NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Moral Decency


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Royal British States


Description: Nations of the World Assembly:


(IN rebuttal to the FREEDOM OF MARRIAGE ACT, ARTICLE 3(a))

CONVINCED not to allow same-sex marriage,

DETERMINED to ensure that the union of 2 individuals MUST BE of different sex,

RESOLVED to defend the views of the Conservative society,

RECOGNIZING the views of Conservative communities,

The World Assembly hereby adopt the following rsolution:

ARTICLE 1 (Overview)

(a) This Act will be called the "No Same-Sex Marriage Act".
(b) This Act should be applied to all marriages in WA states.
(c) This Act will not affect current Marriages, but will affect future marriages.

ARTICLE 2 (Main)

(a) There must be no same-sex marriages allowed.
(b) Only Male-Female marriages can be allowed.
(c) Homosexual marriages are not allowed.
(d) Homosexuals can be together, but not married to each other.

ARTICLE 3 (Prevention)

(a) Nations should prevent and discourage same-sex marriages.
(b) Nations have the right to prevent and ban same-sex marriages.
(c) Nations currently allowing their citizens to have same-sex marriages should stop.


--

Delegates, please support this proposal!

It doesn't work that way, sorry. First, campaign against the Freedom of Marriage Act while it's at vote. If it passes, put forward a repeal (repeals can't propose new legislation; all they can do is argue why the existing law should be struck from the books). If it's repealed, then you can propose an act outlawing homosexual marriage.

This is an OUTRAGE, who the hell are you to dictate if a couple regardless of sex is happy or not

Yeah, I'm fairly certain such a proposal should even be struck from record. Doesn't this break the W.A. anti-discrimination rule?

I'm also strongly against the Freedom of Marriage Act, but I'm even more strongly against this one. If one set of beliefs is to be imposed on others, I'd rather it be one proposing greater equality, not discrimination.

This is an OUTRAGE, who the hell are you to dictate if a couple regardless of sex is happy or not

I didn't wrote that, lol.

--

This is not discrimination, by the way. I will post this proposal again to repeal the Freedom of Marriage Act if it got approved.

For your information this is my first proposal, so sorry if I had done anything wrong.

I ment for you dude, this is seriously not cool, the people should be able to marry if they want to, regardless of sex

Seriously, hell no, we're of conservative status. If the Freedom of Marriage is passed, I will do anything but not approve same-sex marriage

It is discrimination, since you're going from the 'extreme' presented by the Freedom of Marriage Act (allow gay marriages) to the opposite extreme (don't). And while the Act currently at vote simply opens the door for gays everywhere, yours closes it. The People of Sasquatchewain believe such a decision should be in the hands of the government, not in the hands of the WA. In such a way, this proposal (once cut up into the many legal forms required in triplicate) is just as bad as the FMA. However, it is truly worse since you are making the WA an active discriminator against homosexuals, who are individuals, while one might say the FMA makes the WA a discriminator against homophobic governments, which are etheral Platonic Forms.

The FMA makes the WA a Christian school (for an ironic metaphor), where only governments following a certain set of beliefs are allowed in.
This proposal makes all WA-States boys-only schools (for yet another metaphor), where only individuals following a certain physiological form are allowed into society.

Seriously, hell no, we're of conservative status. If the Freedom of Marriage is passed, I will do anything but not approve same-sex marriage



This statute, though we hesitate to call it that, is appalling. It's authors are under the delusion that it imbibes of the nature of moral decency, it does not.

The tenor of the defence of it suggests a form of unthinking and un-thought out bigotry which we fervently hope will serve only to damn this Hate-Law and it's immorally indecent animating philosophy.

We do not say this sort of thing lightly or often, but we sincerely hope that whatever measures the authors of this ghastly diatribe are prepared to enact if the freedom of marriage statute is passed include secession from the W.A. and do not include bringing forward this kind of legislative persecution again.

Yours e.t.c. ,

(IN rebuttal to the FREEDOM OF MARRIAGE ACT, ARTICLE 3(a))

The law hasn't been passed yet. If it had been passed, then this resolution would conflict with existing legislation and therefore be illegal. If it doesn't pass, it would refer to an act which is completely irrelevant and of which no record would exist. You must either submit this after the failure of the Freedom of Marriage act, or as a repeal after its success.

CONVINCED not to allow same-sex marriage,

DETERMINED to ensure that the union of 2 individuals MUST BE of different sex,

Ooh, strong language. You are determined, you furry beast you.

RESOLVED to defend the views of the Conservative society,

RECOGNIZING the views of Conservative communities,

There are still different views within the "Conservatie society". And you haven't defined what exactly constitutes "Conservative".

