NationStates Jolt Archive

Please consider the following proposal. It is phrased so that it takes into account all the populations in the interstellar space of NationSpace. If you see any ommission(s), kindly mention it (them).

Of course, there is a little issue here *understatement* *wink**wink*

Ultrasilvania

<quote>

This resolution proclaims that the only legal civil and religious union between two individuals, henceforth called _MARRIAGE_, is between two members of the same species who naturally could procreate by using only the combined physical features of the two individuals. Furthermore, any union between members of different species, or members of same species but who cannot naturally procreate with only their combined features should be deemed illegal. Any legal marriage should warrant their participants rights respective to legal codes of local government for unions between individuals (such as tax relief, housing if applicable, etc); illegal unions should not be given any extra rights, other than those already had by the unmarried individuals.

If a species allows procreation by using the physical features of a single member, marriage between two individuals should be allowed only in the case offspring could inherit traits from both individuals (e.g. Earth flowers that could polenize themselves, could also be polenized by other flowers, and the resulting seed will inherit DNA from both flowers).

Let it be so.

</quote>

OOC: You need to use [ & ] instead of < & > to get the tags to work.

IC: The UN has no business messing with a nation's marriage laws. We oppose.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Denied! Seriously. Why should it be deemed illegal if two members of the same species marry, but can't procreate? There are laws that say individuals have the right to adopt. What about those who marry, but do not plan on ever procreating? Should that be illegal as well? Besides, this is none of the UN business. Let the nations set their own laws on Marriage.


Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

the <quote> </quote> is just my way of making the point it's a quotation, don't mind that :) (XML forever, eh?)

The act does not prohibit adoption; just that legal marriage, and with the obvious advantage offered by laws (for adoption, e.g.) should be between opposed sexes, if you want. On the other hand, a species might have several sexes, not just two (like those pesky humans). Capacity of natural procreation should still be the criterion.

Please, if you opposed the act, give a valid argument why, if at all possible.

Ultrasilvania

oh, and: capacity of procreation is what the act states, not the obligativity of actual procreation (note the "can", "could" instead of "do" or "must")

We see no reason whatsoever to forbid an infertile person from getting married, to prohibit marriage between persons of the same sex, or to disallow potential benefits to any individual on such criteria.

We vehemently oppose.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Your resolution assumes that procreation is the final end and means of marriage. What about the economical, societal, political, and somtimes considered the most inportant aspect of defining marraige, love?

Seriously, some cultures/species may base "marraiage/life partnerships" on their current economical station in life, the same goes for polictical reasons as well.

You want a valid argument? How about I repeat what has been said a few times now. This is something that the UN has no business legislating on. Many nations already have their own laws on Marriage. Let's not infringe upon that. For many, that is reason enough to oppose.

There are many resolutions that could be thought of similarly - UN infringing on national sovereignity and such. However, the UN has the well being of NS in mind, at least theoretically. Caring for offspring by stating which unions should be favorites - namely those that have the potential of having it - should then be top priority.

About infertile individuals - I guess a provision should be made; yet infertility is not absolute, I guess, one can always help nature somehow.

Besides, this is none of the UN business. Let the nations set their own laws on Marriage.Not exactly clear why nations have any more say on this. Is it the governments business who people marry any more than the UN's?

In the view of the Federal Republic, individuals should be free to make their own choices about whom to marry, within reasonable limits. Member states are fully capable of doing their own meddling without the aid of the United Nations, methinks.

Still would like hear from some of the species-wankers, though. Should be amusing.

Not exactly clear why nations have any more say on this. Is it the governments business who people marry any more than the UN's?Well, since marriage licenses are usually issued by the government, yes.

In the view of the Federal Republic, individuals should be free to make their own choices about whom to marry, within reasonable limits.See, now I agree. Other governments don't and will meddle in their peoples lives. I don't like the idea of governments meddling in individuals lives, so I'd use the UN to meddle in their government to stop them meddling in peoples lives.:p

That's just me.

See, now I agree. Other governments don't and will meddle in their peoples lives.You missed the "within reasonable limits" part; governments are the ones legalizing these unions, so they have the right to meddle.

This resolution proclaims that the only legal civil and religious union between two individuals, henceforth called _MARRIAGE_, is between two members of the same species who naturally could procreate by using only the combined physical features of the two individuals. Furthermore, any union between members of different species, or members of same species but who cannot naturally procreate with only their combined features should be deemed illegal.

