PASSED: Repeal "Definition of Marriage" [Official Topic] [Archive]

Hirota

18-08-2006, 09:58

back on topic. Another repeal for #81

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

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #81
Proposed by: Pro-Sovereignty Babes

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

Argument: WHEREAS, Resolution #144 affirms this United Nations should seek to “streamline and strike out superfluous and ineffective legislation.”

WHEREAS, Resolution #99, “Discrimination Accord”, already establishes the right of marriage cannot be denied to certain groups and ensures the passage of this repeal will NOT permit member states to discriminate “on the basis of differences in recognized religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, age, language, school of thought, or intelligence”;

WHEREAS, the provisions of Resolution #25,“The Child Protection Act”, already establish the age of a child as a just reason for not recognizing marriage;

WHEREAS, the resolution neglects to include as part of a definition of marriage any condition of consent;

WHEREAS, Resolution #81, “Definition of Marriage”, is ineffective because it fails to describe what social rights and obligations being able to marry entails. Without this, Resolution #81 safeguards nothing;

ESTABLISHES “Definition of Marriage” as ineffective and unnecessary;

REPEALS United Nations Resolution #81, “Definition of Marriage.”Quorum is reached - 126

Cluichstan

18-08-2006, 14:20

back on topic. Another repeal for #81

Quorum is reached - 126

And it's far better than the other one, which was still at quorum last time I checked.

Hirota

18-08-2006, 15:15

And it's far better than the other one, which was still at quorum last time I checked. It's better.....not by much.

I've already expressed my reasons for opposition elsewhere. Summary is the points PSB has raised as justifications for a repeal are generally blatantly false.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11563035&postcount=4

Gruenberg

18-08-2006, 15:16

I'm voting for it.

Forgottenlands

18-08-2006, 15:20

Hirota, can we avoid discussing PSB's on this thread? I agree PSB's is also flawed, but we already have another place to compare the two and I'm sure PSB will eventually show up with an official thread for his own resolution so it would be nice if we had a thread devoted solely to this repeal attempt.

Hirota

18-08-2006, 15:48

of course, although (and I assume you refer to Lois-must-die's thread when you say "another place"), I had not seen that thread when I pointed out psb's repeal on this thread (partially because the title of that thread shed little light on it, and partially because I was in a hurry).

Secondly, I'll note lois-must-die's thread refers to the proposal that started this thread.

But I agree with you, which is why I kept my comments on PSB's version on the other thread and merely provided a link to those comments on here.

Gruenberg

19-08-2006, 00:03

Forgottenlands

19-08-2006, 00:21

Thing is...why is his argument false? It may not be very good, but I don't see any reason why this resolution couldn't be turned to permit marrying animals (just as I don't see any reason why any nation would do this).

Considering the purpose of the line, I find this particular trio of words to be the entire core of the problem with his argument

endorsement of beastiality

I agree that it permits such a thing and provides an open loophole for it, but we all know its intention when it was written by Vastiva to be entirely about sentient/sapient/whatever non-humans.

Gruenberg

19-08-2006, 00:31

I agree that it permits such a thing and provides an open loophole for it, but we all know its intention when it was written by Vastiva to be entirely about sentient/sapient/whatever non-humans.
I don't care what its intention was. And Gruenberg wasn't in the UN (OOC: or existence) when Vastiva wrote it, so no, even if we cared, we wouldn't "know what he meant".

The law means what the law says, right? Or does that only apply to resolutions whose authors we don't know?

Mikitivity

19-08-2006, 01:15

My government actually voted in favour of the resolution after serious debate. However, since that time popular opinion in Mikitivity (plus abuses from foreigners coming and claiming that they've married multiple people and are entitled to family discounts) has led my government to favour the repeal(s) of this resolution.

Forgottenlands

19-08-2006, 01:50

Mikitivity

19-08-2006, 02:02

Any endorsements made are beyond what the law says. The text of the law doesn't explicitly endorse a behaviour. It permits nations to consider the behavior, but nothing more. Claims of endorsement read beyond the text and into the meaning of the resolution, so therefore we must then revisit the intent of the author. The author indicated his intent for this to refer to sentient species. Therefore, the claim of endorsement is false. While the secretariat may disagree with me, I don't think it is beyond assumption that you could have more easily addressed this concern by passing a resolution outlawing the marriage to non-sapient species without worrying about contradiction.

Yes, it was my nation's understanding that this resolution was really intending to refer to sentient / sapient species. It certainly is my governments legal interpetation that this is the case.

This is a tangent to the sapient issue, but also worth bringing up.

During the debate, in which I participated, it was agreed upon that this resolution effectively "legalized" polygomy in all UN nations.

I marry a woman in nation B.
I marry another woman in nation C.
I travel to nation D, which now has to honor *both* marriages.

Now change "woman" to whatever you like. This spirit of the resolution really was just to legalize homosexual marriages. But the *name* of the resolution is "Definition of Marriage". For something designed to define something it had some obvious loopholes.

Howie T. Katzman

Enn

19-08-2006, 02:05

This spirit of the resolution really was just to legalize homosexual marriages.
I disagree. My predecessor (You might remember her, Stephanie Fulton. Shame about all that) here left notes saying that she saw it as a way of making sure heterosexual marriage was guaranteed in all UN nations. Given at the time homosexual marriage was already ensured by Resolution 12, she thought this a worthy controbution.

Anegri Favon

Ausserland

19-08-2006, 03:35

I don't care what its intention was. And Gruenberg wasn't in the UN (OOC: or existence) when Vastiva wrote it, so no, even if we cared, we wouldn't "know what he meant".

The law means what the law says, right? Or does that only apply to resolutions whose authors we don't know?

Since our distinguished colleague from Gruenberg quoted Dr. Olembe in his comment, we felt it appropriate to respond. We certainly stand behind the principle that "the law means what the law says". So let's look carefully at what the resolution says and what the repeal claims it says.

The last line is also disturbing: "FURTHER RECOGNIZES all nation's right to expand this definition beyond species borders as the individual governments see fit."

This is an endorsement of beastiality....

The clause in the resolution does not "endorse" anything in the accepted meaning of that term. It simply recognizes an existing right of a nation, not contravened by this or any other NSUN resolution. It's a rather unnecessary thing, but it certainly doesn't place the NSUN stamp of approval on any activity.

Now to turn to the second problem. Marriage is not bestiality. Marriage is a legal state -- a "civil union" in the words of the resolution. Bestiality is an activity. They are most certainly not the same. It would be like saying marriage is a synonym for sexual intercourse, which many could confirm is not so.

Taking the letter of the law as it stands, the resolution does not endorse bestiality and the statement in the repeal is false. Now, certainly it would be possible to interpret the resolution as containing such an endorsement. But that would be the same sort of "reading into" to which our distinguished colleague from Gruenberg objects.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Mikitivity

19-08-2006, 04:38

I disagree. My predecessor (You might remember her, Stephanie Fulton. Shame about all that) here left notes saying that she saw it as a way of making sure heterosexual marriage was guaranteed in all UN nations. Given at the time homosexual marriage was already ensured by Resolution 12, she thought this a worthy controbution.

Anegri Favon

First, if our positions were reversed, I'd be following the (even somewhat charred) instructions left behind by my predecessor as well ... but if the resolution's sponsor (who had also boasted about wishing to be the first nation to have one resolution in each category) really wanted the resolution to easily pass, then he would have made it obvious that it was for heterosexual marriage. Regardless, I'm still confident that the sponsor even publically admitted during the drafting process that this was nothing less than an attempt to change all UN members domestic laws to enforce legalized gay marriage (despite the fact that this was as you've correctly pointed out, already legalized).

A much better worded and less intrusive resolution can be drafted should either of the repeals pass ... and this is one of those rare cases where Mikitivity plans to advocate on behalf of the repeals, on the grounds that this poorly worded resolution places a burden on nations that grant extra rights to husbands and wives due to the FACT that the resolution promotes polygomy.

Howie T. Katzman

HotRodia

20-08-2006, 00:22

Gruenberg

20-08-2006, 00:27

Taking the letter of the law as it stands, the resolution does not endorse bestiality and the statement in the repeal is false. Now, certainly it would be possible to interpret the resolution as containing such an endorsement. But that would be the same sort of "reading into" to which our distinguished colleague from Gruenberg objects.
Ok, that's reasonable.

I will consult my regional comrades on this proposal, when the time comes. I'm torn between a pragmatic for or a symbolic against, but am leaning towards the former.

Jey

20-08-2006, 02:04

We will be voting against. We will continue to maintain a need for a moderate amount of quality in proposals to receive our support. If we could repeal repeals, R&R would be drafting up a repeal of this one should it pass. Let's keep the achievement of passing a resolution reserved to the proposals that deserve to be there.

Norderia

20-08-2006, 07:54

I'm not sure if I would support a repeal of DoM, but if I would, it certainly would have to be high quality, and this is certainly not high quality.

St Edmundan Antarctic

21-08-2006, 11:31

The government of the St Edmundan Antarctic, noting that some of this nation's own citizens are of "cross-species" ancestry (Human x Ouph) and/or involved in cross-species marriages (also involving those two species, and/or people of mixed ancestry), is opposed to this proposal.

Cluichstan

21-08-2006, 18:21

I'm in favor of a repeal of "Definition of Marriage". What the hell was the UN doing defining marriage? I don't like nations defining social institutions, so international bodies sure don't need to be doing it.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

What he said.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Mikitivity

21-08-2006, 21:30

Ok, that's reasonable.

I will consult my regional comrades on this proposal, when the time comes. I'm torn between a pragmatic for or a symbolic against, but am leaning towards the former.

While the second repeal is better worded, my government actually does not completely agree with our esteemed colleques from Ausserland on the legality of the first repeal. The resolution does not directly "endorse" beastiality, it does provide a blocker like protection for nations which not only wish to legalise it in their nations, it also (and the reason the resolution should immediately be repealed) provides those same nations a means to enforce their legal status protecting sapient and non-sapient marriages on other societies and in doing so provides a legal backdoor that is obviously viewed by many nations as a UN endorsement of the activity.

Love and esterel

21-08-2006, 22:54

My present post may seems off-topic, but I think it's related to the topic regarding to the diversity of people.

Maybe some of you have seen those ads (I will not name the company and the company is not on the pictures):

http://community.webshots.com/photo/551437879/2848575360086445638OXiWNG#
http://community.webshots.com/photo/551437879/2896573760086445638qQEIUD
http://community.webshots.com/photo/551437879/2386577890086445638yjiWFg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/plastiksushi/187724876/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/plastiksushi/187724944/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pet3/137135197/

Dashanzi

21-08-2006, 22:54

Forgive me if I misinterpret, but my reading of the resolution under attack is that it exists purely as a means of appeasing those who object to the extension of religious marriage rights to all and sundry. Perhaps marriage ought not be defined in an ideal world, but given the UN's past actions the resolution is a useful bulwark.

My stance on this is mild; I confess that the issue is low on my list of priorities.

Benedictions,

Flibbleites

21-08-2006, 23:52

James_xenoland

22-08-2006, 04:19

Hirota

22-08-2006, 06:30

I'm in favor of a repeal of "Definition of Marriage". What the hell was the UN doing defining marriage? I don't like nations defining social institutions, so international bodies sure don't need to be doing it.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus DioceNations don't have to define this particular institution, as the UN has done that for you.

Isn't that nice of the UN? <grins>

[NS]The Wolf Guardians

22-08-2006, 08:29

013 laughs heartily. "In our country, marriage is the union of any group of people who want to be united, really, regardless of anything, even how many are in said group. Except age, of course. If they want to live together, et cetera, so be it. They cause no harm by being happy." A thoughtful look. "Hmm... you don't think we should do something to keep nations from defining it?"

Cluichstan

22-08-2006, 14:47

The Wolf Guardians']013 laughs heartily. "In our country, marriage is the union of any group of people who want to be united, really, regardless of anything, even how many are in said group. Except age, of course. If they want to live together, et cetera, so be it. They cause no harm by being happy." A thoughtful look. "Hmm... you don't think we should do something to keep nations from defining it?"

You mean like repealing the definition that's already on the books perhaps?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Hirota

22-08-2006, 15:58

You mean like repealing the definition that's already on the books perhaps?Isn't that exactly what a repeal would do? This resolution defines marriage, and thus supercedes any conflicting national definition.

Therefore I'd say this current resolution stops nations from defining it in conflict with international legislation, and a repeal would allow nations to define it themselves without international law or sanity obstructing them...

Omigodtheykilledkenny

22-08-2006, 16:11

Oh, so even by your interpretation we can simply rename all marriages "covenants" and circumvent this legislation entirely?

What a useless resolution this is. :rolleyes:

Nonetheless, I still oppose this repeal. It is profoundly silly, and if it fails (which it will), the second repeal will come to vote, thus turning the GA completely off to repeals for a fair amount of time.

