protected, why not just refine the law rather than completely repealing it?

Because ammendments are illegal?

Honestly, all these bad arguments for being against this repeal is making me consider voting for it.

If your concern is that the current law doesnothing to outline how gay rights will be protected, why not just refine the law rather than completely repealing it?

If you would read the UN rules or even the thread in which you've just posted, you'd see that you can't do that. There are no amendments or refinements. You have to repeal and replace.

Because ammendments are illegal?

Honestly, all these bad arguments for being against this repeal is making me consider voting for it.

Please do. ;)

If you would read the UN rules or even the thread in which you've just posted, you'd see that you can't do that. There are no amendments or refinements. You have to repeal and replace.

I have done both, thank you. Such attacks do nothing but make one look vapid. I didn't say to amend the current law. I said to strengthen what we have--by adding new, more comprehensive legislation, rather than wasting all this time debating a repeal. It is nothing new to have dead legislation on the books. I say stop wasting all this time and energy on a repeal that is only useful to rile people up. Get on to something really meaningful and useful is my point.

I have done both, thank you. Such attacks do nothing but make one look vapid. I didn't say to amend the current law. I said to strengthen what we have--by adding new, more comprehensive legislation, rather than wasting all this time debating a repeal. It is nothing new to have dead legislation on the books. I say stop wasting all this time and energy on a repeal that is only useful to rile people up. Get on to something really meaningful and useful is my point.
No one's stopping you doing so. This repeal doesn't stop your doing so. The only thing stopping you doing so is that you're wasting your own time in this debate.

Why add more legislation to the books when we have a resolution, resolution #99 (Discrimination Accord), that actually protects peoples rights. No more legislation is needed.

Oy, after hearing the debate so far I understand why my boss said that he's staying in the Stranger's Bar for this one. Hell, as soon as I'm done here I'm going to go join him. Anyway I'll make this short, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites has no problem with most of the Gay Rights resolution, however we firmly believe that a nation's marriage laws should be determined solely by the nation. Therefore we are casting our vote for the repealas even though it will not return total control of marriage laws to the member nations it is a starting point.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

Stop this flood of repeals. The UN needs to be more focussed on dealing with existing issues rather than pearing down its previously passed legislation.

It's absurd. People seem more interested in finding flaws with old resolutions than dealing with unresolved problems.

Shut them down for God's sake.

Stop this flood of repeals. The UN needs to be more focussed on dealing with existing issues rather than pearing down its previously passed legislation.

It's absurd. People seem more interested in finding flaws with old resolutions than dealing with unresolved problems.

Shut them down for God's sake.
No one's stopping you proposing a new proposal. Do you have any ideas? Or would you rather complain about others, without contributing yourself.

Stop this flood of repeals. The UN needs to be more focussed on dealing with existing issues rather than pearing down its previously passed legislation.

It's absurd. People seem more interested in finding flaws with old resolutions than dealing with unresolved problems.

Shut them down for God's sake.

God has been known to support some repeals. Have you ever proposed something for new legislation? If not, stop whining and telling others what to do.

Your post is absurd.

From what I've read, the "No Camp" or whatever they want to be called, honestly don't have a very valid argument. Let's review some paraphrased arguments.

"Gays should have rights, too! Don't be homophobic!"
This resolution is so horribly vague that it doesn't do anything to give gays rights. In fact, I believe if not for other resolutions, the text of this document could be twisted in such a way to harm Civil Rights. It's unlikely, but possible.

"Think of what people reaction when they see this repeal! It'll make the UN look terrible!"
Law isn't a popularity contest. It isn't about "looking good" or "seemingly doing the right thing." It's about protecting people and they're rights. If we worried about public reaction every time we tried to pass a resolution, we'd never get anything done. If streamlining the law requires getting rid of a useless resolution that has a pretty name, so be it.

"Stop with the repeals! We keep concentrating on the old and never the new!"
That's not a good argument at all. In fact, that's completely irrelevant to the discussion. Besides, the less bad laws there are, the more good laws we can submit.

"It was one of our first resolutions! We can't get rid it! Protect our history!"
Sentimental value shouldn't be placed resolutions. Would you protect a resolution that did more harm than good just because it was one of the first written? There's no point in keeping this resolution. It's a waste of space. If it wasn't for the name of this resolution, there wouldn't be half as much fuss over it.

