NationStates Jolt Archive

Fellow delegates,
Since being admitted to the World Assembly, Ondars hasn't encountered difficulty implementing any of the WA resolutions, save Resolution #15.
The core of the problem is that, as a Catholic theocracy, marriage in Ondars has religious implications, and can only be performed by a priest. Laws have been enacted to allow for the protection of any variety of marriages, but the Catholic Church in Ondars has flatly refused to marry homosexual, or other "abnormal" couplings.
Ondars has, for a long time, allowed homosexuals (among other sexual minority groups) to carry out their lives as they see fit, but this particular issue is beginning to cause some social unrest.
We would now like to begin discussions with any other delegates who support the replacement of this resolution with another. We suggest that the replacement resolution be written to require nations to accept the validity of marriages carried out in other nations. This will allow Ondars to respect these marriages, while not requiring our nation to dispose of our own traditions by employing non-ordained ministers (which would cause a schism in our government), or forcing our ordained ministers to carry out acts contrary to their consciences (which would be unethical).
We suspect this will also provide some amount of economic advantages to other nations who perform these marriages, as the homosexual community in Ondars (as well as in other similar nations) would likely begin to vacation in these nations for marriages and honeymoons.
We seek the feedback of the international community.

I disagree with this 100%

I have many problems with this proposal. First, this resolution, much like every other issue concerning minorities, puts protective bubble wrap around homosexuals. Secondly, this infringes upon the sovereignty of any nation which does not recognize homosexual marriage (or nations that don't provide benefits to married couples at all). And lastly, this resolution would solve nothing from a world perspective.

Our support for the Freedom of Marriage act is a matter of public record but the honoured Ambassador for Ondars should not construe that to mean that we cannot understand some of the misconceptions the honoured Ambassador's nation may be suffering under.

The FoMa does not require that the honoured Ambassador's nation perform marriages of any kind for any group within its society. Instead it requires the recognition of a legal status created by a contract of personal union between two persons.

This does not require the state to involve itself in the " marriage " contract itself. The FoMa merely requires governments to recognise autonomously generated contracts ( if need be ) and to extend the same rights to those ingaged in this contract the same rights as thos your government has up till now recognised.

This amounts to the same thing as recognising marriages which have been contracted in foreign states . No Minister or Registrar need be involved.


yours sincerely,

I disagree with this 100%

I have many problems with this proposal. First, this resolution, much like every other issue concerning minorities, puts protective bubble wrap around homosexuals. Secondly, this infringes upon the sovereignty of any nation which does not recognize homosexual marriage (or nations that don't provide benefits to married couples at all). And lastly, this resolution would solve nothing from a world perspective.



It appears that the honoured Ambassador for Shoujou has not read the honoured Ambassador for Ondars' actual comments. And having not read these comment has decided to affront this organisation with foolishness and nonsense.


yours e.t.c. ,

It appears that the honoured Ambassador for Shoujou has not read the honoured Ambassador for Ondars' actual comments. And having not read these comment has decided to affront this organisation with foolishness and nonsense.


yours e.t.c. ,

The Ambassador of Urgench misunderstands my position to the Ambassador of Ondars position. I understand that he wishes to re-write or amend Resolution #15 to include that marriages recognized in one nation, must be recognized in another.

And having said this, I stand by my original comments and concerns.

Our support for the Freedom of Marriage act is a matter of public record but the honoured Ambassador for Ondars should not construe that to mean that we cannot understand some of the misconceptions the honoured Ambassador's nation may be suffering under.

The FoMa does not require that the honoured Ambassador's nation perform marriages of any kind for any group within its society. Instead it requires the recognition of a legal status created by a contract of personal union between two persons.

This does not require the state to involve itself in the " marriage " contract itself. The FoMa merely requires governments to recognise autonomously generated contracts ( if need be ) and to extend the same rights to those ingaged in this contract the same rights as thos your government has up till now recognised.

This amounts to the same thing as recognising marriages which have been contracted in foreign states . No Minister or Registrar need be involved.


yours sincerely,

Many thanks to the delegate of Urgench; Ondars appreciates your clarifications. We wholly accept Articles 1 and 2 of the Resolution and have provided legislative support for them in recent weeks.
We beg your continued patience however, as our interpretation of Article 3, Section A may be flawed. The State and the Church in Ondars are effectively the same organization. This results in Ondars not allowing the entry to marriage of non-heterosexual couples. This apparently violates this section, and has been the cause of political debate in our nation.