Cluichstan

22-08-2006, 16:27

Nonetheless, I still oppose this repeal. It is profoundly silly, and if it fails (which it will), the second repeal will come to vote, thus turning the GA completely off to repeals for a fair amount of time.

Which will be a damn shame.

Flibbleites

22-08-2006, 16:59

Therefore I'd say this current resolution stops nations from defining it in conflict with international legislation, and a repeal would allow nations to define it themselves without international law or sanity obstructing them...
And yet, this is the only international legislation that defines marriage so repealing it would also allow nations to define it themselves without being in conflict with international legislation.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

[NS]The Wolf Guardians

22-08-2006, 18:54

You mean like repealing the definition that's already on the books perhaps?

"That would still, as some pointed out, make it so that others could define it. I feel that we should have some legislation that prevents anyone from defining marriage, perhaps by calling it the unity of any people with any other people or some such. I'm not sure how it'd be done, as I'm not a proposal-writer. But that's what I perceive needs to be done."

Ausserland

22-08-2006, 19:35

We think, in our focus on specific language in the resolution and proposed repeal(s), we've lost sight of one important fact. NSUN Resolution #81 simply defines a term. It imposes no requirements. It establishes no prohibitions. It simply says what a term means. Does it say my nation must allow or recognize any specific type of marriages? No. Does it prohibit us from allowing or recognizing any specific type of marriages? No.

Take a case. Two people, one professing the Udwump religion, the other a member of the Gurblup sect, want to be married. If they were to be married, it would be a "civil joining". Looked at another way, if they were to be civilly joined, that would be a marriage. Resolution #81 says so. But my nation has a law prohibiting marriages between members of different religions. (We don't; this is a hypothetical.) That law is completely legal under this resolution. There is absolutely nothing in the resolution that prohibits it. If you disagree, please point out the specific language which does so:

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.

I think all reasonable members would agree on what the intent of the resolution's author was, at least in general terms. But legislative intent only comes into play in the case of ambiguity. There is no ambiguity here. The resolution defines a term and does nothing more. The author may have intended the resolution to require recognition of the types of marriages listed, but the resolution simply doesn't do it.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

[NS]The Wolf Guardians

22-08-2006, 20:00

Wolfgang and his aide stand and applaud Ausserland.

Myocardia

22-08-2006, 20:16

But my nation has a law prohibiting marriages between members of different religions. (We don't; this is a hypothetical.) That law is completely legal under this resolution. There is absolutely nothing in the resolution that prohibits it. If you disagree, please point out the specific language which does so:
It's true that the Resolution doesn't impose anything on anyone, but it still might interfere with jurisprudence in many nations, and ultimately have the effect of liberalizing marriage laws. Here's an example:

In Nationvania, where gay marriage doesn't exist, a group of same sex couples sues the government for the right to be married by the state. The presiding judge hears the case and finds in favor of the government and against the plaintiffs. Her argument rests on the fact that in Nationvanian common law, marriage has traditionally been defined as the procreative union of one man and one women, and so it is unreasonable for plaintiffs to petition the court for the equal protection of a legal institution which, by defintion, cannot include them. Then this Resolution comes along. It doesn't force Nationvania to enact legislation recognizing gay marriage, but it does force the court system to accept a new definition of marriage.

Okay, so one year later, another group of same sex couples sues the state. They argue that under the Nationvanian Constitution's guarantee that all citizens are entitled to equal protection of the laws, the state cannot deny them the rights and protections of marriage while it provides them for heterosexual citizens. The presiding judge can no longer appeal to the common law notion of what marriage is, and so is forced to find in favor of the plaintiffs.

If your country is a totalitarian state where the leader's word is law, then you can safely ignore this Resolution. However, if your nation is a democracy with a judicial system charged with interpreting the law, then it might affect you, since definitions tend to be important in interpreting law.

Myocardia's marriage laws are pretty liberal as they are, so this isn't a huge concern to us personally; I just wanted to try my hand at Minister Olembe's challenge.

With friendship,
Jeremiah Dodge
Ambassador to the United Nations
Scientific Republic of Myocardia

Mikitivity

22-08-2006, 21:09

We think, in our focus on specific language in the resolution and proposed repeal(s), we've lost sight of one important fact. NSUN Resolution #81 simply defines a term. It imposes no requirements. It establishes no prohibitions.

I disagree. The reason the definition is poorly worded is here in its first clause:

DEFINES marriage as the civil joining of a member of any nation with any other member of any nation ...

Essentially the resolution, as written says, "Marriage in your nation is the civil join as defined by any other nation."

Let's say for the sake of argument that Mikitivity were to allow polygomy (which in fact, is the case in some cantons). This would then say, that those cantons are by default defining your domestic laws the minute anybody whom has a marriage recognized in that society as being legal comes to your nation. One could even argue that since nothing is mentioned about traveling rights, that your citizens could point to our laws, and say that marriage in your nation is defined (the exact word used in this careless resolution) by the laws of one canton in Mikitivity.

This is not an endorsement of an activity, but a huge loophole that essentially forces all UN members to consider the term to match the broadest possible "definition" there can be.

If your nation is opposed to the World Heritage List because of the potential abuses that members have frequently pointed out with respect to that resolution's lack of specific terms, then your nation should apply the same logic and immediate seek to remove this piece of legislation. Please note that it wasn't until Gruenberg drafted a superior replacement proposal for the World Heritage List that my government dropped its support for that resolution ... and I think a productive place to take our debate here is to ask ourselves what in the world this resolution was really trying to do.

Howie T. Katzman

Ausserland

23-08-2006, 02:19

We're always pleased to engage in debate with the distinguished representative of Mikitivity, even though our views so often coincide that the opportunity is rare.

I disagree. The reason the definition is poorly worded is here in its first clause:

Essentially the resolution, as written says, "Marriage in your nation is the civil join as defined by any other nation."

Let's say for the sake of argument that Mikitivity were to allow polygomy (which in fact, is the case in some cantons). This would then say, that those cantons are by default defining your domestic laws the minute anybody whom has a marriage recognized in that society as being legal comes to your nation. One could even argue that since nothing is mentioned about traveling rights, that your citizens could point to our laws, and say that marriage in your nation is defined (the exact word used in this careless resolution) by the laws of one canton in Mikitivity.

This is not an endorsement of an activity, but a huge loophole that essentially forces all UN members to consider the term to match the broadest possible "definition" there can be.

True. The term "marriage" now carries a standard definition throughout the nations of the NSUN. But we simply restate our original point: that is completely irrelevant to what can or cannot be allowed or prohibited in terms of marriage in any nation. My law says that polygamous marriage is unlawful. It further provides that those engaging in polygamous marriage will not be accorded any of the benefits accruing under law to married persons. That is completely permissible under this resolution.

If your nation is opposed to the World Heritage List because of the potential abuses that members have frequently pointed out with respect to that resolution's lack of specific terms, then your nation should apply the same logic and immediate seek to remove this piece of legislation. Please note that it wasn't until Gruenberg drafted a superior replacement proposal for the World Heritage List that my government dropped its support for that resolution ... and I think a productive place to take our debate here is to ask ourselves what in the world this resolution was really trying to do.

Howie T. Katzman

First, let us point out that we did not say we oppose repeal of this resolution, so the representative's little sermon to us it irrelevant. We would support a repeal based on a sound reading of the resolution, but not one which drags the red herring of "endorsing bestiality" under the noses of the membership. And we must also disagree with the distinguished representative on what is and is not productive. Frankly, we don't care much about what the resolution was really trying to do. We care instead about what it does -- in this case, simply defines a word. The World Heritage resolution enables nations to act in a destructive way towards other nations. This one does not. Apples and oranges.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Ausserland

23-08-2006, 02:30

It's true that the Resolution doesn't impose anything on anyone, but it still might interfere with jurisprudence in many nations, and ultimately have the effect of liberalizing marriage laws. Here's an example:

In Nationvania, where gay marriage doesn't exist, a group of same sex couples sues the government for the right to be married by the state. The presiding judge hears the case and finds in favor of the government and against the plaintiffs. Her argument rests on the fact that in Nationvanian common law, marriage has traditionally been defined as the procreative union of one man and one women, and so it is unreasonable for plaintiffs to petition the court for the equal protection of a legal institution which, by defintion, cannot include them. Then this Resolution comes along. It doesn't force Nationvania to enact legislation recognizing gay marriage, but it does force the court system to accept a new definition of marriage.

Okay, so one year later, another group of same sex couples sues the state. They argue that under the Nationvanian Constitution's guarantee that all citizens are entitled to equal protection of the laws, the state cannot deny them the rights and protections of marriage while it provides them for heterosexual citizens. The presiding judge can no longer appeal to the common law notion of what marriage is, and so is forced to find in favor of the plaintiffs.

If your country is a totalitarian state where the leader's word is law, then you can safely ignore this Resolution. However, if your nation is a democracy with a judicial system charged with interpreting the law, then it might affect you, since definitions tend to be important in interpreting law.

Myocardia's marriage laws are pretty liberal as they are, so this isn't a huge concern to us personally; I just wanted to try my hand at Minister Olembe's challenge.

With friendship,
Jeremiah Dodge
Ambassador to the United Nations
Scientific Republic of Myocardia

The honorable representative is quite correct. If a nation's law contains a definition of marriage at variance with the one in the resolution, that definition has, in effect, been voided and superseded by the definition provided in the resolution. And the Nationvanian judge, in relying on outdated and voided law, made an incorrect ruling.

But now back to my point. In the instant case, the attempted prohibition relied solely on the definition of marriage in national law. If, on the other hand, Nationvania already had or subsequently passed a law prohibiting gay marriage, that would in no way be prohibited by the resolution. If the citizens of Nationvania are correct in their contention that this would violate the Nationvanian Constitution, they may well be correct. But a violation of a national constitution is a very different matter than a violation of a UN resolution.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Gruenberg

25-08-2006, 21:23

OOC: I TGed the author to alert them of this thread, but no response.

Edoc

26-08-2006, 13:41

Gruenberg

26-08-2006, 13:47

In my opinion, I see nothing wrong with the current Definition of Marriage as it is EXCEPT for the one line regarding expansion beyond species borders.

Does anyone else believe that single line may be reason for repeal?
Well, bear in mind the original resolution cannot be amended. So it's remove all of it or keep all of it.

And yes, a single line can easily be a reason for repeal.

Edoc

26-08-2006, 13:50

Well, bear in mind the original resolution cannot be amended. So it's remove all of it or keep all of it.

And yes, a single line can easily be a reason for repeal.

Yes, I understand that, but I am asking for the opinions of other countries on what they think of that one line in question.

Party Mode

26-08-2006, 13:57

Yes, I understand that, but I am asking for the opinions of other countries on what they think of that one line in question.
Well, the resolution recognises nations' right to expand the definition to include other species, but they don't have to do it. The line was just affirming what was already the case.

Tzorsland

26-08-2006, 14:03

OOC: I TGed the author to alert them of this thread, but no response.

OOC: What do you expect? This is the dawning of the age of the attack of the fluffy resolution writers. I expect that this forum will become obsolete by the end of the year if the trend continues. After all, if you can write crap like the one that just passed and get crap like this in the queue who needs the forums? Stat wank away my boys, who needs good text?

Ladies and gentlemen of the United Nations. Since this resolution has now come up for a vote I would like to express my concerns about this repeal. However, I believe that my aide, Amber Red-Brown wants to address her personal concerns about this resolution. I yield the floor to my aide.

I would like to thank the delegate of Tzorsland for allowing me to express my personal beliefs on the repeal resolution currently on the floor. I would like to state something that is no secret in my family. My grandfather was a penguin. Yes my grandfather was a penguin; I'm a freaking werepenguin, so it's natural to have penguin parentage. I strongly resent the notion that somehow this implies bestiality, and most of the penguins of the Antarctic Oasis would probably also express the same degree of shock at the blatant insensitivity of the resolution author. If my words may seem offensive to you, they are nothing compared to what the dolphins would say about the matter. Dolphins and werepenguins have been faithfully serving our national naval forces for decades now and there is no *CENSORED* way that you are going to *BLEEP* our ability to *BLEEP*!

As to the resolution itself, the Free Land of Retired Werepenguins is of a odd opinion that is generally at odds with the universe. We see a clear distinction between procreative sex (the ones that gets you children) and non-procreative sex. The resolution clearly tries to link marriage with any kind of sex, and I personally feel that is wrong. But while I wouldn't mind the resolution stricken from the books, I certainly would radically mind if such a blatant remark was permanently placed in the UN resolution history. Remember a repeal can never be repealed or struck out. Please vote no. Encourage others to vote no.

I would like to thank my aide. A bad resolution is no reason to write a bad repeal. Please say no to bad repeals! Please say no to people who don't have the guts to come into this hallowed hall to defend their crap repeal! Please say no to the nonsense! Thank you.