Oh my, now that's an interesting proposal. Let's ignore for the moment that it's technically redundant in the real world (since species is defined as "a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name" so if can interbreed it's in the same species) and consider this from a general (yes vulcans and humans can produce offspring never mind that they evolved from two seperate planets) point of view. Let's also ignore NFT (near future technology) which will enable the creation of sperm cells from stem cells, like those found in a female's ovaries.

The Resolution is redundant, since the first part states that A and B is allowed (true) while the second part states that not A or not B not allowed (false) and logic will insist that !(A&B) = (!A)|(!B).

Do we really want to establish a definition for the sole purpose of legal benefits based on intra species natural procreation ability alone? Tie tax relief on procreation, hospital visitation rights on procreation, and so forth? You know, I don't think this is going to be wildly popular around these parts.

The way I see it, if a government/religion revokes all extra benefits for being married (kind of like the US tax system :) ) that particular government can 'outsmart' this UN proposal; it can have some form of union between any two individuals recognized (say called 'egairram' - similar to political parties and such) and everybody goes home happy.

Yet, I still think governments care for their future (future tax-payers, eh), so I don't think they will shoot in their leg this way.

No, there is no redundancy in the text ... ok, a little bit :) simply wanted to make sure all alternatives are taken care of. And I agree on the definition of 'species', again wanted to drive the point home ...

There are many resolutions that could be thought of similarly - UN infringing on national sovereignity and such. However, the UN has the well being of NS in mind, at least theoretically.

Yes, that word "theoretically" certainly rings a bell, a bell that reminds of "Promotion of Solar Panels", which sure as hell didn't have the well-being of anyone but solar panel maufacturers in mind. I think I'll stick with my view of what constitutes the well-being of our world, not the view of the United Nations, which has demonstrated its problems via massively ignorant and impractical resolutions.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Please, if you opposed the act, give a valid argument why, if at all possible. There's no grandfather clause.


Why should getting a vasectomy or hysterectomy (or going through menopause) make it illegal for someone to get married?!?


Combining 1 & 2, why should getting a hysterectomy or vasectomy (or going through menopause) result in an automatic divorce?!?


What about love and romance? Life is not all about breeding, you know: we're people, not cattle.This is simply vicious and mean-spirited - and its none of Ultrasilvania's business who we in Community Property decide to marry.

Looks like this forces my nation to have a definition of marriage. As i stated in another UN thread, Ice Hockey Players has no legal definition of marriage. It has no civil unions. For anyone. And we're not about to put one in. Frankly, we rejoiced as "Definition of Marriage" was repealed; people from neighboring nations wondered why no one ever legally got married here. Simply put, we just don't. Never have, never will.

That, and we made it disadvantageous to do so just to spite the resolution. No on this resolution.

Life is not all about breeding, you know: we're people, not cattle.

Don't go around comparing people to cattle. It's disrespectful of the cattle.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

While the Nation of Gandale does seek to control many aspects of our citizens lives, we do not and will not support any resolution that seeks to dictate what gender you can or can not marry.


Regards,
John J. Longfellow
UN Delegate, Nation of Gandale

There's no grandfather clause.

(sorry got this one wrong ...) <delete>

why would you need a grandfather clause? see below; theoretical capacity of procreation is not taken away until death (keyword: theoretical) and the act not stating otherwise.

Why should getting a vasectomy or hysterectomy (or going through menopause) make it illegal for someone to get married?!?

It doesn't make it illegal; even with a vasectomy or hysterectomy the individual 'theoretically' can still procreate - afaik vasectomies are reversible these days?

Combining 1 & 2, why should getting a hysterectomy or vasectomy (or going through menopause) result in an automatic divorce?!?

The procreation apparatus is still there, more or less, even after *ectomy, or menopause; the 'features', mentioned in the act, thus are there, and do not make an existing marriage illegal.

What about love and romance? Life is not all about breeding, you know: we're people, not cattle.This is simply vicious and mean-spirited - and its none of Ultrasilvania's business who we in Community Property decide to marry.

Love, romance are perfectly acceptable (according to the act, at least) in all instances - restrictions are just for the official, documented unions. From a state point of view (or nationstate point of view) one should strive for efficient unions, not sterile ones. That is Ultrasilvania's point of view. Why would one want to involve the government in a love relation beats us ... marriage is ultimately economy and procreation.