The World Assembly hereby adopt the following rsolution:

What you mean is: "The World Assembly hereby adopts the following resolution:"

ARTICLE 1 (Overview)

(a) This Act will be called the "No Same-Sex Marriage Act".

Well yes, I think the big title above the act should be pretty clear on that...

(b) This Act should be applied to all marriages in WA states.

This act will be applied to all marriages in the WA states. "Should" implies it might not be.

(c) This Act will not affect current Marriages, but will affect future marriages.

Well atleast you won't be turning society completely upside down, then. You haven't defined what constitutes a "marriage", though.

ARTICLE 2 (Main)

(a) There must be no same-sex marriages allowed.
(b) Only Male-Female marriages can be allowed.

What about other species with more genders than just male and female? And if we are to take the "LALALALALA THEY DON'T EXIST!" point of view, then this is redundant because you're saying the same thing twice. And again, you're using "must" instead of "will" implying it won't neccesarily be so.

(c) Homosexual marriages are not allowed.

I'm sorry, what I meant was, it's redundant because you're saying the same thing thrice.

(d) Homosexuals can be together, but not married to each other.
Well isn't that generous of you.

ARTICLE 3 (Prevention)

(a) Nations should prevent and discourage same-sex marriages.
(b) Nations have the right to prevent and ban same-sex marriages.
(c) Nations currently allowing their citizens to have same-sex marriages should stop.

So what you're saying is, they don't neccesarily have to, they just should and have the right to do so? Because then that makes this a bit of a useless bill, as it wouldn't do anything.

Delegates, please support this proposal!

I'm just going to assume you were referring to national delegates, and not regional delegates, or else I'd feel insulted because apparently the other 17,000 persons aren't important.

And of course, we're opposed to the bill because we think that homosexual marriage should be allowed. After all, for the purpose of the law, a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) are the same as a man and a woman. Aren't they?

-High Council Member M. Stuart
31st of August, 14:49

Doesn't this proposal have about 7 clauses that say exactly the same thing? Just how many times is it necessary to ban same-sex marriage within the same act?

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/orgy.jpg

Doesn't this proposal have about 7 clauses that say exactly the same thing? Just how many times is it necessary to ban same-sex marriage within the same act?

Two that say it should be prevented.
One that says there must not be same-sex marriages.
Two that say it can not be allowed.
One that says it is not allowed.
One that says it should stop being allowed, as the grand finale.

And then there are the two CONVINCED and DETERMINED statements, which also (state the WA's willingness to) disallow it.

To: RBS

Even though our nations are close allies, NMH will not support your proposal into the WA.

I had done a new proposal to WA, but will release it after the vote for the "Freedom of Marriage Act"

Current statistics shows that it would be passed. What a huge gap between "For" and "Against"

These are only early votes. Plenty of proposals start out well, and then the gap closes and it is eventually voted against by a large majority.

Once the most important regional delegates have voted and the majority of nations catches on, you'll be able to see the picture better.

Why do you care so much about what people get up to in their bedroom? What harm does it do you?

Why do you care so much about what people get up to in their bedroom? What harm does it do you?

Why not ask the same person who did the Freedom of Marriage thing.

Hope it doesn't pass or else I would have to take the trouble to amend my proposal to repeal it.

Why not ask the same person who did the Freedom of Marriage thing.


Perhaps the honoured ambassador for Parilisa will do but for now they have asked you, will you do them the politeness of answering their question or will you maintain this infantile approach to a debate you have provoked?


yours e.t.c. ,

President Jerzy "Jay" Novakovich of The United Socialist States of Jaynova, West Pacific, is vehemently against this proposal. While the Freedom of Marriage act stands on what I shall refer to as "grey area", in that it potentially steps on member nations' sovereignty, the No Same-Sex Marriage Act unabashedly dismisses national sovereignty. We cannot say "NAY" loudly enough on this.

Your repeal would have my approval, but I have resigned from the WA to prevent such filth from enacting in my glorious nation. Also, As much as I would be in support of your repeal, it would not pass. This proposal is already passing by a landslide, thus I resign.

Your repeal would have my approval, but I have resigned from the WA to prevent such filth from enacting in my glorious nation. Also, As much as I would be in support of your repeal, it would not pass. This proposal is already passing by a landslide, thus I resign.


Goodness, is that what jesus would have done?

yours e.t.c. ,

The Queendom of Rayrthiztan, believing in the people's right to Do Whatever the Hell They Want, cannot support you in your search for approval for this proposal-to-be.