Davane

26-08-2006, 14:53

Honourable representatives of the NSUN, as the regional delegate of Niftyonia, I would like to share my thoughts and concerns about the resolution at hand.

First off, I must admit I am not a great fan of repeals in the first place. It makes no sense to repeal resolutions that might be better of with admendments and clarifications. Indeed, it seems the argument for many repeals is that a new resolution is being written to replace it. Unfortunately, it can take years before such promised replacement resolutions appear in the NSUN legistlation.

However, the major highlight of this specific repeal struck me as being the claim that the resolution to be repealed endorses bestiality. ignoring the obvious misanaology for a moment, this is not a reason to repeal the resolution - for you might as well be repealing the resolution because it also endorses homosexual, inter-racial, or inter-religious marriages as well, as well as marriages between the same race, culture, or species. Essentially, the repeal's author is requesting a repeal because it does not prevent marriage of a type deemed abhorrent to the writer. This is a dangeous precident given the divseristy of the NSUN, and paves way to many similar Civil Rights abuses within the NSUN itself.

I think, however, a greater issue is at stake here. Most NSUN resolutions consider only the rights of human beings, and not of other sentient beings. There are a few resolutions which do consider the rights of other such beings, but is it really the place of each resolution's author to state these rights? Should not the sanctity of such beings rights within NSUN legislation be the focus of an resolution on its own, so such arguments of bestiality can be put aside for other, more meaningful arguments?

As a result, I have voted NAY on this repeal - for the arguments are not only invalid or flawed, but to vote otherwise would set a dangerous precident for the NSUN as a whole.

Thank you for your time, fellow NSUN representatives. I bid you farewell from the Nifty Comonewealth of Davane.

Gruenberg

26-08-2006, 15:18

OOC: What do you expect?
From you? Yeah, this.

This is the dawning of the age of the attack of the fluffy resolution writers.
Um, they've been around for quite a while...

I expect that this forum will become obsolete by the end of the year if the trend continues.
What the fuck are you talking about? We always knew the forum rarely influenced the final vote...that's not why it's fun to post here.

After all, if you can write crap like the one that just passed and get crap like this in the queue who needs the forums?
How about the people who enjoy posting in them?

Stat wank away my boys, who needs good text?
I do. Why do you ask?

IC:
First off, I must admit I am not a great fan of repeals in the first place. It makes no sense to repeal resolutions that might be better of with admendments and clarifications.
Amendments and clarifications are illegal, so as the only way to amend a resolution is to repeal it and replace it, it makes perfect fucking sense.

Indeed, it seems the argument for many repeals is that a new resolution is being written to replace it. Unfortunately, it can take years before such promised replacement resolutions appear in the NSUN legistlation.
What does it matter how long the replacement takes, so long as it passes, and it's good? (Oh, and it has never been years before a replacement has appeared - a few months at most.)

Besides I do wish people would stop this. Replacements pass:

Legalize Prostitution --> The Sex Industry Worker Act
The Global Library --> Universal Library Coalition
Elimination of Bio Weapons --> UN Biological Weapons Ban
Promotion of Solar Panels --> Fossil Fuel Reduction Act
UCPL --> UN Copyright Convention
Mandatory Recycling --> UN Recycling Commission
The Law of the Sea --> Maritime Safety Standards Act
Stop dumping - Start Cleaning --> Waste Disposal Covenant
The Rights of Labor Unions --> The Right to Form Unions
Scientific Freedom --> Freedom of Scientific Research
Legalise Euthanasia --> Individual Self-Determination

In fact, the only repeal-replace to fail that I can think of is DVD Region Removal/Worldwide Media Act.

All of which is incidental, as this is not the argument here.

However, the major highlight of this specific repeal struck me as being the claim that the resolution to be repealed endorses bestiality. ignoring the obvious misanaology for a moment, this is not a reason to repeal the resolution - for you might as well be repealing the resolution because it also endorses homosexual, inter-racial, or inter-religious marriages as well, as well as marriages between the same race, culture, or species.
Um, what? No, it's not the same. If it was, the repeal would fucking say that. Oh look! IT DOESN'T.

Essentially, the repeal's author is requesting a repeal because it does not prevent marriage of a type deemed abhorrent to the writer. This is a dangeous precident given the divseristy of the NSUN, and paves way to many similar Civil Rights abuses within the NSUN itself.
You think that a good way to protect "divseristy" [sic] is to keep a resolution forcing a mandate? Wow, you're just...wrong.

I think, however, a greater issue is at stake here. Most NSUN resolutions consider only the rights of human beings, and not of other sentient beings. There are a few resolutions which do consider the rights of other such beings, but is it really the place of each resolution's author to state these rights? Should not the sanctity of such beings rights within NSUN legislation be the focus of an resolution on its own, so such arguments of bestiality can be put aside for other, more meaningful arguments?
Except the resolution doesn't mention sentience, sapience, intelligence, or any measure of why a species might be accorded these rights.

So, no.

As a result, I have voted NAY on this repeal - for the arguments are not only invalid or flawed, but to vote otherwise would set a dangerous precident for the NSUN as a whole.
OOC: I'm suspicious. Although I'm almost certain you're not Tzorsland, you have his dedication to misspelling and entirely random, tangential red herrings.

Witchcliff

26-08-2006, 15:40

Legalise Euthanasia --> Individual Working Freedoms

Ermm, no. Legalise Euthanasia was replaced by Individual Self Determination. Individual Working Freedoms will, I'm sure, replace 40 Hour Workweek in the not too distant future.

I've already voted against this repeal on the basis the arguement used is a complete load of cobblers.

Gruenberg

26-08-2006, 15:41

Ermm, no. Legalise Euthanasia was replaced by Individual Self Determination. Individual Working Freedoms will, I'm sure, replace 40 Hour Workweek in the not too distant future.
Woops, Freudian slip.

Catalinafleur

26-08-2006, 16:13

One thing I would like to note is the fact that there is another repeal of the Definition of Marriage act in queue that is worded in a far more appropriate manner. The language is clear, and less likely to offend anyone reading the resolutions of the UN. I can see how a repeal stating that they are disturbed by a line that simply assured that a country would be allowed to permit beastiality could offend those nations in the UN, like Catalinafleur, who are proud of their interspecies relations. I say vote no on this repeal, and wait for the other to come around so that countries such as Catalinafleur and Tzorsland will feel more welcome in the UN.

Catalinafleur, I may also note, is also proud of the freedom of people to marry those of the same sex, but the other resolution that is currently in queue also points out the flaws of the current resolution in a manner that makes it clear that this is not an attempt to discriminate against any minority.

The People of Lycurga

26-08-2006, 17:01

I'm a little late here.

Is this shit for real?

Gruenberg

26-08-2006, 17:02

I'm a little late here.
No, you're not. Voting only began today.

Is this shit for real?
I don't know. Maybe you could tell us what "this shit" is?

Flibbleites

26-08-2006, 17:03

I'd like to point out for those of you who are hung up about the claims of this resolution promoting beastiality that the line about allowing marriage beyond species borders was put in for those nations whose population may not be human (i.e. elves, dwarves, gnomes, etc.)

Now having said that, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites casts their vote FOR this one, even though there is a better written one in the queue I'm counting on the fluffies to vote this version down.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Ceorana

26-08-2006, 17:11

Congress didn't seem very interested in this issue, perhaps because it came to vote at the same time New Boston was starting to flood. So I'm using my snobbish UN ambassadorial powers to cast a NO vote, just to avoid giving this horrible repeal any glory.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Selemantra

26-08-2006, 17:50

Since this resolutions purpose is to repeal a perfectly good resolution on the grounds that it endorses a form of union deemed abhorrent to the author of the repeal, the Parliament of Selemantra decries this as an offence to the good senses of the member nations of the UN.

The Parliament and I hope that many member nations see this folly for what it is and vote with us in saying NAY.

Robert Parker Smith,
Prime Minister of Selemantra

Ausserland

26-08-2006, 17:55

Ausserland has voted NO. The claim in the repeal that the resolution endorses bestiality is patently absurd. While we would certainly consider a repeal of this resolution that was based on sound argument, we refuse to vote for stupidity.

We've heard a good bit of complaining lately about the poor quality of legislation brought before the Assembly. If you want to keep on seeing bad proposals coming up for vote, go right ahead and vote for this one. You're simply reinforcing the idea that quality doesn't count.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Iron Felix

26-08-2006, 18:23

We concur with the observations of our colleague from Ausserland and advise that the authors of this legislation be executed by firing squad, their property seized and their families deported to re-education camps.

Foleyan

26-08-2006, 18:32

As Foleyan's representation, I felt the need to read the original definition of Marriage, which it is being asked that it be repealed. I found very little problems with the definition myself, with a few wording exceptions.

I would wholeheartedly agree if there was a revision in mind, or a change. However, it is being asked that we vote to repeal the current definition. Period. So if we do, what do we have as a definition as marriage? You say what you do NOT want, but you do not say what you DO want.

Because of an APPALING lack of detail in this proposition, Foleyan must vote a solid "NO", and I would encourage others to follow in this direction.

Gruenberg

26-08-2006, 18:37

As Foleyan's representation, I felt the need to read the original definition of Marriage, which it is being asked that it be repealed. I found very little problems with the definition myself, with a few wording exceptions.
Given how short the original resolution is, don't you think "a few wording exceptions" totals up to quite a bit?

For me, one of my little problems with Resolution #81 was where it tried to define marriage for all UN nations.

I would wholeheartedly agree if there was a revision in mind, or a change. However, it is being asked that we vote to repeal the current definition. Period. So if we do, what do we have as a definition as marriage? You say what you do NOT want, but you do not say what you DO want.
But, there is a revision in mind: leaving it to nations to decide on what is, anyway, a national issue.

Because of an APPALING lack of detail in this proposition, Foleyan must vote a solid "NO", and I would encourage others to follow in this direction.
What "detail" do you want?

Omigodtheykilledkenny

26-08-2006, 19:06

I would like to thank the delegate of Tzorsland for allowing me to express my personal beliefs on the repeal resolution currently on the floor. I would like to state something that is no secret in my family. My grandfather was a penguin. Yes my grandfather was a penguin; I'm a freaking werepenguin, so it's natural to have penguin parentage. I strongly resent the notion that somehow this implies bestiality, and most of the penguins of the Antarctic Oasis would probably also express the same degree of shock at the blatant insensitivity of the resolution author.I'd like to point out to Ms. Red-Brown that sexual relations with Antarctic natives is illegal in the Federal Republic; moreover, the natives, thought in many circles to be sentient beings, are said to be very proud and would never deign to associate with humans in the shameful way Ms. Red-Brown suggests. "Sentient" or not, beastiality is against the law in the Federal Republic, and any human, or any being resembling a human, who can make the laughable claim of "penguin parentage" is the product of an unlawful union, and is probably lying anyway. There is no way a human can biologically reproduce with another species of which we are aware.

That said, we agree with the honorable Ausserlander representative. We hardly consider the standing resolution to contain any "endorsement" of beastiality, so despite our views of its ineffectiveness, we cannot cast a vote to repeal it at this time.

We also like Iron Felix's suggestion; the firing squad thing.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

Davane

26-08-2006, 20:37

OoC:

It makes perfect fucking sense.

This says more about you than anything else in this entire thread.

IC:

Amendments and clarifications are illegal, so as the only way to amend a resolution is to repeal it and replace it, it makes perfect fucking sense.

Okay, additions then - these have been used in law for centuries, so don't tell me those are illegal too.

Um, what? No, it's not the same. If it was, the repeal would fucking say that. Oh look! IT DOESN'T.

The repeal is written badly, which is the arguement for most of this discussion. But then, the repeal says the resolution needs to be repealed because it endorses bestiality - but the resolution to be repealed doesn't say that, either...

You think that a good way to protect "divseristy" [sic] is to keep a resolution forcing a mandate? Wow, you're just...wrong.

Not even bothering with the arguments now... why am I not surprised?

The resolution itself defines "marriage", and is fairly open about that definition. It doesn't force people to get married, just the sanctity of marriage as defined throughout the NSUN. This means that nations cannot revoke marriages between couples just because they disagree with them.

Except the resolution doesn't mention sentience, sapience, intelligence, or any measure of why a species might be accorded these rights.

The resolution to be repealed had the clause added specifically so that it also applied to such beings.

OoC:

OOC: I'm suspicious. Although I'm almost certain you're not Tzorsland, you have his dedication to misspelling and entirely random, tangential red herrings.

I am not Tzorland, although the Nifty Republic of Tzorland is regional advisor for the Continent of Niftyonia, while I am the Regional Delegate.

Please, don't take the mickey out of my lysdexia - I don't like it.