That's my argument. Agree or disagree if you want, the nation of Aduross voting FOR this repeal.

Did you even read this thread? Did you read the Resolutions to which this thread has referred?

*heavy sigh*

Alright, dammit, pass the Wild Turkey. I'm out of Intangelonian Rum.


Here you go, good sirrah.*hands over bottle of Wild Turkey*
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla
Palentine UN office

From what I've read, the "No Camp" or whatever they want to be called, honestly don't have a very valid argument. Let's review some paraphrased arguments.

"Gays should have rights, too! Don't be homophobic!"
This resolution is so horribly vague that it doesn't do anything to give gays rights. In fact, I believe if not for other resolutions, the text of this document could be twisted in such a way to harm Civil Rights. It's unlikely, but possible.

"Think of what people reaction when they see this repeal! It'll make the UN look terrible!"
Law isn't a popularity contest. It isn't about "looking good" or "seemingly doing the right thing." It's about protecting people and they're rights. If we worried about public reaction every time we tried to pass a resolution, we'd never get anything done. If streamlining the law requires getting rid of a useless resolution that has a pretty name, so be it.

"Stop with the repeals! We keep concentrating on the old and never the new!"
That's not a good argument at all. In fact, that's completely irrelevant to the discussion. Besides, the less bad laws there are, the more good laws we can submit.

"It was one of our first resolutions! We can't get rid it! Protect our history!"
Sentimental value shouldn't be placed resolutions. Would you protect a resolution that did more harm than good just because it was one of the first written? There's no point in keeping this resolution. It's a waste of space. If it wasn't for the name of this resolution, there wouldn't be half as much fuss over it.

That's my argument. Agree or disagree if you want, the nation of Aduross voting FOR this repeal.

Good show, old Man!*applause*
Exclesior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

I really hate this repeal. I am surprised that the repeal is winning right now.

I'm not gay, I think the original resolution sends the right message.

Repealing it says (to me) that homophobes and ultra-conservatives are dominating NS and the UN, ugh!

I fail to see why it needs to be repealed, and for practical reasons, it messes with my countries Human Rights record.

If this is repealed I hope another resolution will be put forward. But of course that gives no guarantee whatsoever a new resolution would be passed.

Personally I don't think that writing and re-writing these resolutions is a profitable use of anyone's time.

Reminds me of the Scholastics arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of pin.

Keep it simple people!

I'm not gay, I think the original resolution sends the right message.Sends the right "message," and does nothing to advance it, Mr. Seinfeld ...

Repealing it says (to me) that homophobes and ultra-conservatives are dominating NS and the UN, ugh!The forum poll (above) says to me that most voters are sincerely concerned about the quality of UN legislation. (And a sizeable minority really hate all the repeals.)

I fail to see why it needs to be repealed,You must not have read the proposal, or any arguments made in the thread, because after having spent a considerable amount of time here, I fail to see how this shouldn't be repealed. The anti-repeal camp has offered no substantive arguments. None.

... and for practical reasons, it messes with my countries Human Rights record.Dude, we don't introduce proposals just to stat-wank. Human rights proposals are always turning my nation into an Anarchy, but do I grouse and complain about it? Well ... yes, I do. All the time. It's even in my wiki entry. But do I vote on proposals purely out of concern for my stats? No. Unless it's free trade. Then let the green roll in, baby. :D

Repealing it says (to me) that homophobes and ultra-conservatives are dominating NS and the UN, ugh!
From what I've seen, almost none of the yes-camp arguements are that gays shouldn't deserve any rights. So the repeal must be lying if you say it's telling you that we're all homophobic rednecks.

YEE HAWW! Err I mean, pass the Wild Turkey this way too.

If the legislation that already exists does 'nothing' as those proposing the repeal seem to think, than brining up a process to repeal it does only one thing; Waste this bodies time. This type of jargonistic discource is precisely why people in many states distain the body as 'A Debaters Club'. We should be adressing issues of concern that affect the members of this body, not debating the finer merits of a resolution that opponents even state does nothing. If all legislatures followed this bodies examples, than they would be involved in an endless process of legislation review over what "I" means and whether or not a law regarding the important of Horse-Collar width should be repealed.

If you put forth a better written proposal, I will endorse it. Agreed the first one is "rather terse".

Is it possible to amend resolutions vs. repealing them and then passing new ones, albeit better written again?

It seems this process is flawed.