Your repeal would have my approval, but I have resigned from the WA to prevent such filth from enacting in my glorious nation. Also, As much as I would be in support of your repeal, it would not pass. This proposal is already passing by a landslide, thus I resign.
Amusingly, in doing so, you have removed your region's vote against it. As such, it is now more likely to pass.

So, on behalf of everyone voting in favour, I thank you for supporting the legalisation of gay marriage!

Oh the conservatives who are against same sex marriages still could do the following:
The states doesn't recognise (all) marriages.
Some cults or religions can have the marriages as they want. Because than it is a (sacred?) rite and the religious ones or whatever only give the marriage rights to the ones as queer or straight whatever they like.

But really if those nations so conservative leave WA, I do not care, but it will be a loss for discussion, but maybe we will have a nicer WA assembly.

All nations are free to leave WA, or to enter. I would say, do whatever you want, follow your beliefs.

Regards

Yeah, I'm fairly certain such a proposal should even be struck from record. Doesn't this break the W.A. anti-discrimination rule?

What anti-discrimination rule? I'm quite well versed in the Proposal Rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) and I can't remember any anti-discrimination rule in there.

There's a couple of advantages and disadvantages here and there in the Freedom of Marriage Act.

The major ones are:

ADVANTAGE: Freedom & more civil rights to people
DISADVANTAGE: Homosexual marriages may be on the rise. Hence, decreasing the male-female marriages and you will have no more children, the birth rate decreases, and not enough people to replace those dying, and hence, year by year, your population is going down.

Hope you know what I mean

DISADVANTAGE: Homosexual marriages may be on the rise. Hence, decreasing the male-female marriages and you will have no more children, the birth rate decreases, and not enough people to replace those dying, and hence, year by year, your population is going down.
Interesting that you assume that a heterosexual marriage automatically produces children, that children can only be produced in wedlock, that 4% (rough estimate) of the population not being heterosexual seriously endangers the heterosexuality of the other 96%, and that, with in many developed nations death rates falling and life expectancy rising, falling birth rates is necessarily a bad thing in so overpopulated a world.

But this argument has nothing to do with marriage, which to repeat, does not automatically require the production of children.

Interesting that you assume that a heterosexual marriage automatically produces children, that children can only be produced in wedlock, that 4% (rough estimate) of the population not being heterosexual seriously endangers the heterosexuality of the other 96%, and that, with in many developed nations death rates falling and life expectancy rising, falling birth rates is necessarily a bad thing in so overpopulated a world.

But this argument has nothing to do with marriage, which to repeat, does not automatically require the production of children.

Marriage got to do with children, unless you want to have unweds with children all over the place. And btw, a heterosexual marriage DO NOT automatically produces children but at least there's a chance, ain't I correct?

Marriage got to do with children, unless you want to have unweds with children all over the place.
Why would that be a bad thing?
And btw, a heterosexual marriage DO NOT automatically produces children but at least there's a chance, ain't I correct?
There's the exact same chance of a non-marital relationship producing children.

The above discussion, of course, concerns only traditional conception; with IVF, the distinction is further eclipsed.

Edit: Nonetheless, this is getting a bit off-topic.

I'm perfectly happy to ignore the proposal from The Royal British States for the following reasons:

a) Serious paucity of credible reasons/justifications for the stated position - arguments should be answered but rants go away when we stop responding to them: fun as it all may be, this is a tired issue and one where the 'right' position, according to our current norms and standards, is blindingly self evident

b) Faith in the idea that the majority of WA members know blind bigotry when they see it and will resolutely refuse to endorse it.

Personally, I voted for the Freedom of Marriage thing and am well satisfied that all reasonable WA states will follow suit, especially given that it has unearthed this dangerous strain of reactionary opinion, which it is the responsibility of the politically enlightened to act against.

Stay cool, people ;)

Well, ignoring the fact that it's accidentally an amendment-within-a-repeal, we're still opposed to the legislation. The Congress was tempted to commission our copy of the document into the custodial services as a roll of toilet paper, but decided against it at the last minute on the grounds that its gritty texture would not be very pleasant.

At any rate, bigotry and stupidity are abhorred to us. You'd have just as good a chance getting our government to support a "Kill All Christians" proposal.

Whilst the power to legislate the terms of martial unions should be a matter of sovereignty, so many nations have failed to equally endow all their citizens with equal rights. This constitutes, in our view, a violation of the responsibility to protect and provide for a populace, and as such justifies the international community's imposition in this matter.

Marriage is a civil contract entered into with the intention to remain in that union for life, and the intention to create a household within that union, to the exclusion of all others. This union grants special rights, privileges and duties and imposes a unique cultural a legal status that if denied on the basis of religious morality, constitutes a theocratic violation of individual rights to equality.