Grantsburg

26-08-2006, 20:41

I was under the assumption the UN's purpose was to DEFEND human rights and not revoke them. Personally I wouldn't mind abolishing marriage (and all benefits bestowed by it) altogether, but that doesn't seem feasable in a society brought up with it. Anyway, those who vote to revoke the definition of marriage are most likely religious bigots who don't belong in the UN as they are denying people a fundamental societal freedom: the right to choose the partner of their choice. Why not just arrange marriage for all your people if you choose to vote for this, you'll essentially be controlling them anyway. Down with the religious bigots and up with human rights and freedoms!

Gruenberg

26-08-2006, 20:43

OoC: This says more about you than anything else in this entire thread.
What, the fact I'm right? Thanks!

IC:
Okay, additions then - these have been used in law for centuries, so don't tell me those are illegal too.
Yep. Why don't you read the rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465). Amendments are illegal.

The repeal is written badly, which is the arguement for most of this discussion. But then, the repeal says the resolution needs to be repealed because it endorses bestiality - but the resolution to be repealed doesn't say that, either...
No no no. You said that the argument in this repeal was the same as arguing it promotes homosexual or interracial marriages. But it's not. It makes one specific argument, and one general one. The specific is about bestiality; not addressing that is not addressing the repeal.

Not even bothering with the arguments now... why am I not surprised?

The resolution itself defines "marriage", and is fairly open about that definition. It doesn't force people to get married, just the sanctity of marriage as defined throughout the NSUN. This means that nations cannot revoke marriages between couples just because they disagree with them.
Yes. Which is exactly what I said. How does that protect diversity? Seems to me it reduces it, because it tries to flatten out culture into one homogenous paste.

The resolution to be repealed had the clause added specifically so that it also applied to such beings.
Nope, I don't see anything in the resolution to say that. Act on what the resolution says, not what you think its author may have meant.

Gruenberg

26-08-2006, 20:47

I was under the assumption the UN's purpose was to DEFEND human rights and not revoke them.
Well, you were wrong. Show me in the UN's mandate where defending human rights is stated as an aim.

Personally I wouldn't mind abolishing marriage (and all benefits bestowed by it) altogether, but that doesn't seem feasable in a society brought up with it.
Of course the thing is, if this resolution were repealed, you would actually be allowed to do that in Grantsburg.

Anyway, those who vote to revoke the definition of marriage are most likely religious bigots
Why don't you actually read the repeal instead of conjuring up ad hominems against its supporters?

who don't belong in the UN as they are denying people a fundamental societal freedom: the right to choose the partner of their choice.
Nope, nothing like that. Because Resolution #81 does not mention consent. Therefore, it permits - and prevents further legislation blocking - nations not to include consent as a condition, and thereby to force people to marry people they do not wish to.

Why not just arrange marriage for all your people if you choose to vote for this, you'll essentially be controlling them anyway.
Resolution #81 does not prevent this. Under it, it is perfectly legal for families or state institutions to arrange marriages. Why do you support this evil practice, bigot?

Down with the religious bigots and up with human rights and freedoms!
Like not being forced to marry someone by the state. I couldn't agree more.

Party Mode

26-08-2006, 21:06

Because Resolution #81 does not mention consent. Therefore, it permits - and prevents further legislation blocking - nations not to include consent as a condition, and thereby to force people to marry people they do not wish to.
I disagree that it is a blocker. It prevents other resolutions from defining what a marriage is, but not under what conditions a marriage is created, as Ausserland pointed out:
The honorable representative is quite correct. If a nation's law contains a definition of marriage at variance with the one in the resolution, that definition has, in effect, been voided and superseded by the definition provided in the resolution. And the Nationvanian judge, in relying on outdated and voided law, made an incorrect ruling.

But now back to my point. In the instant case, the attempted prohibition relied solely on the definition of marriage in national law. If, on the other hand, Nationvania already had or subsequently passed a law prohibiting gay marriage, that would in no way be prohibited by the resolution. If the citizens of Nationvania are correct in their contention that this would violate the Nationvanian Constitution, they may well be correct. But a violation of a national constitution is a very different matter than a violation of a UN resolution.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs
Since marriage is only defined, a resolution could actually ban the defined marriage altogether, and still obey 'Definition of Marriage'.

Davane

26-08-2006, 21:09

Yep. Why don't you read the rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465). Amendments are illegal.

Fine. The honourable friend may strike that arguement from the books. However, the fact remains that the arguments for the repeal are not enough to warrent a vote for the repeal at this time.

No no no. You said that the argument in this repeal was the same as arguing it promotes homosexual or interracial marriages. But it's not. It makes one specific argument, and one general one. The specific is about bestiality; not addressing that is not addressing the repeal.

It seems my honourable friend does not understand the concept of analogy and how it applies to arguement. The specific arguement of the repeal about bestiality is the same as saying it promotes homoesexual or interracial marriages. As such, it addresses the specific arguement of bestiality, and thus the specific argument of the repeal.

Yes. Which is exactly what I said. How does that protect diversity? Seems to me it reduces it, because it tries to flatten out culture into one homogenous paste.

So, you are arguing the the NSUN should promote speciesism, racism, homophobia, and other such civil rights abuses in the name of diversity? Is it not the purpose of the NSUN to provide basic civil rights across all member nations? Is my honourable friend suggesting that we allow individual member nations to revoke legal marriages by other nations that do not sit comfortably with their own cultures, due to race, species, sexual orientation, or nationality?

Nope, I don't see anything in the resolution to say that. Act on what the resolution says, not what you think its author may have meant.

Since the repeal provides the argument of the resolution endorsing bestiality, yet the resolution to be repealed didn't specifically say such, the repeal is flawed. Acting on this, the Nifty Commonwealth of Davane maintains it's NAY vote, and strongly urges that all fellow NSUN members of the Continent of Niftyonia to vote the same way.

States of Stephenson

26-08-2006, 21:30

After reading several posts, I would like to say that no matter what the language in the resolution is, this repeal would give each nation back the ability to decide what marriage is in their own borders. What is wrong with that?

Jeshuah

26-08-2006, 22:02

The resolution is stupid.

Allech-Atreus

26-08-2006, 22:20

His Most Excellent Imperial Majesty's government concurs with the honorable delegate from Gruenberg.

This original resolution, while well-intentioned, does not accomplish what it originally intended. The NSUN MUST repeal it, and then work toward a better resolution to take it's place.

Honestly, His Majesty's government cannot understand why the other delegates cannot see beyond this single proposal, farther into NSUN future. Very easily we can author a replacement proposal that fixes the problems Gruenberg has pointed out, and will be a much better proposal than it's predecessor.

The Great Star Empire will retain its "no" vote, siding with the honorable delegate from Gruenberg.

Landaman Pendankr, dan Samda
Ambassador to the NSUN
Baron of Samda

Omigodtheykilledkenny

26-08-2006, 22:35

Gruenberg has voted yes.

Pro-Sovereignty Babes

26-08-2006, 22:41

Update:

Votes For: 1,947

Votes Against: 1,346

+ 600 votes and growing!

Vertoverita

26-08-2006, 23:19

I think this resolution is important enough to stand if by repealing it we lose the rights it protects.

I, being a spokesperson for the people of Vertoverita, would like to see wording similar to "no coutry shall pass a law limiting the definition of marriage beyond that of a joining of two humans and considerations of age so as to protect children".

A country may choose to not have a legal consideration for something like marriage but if there is such a legal joining no country should be able to use it to descriminate against any group. However, we must protect children from the perils of allowing such a union.

I also do not feel the inclusion or exclusion of beastiality is a necessary one. There is no empirical data that suggests it is harmful to the animal and it is true that many other species do co-mingle. There is also no proof that shows it does NOT harm them. This issue should be left to each country to decide until we have some facts but I do not feel should be included in the definiton of a legal marriage as the implication of that legal union have no room for such an arangement. the country of Vertoverita will not tolerate beastiality as we feel, just as the difference in ability to choose and knowledge between children and adults mandates that we must protect children, so does the difference in mental capacity, ability to choice, and the ability to express choice between other species and humans requires a ban of such relationships.

In the end I feel this resolution should only be repealed if we have something to take its place to ensure marriage is never again used as a tool of discrimination and prejudice.

Witchcliff

26-08-2006, 23:50

Party Mode

27-08-2006, 00:11

I've read the Discrimination Accord resolution, and apparently it only covers discrimination on the following:
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

It also condemns and disallows discrimination based on
differences in recognized religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, age, language, school of thought, or intelligence
but only for
the previously described rights (protection under law, participation in government, etc.) based upon such differences.

Which part of the quotations/resolution covers marriage?

Ermarian

27-08-2006, 00:50

We've seen this resolution attacked time and time again, and it has thankfully always stood firm.

The author desperately tries to put a legitimate reason on the repeal (finally succeeding in setting up a "beastiality" strawman), but the true motivation is quite clear: "Religion" and "societal structure" (in other words, conservative tradition) of the nation must be allowed to dictate what rights individuals of the nation enjoy, and what not. It boils down to the conflict of national sovereignty vs. codified ethics of the international community - the universal attack that works on any UN resolution from Emission Control to Abolition of Slavery.

Ironically, the strawman aims for the one line of the resolution that actually does endorse national sovereignty. I quote,

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

To which the author replies:

knowing that the individual nations know best what is a marriage and what isn't.

The only conclusion is this: On one hand, the author demands the sovereignty for a nation to discriminate against its homosexual citizens; on the other, he denies them the sovereignty to endorse beastiality. Since the author is clearly following his own specific set of morals that mandate this ("Homosexuality and Beastiality are WRONG"), why does he not explicitly state these morals in the repeal for all to see and vote upon?

Hiding behind vague mutterings about national sovereignty is disingenuous to say the least.

[NS::]Asiatic States

27-08-2006, 00:53

Asiatic States feels caught between a rock and a hard place.

Whilst the original resolution seems to be flawed as some of the arguments have demonstrated, the repeal thereof is also a flawed repeal which does indeed set up for some terrible precedents and a slippery slope in the future.

The question is whether the eventual outcome of this repeal will lead to a better replacement; and given this terrible repeal, the DAS (Dominion of the Asiatic States) is forced to conclude that it would not.

As such, the DAS is forced to vote nay and will ask its regional delegate to do so also. The logic behind the repeal is flawed; thus even if its intentions are good, the repeal should not pass, as it invites other repeals that would be passed based on simply stating that the original resolution is bad and not giving cause to it. This would hurt the United Nations in such a way that the DAS would not like to see.

The DAS does reaffirm its Nay vote.

Respectfully,
Talon Karrde
Leader of the DAS

Witchcliff

27-08-2006, 00:59

I've read the Discrimination Accord resolution, and apparently it only covers discrimination on the following:

It also condemns and disallows discrimination based on

but only for

Which part of the quotations/resolution covers marriage?

5. Any other rights granted citizens of a member government by requirement of international law;
If a government recognises marriage, then under this line, they can't discriminate because an international law does enforce equal protection for all peoples. The Universal Bill of Rights (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029642&postcount=27), article 4 states "All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation", and that would cover marriages recognised by or preformed through a nation's government.

Cartug

27-08-2006, 01:36

Everyone...Lend me your ears. His Royal Highness upon the throne of Cartug has sent me as his representitive. He wishes to pass a message to you all. "How dare you all. You should all be ashamed. Who are we to decide the fates of other people? We are the Nation States United Nations...and I believe we have more important issues to deal with...other then what defines marraige. I say it does not matter what constitutes marraige...we should leave that decision to the single country to decide. Are concerns should lie with keeping peace between countrys and not trying to run them. I say we throw out this issue and focus our attention on more important issues."

King Mathais
Cartug

I agree with my lord the king. Let us focus on something more important. Let us give up these rants about This isn't Right or that Isn't right. We can not control who loves whom.

Pro-Sovereignty Babes

27-08-2006, 01:45

Update:
Votes For: 2,547

Votes Against: 1,548

[NS]The Wolf Guardians

27-08-2006, 02:10

The Commonwealth will be voting against this proposal, but FOR the other one in the queue. We do not like the hostility in this proposal towards the original. We really do not care about the "Definition" of marriage, really. The definition as it stands is fine by us, and if repealed (which it will be) we will use a suitable one. It really doesn't matter. However, we'd rather have the other one on the books, since it simply seems a little more civilized. We truly do not care about what happens to the original resolution, though, so... as you will, citizens.

Foleyan

27-08-2006, 03:12

Given how short the original resolution is, don't you think "a few wording exceptions" totals up to quite a bit?

For me, one of my little problems with Resolution #81 was where it tried to define marriage for all UN nations.

But, there is a revision in mind: leaving it to nations to decide on what is, anyway, a national issue.

What "detail" do you want?

Wrong.