After all if this repeal passes ... then your rewrite may not pass.

To me, Repealing means to dismiss or deny the intent of the resolution.

If you do not deny the intent I don't think it should be repealed, it should be amended.

If the legislation that already exists does 'nothing' as those proposing the repeal seem to think, than brining up a process to repeal it does only one thing; Waste this bodies time. This type of jargonistic discource is precisely why people in many states distain the body as 'A Debaters Club'. We should be adressing issues of concern that affect the members of this body, not debating the finer merits of a resolution that opponents even state does nothing. If all legislatures followed this bodies examples, than they would be involved in an endless process of legislation review over what "I" means and whether or not a law regarding the important of Horse-Collar width should be repealed.

Instead of debating the very relevant issues that surely you will propose very soon.

If you put forth a better written proposal, I will endorse it. Agreed the first one is "rather terse".

Is it possible to amend resolutions vs. repealing them and then passing new ones, albeit better written again?

It seems this process is flawed.

After all if this repeal passes ... then your rewrite may not pass.

To me, Repealing means to dismiss or deny the intent of the resolution.

If you do not deny the intent I don't think it should be repealed, it should be amended.

It is not possible to amend. Get over it.

That said, the intent of the resolution in question matters not at all. It doesn't do anything.

Here you go, good sirrah.*hands over bottle of Wild Turkey*
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla
Palentine UN office

You are most kind. The finest kind, in fact. I believe, after I've shared this with our chief executive, Magister Jubal Harshaw, I shall suggest he initiate an executive order declaring February 3rd to henceforth be known as Palatine UN Office Day.

I assure you, fine sir, that once the season for sugar cane and vanilla returns to the growing fields of Intangelon, that the first (and usually the most potent) batch of Intangelonian Bright Rum shall be barreled and shipped to your nation as soon as possible. *Gratefully grasps and shakes the hand of Senator Sulla*


Shade and Sweet Water,
Minister Benjamin Royce,
Intangelonian UN Delegate

Okay, here's the process.

Repeals, along with ANY OTHER PROPOSALS (hint), go through the proposal stage before they become resolutions subject to a delegate's vote. This means that the repeals HAD ENOUGH SUPPORT TO SUCCESSFULLY ENTER THE QUEUE TO BECOME A RESOLUTION. If a proposal was really unpopular (notice I didn't say "bad"), IT DIDN'T REACH THE QUEUE AND DID NOT GET VOTED ON. So all of you people yammering about "stop the repeals" have the solution in your own hands: draft a proposal and see for yourself how tough it is to get the approvals needed to get to the voting stage. I've got four failed proposals to my credit, and I stopped trying so long ago I can only remember one, a proposal to demand some kind of formality with regard to resolution language.

If repeals were as pernicious as you'd have us all believe, they'd never reach the queue. So I suggest reading all the active resolutions, find something you can talk about that isn't yet covered (to avoid your proposal being struck down for redundancy), read the rules section on proposals and then go to town! Repeals are VERY necessary and reflect a body determined to rid itself of legislative dead wood and superseded laws. If you don't agree with that basic premise, then wait until a non-repeal shows up and then come to the debate.

Minister Royce
Intangelon

With all due respect,

It would seem to me that the proposed resolution to repeal "Gay Rights" does not expressly sustain the rights of gays that it lists. No where in the document or in U.N. resolution #99, which addresses certain civil rights, does it list that gays would still be afforded the rights described within the resolution.
If we are to repeal "Gay Rights," it seems that we would not only be completely disallowing the rights of gays that everyone should be able to enjoy, that we would be doing so in part unintentionally, and that a symbolic declaration against gay rights would take place. Gays are people, they should be treated equally, and fairly as such.

Expressing my concerns,

The Invigorating Republic of Earth Day

If we are to repeal "Gay Rights," it seems that we would not only be completely disallowing the rights of gays that everyone should be able to enjoy, that we would be doing so in part unintentionally, and that a symbolic declaration against gay rights would take place. Gays are people, they should be treated equally, and fairly as such. Please, actually read Resolution #12. Nowhere in its text does it force nations to give any rights to homosexuals. It does absolutely nothing. Don't get hung up on the name; read the law.

Please, actually read Resolution #12. Nowhere in its text does it force nations to give any rights to homosexuals. It does absolutely nothing. Don't get hung up on the name; read the law.