The marriage is somehow relevant to population. Think carefully.

The marriage is somehow relevant to population. Think carefully.

The state has no role in legislating the reproductive habits of the nation.

The Holy Empire of New Illuve fails to see the connection between marriage and population. As pointed out earlier, marriage does not equal pro-creation. Neither one entails the other, nor is the one necessary for the other.

And the idea put forward by Royal British States that allowing same-sex marriages would reduce the number of different-sex marriages (and, in the worry of Royal British States, the number of children born) has yet to be backed by any form of argument or evidence. That homosexuals would suddenly decide to enter into heterosexual marriages - and then procreate - is something the Holy Empire finds hard to accept. Or that heterosexuals, being allowed to marry their own gender, would suddenly decide to forgo said in favor of a same-sex marriage is even more unbelievable.

Is the institution of marriage in Royal British States, or other "Conservative" cultures so weak that it must be kept alive in this manner? Or are there simply so few true heterosexuals in those nations that foisting heterosexual marriage upon the populace is the only viable option?

Hope it doesn't pass or else I would have to take the trouble to amend my proposal to repeal it.

Regardless of whether it passes or not, your proposal REQUIRES amendment. If it passes, you will have to completely rephrase it as a repeal, and repeals CANNOT contain the suggested replacement law. If it fails, then your reference to it becomes entirely moot.

You would be well advised to post future drafts here for review and revision before submitting anything to the proposal queue. As it stands, the only thing that prevented you from getting a warning for posting this one as-is was my level of energy this evening (as in 'couldn't be bothered to send a TG').

The current version has been removed. Check the rules carefully before reposting.

Although the nation of New Sequoyah is morally in agreement of this resolution, we have several objections.

One, first a repeal would need to be made, and need to pass, before this could be brought up. New Sequoyah is fiercely in favor of such a repeal. We find the "Freedom of Marriage Act" to be an abomination.

Two, as much as New Sequoyah is in favor of this resolution, marriage is an internal affair of sovereign states, and we believe that as such, the individual nations should determine the status of marriage to their satisfaction. We do not believe that the World Assembly should be dictating the terms of marriage to her member nations.

Rutianas is quite content to ignore this proposal completely. We feel that marriage should be decided by individual nations, no matter what my nation's views on the subject are.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador and Delegate for the Korel Region

We feel that marriage should be decided by individual nations, no matter what my nation's views on the subject are.



Then why is there a Freedom of Marriage Act?

Frisbeeteria, thanks for advice.

Then why is there a Freedom of Marriage Act?

Esteemed Ambassador,

That resolution is not something that we support. Much for the same reasons. We do not feel that Marriage is something that should be decided at an international level.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador and Delegate for the Korel Region

There's a couple of advantages and disadvantages here and there in the Freedom of Marriage Act.

The major ones are:

ADVANTAGE: Freedom & more civil rights to people

Good enough for us.

DISADVANTAGE: Homosexual marriages may be on the rise. Hence, decreasing the male-female marriages and you will have no more children, the birth rate decreases, and not enough people to replace those dying, and hence, year by year, your population is going down.

That's the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Marriage between same-sex partners has been legal in the Altan Steppes for well over 300 years, and there has been no diminishing in our population as a result of it. (It helps that our peoples tend to be polyamorous, but I digress.)

Needless to say, the Trilateral Federation will never support something like this.

-Irina Misheli, Deputy Ambassador

I think I have to rephrase myself.

Number of babies borned will decrease. Unless an entire group of foreigners land at your nations then that's why your population increases.

I think I have to rephrase myself.
I think you have to justify yourself, personally.

Number of babies borned will decrease.
Because? You still haven't offered a shred of evidence or logic for this. Possibly that's because the evidence and logic is all against you.

Meh, we've always been accepting of gay marriage, and our population figures are just fine...

Off-topic: how many of the ambassadors here would support a proposal that guaranteed full faith and credit for the marriages and similar contracts of foreign visitors?

Off-topic: how many of the ambassadors here would support a proposal that guaranteed full faith and credit for the marriages and similar contracts of foreign visitors?

Yes, definitely. It's very important when you get to issues of consent when someone is incapable, for example in emergency medical procedures.

Why not ask the same person who did the Freedom of Marriage thing.

Ambassador, the Freedom of Marriage Act, and the proposal you have brought here to discussion are not concerned with what 'happens in the bedroom' for marriage and other civil unions are public events.

However, it is clear that your point of contention indeed has to do with what happens in the privacy of a couple's bedroom. For you oppose same-sex marriage, presumably, because two persons of the same sex behave differently in those circumstances.