Resolution 81 did NOT define it for all nations as mandatory, which is what you are postulating; rather it offered MORE choices for nations, by making more marriage requests (homosexual marriages, interracial marriages, etc.) legal in the eyes of the United Nations. The UN, as a governing body, will not show discrimination in any way. However, there is the freedom there for each nation to make its own choices.

And there was nothing stated; only the ASSUMPTION that you're making, that it will be left to individual nations. And letting things be a national issue like that allows for situations to escalate out of control; that's why there's a UN--so stuff like that shouldn't happen.

And THAT's the detail I want. I will not support anything that does not convince me that it will work for the better. Right now, we have a definition, and that definition gives options to individual nations, whether you want to see it, or not. If we repeal that, we're left with no definition, no standard by which to follow as example, and NO DETAIL.

Not good enough for me, or the Republic of Foleyan.

Pro-Sovereignty Babes

27-08-2006, 05:09

Wrong.

Resolution 81 did NOT define it for all nations as mandatory, which is what you are postulating; rather it offered MORE choices for nations, by making more marriage requests (homosexual marriages, interracial marriages, etc.) legal in the eyes of the United Nations. The UN, as a governing body, will not show discrimination in any way. However, there is the freedom there for each nation to make its own choices.

And there was nothing stated; only the ASSUMPTION that you're making, that it will be left to individual nations. And letting things be a national issue like that allows for situations to escalate out of control; that's why there's a UN--so stuff like that shouldn't happen.

And THAT's the detail I want. I will not support anything that does not convince me that it will work for the better. Right now, we have a definition, and that definition gives options to individual nations, whether you want to see it, or not. If we repeal that, we're left with no definition, no standard by which to follow as example, and NO DETAIL.

Not good enough for me, or the Republic of Foleyan.

Sounds like your NATIONAL legislature better get busy then. Convince me WHY again this is any of the UN's business?

But really, the standards are already provided that you desire in Discrimination Accord.

Jey

27-08-2006, 05:43

And where did the poll go? Must have been removed during the update for some reason. Anyway, I'll add it again, just because I like polls. :rolleyes:

Jey votes NO. We maintain quality standards to pass resolutions, and this one fails considerably.

Shazbotdom

27-08-2006, 05:54

HotRodia

27-08-2006, 05:56

Flibbleites

27-08-2006, 06:03

Yes!
No!
Abstain!!! (With 50% more fervor!)Shouldn't that bee 200% more fervor, as the abstain option has 200% more exclamation marks than the other two options not 50% more?

HotRodia

27-08-2006, 06:06

Shouldn't that bee 200% more fervor, as the abstain option has 200% more exclamation marks than the other two options not 50% more?

I wish we had a wildly erotic abstain option.

Shazbotdom

27-08-2006, 06:07

Yep. Long time ago.

I don't get around then...huh

The Most Glorious Hack

27-08-2006, 06:08

Shouldn't that bee 200% more fervor, as the abstain option has 200% more exclamation marks than the other two options not 50% more?I wish we had a wildly erotic abstain option.Fix'd!

HotRodia

27-08-2006, 06:12

Fix'd!

Thanks Hack! And you should remember it from UN DEFCON, a certain poll that generated unusual Egyptian metaphor-innuendos.

Flibbleites

27-08-2006, 06:14

Thanks Hack! And you should remember it from UN DEFCON, a certain poll that generated unusual Egyptian metaphor-innuendos.

Yeah, that was the best debate ever.:D

The Most Glorious Hack

27-08-2006, 06:18

Thanks Hack! And you should remember it from UN DEFCON, a certain poll that generated unusual Egyptian metaphor-innuendos.Heh heh heh.

Karmicaria

27-08-2006, 06:38

Yeah, that was the best debate ever.:D

Yeah and I was the one who got crap for threadjacking.

I will not get involved in anymore debates where I am the only female member.

Jey

27-08-2006, 07:22

Shouldn't that bee 200% more fervor, as the abstain option has 200% more exclamation marks than the other two options not 50% more?

The 50% was actually referring to my previously created poll for Repeal "Keep The World Disease-Free!" (gahh, also deleted), where the Abstain option had 2 exclamation points, so 3 exclamation points would be 50% more.

Andaras Prime

27-08-2006, 08:01

I would like too say that I wholeheartedly support this resolution, if passed it will be a victory for national sovereignty over the corrupt Compliance Ministry trying to force their norms upon us.

Pro-Sovereignty Babes

27-08-2006, 08:57

You know...

I just noticed on NS Wiki (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline) that if this one fails, there is a second Repeal "Definition of Marriage" in the Queue.

Anyone else notice this?

oooh! oooh! Pick me!
"Yes. I kind of noticed that also." :)

Sorry. That was the one that reached quorum first and actually drove this one to quorum along with it, as it was placed a day ahead of the other. Has there ever been two repeals of the same UN law to reach quorum before this? I've never seen that happen before.

The Most Glorious Hack

27-08-2006, 09:01

I don't believe we've had this exact situation before. I do know that ALC and CAR were both in the queue at the same time. The timing was a little tighter, too, as CAR would immediately follow ALC, so when ALC passed, CAR had to be deleted within 12 hours to keep it from hitting the floor and causing... well... I'm sure it would have been amusing, but...

Discoraversalism

27-08-2006, 09:26

I'd like to vote for the repeal, but I have to vote against repeals unless the author clearly states he wants no replacement, wants a blocker replacement, or if he wants a replacement, what sort of replacement he wants :) I also like it when they provide a link to the resolution they are repealing.

Thanks!

The Most Glorious Hack

27-08-2006, 10:09

I also like it when they provide a link to the resolution they are repealing.What are you talking about? Jey didn't write this Repeal, so he's under no obligation to do anything. If you're talking about the Repeal itself, the text of the original doesn't belong in there as a link to the original is automatically inserted.

Discoraversalism

27-08-2006, 10:15

What are you talking about? Jey didn't write this Repeal, so he's under no obligation to do anything. If you're talking about the Repeal itself, the text of the original doesn't belong in there as a link to the original is automatically inserted.

Well no, not in the repeal itself, but it's cool to see it on the first page. There is 9 pages of discussion on this thread, someone has to be for it right?

Party Mode

27-08-2006, 11:22

If a government recognises marriage, then under this line, they can't discriminate because an international law does enforce equal protection for all peoples. The Universal Bill of Rights (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029642&postcount=27), article 4 states "All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation", and that would cover marriages recognised by or preformed through a nation's government.
Hm, but if the current repeal succeeds, would not countries be able to redefine marriage as 'a legal union between a man and a woman only', and hence legally disallow those who do not fit into that category from getting married?

Witchcliff

27-08-2006, 12:28

Hm, but if the current repeal succeeds, would not countries be able to redefine marriage as 'a legal union between a man and a woman only', and hence legally disallow those who do not fit into that category from getting married?

I don't see how, as both the resolutions I mentioned say "all citizens" and "all human beings", not all persons except the ones whom the government decide do icky things.

If a government recognises/paticipates in marriage and has any sort of marriage laws, even minimim age, then it is bound to treat all its citizens equally and can't redefine marriage to suit itself. Anything allowed to one group under that nations laws, must be allowed to all groups. Anything less would be discrimination.

At least that is the way I read those resolutions.

Party Mode

27-08-2006, 13:13

I don't see how, as both the resolutions I mentioned say "all citizens" and "all human beings", not all persons except the ones whom the government decide do icky things.

If a government recognises/paticipates in marriage and has any sort of marriage laws, even minimim age, then it is bound to treat all its citizens equally and can't redefine marriage to suit itself. Anything allowed to one group under that nations laws, must be allowed to all groups. Anything less would be discrimination.

At least that is the way I read those resolutions.
I believe that what you say is only true if it's 'All citizens must be treated equally by the law', while currently it is 'under the law'. There is nothing against laws themselves not treating citizens equally. Otherwise, how will we make it illegal for people to go into the wrong-gender toilet, minors to vote, and unlicensed people to drive?

Gruenberg

27-08-2006, 13:15

Having seen the voting tally, we have decided to change our vote to AGAINST.

The repeal arguments don't make sense, and the format isn't good enough. Furthermore, the repeal has not attempted to defend their repeal on the forums, something we always look down upon. Therefore, we will oppose this...but not be too concerned that it will pass, thereby removing a poor resolution.

Safalra

27-08-2006, 14:08

The style of this resolution is extremely amateurish, which makes us inclined to dislike it regardless of its content. Its content is self contradictory anyway - it complains the the original resolution allowed nations to expand the definition beyond the species barrier, and then says that the original resolution should be repealed so that nations can define marriage as they wish - which would still allow nations to permit human-animal marriages.

Zeldon 6229 Nodlez

27-08-2006, 14:34

We looked at the original resolution and after reading it feel we must vote against the repeal that is here on it. As we have read some of the ideas out there on a replacement and don't like them and what they will do if they get passed.

We do have some concerns about the existing resolution but have learned to deal with them as they come up.

One way here we deal with marriage is set it as a right of only citizens of our nation. That is only being married within our borders as we respect those who come here and have been married in other nations reqardless of who or what they might be. However like we expect our citizens to follow public conduct laws we also expect visitors to do the same. Break one of those laws and we deal with you... not as citizen or visitor.. but somebody who broke a standing law. Thus we don't discriminate when one breaks a law they best be prepared to pay for their crimes.

Ouranberg

27-08-2006, 15:50

I hereby announce, that Ouranberg does not support the repeal, on grounds of its bad wording and its less than ideal proposal for a replacement. I furthermore would like to point to the current discussion in this thread DRAFT: Definition of Marriage II (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=497497).

Thank you for your time.

Richard vom Stein
Ouranberg's Ambassador to the United Nations

Grantsburg

27-08-2006, 16:29

Well, you were wrong. Show me in the UN's mandate where defending human rights is stated as an aim.

This is supposed to simulate the REAL UN. It even makes reference to people taking it seriously like the REAL UN. The REAL UN's purpose is to defend universal human rights.

Of course the thing is, if this resolution were repealed, you would actually be allowed to do that in Grantsburg.

Like the REAL UN, I believe everyone deserves the same rights and privileges. Which is why I am in the UN: to defend the human rights of the people of ALL countries (especially those countries which would seek to eliminate them.).

Why don't you actually read the repeal instead of conjuring up ad hominems against its supporters?

I have read it:
This resolution goes too far. It mandates what a constitutes a "marriage" with no respect for a nation's religious beliefs, or societal structure.
Bolding added by me.

As you can see, it is RELIGIOUS bigots who seem to be the only people who oppose this. There's really no other reason to oppose things like gay marriage.

Nope, nothing like that. Because Resolution #81 does not mention consent. Therefore, it permits - and prevents further legislation blocking - nations not to include consent as a condition, and thereby to force people to marry people they do not wish to.

Why doesn't this mandate mention that then?:rolleyes:

Resolution #81 does not prevent this. Under it, it is perfectly legal for families or state institutions to arrange marriages. Why do you support this evil practice, bigot?

I don't support arranged marriages. It's called sarcasm...idiot. Since we're resorting to direct namecalling...

Safalra

27-08-2006, 16:36

This is supposed to simulate the REAL UN. It even makes reference to people taking it seriously like the REAL UN. The REAL UN's purpose is to defend universal human rights.
OOC: Since when has NSUN been supposed to simulate the real UN? Read the FAQ:

The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations. In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

Your nation can join the UN, but it's not compulsory. As a non-member, you are unaffected by any UN decisions.
The bolded parts clearly differ from the real UN.

Discoraversalism

27-08-2006, 16:41

The REAL UN's purpose is to defend universal human rights.

Hold on a second, did soemone just come against universal human rights? Damn!

Gruenberg

27-08-2006, 16:57

This is supposed to simulate the REAL UN. It even makes reference to people taking it seriously like the REAL UN. The REAL UN's purpose is to defend universal human rights.
No, the NSUN isn't supposed to simulate the RLUN. Nothing in any of the FAQ or game documents states that.

Like the REAL UN, I believe everyone deserves the same rights and privileges. Which is why I am in the UN: to defend the human rights of the people of ALL countries (especially those countries which would seek to eliminate them.).
This makes no sense. 70% of the nations in the world aren't in the UN, and aren't subject to their laws. And it's national governments - not individual citizens - who decide whether to be in the UN or not. So your goal is self-defeating.

Furthermore, you misunderstood what I said. You proposed abolishing marriage altogether. Well, you could write a UN resolution to do so, in all UN nations; but you could only do that after this repeal passes.

I have read it:
Bolding added by me.

As you can see, it is RELIGIOUS bigots who seem to be the only people who oppose this. There's really no other reason to oppose things like gay marriage.
Once again, no.

Firstly, there are many religions that embrace homosexuality. Wenaism is one of them.

Secondly, there are other reasons to oppose Resolution #81: what if your society's religion disapproves of religion as a whole (as with some of the more radical sects of Wenaism) - for all people, not just gays? What if you're offended that the resolution permits arranged marriages and does not allow polygamy?