The Ambassador of Urgench misunderstands my position to the Ambassador of Ondars position. I understand that he wishes to re-write or amend Resolution #15 to include that marriages recognized in one nation, must be recognized in another.

And having said this, I stand by my original comments and concerns.

The honored delegate of Shoujou should realize that, as currently written, Resolution #15 requires your nation to recognize the validity of homosexual marriage. It may also require your nation to allow the creation of these unions within your political boundaries.
Ondars is asking that this be amended to require the recognition of those marriages, but allow for them to occur on foreign soil, rather than requiring that they be allowed to occur in your sovereign territory.
Ondars is attempting to resolve a conflict between a religious requirement and a legislative requirement. This conflict is surely one that has been encountered by other nations.

The Ambassador of Urgench misunderstands my position to the Ambassador of Ondars position. I understand that he wishes to re-write or amend Resolution #15 to include that marriages recognized in one nation, must be recognized in another.

And having said this, I stand by my original comments and concerns.



This does not change the fact that the honoured Ambassador for Shoujou has completely and gratuitously misrepresented the FoMa for purposes we can only speculate on the iniquity of.


yours e.t.c. ,

Delegate of Ondars, I never said that I was against homosexual marriage, and in fact, they are allowed to, in the nation of Shoujou.

My concern for this bill is only a matter of the sovereignty, because it would force nations to recognize marriages that do not take place within their borders.

Delegate of Ondar, if your local church is not recognizing the right of homosexual couples who wish to be married, should they not be arrested for infringing on their rights?

This does not change the fact that the honoured Ambassador for Shoujou has completely and gratuitously misrepresented the FoMa for purposes we can only speculate on the iniquity of.


yours e.t.c. ,

If the Ambassador of Urgench would like to continue to make gross and unfounded claims upon the nation of Shoujou, then he may continue to do so. However, the Ambassador of Shoujou would like to point out that he has not misrepresented Article #15 in any form. Furthermore, the Ambassador of Shoujou would like to invite the Ambassador of Urgench to the debate at hand, instead of attempting to call in the character of Shoujou's Ambassador.

Delegate of Ondars, I never said that I was against homosexual marriage, and in fact, they are allowed to, in the nation of Shoujou.

My concern for this bill is only a matter of the sovereignty, because it would force nations to recognize marriages that do not take place within their borders.

Delegate of Ondar, if your local church is not recognizing the right of homosexual couples who wish to be married, should they not be arrested for infringing on their rights?

Honored Delegate of Shoujou,
It appears that we are both concerned about national sovereignty. That is a starting point that we may eventually come to some form of agreement over, with luck.
Ondars' concern is rooted in the perception that Resolution #15 would require non-heterosexual marriages to occur in our nation. Since the Holy Republic and the Church in Ondars are the same organization, that would require Church endorse non-heterosexual marriage, which is not likely to happen.
We remain hopeful that the Delegate from Urgench will provide further clarification that may alleviate our misunderstanding of the Resolution.
We believe that a "marriages in other nations must be observed" resolution would reduce the impact on sovereignty that is caused by a "non-heterosexual marriage must be observed" resolution, but we welcome your opinion and input.
Further, Ondars suggests this resolution only as an entry into the discussion. We encourage the delegate of Shoujou to provide an alternative, superior resolution to the perceived issues of World Assembly Resolution #15.

Many thanks to the delegate of Urgench; Ondars appreciates your clarifications. We wholly accept Articles 1 and 2 of the Resolution and have provided legislative support for them in recent weeks.
We beg your continued patience however, as our interpretation of Article 3, Section A may be flawed. The State and the Church in Ondars are effectively the same organization. This results in Ondars not allowing the entry to marriage of non-heterosexual couples. This apparently violates this section, and has been the cause of political debate in our nation.



So currently no marriages are being contracted in Ondars respected Ambassador? And no marriages from before the introduction of the FoMa are recognised? In line with your nation's compliance with the FoMa?