For some reason, friend Hack. I don't think they want to listen or read past the title(of resolution #12, and of this repeal)
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

No where in the document or in U.N. resolution #99, which addresses certain civil rights, does it list that gays would still be afforded the rights described within the resolution.
CLARIFIES the United Nation’s position by reiterating the following:

§ The UN condemns discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in recognized religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, age, language, school of thought, or intelligence.

§ The UN disallows member governments from discriminating the previously described rights (protection under law, participation in government, etc.) based upon such differences.
You were saying?

With all due respect,

It would seem to me that the proposed resolution to repeal "Gay Rights" does not expressly sustain the rights of gays that it lists. No where in the document or in U.N. resolution #99, which addresses certain civil rights, does it list that gays would still be afforded the rights described within the resolution.
If we are to repeal "Gay Rights," it seems that we would not only be completely disallowing the rights of gays that everyone should be able to enjoy, that we would be doing so in part unintentionally, and that a symbolic declaration against gay rights would take place. Gays are people, they should be treated equally, and fairly as such.

Expressing my concerns,

The Invigorating Republic of Earth Day

Uh..so for or against the repeal?

The government of Smarxsh would like to remind us all that the UN is a bureacracy, and as such should be as bloated and purple with resolutions as possible, with plenty of possibly contradictory precedents. We also suspect (though We admit it is purely conspiratorial and paranoid) that the authors of the current bill are lying. It would certainly appear that Omigodtheykilledkenny is attempting to start a fundementalist backlash against the erotic liberties of the human race! Officially, Our government does not recognize any notion of "sexual orientation." At least that much is clear to anyone at the Kropotkin Club last night. Up with bureaucratic morass! For us, it is better that our Senators remain distracted with free love...

It would certainly appear that Omigodtheykilledkenny is attempting to start a fundementalist backlash against the erotic liberties of the human race!

Ok...that's it...

We're starting the Jey countdown. This is number 10.

9 more idiotic arguments for voting against until Jey switches its vote to FOR.

(your losing votes other then mine with these horrid excuses for voting against)

Kenny, I just want to say good job. I respect you. You obviously know how to read between the lines. I congradulate you on a job well done. I read the Gay Rights Act and your right. THIS IS TO ALL YOU IDIOTS OUT THERE WHO DON'T READ AND DON'T KNOW HOW!!!!!:mad: By repealing this act you are just getting rid of something stupid and pointless.
Kudos to you,
The Free Land of Gattuso;)

Kenny, I just want to say good job. I respect you. You obviously know how to read between the lines. I congradulate you on a job well done. I read the Gay Rights Act and your right. THIS IS TO ALL YOU IDIOTS OUT THERE WHO DON'T READ AND DON'T KNOW HOW!!!!!:mad: By repealing this act you are just getting rid of something stupid and pointless.
Kudos to you,
The Free Land of Gattuso;)

Stop flaming. This topic is sensitive enough without idiots coming in thinking that they know it all...

Ok...that's it...

We're starting the Jey countdown. This is number 10.

9 more idiotic arguments for voting against until Jey switches its vote to FOR.

(your losing votes other then mine with these horrid excuses for voting against)Can I use nine puppets to make brain-dead arguments to speed this process up? ;)

9 more idiotic arguments for voting against until Jey switches its vote to FOR.

(your losing votes other then mine with these horrid excuses for voting against)You mean, there aren't enough idiotic replies to this thread to change your vote already? ;)

You mean, there aren't enough idiotic replies to this thread to change your vote already? ;)
That would be an ex post facto countdown, which is unethical.

Stop flaming. This topic is sensitive enough without idiots coming in thinking that they know it all...
Well in this case he does know it all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earth Day
No where in the document or in U.N. resolution #99, which addresses certain civil rights, does it list that gays would still be afforded the rights described within the resolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discrimination Accord
CLARIFIES the United Nation’s position by reiterating the following:

§ The UN condemns discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in recognized religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, age, language, school of thought, or intelligence.

§ The UN disallows member governments from discriminating the previously described rights (protection under law, participation in government, etc.) based upon such differences.

You were saying? - comentator

I still must say that although Resolution 99 condemns any sexual discrimination, it, as well as the other enacted documents other than resolution 12, "Gay Rights," still do not expressly recognize or grant any sort of gender rights.