Thirdly, there are other arguments in the repeal: such as that suggesting it endorses bestiality.

Why doesn't this mandate mention that then?
I don't understand what "mandate" you're referring to.

I don't support arranged marriages. It's called sarcasm...idiot. Since we're resorting to direct namecalling...
Under Resolution #81, arranged marriages are legal - and the UN cannot act to prevent them. By supporting it, you are supporting arranged marriages. The only way to stop them is to vote for a repeal, and then for a proposal to ban them.

Discoraversalism

27-08-2006, 18:11

No, the NSUN isn't supposed to simulate the RLUN. Nothing in any of the FAQ or game documents states that.

OK then what is the relationship between the UN and the NSUN if not one of simulation? Imitation? Parody? Idealized version?

Iron Felix

27-08-2006, 18:28

OK then what is the relationship between the UN and the NSUN
The name.

Discoraversalism

27-08-2006, 18:32

The name.

Surely they at least share connotation?

Party Mode

27-08-2006, 18:33

I would say it's, like everything else in NationStates, a parody of the real one.
Oh, and we are digressing. :p

Discoraversalism

27-08-2006, 18:46

I would say it's, like everything else in NationStates, a parody of the real one.
Oh, and we are digressing. :p

Sorry. The consensus of the forum seems to be that marriage is outside of the purview of the UN. I agree. I'm willing to exend the purview of the UN though :)

Tzorsland

27-08-2006, 19:19

Discussing the relationship between the RWUN and the NSUN belongs on another thread. I'll just say that in the NSUN the resolutions are at least initially enforced, and generally more enforced than the RWUN.

One difference. A resolution can only be struck out in its entirity (repealled) and a repeal can never be struck out (repealled). For this reason please vote no for the current repeal. There is a decent repeal for those who don't like the resolution. But vote no for this one! Please think of the werepenguins! Think of the dolphins! Think of the gnomes! Think of the dwarves! (On second thought don't think of the dwarves, or you will get your knuckles whapped by a Dwarven Nun.)

Can we defeat this? YES WE CAN!

Omigodtheykilledkenny

27-08-2006, 19:23

Erm, how does this repeal hurt the werepenguins, or the gnomes, or the dwarves?

Ausserland

27-08-2006, 19:37

Erm, how does this repeal hurt the werepenguins, or the gnomes, or the dwarves?

Speaking only for dwarves.... It makes us somewhat nauseous to see repeals like this one with ridiculous misstatements in their arguments. It would make us even more sick to our stomachs to see it pass.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Ariddia

27-08-2006, 22:40

I must agree that enshrining the fallacious argument contained within this repeal (namely, that the original resolution condoned bestiality) would not do any good to this august body's reputation, given that a repeal cannot itself be repealed.

My country votes NAY to this repeal.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Norderia

27-08-2006, 23:07

As has already been mentioned earlier, a repeal can only get our vote if the quality is outstanding. This falls short of "mediocre" and thus gets an adament "NO" from Norderia.

I voted for the vigorous abstaining option in the poll though... Couldn't help myself. Abstaining with power is Norderia's thang.

Razat

27-08-2006, 23:16

Razat votes for the repeal. The original resolution is flawed, and as long it's in place, we can't get anything better.

Discoraversalism

27-08-2006, 23:20

Razat votes for the repeal. The original resolution is flawed, and as long it's in place, we can't get anything better.

I have a history of supporting flawed resolutions. Do you think better will pass? If not is flawed that bad?

Norderia

27-08-2006, 23:41

Razat votes for the repeal. The original resolution is flawed, and as long it's in place, we can't get anything better.

By that reasoning, you are inconsistent. The repeal is also flawed, and one cannot strike a repeal from the books.

Ironically, the only way to be immortalized in the NSUN is to pass a repeal.

Party Mode

28-08-2006, 00:02

Sir Ernest Shackleton is going to be on the list of resolutions forever, isn't he? :(

Flibbleites

28-08-2006, 00:09

The name.And the flag

Sir Ernest Shackleton is going to be on the list of resolutions forever, isn't he? :(
At this rate, yes.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Tzorsland

28-08-2006, 00:23

Erm, how does this repeal hurt the werepenguins, or the gnomes, or the dwarves?

The repeal will forever embed in UN resolution law the sense of the United Nations that all non human sexual relations is in fact beastiality. Of course since Retired Werepenguins cannot join the UN this may be a moot problem for the United Nations. For Tzorsland, we may face the problem that our dependance on Retried Werepenguins for a quality werepenguin naval force may be severely compromised.

Worse even my aide might have to resign and return to Retired Werepenguins. Then I'm really going to be angry!

Omigodtheykilledkenny

28-08-2006, 01:29

I voted for the vigorous abstaining option in the poll though... Couldn't help myself. Abstaining with power is Norderia's thang.Abstaining with wild eros is the Federal Republic's "thang," though we actually voted against.

The repeal will forever embed in UN resolution law the sense of the United Nations that all non human sexual relations is in fact beastiality.Yes, that would be a pretty horrid indictment of sentient non-humans, although the repeal doesn't exactly say that all non-human relations are beastiality, does it?

Mikitivity

28-08-2006, 02:14

The repeal will forever embed in UN resolution law the sense of the United Nations that all non human sexual relations is in fact beastiality. Of course since Retired Werepenguins cannot join the UN this may be a moot problem for the United Nations. For Tzorsland, we may face the problem that our dependance on Retried Werepenguins for a quality werepenguin naval force may be severely compromised.

Worse even my aide might have to resign and return to Retired Werepenguins. Then I'm really going to be angry!

As shocking as this might be, my government actually will be changing its vote in favour of this repeal to a vote against this repeal with the intent to vote in favour of the next repeal based in large part upon the logical argument provided by the ambassador from Tzorsland.

This repeal is one of the unique times that is presented with two competing repeals that have both achieved quorum, thus meaning that if the vote on this first repeal fails, the second (proposed) repeal is very likely to reach the UN floor. Having reread all three documents in question, the people of Mikitivity feel the logic presented by the Pro-Sovereignty Babes is in fact worth having forever embedded in the history of this body (as suggested by Tzorsland).

For the record, if the government of Sir Ernest Shackleton, had been more proactive here in this discussions, my governments decision would be less clear.

I should also point out that my government voted "Yes" in the poll option, and thus now should be considered a conditional "No".

Howie T. Katzman

p.s. I've started an entry on NSWiki here (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Repeal_%22Definition_of_Marriage%22), as I wanted to capture the text of both repeals in the event that the second one needs to be deleted.

Tzorsland

28-08-2006, 13:45

Yes, that would be a pretty horrid indictment of sentient non-humans, although the repeal doesn't exactly say that all non-human relations are beastiality, does it?

Since merely expanding the definition beyond species borders is in the words of the author an "endorsement of beastiality" I can't see how else it can be interperted.

We wish to thank the deligates who have changed their votes to NAY, especially Gruenberg and Mikitivity. We also wish to point out that should this be defeated Tzorsland will vote the more for the more reasonable repeal that is next on line in the queue and will encourage others including our region to do likewise. Should this pass ... I'll need a new assistant. Being a human female apparently will have to be a requirement.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

28-08-2006, 14:55

Should this pass ... I'll need a new assistant. Being a human female apparently will have to be a requirement.What on Earth are you talking about?

Pro-Sovereignty Babes

28-08-2006, 17:14

Originally Posted by Tzorsland
Should this pass ... I'll need a new assistant. Being a human female apparently will have to be a requirement.

A repeal cannot make any new law. It simply repeals the law regardless of what is said in the argument. So you need not worry about this.

Also:
Votes For: 5,508
Votes Against: 3,249

At this point, I don't think it matters what is said here - this thing's going to pass. I don't believe this repeal is that great - but I am happy that "Definition of Marriage" is going to be repealed, as I think there were much better arguments why it should be.

Tzorsland

28-08-2006, 17:38

A repeal cannot make any new law.

It may not make new law but it can establish precident. While it may not be technically illegal, the appearance of improprioity can be everything to a UN deligate. As both represntative and president of Tzorsland, I don't some engraged soccer mom association hanging me up in the international press because my assistant is some cute Keblier Elf some 400 (er I meant 20 honest) years my younger. I mean there are some people who live to have their popularity ratings in the single digit range, but I'm not one of them.

This is a house of cards that will cause this whole Soap Opera in Tzorsland to come crashing down on everyone. I wouldn't be surprised that in the end the only ones left standing are the King and Queen, assuming they haven't been fooling around with the royal pelicans.

Gruenberg

28-08-2006, 18:06

It may not make new law but it can establish precident.
Yeah it can. Doesn't mean it will.

For example, Repeal "Legalize Prostitution" argued that legalised prostitution increased the risk of STD transmission. Yet The Sex Industry Worker Act argued it reduced it. It followed no precedent.

I don't understand anything else you said, though, so maybe this is irrelevant.

Bloodthirsty Dolphins

28-08-2006, 19:29

The repeal will forever embed in UN resolution law the sense of the United Nations that all non human sexual relations is in fact beastiality.And this is different from ordinary NSUN policy how?

Ever since the repeal of PoDA, this body has persued a genocidal policy towards all non-human sentients. If they are free to hunt us (dolphins) down and slaughter us with impunity (most of the nations speaking in this forum expressed the opinion that dolphin steaks are tasty; I wonder how they'd feel if we said that we liked eating human beings?), why shouldn't they be free to deny us the right to procreate (which, even if it's not the enforced position of the NSUN, will at least be condoned where nations choose to do it).

No, the NSUN represents the worst example of human chauvinism imaginable. In spite of the fact that people are constantly reminded that the NSUN is not the RLUN and that NS is not RL, most delegates publically proclaim that non-human sentient nations "don't exist" (presumably, because the don't exist in RL [like that ever made any difference]). And, in fact, to them we don't exist: we are "dumb animals", created by their mythical God for their use, entertainment. enjoyment, or the table. Those that are useless or competitors (like coyotes or wolves) they slaughter. Only humans are created in God's image, they say. Only humans matter.

So we expect the repeal of DoMA, not just in spite of but because of its implied rejection of "bestiality" (sex involving or between non-humans), with all of its implications on the part of this body that anything that is non-human or non-human "owned" should simply become extinct.

It's just the sort of thing this vile body would do.

Gruenberg

28-08-2006, 19:36

Easy, Flipper. Can I remind you that "Definition of Marriage" really doesn't protect non-humans at all, because it remains the decision of national governments to expand the definition beyond species of borders. In Gruenberg, it remains illegal to marry a dolphin.

And this has nothing to do with sapient rights, or dolphin hunting (the hunting of endangered dolphins is still illegal under NSUN law). It's about whether it's appropriate for the UN to be defining social contracts. Given you have such low regard for the UN...why in the name of good tuna would you want to give it these powers?

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

South Lake Tahoe

28-08-2006, 21:22

I can't vote for anything that can't spell "bestiality" correctly.

Denbaria

28-08-2006, 21:49

Greetings Honorable Representatives of these United Nations.

I, as representative of the Dominion of Denbaria wished to travel and speak upon this matter at a much earlier time, however, due to some rather grievous technical issues this was not possible.

I bear words from his Most Exemplary Magnificence, the Beneveolent Protector of the People, President for Life, Cayle Dragonblood.

"Although Denbaria may not be the most 'liberal' of nations or countries, especially in regards to current freedoms, both political and social, this state is slowly changing. Any time a government is removed from power in a military coup, these things are expected to occur, and I assure you, that the people will be better for it shortly. But I digress, the issue at hand today is that of the Definition of Marriage---and its repeal.

Initially, time was precious, and resources few, and so only a vote FOR was offered. After a few days, though, we managed to get more resources working and I was able to research the matter more thoroughly. Essentially, the Resolution under attack seems to merely be a definition, and, at that, a broad definition that serves as a shining beacon to not be a discriminatory *Expletive Deleted*. While the definition may go too far, or usurp the rights of member nations, the repeal takes this a step further, by setting the precedent that bestiality is abhorrent, without defining bestiality itself. By some, this could later be defined as even humans with humans, for are we not all animals?

If you must repeal such a clear light of hope to people of the world, please do not replace it with such filth. If this trend continues, we of Denbaria shall surely leave the UN and refuse to recognize any further legislation by this body, and repeal whichever laws we do not agree with."

--With those words, the representative half-bows politely and leaves the podium.

Gruenberg

28-08-2006, 22:04

In response to the [scant relevant] comments of President Dragonblood...

While the definition may go too far, or usurp the rights of member nations, the repeal takes this a step further, by setting the precedent that bestiality is abhorrent, without defining bestiality itself.
Repeals don't set precedent. The arguments in them matter in themselves, but they don't - and can't - set in motion any further legal statutes.