The best approach your government might take, honoured Ambassador, is to allow civil contracts which the state treats as equal to those celebrated in churches. So long as these contracts are treated equally in law and enjoy the same treatment and protections then your nation will still be in compliance.

If the honoured Ambassador's nation simply objects to having to have non-heterosexual marriages be celebrated in its churches, what is so objectionable about creating a civil registry which is non-religious in nature for the registration of contracts of personal union?

yours sincerely

I thank the honorable representative of Ondars for elaborating on his current concerns. I can not say that the Free land of Shoujou completely understands your dilemma, as our nation keeps faith and government completely separate. With that in mind, I can not assume that your situation is an isolated one.

While the Ambassador of Shoujou empathizes with your situation, I would argue that there is no need for an amendment to Article #15. Rather, that the Church of Ondars needs to obey the law currently set forth by the World Assembly. My only other advice that I could manage for the honorable Ambassador of Ondars, is that church performed marriage be done away with. Marriages are legally binding contracts and so long as your nation honors them, there is no infringement. However, if a homosexual couple were to sue for the state over the issue, it would be a matter for the sovereign stats of Ondars to consider.

If the Ambassador of Urgench would like to continue to make gross and unfounded claims upon the nation of Shoujou, then he may continue to do so. However, the Ambassador of Shoujou would like to point out that he has not misrepresented Article #15 in any form. Furthermore, the Ambassador of Shoujou would like to invite the Ambassador of Urgench to the debate at hand, instead of attempting to call in the character of Shoujou's Ambassador.



What gross claims have we made, honoured Ambassador? We have merely pointed out that the honoured Ambassador's description of the effects and intentions of the FoMa is erroneous and that this very probably intentionaly the case.

yours e.t.c. ,

What gross claims have we made, honoured Ambassador? We have merely pointed out that the honoured Ambassador's description of the effects and intentions of the FoMa is erroneous and that this very probably intentionaly the case.

yours e.t.c. ,

And how, Ambassador of Urgench, has the Ambassador of Shoujou misinterpreted the FoMA act?

Honorable Delegates of Urgench and Shoujou,
On behalf of the nation of Ondars, I thank you for your discussion with us on this issue. The Delegate of Urgench has brought up an important point. Article 3, Section A of World Assembly Resolution #15 doesn't explicitly mention that marriage must be allowed; it uses the term "unions."
I believe the addition of a civil union registry will meet the needs of our compliance with the FoMa, while allowing the Church to continue to protect the religious implication of the term "marriage." I will suggest it to our legislative bodies.
Again, Ondars sends thanks for your aid in clarifying and resolving this issue for us.

And how, Ambassador of Urgench, has the Ambassador of Shoujou misinterpreted the FoMA act?


The honoured Ambassador made the claim that the FoMa only applied to homosexual marriages when in fact it applies to all acts of personal union between consenting adults. This reduction of the FoMa was used during the debate on its passage and was not believed then by the generality and will doubtless not be now.

the honoured Ambassador also represented the FoMa as a gross violation of national sovereignty when this organisation's legislative canon is filled with statutes which abrogate national sovereignty in far more fundamental and far reaching ways.

Why is the honoured Ambassador's government so exercised by the provisions of the FoMa when Fair Criminal Trial totally remodeled the Justice systems of the membership of this organisation or when the Anti-Piracy resolution recently passed totally nullified national sovereignty over national territory?


yours e.t.c. ,

Honorable Delegates of Urgench and Shoujou,
On behalf of the nation of Ondars, I thank you for your discussion with us on this issue. The Delegate of Urgench has brought up an important point. Article 3, Section A of World Assembly Resolution #15 doesn't explicitly mention that marriage must be allowed; it uses the term "unions."
I believe the addition of a civil union registry will meet the needs of our compliance with the FoMa, while allowing the Church to continue to protect the religious implication of the term "marriage." I will suggest it to our legislative bodies.
Again, Ondars sends thanks for your aid in clarifying and resolving this issue for us.