I don't want to sound like a complainer, but this sounds just like the arguments international astronomers were making when they were trying to rationally explain why they wanted to kick pluto from the solar system.

Just define what you mean and mean what you define. Don't try to define one thing and then grandfather in a whole bunch of exceptions because you really want to define something else than what you defined.

Do not compare a vasectomy to a hysterectomy. The later is the removal of organs, typically part or all of the uterus and the ovaries. It is non reversable. Vasectomy is equivalent to tubal ligation in females. A woman who has a full hysterectomy can never procreate. But you don't have to go to that extreeme. A number of cancer chemotherapies can cause temporary or permanent damage to both male and female reproductive systems. And of course age also causes reproductive capacity to shut down in females.

You can't say "it's all about procreation" and then say "well these non procreative cases don't count." If you simply want to define marriage as same species opposite gender binary agrements, then just say so. (But that would include a number of situations that most peple would find abhorrent, including incest and marriages between children and adults and a violation of previous UN resolutions while we are at it.)

I might be wrong - but isn't there possible to have uterus transplant? hmm ...

In any case, I don't want to make the act complicated - as you said, define it one way at no exceptions. Extra restrictions can be imposed locally (again, considering that we drop the human-centric view - what we view as deplorable, other living creatures might view as perfectly normal).

As it stands this draft is so wrong and offensive to the people of the NSUN.

Some UN nations may be dictatorships but I'm sure that very few of them would stoop to the level that you're planning.

You either need to write a proposal that increases rights or forget the whole thing and leave this subject alone.

Ms Yukiko Uehara
Deputy UN Ambassador from the Empire of Kirisubo

As it stands this draft is so wrong and offensive to the people of the NSUN.

Some UN nations may be dictatorships but I'm sure that very few of them would stoop to the level that you're planning.

You either need to write a proposal that increases rights or forget the whole thing and leave this subject alone.

Ms Yukiko Uehara
Deputy UN Ambassador from the Empire of Kirisubo

many nations IRL implement exactly this kind of definition ... and they are democracies and such ... why would this act be deemed offensive, I wonder?

I know, I know, NS<>RL

... marriage is ultimately economy and procreation.
What an incredibly simplistic viewpoint.

Why should the government have the slightest interest in procreation on the individual level? Government's interest in marriage may have a macro-interest in maintaining or increasing their population, but the governmental aspect of marriage has to do mostly with Contract Law and tax benefits.

Married people are automatically considered a contract entity for various legal and economic purposes. Minor children of that union are also automatically entered into the contract under certain circumstances. There are aspects of contract law in health care, survivorship, co-ownership, powers of attorney, and other matters that are related to the marriage contract. In many cases, the government grants a tax benefit to people who participate in this form of contractual activity, presumably because they've found it beneficial to have married people as citizens. The government's interest shouldn't go beyond that, if indeed it goes that far.

If your religion declares that marriage exists for procreation and economy, fine by me. That's your choice to believe, but that doesn't make it "truth". Don't try to pawn off your beliefs as Natural Law, or pass International Law about it.

I might be wrong - but isn't there possible to have uterus transplant? hmm ...

In any case, I don't want to make the act complicated - as you said, define it one way at no exceptions. Extra restrictions can be imposed locally (again, considering that we drop the human-centric view - what we view as deplorable, other living creatures might view as perfectly normal).

I've never heard of uterus transplants, but I have heard of hetrosexual people who are infertile all their lives, and cannot ever have children. I know about that because I am one of them. I could never have kids, full stop. Not even theoretically.

If all you are concerned about is procreation, then anyone, no matter what their sexual orientation, who is able to breed should be able to marry. People like me who can't shouldn't. Using the capability to reproduce to define marriage simply to attemp to exclude a group you don't like, such as homosexuals, will backfire on you badly.

Gay people do have children, maybe not with each other, but those that can have kids, and want them, do find a way to produce them. Uterus transplants don't exist to my knowledge, but suggrogate mothers, doner sperm and IVF do.

Our nation could never support such a discriminatory peice of legislation, be it based on ability to breed, or anything else.

In the end neither can Tzorsland, but because it is simply not an international issue. There is an issue which can be international, which is the recognition of marriages across national borders for a variety of international issues, but this proposal has nothing to do with such matters.