Under these circumstances, I maintain my position, and will keep my vote against repealing "Gay Rights"

It is critics of resolution 12 who should truly read between the lines, and the lines themselves. Just because resolutions like the Discrimination Accord (99) condemn certain practices doesn;t mean they do anything about them; resolutions such as Gay Rights (12) expressly state the rights, and should not be repealled when there is no effective legislation that would sustain those rights if that resolution is repealled

Expressing my advocacy for equal rights,

The Invigorating Republic of Earth Day

§ The UN disallows member governments from discriminating the previously described rights (protection under law, participation in government, etc.) based upon such differences.
It does not just condemn. It makes it un-possible for us to discriminate.

Just because resolutions like the Discrimination Accord (99) condemn certain practices doesn;t mean they do anything about them; resolutions such as Gay Rights (12) expressly state the rights, and should not be repealled when there is no effective legislation that would sustain those rights if that resolution is repealled

8 more idiotic arguments for voting against until Jey switches its vote to FOR.

I still must say that although Resolution 99 condemns any sexual discrimination, it, as well as the other enacted documents other than resolution 12, "Gay Rights," still do not expressly recognize or grant any sort of gender rights.Oh, dear: you neglected the read the clause immediatey following the cited "condemnation" in Resolution #99:

§ The UN condemns discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in recognized religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, age, language, school of thought, or intelligence.

§ The UN disallows member governments from discriminating the previously described rights (protection under law, participation in government, etc.) based upon such differences.You even quoted the clause in your own post. We strongly advise the Earth Day delegate to read the stuff he's quoting next time ...

Oh, dear: you neglected the read the clause immediatey following the cited "condemnation" in Resolution #99:

You even quoted the clause in your own post. We strongly advise the Earth Day delegate to read the stuff he's quoting next time ...

It would appear that I have indeed been incorrect in my previous posts. I would like to thank Omigodtheykilledkenny for reasuring me that equal rights will indeed be preserved with the ratification of this resolution.

I will now enthusiastically give my vote pro this resolution.

Thanks,

The Invigorating Republic of Earth Day

In knowing that these rights will be preserved, I too have cast my first ever UN vote for this resolution. :)

This article was printed in the left-wing Knootian newspaper De Volkskrant.

UN Strikes Blow Against Gay Rights; Abortion Rights Next

THE HAGUE – a repeal of UN resolution #12 on Gay Rights is set to be approved by a large majority of the General Assembly today, striking the first ever socially progressive resolution from the record. The original resolution resolved that UN members should pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life and mandated the protection and endorsement of gay marriages. At the time of this going to press, delegates have cast 7.607 votes in favour of the repeal, with 4.843 votes - including the vote of the Dutch Democratic Republic - cast against.

Critics of the resolution argued that the resolution did not do anything to protect anything, endorsing the repeal because the United Nations should not have ‘statements of intent’ on the books. Opponents of the repeal argued that the resolution enshrines the values of the UN as pro-civil rights rights, and called the repeal a bad signal. The repeal has been hailed as a step forward by homophobic and fascist groups. Several nations have expressed the desire to illegalise gay marriage because of the ‘signal’ the UN has given with this vote, however other resolutions protecting gay marriage still remain. Scholars remain divided on the effect this repeal will have on anti-discrimination legislation. UN experts have deemed the resolution to be irreplaceable because of perceived overlap.

The two government coalition partners SLP (liberal) and KGP (green) as well as the opposition Socialist Party opposed the repeal. The conservative opposition (RCPK and KEP) was in favour, stressing that their parties supported gay rights but believed that the resolution did not add anything.

Another resolution now in queue for is set to remove pro-choice international legislation by repealing the resolution 'abortion rights'. This resolution is clearly conservative in origin, claiming that giving member states the power to ban abortions as they please is "pro-choice". All Knootian political parties have already voiced their strong opposition to this repeal.

This wave of conservative repeals in the UN General Assembly comes at a highly inopportune moment for the Daatman administration. Foreign Affairs and Defence minister Femke Vologdov (Green) has been negotiating with the Staten-Generaal on possible re-entry into the United Nations after the Law of the Seas resolution was repealed, but the going so far has been tough as a majority of liberal MPs strongly opposes re-entry without more repeals. Recent days have seen support for United Nations re-entry erode rapidly, especially amongst the left and centre of the Knootian electorate. Only 26 percent of Knootians supports re-entry into the United Nations with 48 percent firmly opposed. A poll taken just after Law of the Seas was repealed suggested that 39 percent of Knootians supported re-entry.