We are very glad we could have been of some assistance to the honoured Ambassador. We hope they are aware that though we disagree with their nations position on this issue we nonetheless have nothing but respect for their nation's endeavour to remain in compliance with w.a. legislation and bear their nation no ill will on account of their position on this issue.


yours sincerely,

The Principality of Klemonland sends it's greetings and our WA representitive pledges his vote for the repeal of the resolution should the honourable delegates of the WA approve such a resolution of repeal. Klemonland holds views against homosexuality, although is willing to recognise the unions created in other nations. Our government is also concered about the stand the WA has taken in forcing a belief on member nations with the FoMA. For the sake of the soverignity of the nations, and the accomodation of conservative nations like ours, Klemonland calls for a repeal of World Assembly resolution #15: Freedom of Marriage Act.

The Cabinet of the Prinicpality of Klemonland

I believe the addition of a civil union registry will meet the needs of our compliance with the FoMa, while allowing the Church to continue to protect the religious implication of the term "marriage." I will suggest it to our legislative bodies.
Apologies for not putting my half-ceiniog in sooner, Ambassador, but you've got the right of it here. Essentially pretty much everyone for most of history has conflated the religious commitment (which you distinguish as "marriage") with the legal commitment (which I with a more jaundiced eye distinguish as "marriage"). The resolution is only about the legal side, which means that you need to disentangle the two concepts. It really doesn't matter what you call them.

Apologies for not putting my half-ceiniog in sooner, Ambassador, but you've got the right of it here. Essentially pretty much everyone for most of history has conflated the religious commitment (which you distinguish as "marriage") with the legal commitment (which I with a more jaundiced eye distinguish as "marriage"). The resolution is only about the legal side, which means that you need to disentangle the two concepts. It really doesn't matter what you call them.

Ambassador, your people view it somewhat differently than the people of Klemonland do. If the difference truly is between simply legal and religious unions, then surely those unions that are legal and not religious could be referred to as a civil union, and therefore not misusing the term "marriage" which in itself has always been a religious term.

Ambassador, your people view it somewhat differently than the people of Klemonland do. If the difference truly is between simply legal and religious unions, then surely those unions that are legal and not religious could be referred to as a civil union, and therefore not misusing the term "marriage" which in itself has always been a religious term.

As I am not currently qualified to reply to this (my training is in diplomacy, not history), I have contacted an expert within my own nation to provide a reply. Here is a copy of what they had to say in response to my inquiry

Interested in marriage, eh?

Marriage itself has an interesting history. Most people claim there's a religious significance to it, yet they ignore the political reality of it. Would I say it's religious? No. Even when it has had religious backing, it's also often been used as a tool of politics, often to the point that it ends up being more political in nature than religious. And that's ignoring another side of it.

Let's start with the Roman system. Under the Romans, it was not unusual for people of the same sex to marry. It was actually under Christianity that same sex marriages got banned, but that's not important for this discussion. What is important is that the Romans often used marriage as a tool to improve the family's economic and/or social position in society. Some also used by our Asian ancestors, and which remains in use in some parts of Asia and even in some parts of our own nation to this day. It was thus that families could find a way out of troubles or find a way to continue to gain or hold onto power.

However, another common practice, and one that lasted up until recent times, was the use of marriage as part of a treaty. Often, a nation would trade a bride for certain economic concessions or two nations would, as part of an economic treaty, seal the treaty with a marriage. It was not unusual for this tactic to also be used to end wars, though quite often the wars restarted in less than a generation anyway. Even today, this is attempted in some parts of the world.

If you wish to know more, query me again. I have a few books on the subject I can loan you. I'm personally amazed that you are interested in the subject.

Given that information, I hold that this is covering the nonreligious aspect of marriage, not the religious aspect, and that the resolution should remain as law.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

As I am not currently qualified to reply to this (my training is in diplomacy, not history), I have contacted an expert within my own nation to provide a reply. Here is a copy of what they had to say in response to my inquiry



Given that information, I hold that this is covering the nonreligious aspect of marriage, not the religious aspect, and that the resolution should remain as law.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

Klemonland rejects your statements and refers you to Genesis 2.

Let's start with the Roman system. Under the Romans, it was not unusual for people of the same sex to marry. It was actually under Christianity that same sex marriages got banned, but that's not important for this discussion. What is important is that the Romans often used marriage as a tool to improve the family's economic and/or social position in society. Some also used by our Asian ancestors, and which remains in use in some parts of Asia and even in some parts of our own nation to this day. It was thus that families could find a way out of troubles or find a way to continue to gain or hold onto power.