For example, Repeal "Legalise Euthanasia" stated than euthanasia violated human dignity. Two proposals later, Individual Self-Determination legalised euthanasia in all UN nations.

By some, this could later be defined as even humans with humans, for are we not all animals?
Not without violating several previous articles of international law, no, it couldn't.

If you must repeal such a clear light of hope to people of the world, please do not replace it with such filth.
It's not replacing it with anything.

And DoM isn't a "clear light of hope". It's a piece of shit.

If this trend continues, we of Denbaria shall surely leave the UN and refuse to recognize any further legislation by this body, and repeal whichever laws we do not agree with.
We'll miss you.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Mikitivity

29-08-2006, 01:42

A repeal cannot make any new law. It simply repeals the law regardless of what is said in the argument. So you need not worry about this.

Also:
Votes For: 5,508
Votes Against: 3,249

At this point, I don't think it matters what is said here - this thing's going to pass. I don't believe this repeal is that great - but I am happy that "Definition of Marriage" is going to be repealed, as I think there were much better arguments why it should be.

As the nation that is sponsoring the alternative repeal for this resolution, my government is curious how your government actually voted on the first (this version) repeal.

Howie T. Katzman

Dhaana

29-08-2006, 03:37

Basically, this resolution is hypocritical. Taking into account the large number of NationStates that contain multiple non-human species, it's ignoring the very "societal structures" that it professes to be looking out for.

Hirota

29-08-2006, 08:20

Cluichstan

29-08-2006, 13:39

Plus I'd rather see this pass than PSB's version simply because PSB insists on providing a running tally. Do you think nations don't know how to check for themselves?

Sounds like a personal problem to me. Get over it please.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Tzorsland

29-08-2006, 13:50

I wonder how they'd feel if we said that we liked eating human beings?

OOC: In my puppet nation of The Free Land of Retired Werepenguins, the "national animal" is the tourist. Aside from the jokes on how the destruction of the rainforest (in the Antarctic Oasis no less) is causing a declining tourist population, I'm patiently waitnig for the day when the "eat the national animal" daily issue comes up. It was fun enough when we had the report of the "two-headed tourist" showing up.

Goddrics Hollow

29-08-2006, 14:26

The Imperial Government of Goddrics Hollow, have no problem with definition of Marriage. However we have voted for the repeal for the reason that the decision should rest with Independant soverign States reather than the UN bullying its views on its membership. Many of the problems in the world are caused by people/countries forcing their views and values on others.

If it is left for the UN to legislate for its entire membership, then do the Governments of the Member states not become obsolete?

Safalra

29-08-2006, 15:11

If it is left for the UN to legislate for its entire membership,[...]
The purpose of the UN is to legislate for its entire membership - as the FAQ says:

The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations.

Pro-Sovereignty Babes

29-08-2006, 19:18

I'm almost inclined to vote for this pile of tripe, simply because I'd rather see this pass than go through the same argument again....

Plus I'd rather see this pass than PSB's version simply because PSB insists on providing a running tally. Do you think nations don't know how to check for themselves?

Votes For: 7,648

Votes Against: 4,706

My point in posting this is to point out that this is about over anyway. Everyone that goes to this thread could change their mind and vote against it and it's still going to win by quite a sizeable margin I think. We would also like to invite the nation of Hirota over for a clam bake or something.

Hirota

29-08-2006, 19:25

Sounds like a personal problem to me. Get over it please.No, it isn't. I know other nations have similar observations in private. I'm just brash/dumb/brave/pedantic enough to voice them in public.

So, in future, get your facts straight before you comment please.

Clam bake? Whoo-hoo!

HotRodia

29-08-2006, 19:27

The purpose of the UN is to legislate for its entire membership - as the FAQ says:

That line from the FAQ is a description, not a statement of purpose. Care to try again?

Pro-Sovereignty Babes

29-08-2006, 19:28

As the nation that is sponsoring the alternative repeal for this resolution, my government is curious how your government actually voted on the first (this version) repeal.

Howie T. Katzman

Pro-Sovereignty Babes has voted for the repeal. We do not believe this will surprise anyone. Whereas we are not fond of the writing of this repeal, we believe there are better reasons for repealing "Definition of marriage" hence the proposal in quorum submitted by myself. We also were worried that our repeal coming so close after this one, if this one were to have failed, would have been more likely to have been voted down even though the arguments were different.

The most important thing is we believe that "Definition of Marriage" needs to be repealed. Sir Ernest Shackleton may not have the same reasons we have for repealing this bill, but we both want to see it gone. Obviously I would like to have seen my version pass, but I would rather see the bill repealed than a little more attention given to my nation.

We are well aware that Shackleton's repeal will always be on the record. But we are also aware that this means nothing since laws are written that contradict the spirit of repeals all the time. A repeal establishes nothing new. It only takes away a law on the books. We do not believe Shackleton's arguments are that great, but we are in favor of repealing "Definition of Marriage".

Safalra

29-08-2006, 19:49

That line from the FAQ is a description, not a statement of purpose.
What's the difference? That is a complete description of the original NSUN (excluding what nations have built around it) - it either has that as a purpose or no purpose at all.

Hirota

29-08-2006, 19:52

If it is left for the UN to legislate for its entire membership, then do the Governments of the Member states not become obsolete?No.

Regardless of how far the UN legislates (or micromanages if you look at it in a different light), Member States have the absolute right to leave or join the United Nations. Thus it is impossible for Member States to become obsolete.

The opposite, however, is not true. We could get the the other extreme where the UN does nothing. Most prefer somewhere inbetween, with variations on their exact preferences.

That line from the FAQ is a description, not a statement of purpose. Care to try again?What you are looking for is a UN mandate. Since no such mandate exists, one has to look at what the UN can do. Since the UN can do anything it wants (barring the one limitation mentioned earlier), I'd argue that it's mandate is as broad as it's membership democratically chooses.

As for the FAQ being a mere description, I'd argue that the FAQ, because of it's very presence on nationstates.net, could be considered canon, more than any rhetoric posted on forums.jolt.co.uk by yourself or I.

HotRodia

29-08-2006, 19:55

What's the difference? That is a complete description of the original NSUN (excluding what nations have built around it) - it either has that as a purpose or no purpose at all.

A description is not a statement of purpose. That's the difference, and it ain't complicated.

I'm of the opinion that it has whatever purpose we give it, much the same as I view our lives. It has no official purpose that I can see. I tend to see the UN that way because of what Max said in the FAQ about the UN being our opportunity to mold the world to our vision. My conclusion from that line is that whether our vision is a world where the UN tries to micromanage everything, does nothing, promotes human rights, destroys the environment, and so on, it's always up to us to provide that vision, and we decide what the purpose of the UN is by participating in it.

HotRodia

29-08-2006, 19:59

What you are looking for is a UN mandate. Since no such mandate exists, one has to look at what the UN can do.

A UN mandate is actually the last thing I'm looking for. :p

Since the UN can do anything it wants (barring the one limitation mentioned earlier), I'd argue that it's mandate is as broad as it's membership democratically chooses.

I agree.

As for the FAQ being a mere description, I'd argue that the FAQ, because of it's very presence on nationstates.net, could be considered canon, more than any rhetoric posted on forums.jolt.co.uk by yourself or I.

Ah. So what I post on the Texas Regional Message Board is given more weight just because it's on the main site? That sounds a mite ludicrous to me.

Hirota

29-08-2006, 20:03

Ah. So what I post on the Texas Regional Message Board is given more weight just because it's on the main site? That sounds a mite ludicrous to me.I wasn't aware nationstates was on the texas regional message board. I am very aware that the texas regional message board is not nationstates.net.

There is a difference.

HotRodia

29-08-2006, 20:22

I wasn't aware nationstates was on the texas regional message board. I am very aware that the texas regional message board is not nationstates.net.

There is a difference.

Huh? I never claimed that NS was on the Texas RMB.

To be clear, I was referring to this (http://www.nationstates.net/-1/page=display_region/region=texas). You'll note that the URL is a nationstates.net URL, and that, like in every region, below the WFE, the UN Rankings, and the Regional Happenings, there is a message board at the lower end of the page where you can post things for your region-mates to read.

Mikitivity

29-08-2006, 21:08

What's the difference? That is a complete description of the original NSUN (excluding what nations have built around it) - it either has that as a purpose or no purpose at all.

OOC: It is not a complete description of the original nor current NSUN. The original NSUN already had some semblance of rules beyond what were included in the paragraph sized FAQ on the UN. The current UN has evolved long beyond that.

Look, people could say, "Jesus said be nice." And if they did, they'd probably have summarized what many Christians are taught about him and his teachings in a very short and simple way. But there are literally thousands of pages written in hundreds of languages dedicated to detailing what he really did ... and the people whom become really active in that particular religion actually go to those documents instead of the "Golden Rule" when debating religion.

Here we come to the UN forum to *really* explore the NSUN in much more depth than simply casting a vote or posting a silly response on a nationstates hosted regional message board. Every day game moderators are deleting inappropriate proposals that, while true to the one-liner FAQ violate the rules that now regulate the proposal queue.

In essence, saying, "Read the FAQ" is not helpful.

Hirota

29-08-2006, 21:26

HotRodia

30-08-2006, 00:45

So there is (and thank you for clarifying your position). The next argument is that whilst you can post on your regional board, you can't post on the FAQs.

Max, SS or one of the other admins wrote it. That again marks it as canon.

Point is - that whatever you or I write, it's not canon, it's all rhetoric - regardless of where we write it. Everything we write is subjective and is embraced by the UN through common consent. What has been written by Max, the admins, and the mods could and should be considered absolute.

That doesn't mean the absolute is the sum of the UN, the work by many has contributed to what the UN is over time, but that is only because of common consent.

Edit: And I suggest if you really want to continue this discussion on canon vs non-canon elsewhere can I suggest a new topic? I think it's about exhausted and we can go back on topic of pointlessly discussing this repeal.

I wasn't clarifying my entire position, just what I meant by one particular statement. I'll clarify my whole position now, and make it my last post on the matter.

The truth is, you've failed to demonstrate that the UN FAQ contains a purpose for the UN or that it's reasonable to take anything contained therein as a purpose for the UN.

It's a FAQ. It provides a description of an aspect of the site. The fact that it is on the NationStes site rather than Jolt is irrelevant to whether or not it lays out a purpose for the UN. The fact that it was written by Max and can be considered canon is also irrelevant to whether or not it lays out a purpose for the UN. What the FAQ does is tell us what the UN is, not what it should do. Nowhere in the FAQ does it say "the UN should/is intended/is dedicated to action X" or some equivalent statement.

I've read the FAQ repeatedly and analyzed it thoroughly. I know damn well that it contains no statement of purpose for the UN, merely descriptions of it.

Vercher

30-08-2006, 03:47

For the record, the Holy Republic of Vercher votes to repeal the definition of marriage resolution. It should be left to individual nations to define marriage as they see fit.

Hirota

30-08-2006, 07:03

I wasn't clarifying my entire position, just what I meant by one particular statement.and I'll break my own rule, threadjack yet again, and explain why you are wrong.

For a start, I thanked you for clarifying which regional messaging board you referred to. Google has a lot of Texas "regional message boards"The truth is, you've failed to demonstrate that the UN FAQ contains a purpose for the UN or that it's reasonable to take anything contained therein as a purpose for the UN.I don't think so, but let see.It's a FAQ. It provides a description of an aspect of the site.It asks what the UN is, and what it does. It answers that question. It doesn't define what it should do with that power, simply that the UN is the mere mechanism to carry out resolutions. That's the purpose of the UN at it's most fundamental.The fact that it is on the NationStes site rather than Jolt is irrelevant to whether or not it lays out a purpose for the UN.In your opinion. You've failed to explain why that opinion is anything more than rhetoric.The fact that it was written by Max and can be considered canon is also irrelevant to whether or not it lays out a purpose for the UN.In your opinion, you've failed to explain why that opinion is anything more than rhetoric. What the FAQ does is tell us what the UN is, not what it should do. Nowhere in the FAQ does it say "the UN should/is intended/is dedicated to action X" or some equivalent statement.Because that would limit the UN. The UN does (within game mechanics) whatever it's membership wants. Any limits on the UN are because of mechanics or the self-imposed limitations of the membership by common consensus.

What the UN "should" do does not equate to it's purpose. It's purpose does equate to what the UN does do, and that is implement resolutions.I've read the FAQ repeatedly and analyzed it thoroughly. I know damn well that it contains no statement of purpose for the UN, merely descriptions of it.So your basic argument has been reduced to saying that because you (in your oh so expert opinion <snicker>) disagree, that whatever I'd argue otherwise is instantly wrong? That the almighty Hot Rodia has read the FAQ's more than anyone else, thus is the one who knows them completely and absolutely?

How disappointing.

Davane

30-08-2006, 11:24

Gruenberg

30-08-2006, 12:35

Exactly the same, then, as your looking at the FOR tally, and coming to that conclusion. Both are steeped in baseless assumptions. Both are fucking stupid.