In order to respond to the changing climate in the United Nations, Femke Vologdov announced that she would soon be appointing a new deputy ambassador with the objective of ‘helping to turn the conservative tide’. Existing UN ambassador Aram Koopman was not available for comment.


OOC: Saorse: "Knowning that these rights will be preserved?" I still haven't seen anyone but homophobes and bigots who actually gain something from this repeal. It does not positively affect anyone else. Oh well. *shrug*

In the last month or so there's been a distinct right-wing group of nations repealing, or trying to repeal, any and every progressive resolution that's been passed in the past.

If you look at the endorsements needed to get these proposals to resolution status, they're all signed by the usual suspects.

Each repeal is worded to sound like the authors genuinely care about the environment or equal rights, but "sincerely" believe the resolutions are not doing their job and "hope" that after they're repealed, someone will come up with a good replacement .... Unbelieveable ... if you're so f***ing concerned about finding replacements for the resolutions YOU'RE destroying,, then come up with them yourselves!!

.... yeah,, that's likely ...

I feel genuine pity for the sad people sifting through long-standing resolutions looking for any they can target which will help them restrict the freedom of others :rolleyes:

We need to ban gay rights because it is against the Bible!!!!

I would LOVE to REPEAL this act!:mp5:
Gay marragies are just plain wrong:sniper: !!!
Lets READ the bible. BECAUSE IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT GAY MARRIGES WHICH MEANS THE JUST PLAIN WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think the two speakers before me have really said it all. *smile*

~Aram Koopman

In the last month or so there's been a distinct right-wing group of nations repealing, or trying to repeal, any and every progressive resolution that's been passed in the past.

If you look at the endorsements needed to get these proposals to resolution status, they're all signed by the usual suspects.

Each repeal is worded to sound like the authors genuinely care about the environment or equal rights, but "sincerely" believe the resolutions are not doing their job and "hope" that after they're repealed, someone will come up with a good replacement .... Unbelieveable ... if you're so f***ing concerned about finding replacements for the resolutions YOU'RE destroying,, then come up with them yourselves!!

.... yeah,, that's likely ...

I feel genuine pity for the sad people sifting through long-standing resolutions looking for any they can target which will help them restrict the freedom of others :rolleyes:


I don't see how eliminating poorly-written resolutions constitutes restricting the freedoms of others. If anything, it gives us greater freedom by allowing us not to be subject to resolutions that are clearly overlapped by others and only serve to quash industry or give a facade of human rights.

It may be true that a certain group of delegates vote together in order to push these repeals to quorum, but frankly, thats probably because these delegates actually bother to READ the original resolution and see the obvious flaws and redundancies that are present.

Perhaps you do not agree that these resolutions are redundant due to their wording, that these resolutions are well-intentioned. Fine, but think of your own nations. A government may claim that it has many human rights or environmental laws put into place, but that is no indication of how truly effective they are.

The original Gay rights resolution has already been covered by another resolutions. Therefore it is useless and needs to be repealed. Our argument has never changed.

Think about it, do you honestly think our goal in the UN is to repeal every single resolution? That's why you are wrong. We DO care, and thats why we take pride evaluating and re-evaluating the laws that have been laid down.

Calling us right-wingers is unfair as well. The only common ideology in repealing these resolutions is practicality. Why do you think these repeals have been passed by a majority vote? Its because these people have been able to put aside their personal ideologies to see the true flaws in these resolutions.

I feel genuine pity for anyone who truly believes that this repeal is aimed at targeting human rights. Its simply not true.

OOC: Saorse: "Knowning that these rights will be preserved?" I still haven't seen anyone but homophobes and bigots who actually gain something from this repeal. It does not positively affect anyone else. Oh well. *shrug*

7 more idiotic arguments for voting against until Jey switches its vote to FOR.

In the last month or so there's been a distinct right-wing group of nations repealing, or trying to repeal, any and every progressive resolution that's been passed in the past.

6 more idiotic arguments for voting against until Jey switches its vote to FOR.

We need to ban gay rights because it is against the Bible!!!!

This one counts for 3. :headbang: :headbang:

5, 4, and now 3 more idiotic arguments for voting against (even though this one is voting for) until Jey switches its vote to FOR.