Out of character: In accordance with WA rules, real world entities such as the Roman Empire don't exist in the NS world. Unless there's a NS Roman Empire, the above has no meaning. :p

Klemonland rejects your statements and refers you to Genesis 2.

And I counter with Genesis 4, where Seth is clearly shown having children despite a marked lack of women being mentioned. Up until that point, it was very explicit about whether or not they had wives, so this leaves some question on if the reason why a lack of wives became common for Seth and descendents is because Seth never actually had one, leaving open the door that his children may have had two fathers. Biologically impossible at this point, but so is humans living over 900 years.

I also counter by pointing out you're referring a religious text in a case where the law in question is about a practice that has a long history of nonreligious usage.

Out of character: In accordance with WA rules, real world entities such as the Roman Empire don't exist in the NS world. Unless there's a NS Roman Empire, the above has no meaning. :p

OOC: Technically, the Bible also can't be used, since it's a real-world book. If people are okay with a nation RPing being Christian and following that document, they can be okay with my nation RPing as though real-world history applies :p

Nimtiam fails to see any reason why proponents of the legal form of union should change the name of it rather than the proponents of the religious form of union. What reasons support "civil union" over "religious union" other than faulty historical data or the stubbornness of religious zealots?

It must be said that though the FoMa uses the term "marriage" in its title it does not actually make any bones about the use of terms in its operative clauses. The FoMa is at pains to point out that religious ceremonies are not effected by its clauses and that ceremonial outcomes are therefore beyond its competence.

The area of effect of the FoMa is in how the state confers a legal status ( with accompanying rights and protections ) on any acts of personal union between consenting persons. These acts of personal union for the purposes of the FoMa need not have any religious dimension and are essentially purely mundane things with practical outcomes rather than spiritual ones.

Therefore what a state chooses to call any and all of these unions be they religiously sanctioned with state recognition or privately contracted and state registered is really not material to the requirements of this resolution.

yours e.t.c. ,

Ambassador, your people view it somewhat differently than the people of Klemonland do. If the difference truly is between simply legal and religious unions, then surely those unions that are legal and not religious could be referred to as a civil union, and therefore not misusing the term "marriage" which in itself has always been a religious term.
Klemonland can call them "lemon drops" if it wants, and it's perfectly allowed to be wrong about history too.

What about those of us whose governments do not recognize "marriage" or other "unions" at all?

As long as you don't recognise marriage or unions equally for all, you're fine. In a deeply interesting position as far as inheritance and power of attorney are concerned, but legally fine.

Social contracts are permitted. Anyone 2 or 20+ people may file a contract between one another with the courts to deal with property, custody rights, etc. It is not a union of any sort though - just a legal filing of the wishes of people who have a common interest for whatever reason.

Social contracts are permitted. Anyone 2 or 20+ people may file a contract between one another with the courts to deal with property, custody rights, etc. It is not a union of any sort though - just a legal filing of the wishes of people who have a common interest for whatever reason.


As long as this practice is allowed to all consenting adults then it is in compliance with the resolution in question honoured Ambassador.

yours e.t.c. ,

And why are these individuals who are getting married or unionized or conjoined or whatever strikes their fancy... why are they not checking with a nation to see if it is the best thing for their families BEFORE they go there? There are many many regions and many many nations out there. Why is this body so interested in changing the social/religious/etc landscapes of other nations when persons involved with these junctions are more than capable of choosing for themselves a proper place to reside where their views and practices are accepted.

Is this body so wanting to make legislation that we are willing to compromise individual national sovereignty and personal choice in the process?

Respectfully submitted,
CSMDAD

Is this body so wanting to make legislation that we are willing to compromise individual national sovereignty and personal choice in the process?
Yes. Necessarily. Every law the WA passes compromises individual national sovereignty to some extent. Some of them also compromise personal choice, usually in the sense that people are (for example) no longer free to employ children to be sent up chimneys as sweeps.

The honorable ambassador from CSMDAD fails to consider those individuals who's economic state doesn't allow them the luxury of moving.