Therefore, in a way, the FoM Act sends a strong message saying that it is no government's business what happens in the bedroom in the sense that no Nation has no business discriminating homosexuals.

Your proposal, however, would bring the State to that private sphere, issuing moral judgments about the sexual behavior of its citizens dignifying some and vilifying others.

Ambassador, the Freedom of Marriage Act, and the proposal you have brought here to discussion are not concerned with what 'happens in the bedroom' for marriage and other civil unions are public events.

However, it is clear that your point of contention indeed has to do with what happens in the privacy of a couple's bedroom. For you oppose same-sex marriage, presumably, because two persons of the same sex behave differently in those circumstances.

Therefore, in a way, the FoM Act sends a strong message saying that it is no government's business what happens in the bedroom in the sense that no Nation has no business discriminating homosexuals.

Your proposal, however, would bring the State to that private sphere, issuing moral judgments about the sexual behavior of its citizens dignifying some and vilifying others.

There you go, your answer.

Because? You still haven't offered a shred of evidence or logic for this. Possibly that's because the evidence and logic is all against you.

Nope, look at real life examples.

Nope, look at real life examples....such as?

Such as?

Name one nation that, immediately after allowing same-sex marriage, had a significant drop in birth rates.

As well, it is generally believed by the scientific community (one that, I must say, I give precedence over the religious community), though I am in no way stating this to be a definite stance, is not a choice, but something somehow engineered in the individual.
Perhaps it is genetic, with homosexuals sharing a particular gene (or set thereof) that inverts the traditional (not to sound derogatory, but one could argue that heterosexuality is the "norm," what with it's overwhelming existence in humankind and nature as a whole. However, it is completely fallacious to say homosexuality is therefore unnatural. Off-center, at best. However, homosexuality is also found in almost every variety of multi-cellular animal...) direction of sexual attraction. This is especially relevant if you take homo/heterosexuality as a part of one's personality, since personality is taken to be highly genetic (however, one could also take intelligence to be a part of one's personality, but that has been shown to actually be highly environmental, with genes only setting a "not smarter than this," so this part of the argument could be weak or entirely wrong).
Perhaps it's more environmental. Slight directives put in place in the person's sub-conscious during early childhood. Or even while the child is in the womb. A very statistically-important percentage of homosexuals are younger brothers to another child. Homosexuality could be an evolutionary curiosity: the sacrifice of one child's own genes in order to have him/her focus on assisting with raising the children of the other children (this would also be a valid bet for the homosexual him/herself since, while they won't succeed in passing on 100% of their genes, they will be able to not only pass on 50% of their genes through their siblings, but then further assist their newborn, increasing the child's chances of passing its genes (which are still 25% his/hers) even further down genetic history.

Such as?

Name one nation that, immediately after allowing same-sex marriage, had a significant drop in birth rates.

As well, it is generally believed by the scientific community (one that, I must say, I give precedence over the religious community), though I am in no way stating this to be a definite stance, is not a choice, but something somehow engineered in the individual.
Perhaps it is genetic, with homosexuals sharing a particular gene (or set thereof) that inverts the traditional (not to sound derogatory, but one could argue that heterosexuality is the "norm," what with it's overwhelming existence in humankind and nature as a whole. However, it is completely fallacious to say homosexuality is therefore unnatural. Off-center, at best. However, homosexuality is also found in almost every variety of multi-cellular animal...) direction of sexual attraction. This is especially relevant if you take homo/heterosexuality as a part of one's personality, since personality is taken to be highly genetic (however, one could also take intelligence to be a part of one's personality, but that has been shown to actually be highly environmental, with genes only setting a "not smarter than this," so this part of the argument could be weak or entirely wrong).
Perhaps it's more environmental. Slight directives put in place in the person's sub-conscious during early childhood. Or even while the child is in the womb. A very statistically-important percentage of homosexuals are younger brothers to another child. Homosexuality could be an evolutionary curiosity: the sacrifice of one child's own genes in order to have him/her focus on assisting with raising the children of the other children (this would also be a valid bet for the homosexual him/herself since, while they won't succeed in passing on 100% of their genes, they will be able to not only pass on 50% of their genes through their siblings, but then further assist their newborn, increasing the child's chances of passing its genes (which are still 25% his/hers) even further down genetic history.


Really esteemed Ambassador while we applaud your enlightened stance on this issue, we must point out that these ruminations are at best not relevant to this debate. It is enough to know that homosexuality exists, has always existed and barring some giant leap in the field of brain washing will likely always exist. Those who's dislike of homosexuality drives them to formulate this particular form of legislation may as well be writting laws to ban people from laughing or unusual whether events.