On a national level, I doubt that Tzorsland would agree to a linkage of marriage rights and procreation. I know there is a procreation type clause in the Tourist Eating Land of Retired WerePenguins, but it's more of a contractual necessity under which couples who are potentially fertile have certain contractual duties until their offspring all reach adulthood, but otherwise even the agnostic nation would not limit rights based on the lack of procreativity.

"We second the opinions that

A)There is far, far too much international controversy on this issue to create an international definition. It's not something that the majority agrees on, in NS.

B)Procreation is not the sole purpose of marriage or any such union, as many have expressed. Having a definition that says so will not work for each of the trillions of citizens in the NS multiverse. In the Commonwealth, marriage is the creation of a single legal entity from any group of citizens able to show their legal desire to do so (and here, they must be of legal age to express that legal desire), though we do request they keep it down to a reasonable number, and they always do. We are extremely nonreligious, so religion has almost no effect on marriage, and, with our open-minded policy, the government has virtually no effect on its creation, either. And, even if something like this, or any definition at all, gets passed, our crack Loophole Exploitation Team will have it torn apart faster than you can say "Eric Robinson", allowing it to have virtually no effect on us, as well. Good day!"

Wolfgang's holographic double in this room dissolves, having no further purpose here.

many nations IRL implement exactly this kind of definition ... and they are democracies and such ... why would this act be deemed offensive, I wonder?

I know, I know, NS<>RL
I think the word you were looking for was theocracies not democracies.

OOC: I am actually from one of these RL places with a definition similar to the one presented by Ultrtasilvania. Yet, even with this legislation in effect, the state is still well know for have one of the highest divorce rates in the US and is number 1 for anti-depressant usage in the nation. (Coincidence?) This type of legislation has been show to be ineffectual in helping child welfare, divorce rates, individual economic stability, and many other issues that the legislation meant to improve. Basically, this type of law is build off of religious fanaticism and hate mongering, but they will still smile to your face and tell you it’s for your own good.

I think the word you were looking for was theocracies not democracies.

As a theocracy, We would like to state that We object to this proposal as well.

The HOCEK definition of marriage presumes it to be a social institution. Since societies vary from NationState to NationState, it is pointless, destructive and meddlesome for the NSUN to be interjecting itself into what is self-evidently a national sovereignity issue.

many nations IRL implement exactly this kind of definition ... and they are democracies and such ... why would this act be deemed offensive, I wonder?

What the :confused: words have failed me at the moment and I'd rather not throw out a string of expletives :confused: because for the life of me I can't think of a single blasted nation that even remotely requires a bizarre hand waved able to procreate requirement for marriage. Please give me one example. Any example will do. I can't think of a single one.

It is true that in more modern times the nature of marriage between a man and a woman only has broken down in many nations. On the other hand, marriages between a man and a woman of difference races used to be illegal in many locations a century or two ago. For a lot of practical purposes the attitudes of races in the 19th century mirrors a lot of the NS jargon of different species. In fact one of the originals theories of evolution held a multiple origin of man theory that tried to assert that the lesser races evolved from something other than what the greater races evolved from. The bigotry doesn't fall far from the tree.

While procreation is a major principle behind most religions and marriage, it is, as far as I am aware not a voiding factor. The notion that is it a common principle in many RW nations is simply laughable.

I think the word you were looking for was theocracies not democracies.

OOC: I am actually from one of these RL places with a definition similar to the one presented by Ultrtasilvania. Yet, even with this legislation in effect, the state is still well know for have one of the highest divorce rates in the US and is number 1 for anti-depressant usage in the nation. (Coincidence?) This type of legislation has been show to be ineffectual in helping child welfare, divorce rates, individual economic stability, and many other issues that the legislation meant to improve. Basically, this type of law is build off of religious fanaticism and hate mongering, but they will still smile to your face and tell you it’s for your own good.

Sirat is a theocracy, and we support making same-sex marriage illegal. However, we don't support this proposal. As many people have already said, this will penalize infertile couples, and with the quality of medicine in Sirat, we probably have more such couples than a first-world nation would.

Let it be so.

Approvals: 10 (Bellaben, The Derrak Quadrant, Iznogoud, Ellenburg, WZ Forums, Gilgimesh, Cuborea, GGtopia, FreeChina, Lusapha)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 112 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Sep 24 2006
Despite what appears to be an extra day to garner approvals, this resolution, like the other half dozen Marriage Definintion proposals that have filled the queue lately, is destined to die with the bare minimum of automatic endorsements.