Hirota

30-08-2006, 13:34

If this passes, it will forever be a stain on the NSUN's history...I think a stain is an overstatement. Perhaps a biscuit crumb which will be inevitably brushed aside, and forgotten.

Tzorsland

30-08-2006, 15:09

Since I have seen major attempts at repealing the original reslutions for statements much milder than this, yes I can see how this can be a stain on the NSUN history, in the same way we used to lament resolutions before the repeal code was implemented.

The irony is if unrealted repeals come up on the queue with a similiar theme. Repeal Ban Whaling could easily be seen as another anti-non-human resolution. Yes a good resolution can easily override the statements of a repeal, but I think there is a snowball's chance on a sunspot of getting a decent resolution that respects the rights of sentient non-humans in this body.

The real irony is that those poor non human UN Gnomes have to implment this grossly insulting repeal in all member nations. They deserve overtime for this thankless job.

Vercher

30-08-2006, 15:11

Seems people see Repeal "Definition of Marriage" and that's it. They don't look at the original wording of Definition of Marriage, nor the wording of the argument to repeal it. If this passes, it will forever be a stain on the NSUN's history...

I've read both, and voted for repeal. You need to realize that just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they haven't done their homework.

Davane

30-08-2006, 17:44

I've read both, and voted for repeal. You need to realize that just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they haven't done their homework.

You are one of the few that have then vercher.

But I still fail to see why people are so willing to let this repeal happen, because "Definition of Marriage" supposedly endorses bestiality. By voting for the repeal, you are endorsing this extremely weak argument, when in reality, it's just because you want to repeal the "Definition of Marriage."

In essence, the repeal argument might as well contain all the words from your average junk email, and people will still vote for it because they want "Defintion of Marriage" repealed.

There are other, better, arguments for repeals of "Definition of Marriage", so there is no need to vote for this one just to get "Definition of Marriage" repealed.

Either people are too stupid to follow the arguments against the repeal, too lazy to do their homework, too ignorant to listen to others, or too impatient to get "Definition of Marriage" repealed no matter what. I'll let you choose which you are.

Edit: I find it amusing that according to the poll in this very thread, the majority here have voted NAY on the repeal. So, how comes the YES votes have it in the actual poll, if it isn't a case of everybody who wants to see "Definition of Marriage" repealed regardless of the actual arguments given for it?

Cluichstan

30-08-2006, 17:58

Edit: I find it amusing that according to the poll in this very thread, the majority here have voted NAY on the repeal. So, how comes the YES votes have it in the actual poll, if it isn't a case of everybody who wants to see "Definition of Marriage" repealed regardless of the actual arguments given for it?

OOC: Only a very small portion of the UN membership actually visits the forums here. Thus, any poll conducted here is not really representative of the membership as a whole.

Party Mode

30-08-2006, 18:46

OOC: Only a very small portion of the UN membership actually visits the forums here. Thus, any poll conducted here is not really representative of the membership as a whole.
No, it's not. If it was, this wouldn't pass.
Because it just did.

HotRodia

30-08-2006, 19:33

and I'll break my own rule, threadjack yet again, and explain why you are wrong.

I thought you might. I'll do likewise.

It doesn't define what it should do with that power, simply that the UN is the mere mechanism to carry out resolutions.

Precisely. A description of function rather than a proscription of action.

That's the purpose of the UN at it's most fundamental.

Then you're using the word "purpose" in a very different sense than I am. I don't see the function of a thing as necessarily being its purpose.

In your opinion. You've failed to explain why that opinion is anything more than rhetoric.

I've already explained it, actually, by pointing out that not everything written on the NS site can be considered canon. And if not everything on the NS site can be considered canon, then concluding that something is canon based on the fact that it's on the NS site is incorrect.

You could revise your argument and state that it's an official site document, and that's why it should be considered canon, but why bother? I would just point out that not everything in an official site document is pertinent to the UN or the question of its purpose, and that it still doesn't prove your point that the FAQ sets a purpose for the UN.

In your opinion, you've failed to explain why that opinion is anything more than rhetoric.

Wow. Do I seriously need to explain to you that just because Max wrote it in the FAQ, that doesn't automatically make it a purpose for the UN? He certainly wrote plenty of other things in the FAQ that weren't automatically the purpose of the UN, so concluding that it sets a purpose for the UN just because Max wrote it there is incorrect.

Because that would limit the UN. The UN does (within game mechanics) whatever it's membership wants. Any limits on the UN are because of mechanics or the self-imposed limitations of the membership by common consensus.

That's a lovely explanation of why there's no purpose of the UN written into the FAQ. I wonder if that was Max's reasoning.

What the UN "should" do does not equate to it's purpose. It's purpose does equate to what the UN does do, and that is implement resolutions.

Ah. The function=purpose thing again. What's the purpose of your hand, or anything else you use?

So your basic argument has been reduced to saying that because you (in your oh so expert opinion <snicker>) disagree, that whatever I'd argue otherwise is instantly wrong? That the almighty Hot Rodia has read the FAQ's more than anyone else, thus is the one who knows them completely and absolutely?

Actually, no. That isn't my basic argument. It was poorly stated, and I'll clarify. My basic argument is that, given the language and context of the FAQ, I can't conclude that it sets out a purpose for the UN.

And it's not that you're instantly wrong, just that your arguments have been irrelevant up to this point and I've already done enough analysis to know which arguments can be used against my position, what their quality is, and how to counter them. To explain, when I analyze a text that I'm going to be debating, I do so from a neutral perspective to get a genuinely objective assessment, then from my opponents' perspective and my own perspective to see what arguments are probably going to come up or could possibly come up. After that, I consider how to counter my opponents' arguments, how to counter my own counterarguments, and how to counter the counterarguments against my counterarguments, etc.

So when I get into a debate on the issue, I've already tried to prove my opponents right and used the arguments they're likely to use, in addition to the arguments that I think are the best to use against my position. Sometimes an argument comes up that I don't expect, but I just do a quick assessment of it and figure out how to address it. Generally the arguments I don't expect are the bad ones. In my overwhelming arrogance in thinking that I am the Almighty HotRodia, Keeper of the Expert Opinion and Instantly Correct One, I tend to assume that my opponents are going to make good arguments. ;)

How disappointing.

What disappoints me are irrelevant arguments. You're certainly intelligent enough to argue the point rather than going off track with that sort of thing.

If you want to get to the point and show me how the language and context of the FAQ indicate a purpose for the UN rather than a description of the UN, and how function=purpose, you're quite welcome to.

Mikitivity

30-08-2006, 20:53

Max, SS or one of the other admins wrote it. That again marks it as canon.

I disagree. The admins and Max are human. They make mistakes and sometimes leave things partially done. This isn't to suggest that what they do is not appreciated nor of low quality -- I think they (as a group) do a wonderful job and deserve our appreciation.

I just don't feel for a minute that we should *not* think about what they say and the point behind their words and actions. The key really isn't to blindly point to the FAQ (which is something many players have done) and follow the letter of the sentence, but to understand the spirit of the sentence and meaning behind it.

In short, like the game itself -- everything is subjective. I personally hate it when people not only choose to ignore that fact, but also begin FORCING other players to follow their own personal subjective take on "rules". There is a reason we even allow players to appeal mod decisions ... that is because the people who's opinions you've described as being canon, do (more often than we see) disagree with one another and try to rationalize things out.

Mikitivity

30-08-2006, 21:21

Last UN Decision
The resolution Repeal "Definition of Marriage" was passed 8,776 votes to 5,767.

Given that there is a second repeal still in queue, I wasn't sure if the game was designed to automatically delete the repeal or if it would also be voted upon. What is the next step? Also, is this the first time that a repeal passed while another repeal for the same resolution had achieved quorum?

Gruenberg

30-08-2006, 21:32

Given that there is a second repeal still in queue, I wasn't sure if the game was designed to automatically delete the repeal or if it would also be voted upon.
Seemingly not. It'd be interesting to see what happened if it did go on anyway. I suspect it would cause the end of all time and matter (at which point people would suggest we write a UN resolution arguing we should be sucked into the twirling vortex of death in a non-discriminatory manner).

What is the next step?
The mods delete PSB's repeal.

Also, is this the first time that a repeal passed while another repeal for the same resolution had achieved quorum?
As far as I know, yes. And given repeals are relatively recent, I think we would have noticed had it happened before. So, yes.

Mikitivity

30-08-2006, 21:41

Seemingly not. It'd be interesting to see what happened if it did go on anyway. I suspect it would cause the end of all time and matter (at which point people would suggest we write a UN resolution arguing we should be sucked into the twirling vortex of death in a non-discriminatory manner).

The mods delete PSB's repeal.

As far as I know, yes. And given repeals are relatively recent, I think we would have noticed had it happened before. So, yes.

Yeah, I was figuring it might cause the UN Resolutions archive to crash. They hadn't deleted the repeal when I checked *before* asking this question. I have a softball game late tonight, but I'll finish editing the NSWiki articles on both repeals tomorrow night. I did get the text of PSB's version into NSWiki and would like to propose that in the future when there are multiple repeals that have achieved quorum, that they all be rolled into a single repeal article.

Vercher

31-08-2006, 08:21

You are one of the few that have then vercher.

But I still fail to see why people are so willing to let this repeal happen, because "Definition of Marriage" supposedly endorses bestiality. By voting for the repeal, you are endorsing this extremely weak argument, when in reality, it's just because you want to repeal the "Definition of Marriage."

In essence, the repeal argument might as well contain all the words from your average junk email, and people will still vote for it because they want "Defintion of Marriage" repealed.

There are other, better, arguments for repeals of "Definition of Marriage", so there is no need to vote for this one just to get "Definition of Marriage" repealed.

Either people are too stupid to follow the arguments against the repeal, too lazy to do their homework, too ignorant to listen to others, or too impatient to get "Definition of Marriage" repealed no matter what. I'll let you choose which you are.

Edit: I find it amusing that according to the poll in this very thread, the majority here have voted NAY on the repeal. So, how comes the YES votes have it in the actual poll, if it isn't a case of everybody who wants to see "Definition of Marriage" repealed regardless of the actual arguments given for it?

I think the beatiality clause is a valid argument for repeal, but I could list quite a few reasons as well. I'm personally not really concered with why the resolution was originally proposed to be repealed; if I want the same thing someone else wants but for different reasons, I don't see the difference in reason as being as big an issue as our common goal.

Davane

31-08-2006, 10:26

I think the beatiality clause is a valid argument for repeal, but I could list quite a few reasons as well. I'm personally not really concered with why the resolution was originally proposed to be repealed; if I want the same thing someone else wants but for different reasons, I don't see the difference in reason as being as big an issue as our common goal.

If a difference in reason isn't important, then neither is the absense of reason. As such, while you may have read the initial resolution and the arguements for its repeal, you had already made your mind up by the time you had read "Repeal 'Definition of Marriage'."

So, my comment was correct - you just carried on reading just so you could say you had read both the resolution and repeal!

But, this has gone through... I will grieve briefly for what the NSUN has become now that it is clear that the end justifies the means.

Gruenberg

31-08-2006, 10:34

But, this has gone through... I will grieve briefly for what the NSUN has become now that it is clear that the end justifies the means.
Become? What about Scientific Freedom, End Slavery, Sexual Freedom, Elimination of Bio Weapons? The title-munchers have always played their part, seems to me.

Vercher

31-08-2006, 15:14

If a difference in reason isn't important, then neither is the absense of reason. As such, while you may have read the initial resolution and the arguements for its repeal, you had already made your mind up by the time you had read "Repeal 'Definition of Marriage'."

So, my comment was correct - you just carried on reading just so you could say you had read both the resolution and repeal!

But, this has gone through... I will grieve briefly for what the NSUN has become now that it is clear that the end justifies the means.

I'm having difficulty following your point. Why should different reasons (or lack thereof) matter as much as common goals? And since when do the ends not justify the means?

Tzorsland

31-08-2006, 16:21

If a difference in reason isn't important, then neither is the absense of reason.

There are two repeals in the Silly Resolutions thread. One had no reason whatsoever. The other's reason was "why not." In the mind of the letter of the law rules lawyers having a stupid reason is far better than having no reason whatsoever. Even though the end, apparently, is the same.

If the text of a repeal doesn't matter, neither does the text of a resolution. The emperor has no clothes, all resolutions including repeals are merely stat wanking game devices. The text of the resolution and the repeal is mechanically meaningless. We have traditionally given that text a great significance, allowing mods for example to delete resolutions because we feel that the text must be important in order to retain the integrity of the game itself. To even suggest we can dump this for repeals is to place a double standard and a paradox within the role play structure.

NationStates Jolt Archive

PASSED: Repeal "Definition of Marriage" [Official Topic]