The Ambassador of the Royal British States is engaged in an excercise in complete futility and senseless folly. We will not dignify these efforts with our consideration any longer, nor should any sensible or decent delegacy in our opinion.

yours e.t.c. ,

Ok now, I will give one example of a nation, that bans same-sex marriages & sexual intercourse.

Which is none other than my homeland, Singapore.

Ok I bet some of you dont even know where is that, so read up its article on Wikipedia. Small population, hence banning same-sex marriage.

False.

Well, perhaps that was the fallacious reasoning given by the government to do such a thing, but then there's, for one, Denmark, where I reside.

Denmark was in fact the first modern country in the world to create some form of legal same-sex "marriage" or civil contract. And yet it's population is still growing. Not only is gay marriage legal (which "of course" means all men are marrying men and all women are marrying women because God knows heterosexuals are only so because God says it's best), but Denmark is also just about the epitome of European...ness. It is rare to have a stay-home mom, most women instead preferring a career and having children only at a much more developed age, therefore decreasing the useful fertile era of each woman.

And yet the population is still growing. Slowly, yes, but growing. And not just due to immigration. Check the demographics. Birth-rate is higher than death-rate.

Please present us yet another reason for the banning of same-sex civil rights (to use the term), and make sure it is a valid one this time.

Thank you and enjoy your stay.

Singapore: A Fine City.

OOC: Or take the opposite position - would Royal British States care to explain how Italy, which does not allow same-sex marriage, still has a negative birth rate? Beyond that, most people there are Catholic, and shouldn't be using birth control measures....

This statute, though we hesitate to call it that, is appalling. It's authors are under the delusion that it imbibes of the nature of moral decency, it does not.

The tenor of the defence of it suggests a form of unthinking and un-thought out bigotry which we fervently hope will serve only to damn this Hate-Law and it's immorally indecent animating philosophy.

We do not say this sort of thing lightly or often, but we sincerely hope that whatever measures the authors of this ghastly diatribe are prepared to enact if the freedom of marriage statute is passed include secession from the W.A. and do not include bringing forward this kind of legislative persecution again.

Yours e.t.c. ,
I think perchance we should go for something such as :

No Marriage Act


Category: Moral Decency


Description: Nations of the World Assembly:


(IN rebuttal to the FREEDOM OF MARRIAGE ACT, ARTICLE 3(a))
(IN rebuttal to No Same-Sex Marriage Act)

CONVINCED that marriage as a concept causes dissention amongst the peoples of the world.

DETERMINED to improve the harmony of all individuals

RESOLVED to reduce the burden that weddings cause society.

RECOGNIZING the views of everyone and no one.

The World Assembly hereby adopts the following resolution:

ARTICLE 1 (Overview)

(a) This Act will be called the "No Marriage Act".
(b) This Act shall be applied to all marriages in WA states.
(c) This Act will affect current Marriages and future marriages.

ARTICLE 2 (Main)

(a) There must be no marriages allowed.
(b) Male-Female marriages can not be allowed.
(c) Homosexual marriages are not allowed.
(d) Homosexuals can be together, but not married to each other.
(e) Males & Females can be together, but not married to each other.
(f) Human-Animal marriages are not allowed.
(g) Cats & Dogs can be together, but not married to each other.

ARTICLE 3 (Prevention)

(a) Nations shall prevent any invididuals from marrying.
(b) Nations have the right to disolve, prevent and ban marriages.
(c) Nations currently allowing their citizens to marry will stop.

OOC: Or take the opposite position - would Royal British States care to explain how Italy, which does not allow same-sex marriage, still has a negative birth rate? Beyond that, most people there are Catholic, and shouldn't be using birth control measures....

Yeah, because we all know that Catholics believe that every sperm is sacred (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8).

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

Ok now, I will give one example of a nation, that bans same-sex marriages & sexual intercourse.

Which is none other than my homeland, Singapore.

Ok I bet some of you dont even know where is that, so read up its article on Wikipedia. Small population, hence banning same-sex marriage.

Singapore also bans chewing gum and spitting, and punishes people by caning.

I would prefer it if the government of Singapore didn't dictate morality for the rest of us.

Off-topic: how many of the ambassadors here would support a proposal that guaranteed full faith and credit for the marriages and similar contracts of foreign visitors?

We'd strongly support such a proposal, and if the WA wouldn't pass one, we'd still offer that to any nation willing to reciprocate that with our citizens in their nation.

Singapore also bans chewing gum and spitting, and punishes people by caning.

I would prefer it if the government of Singapore didn't dictate morality for the rest of us.

By banning chewing gum and spitting, it is to ensure cleaniness.