My faith in the common sense of approving delegates has been (partially) restored.

Funnia Lan refutes the right of the United Nations to interfere in domestic relations. We do not support this resolution.


Marc de Paris
Ambassador to the United Nations
République Populaire de Funnia Lan
Peoples Republic of Funnia Lan

from what ive seen so far
defining the term marrige has been the downfall of many a resolution.
also the the right to define marrige is a sovreign right of all nations and the UN cannot interfere in the domestic issues of a state.
also the issue of marrige is something too vast to be defined in a resolution.
there are numerous aspects to be considered such as money, legal status, religon, nationality, age, the role of children in a marrige etc, not to mention love:fluffle:
so in the end, lets let sleeping dogs lie, and lets leave this can of worms onopened.

The Empire of Rosherdur Opposes this Resolution

I agree, why is the UN attempting to override our own soverneity. There are to many factors in deeming this to be a legal move to the UN.

Procreate.....so if a woman for some medical reasons or even the guy for that part and are unable to procreate then they don't have the right to get married?

I say leave the people alone....If you're an adult and you both love each other then you ought to have the right to marry. I feel it shouldn't be left up to the UN leave it up to the NS rulers and their people.

100% opposed by the Free Land of Prince Bodacious.

Fuck this shite. I hereby turn over all discussions on marriage here to my assistant, Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Ole-Biscuitbarrel.

http://www.montypython.art.pl/obrazki/lcmp19-15.jpg

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

*snip*

Despite our past disagreements on certain issues, my respect for you continues to grow. :)

Because the ability or capacity to procreate is not a factor in Napieria's marriages, and because adding it would invalidate the marriages of many (including those who marry at too old an age to reproduce, and those who are physically deformed by birth or accident and therefore unable to reproduce, and those who are genetically sterile) Napieria would strongly oppose this measure, or any measure which would seek to link marriage with procreation.

Further, Napieria would oppose any measure which would force another nation's definition of marriage upon our people.

What I love about this proposal is that it tries to include every possible definition of marriage for every different possible speices of anything, but doesn't allow gay marriage for HUMANS (or anything else). I find it incredibly amusing.

our crack Loophole Exploitation Team will have it torn apart faster than you can say "Eric Robinson", allowing it to have virtually no effect on us, as well. Good day!"


LMAO

OOC: Could we all just let this thread die?

This resolution proclaims that the only legal civil and religious union between two individuals, henceforth called _MARRIAGE_, is between two members of the same species who naturally could procreate by using only the combined physical features of the two individuals.

If a species allows procreation by using the physical features of a single member, marriage between two individuals should be allowed only in the case offspring could inherit traits from both individuals

I don't get it. What exactly does it aim to accomplish?

Abolish gay marriages, marriages with infertile people, and forbid marriage for 3-gender species? Physically execute them if they live together or just forbid calling it "MARRIAGE"?

Then such act will be called "MARIAGE", "MARRlAGE", "MAЯЯIAGE", or smth. like that, nothing more.

While our nation has no legal marriage system and living together or establishing couples is entirely up to persons, and sexual abnormalities are treated to our best capabilities, we see no point in resolutions that do nothing.

I don't get it. What exactly does it aim to accomplish?
After reading the author's regional messageboard, apparently we've been misinterpreting this all along.

He's being purposefully obtuse for the advertising value. He never had any intention of bring this to the floor - he just wanted people to check out his region page when they visited his nation to telegram him about how stupid this was. He's actively soliciting more of the same - outrageous ideas that provoke controversy - because they don't want to be bothered by conventional advertising.

Apparently the small-minded obtuse jackass market is hard to penetrate. If this attracts the sort of people you want in your region, Ultrasilvania, then you've earned my pity and contempt. You'll certainly never get another fair viewing out of me in this forum.

Do you mean that this whole proposal and thread are nothing more than an glorified regional ad. I've got only one reply to that, Hey Ultrasilvania,:upyours: .

He's being purposefully obtuse for the advertising value. He never had any intention of bring this to the floor - he just wanted people to check out his region page when they visited his nation to telegram him about how stupid this was.Hm. Well, if that's the case...

Locked. Regional ads belong in Gameplay.