Stratocaster1011
22-02-2007, 17:58
Are you kidding me? No nation or legislature should have the right to enforce morals. Morals are intrinsically and by definition something that should be decided on and followed by the individual. No society could truly be free if the morals of the majority are pushed on the minority by the government. It serves no arguable public interest nor is it even a function of government.
By the way, I mean no disrespect to the author, the argument is clear, concise and very well thought out. I just happen to dissagree :D
Sexual Freedom
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Armstrongonia
Description: What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).
Is this the bil your trying to repeal? This is fine I think. What morals does it try to impose on people.
Omigodtheykilledkenny
23-02-2007, 01:49
Looks like we already have a thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=517713) for this topic.
Karmicaria
23-02-2007, 02:04
Uh..that was for my repeal.
I believe that this thread is for the repeal that currently up for approval.
Repeal "Sexual Freedom"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution
Category: Repeal
Resolution: #7
Proposed by: Asledorf
Description: UN Resolution #7: Sexual Freedom (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
Argument: RECOGNISING that many nations believe in unfettered sexual licence for all their citizens
RECOGNISING ALSO that in many nations there is general consensus (and people feel equally strongly) that sexual activity ought to be regulated to some degree
INFORMING that the resolution prevents nations passing laws against incest - which is not only widely-regarded as morally repugnant but also leads to the birth of diseased children
POINTING OUT that the resolution prevents nations passing laws against, or regulating in any way, prostitution, the legalization of which was repealed by resolution 87, and which is not only degrading to those forced by economic circumstance into the said profession but also kills many people by the spread of diseases such as AIDS (the resolution only allows governments to 'enquire' not to 'regulate' for the promotion of public health), not to mention the increase in associated organised crime
IF THIS RESOLUTION WERE REPEALED individuals known to have STDs could, for example, be legally required to use condoms or to inform their partner of the risk when engaging in sexual intercourse
IF THIS RESOLUTION WERE REPEALED nations could attempt to discourage adultery by impeaching their politicians and in the case of divorce dividing property and child custody in the favour of the non-adulterous spouse, which many nations may wish to do - I personally see no harm in this as it DOES NOT involve an undue loss of civil liberty
POINTING OUT that although specifying 'consenting adults' the resolution does not protect the mentally ill or those with severe learning difficulties from sexual exploitation
SUGGESTING a more flexible resolution as more appropriate, allowing nations greater autonomy in this field, as it is after all highly subjective and based on cultural preferences, whilst still protecting civil liberties and preventing abuse of state power
FOR EXAMPLE states may wish to have different ages of consent for different forms of sexual activity, perhaps allowing teenagers to have more fun and exploration whilst preventing unwanted pregnancies amongst this age group
MOST IMPORTANTLY the resolution fails in what it sets out to achieve - as it does not define adulthood it is perfectly possible for a nation, in line with its cultural assumptions, to define adulthood by marital status or some form of maturity-test rather than a fixed age
FOR ALL OF THESE REASONS I PROPOSE THAT THIS RESOLUTION BE REPEALED, and furthermore suggest that to repeal it would be an act of liberalism and tolerance for other cultures
Approvals: 40 (Esperantania, Ellenburg, NewTexas, Boulderon, Cradoc, Kivistan UN Bordello, WZ Forums, Gortania, Kangaroo Princess, Confederate Memorial, Allech-Atreus, Flibbleites, Republican-Australia, Project Quantum Leap, Wireisdead, Tarmsden, Oestnorge, Compulsoria, Karmicaria, Understood correctnes, DSRL, The United Ed States, Yelda, Hustlertwo, Futuristic America, Aquilliarius, Borgui, Quintaros, AlmightyGT, David6, Tanpugistan, Cypherspace, Kanakakarata, Spagnus Fulcromus, Atura, Rhen Var 68, Felis Siamis, New Invanz 2, Icycomb, Thelostsouls)
Status: Lacking Support (requires 72 more approvals)
Voting Ends: Thu Feb 22 2007
Discoraversalism
10-03-2007, 19:48
INFORMING that the resolution prevents nations passing laws against incest - which is not only widely-regarded as morally repugnant but also leads to the birth of diseased children
kills many people by the spread of diseases such as AIDS
IF THIS RESOLUTION WERE REPEALED individuals known to have STDs could, for example, be legally required to use condoms or to inform their partner of the risk when engaging in sexual intercourse
Doesn't
"unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.)"
cover the above?