By canning people, it is to teach other people that crime is a serious matter, and now, our country had so less prisoners that we can put them in only 1 prison.

By banning chewing gum and spitting, it is to ensure cleaniness.

By canning people, it is to teach other people that crime is a serious matter, and now, our country had so less prisoners that we can put them in only 1 prison.

Or, you could simply educate your people not to throw their used gum in the street. Spitting the same way. The Japanese do just fine without laws about that sort of thing- it's cultural and learned that it's unacceptable to litter or jaywalk or the like.

Punishment is a sorry replacement for early education. Caning teaches people to fear their masters.

But, to avoid thread drift, it's the same thing with the so-called dangerous lifestyles you are railing against. The best way to avoid spreading diseases like AIDs or herpes within a community is to educate people and destigmatize them so treatment and safe sex procedures.

You should be able to see where I'm going with this. Marriage makes no guaranty that children will be produced. In Snefaldia, there are certain ethnic groups that have no concept of the individual family; children are raised by the village. Similarly, there is no need to enforce same-sex taboos, since most people have multiple partners.

Do you see my point? It's disingenuous to argue such false pretenses.

Nemo Taranton
Ambassador Plenipotens

Apparently there are a couple of proposals to repeal the Freedom of Marriage Act.

I bet that one by one it will be removed. -.-


People had each of their own say.

Apparently there are a couple of proposals to repeal the Freedom of Marriage Act.That happens after every single Resolution. Even ones that pass by a landslide and are generally agreed to be good law.

Apparently there are a couple of proposals to repeal the Freedom of Marriage Act.

About 20 of them so far, I think. All but two or three of them were blatantly illegal by WA proposal rules.

If these people would actually participate in the process in the game and forums, instead of mindlessly lashing out with dumb repeal attempts, they might have achieved their goals via democratic action.

Or not. It's quite possible that this body has sufficient interest in supporting this resolution as to prevent passage of the repeal. Especially when they're as poorly written as the current crop.

As a member of the region of Gay and WA member, i can confidently say that my region along with many others would vigorously oppose said repeal. The effort to repeal this resolution is aimed at stripping the civil rights of a particular group of people simply because you do not like them. It is discrimination and hate and i will lobby the WA to defeat it.

As a member of the region of Gay and WA member, i can confidently say that my region along with many others would vigorously oppose said repeal. The effort to repeal this resolution is aimed at stripping the civil rights of a particular group of people simply because you do not like them. It is discrimination and hate and i will lobby the WA to defeat it.

I disagree. I do not hate gays, but I'm only against their marriage.

Ok now, I will give one example of a nation, that bans same-sex marriages & sexual intercourse.

Which is none other than my homeland, Singapore.

Small population, hence banning same-sex marriage.

Malaysia has 27 million people and, as we have recently been reminded in a rather sordid manner, sodomy is also illegal there. Indonesia has 234 million, ditto. China, the world's largest country by population, does not have same-sex marriage either. On the other hand, New Zealand has approximately the same population as Singapore, and recognises civil unions which are functionally the same as marriage. The illegality of gay marriage there, and in most countries, is most likely because the society in general isn't progressive enough to want to overturn what has existed by default, not because of population concerns.

This is a non sequitur; there is just no correlation between population growth/population size and the extent to which there is recognition of rights for homosexuals. You are drawing links where none exist. By this logic, Singapore's government shouldn't have to be, as they are, handing out money left, right and centre to get the birthrate up - an issue which exists despite merely being homosexual being illegal.

I disagree. I do not hate gays, but I'm only against their marriage.

No problem, as I said before just ban marriage for all and you are fine.

(And about catholics, just 9 months after Carnaval in my country there is always a rise in the birth rate, but no real rise in the marriage rate.)

Regards

Ok now, I will give one example of a nation, that bans same-sex marriages & sexual intercourse.

Which is none other than my homeland, Singapore.

Ok I bet some of you dont even know where is that, so read up its article on Wikipedia. Small population, hence banning same-sex marriage.I don't see how banning same sex marriage increases babies. If you are homosexual you are not about to start jumping on the opposite sex just because a government tells you that you have to...it just means they'll be far more discreet about their activities.

I disagree. I do not hate gays, but I'm only against their marriage.

If you don't hate homosexuals, then why does it matter to you if they marry or not? Your homosexuality = lower birthrate theory has already been blown out of the water repeatedly. So, what other reason that makes sense is there?

-Irina Misheli, Deputy Ambassador

Unwed gay sex= no babies.
Unwed straight sex= babies, or maybe not.

Married gay sex= still no babies!
Married straight sex= babies, or maybe not.

The logic train wasn't hitched up to the thinkin' engine, was it?

Nemo Taranton
Ambassador Plenipotens

No no, Snefaldia, his theory is:

Gay + Marriage = impossible. Therefore, Gay will become Heterosexual, for the sake of marriage.

Heterosexual + Marriage = Babies

And also: Gay + Legalisation = More Gay = Less Babies

The logic train wasn't hitched up to the thinkin' engine, was it?

Brilliant.

OOC If an alien civilization arrived at the NationStates and looked at the proposals submitted to the World Assembly it would clearly conclude that it had been created to discuss all possible arguments to repeal the Freedom of Marriage Act.

OOC If an alien civilization arrived at the NationStates and looked at the proposals submitted to the World Assembly it would clearly conclude that it had been created to discuss all possible arguments to repeal the Freedom of Marriage Act.
Or they'd conclude NS as the place our otherwise normal society hid away its neurotic reactionaries, moral tolerance crusaders and chronic drunks...

Reflected by the WA's official motto: "Give me Sovereignty/Equality/Corona or give me Death!"

Cheers, green guys with big eyes!

Or they'd conclude NS as the place our otherwise normal society hid away its neurotic reactionaries, moral tolerance crusaders and chronic drunks...

Reflected by the WA's official motto: "Give me Sovereignty/Equality/Corona or give me Death!"

Cheers, green guys with big eyes!

OOC, yes :) but earlier today there were 10 (ten!) proposals to repeal the FoM Act.

Or they'd conclude NS as the place our otherwise normal society hid away its neurotic reactionaries, moral tolerance crusaders and chronic drunks...

Reflected by the WA's official motto: "Give me Sovereignty/Equality/Corona or give me Death!"

Cheers, green guys with big eyes!I thought the motto was "Abandon hop all ye who enter here"?

OOC, yes :) but earlier today there were 10 (ten!) proposals to repeal the FoM Act.

Yeah well, when you write a resolution as controversial as yours you should expect that.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Yeah well, when you write a resolution as controversial as yours you should expect that.


A 56% approval rate hardly qualifies as controversial. Most presidents of this world are elected by a much tighter margin.

A 56% approval rate hardly qualifies as controversial. Most presidents of this world are elected by a much tighter margin.

Gay marriage is a controversial subject, period.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Gay marriage is a controversial subject, period.


Non-controversial issues are not subject to a vote, they are simply unanimously accepted. What you mean by that is that some people you consider to be intelligent or otherwise worthy of respect are against 'gay marriage'.

Gay marriage is a controversial subject, period.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative


Thus spake Zarathustra. It seems the honoured Ambassador for Flibbleites has taken up the rather quaint position of Oracle, or perhaps Prophet, we will be sure and address all questions to them in future to be sure of absolute certainty in all matters.


Yours e.t.c. ,

I know I'm as guilty as anyone of this but, we can all stop if we want to, and given no one seems inclined to move the discussion into a 'happy place', it might be an idea. I absolutely guarantee the thread starter a) cannot draft a legal version of their proposal and b) in the event they did would not be able to get it to quorum. I will eat my own face if they do.

Another repeal may well reach quorum, but in the meantime, the resolution has passed, for now it is over, and our resources might be better spent improving the sexual privacy proposal draft.

Malaysia has 27 million people and, as we have recently been reminded in a rather sordid manner, sodomy is also illegal there. Indonesia has 234 million, ditto. China, the world's largest country by population, does not have same-sex marriage either. On the other hand, New Zealand has approximately the same population as Singapore, and recognises civil unions which are functionally the same as marriage. The illegality of gay marriage there, and in most countries, is most likely because the society in general isn't progressive enough to want to overturn what has existed by default, not because of population concerns.

This is a non sequitur; there is just no correlation between population growth/population size and the extent to which there is recognition of rights for homosexuals. You are drawing links where none exist. By this logic, Singapore's government shouldn't have to be, as they are, handing out money left, right and centre to get the birthrate up - an issue which exists despite merely being homosexual being illegal.

Could you kindly refer to your world map, and see how small is Singapore compared to the other countries you brought up. Of course there's a difference in population.

If you don't hate homosexuals, then why does it matter to you if they marry or not? Your homosexuality = lower birthrate theory has already been blown out of the water repeatedly. So, what other reason that makes sense is there?

Just a kind reminder, hate=/=marriage.

Another repeal may well reach quorum, but in the meantime, the resolution has passed, for now it is over, and our resources might be better spent improving the sexual privacy proposal draft.

If anyone wants to attempt a redraft of this one, start a new thread.

If anyone wants to continue the discussion about Singapore or any other real world events, start a thread in General.

This one is closed.