Yes. Necessarily. Every law the WA passes compromises individual national sovereignty to some extent. Some of them also compromise personal choice, usually in the sense that people are (for example) no longer free to employ children to be sent up chimneys as sweeps.

The question presented is not if this body has the ability to occasionally cross that line, it is whether this particular resolution holds enough merit to justify doing so. If people are getting injured, oppressed, repressed, denied fundamental human rights.. then sure. But when we talk about people who simply want a joining to be recognized...

I see this as a frivolous exercise of power over other nations.

My question is this, Where is the strife we are trying to stop with this resolution?

csmdad

The honorable ambassador from CSMDAD fails to consider those individuals who's economic state doesn't allow them the luxury of moving.

If they are already in the country where it is not recognized, then there is no need to move. You see, this resolution does not mandate nations PERFORM these unions, but to recognize them for people moving in from other areas where these unions were performed.

If you live in an area where this joining is legal, then join. If you consider moving in the future, research the area to which you desire moving and make sure their laws support your particular lifestyle.

csmdad

Unless I am misunderstanding the FoMA, where it says:

(a) No State shall restrict the right to enter into such unions to persons of a certain sex or sexual orientation, nor shall they require that they be of the same or different sex.

That says that if a state has unions it has to let anybody into them.

The question presented is not if this body has the ability to occasionally cross that line, it is whether this particular resolution holds enough merit to justify doing so.
Now read what I wrote again. There is no "occasionally".

I see this as a frivolous exercise of power over other nations.
I see discrimination being prevented. That's good enough for me.

If they are already in the country where it is not recognized, then there is no need to move. You see, this resolution does not mandate nations PERFORM these unions, but to recognize them for people moving in from other areas where these unions were performed.
No it doesn't. It says nothing at all about recognising unions performed elsewhere.

I see discrimination being prevented. That's good enough for me.

Honorable Gobbannaen Delegate,
Isn't some form of discrimination necessary for the function of an ethical society? Please indulge me in considering an extreme example.
I believe that most, if not all, of the World Assembly member nations have Age of Consent laws. Theoretically, that Age could be as high as 21 years old. Isn't is a form of discrimination to not let a 20-year-old marry a 25-year-old, if both consent? At the very least isn't it a removal of rights they should perhaps otherwise have?
Your natural inclination might be to state that 21 is too old an Age of Consent. Perhaps 16 instead? Is it really different to say that a 15-year-old should be able to marry an 18-year-old? Why?
That question comes down to the age that we, as sovereign nations, believe that a rational choice about sexuality can occur. We all seem to intrinsically know that a 13-year-old being courted by a 30-year-old is ethically wrong. In any case, we as governmental entities have decided that the 13-year-old isn't capable of making an informed choice about their sexuality, and have removed their rights for their own protection.
I'll reiterate this, because I think it's a highly important concept: almost every nation in the World Assembly has some form of legislation in place to protect their citizens from bad choices regarding their sexuality. Largely, this idea of what constitutes a "bad choice" is subject to the individual philosophies of the nation involved.
This forms the basis of the discrimination you mention above. In all nations, yours included, some form of sexual discrimination occurs because it must occur to protect the citizens of our nations.

Honorable Gobbannaen Delegate,
Isn't some form of discrimination necessary for the function of an ethical society? Please indulge me in considering an extreme example.
I believe that most, if not all, of the World Assembly member nations have Age of Consent laws. Theoretically, that Age could be as high as 21 years old. Isn't is a form of discrimination to not let a 20-year-old marry a 25-year-old, if both consent? At the very least isn't it a removal of rights they should perhaps otherwise have?
Your natural inclination might be to state that 21 is too old an Age of Consent. Perhaps 16 instead? Is it really different to say that a 15-year-old should be able to marry an 18-year-old? Why?
That question comes down to the age that we, as sovereign nations, believe that a rational choice about sexuality can occur. We all seem to intrinsically know that a 13-year-old being courted by a 30-year-old is ethically wrong. In any case, we as governmental entities have decided that the 13-year-old isn't capable of making an informed choice about their sexuality, and have removed their rights for their own protection.
I'll reiterate this, because I think it's a highly important concept: almost every nation in the World Assembly has some form of legislation in place to protect their citizens from bad choices regarding their sexuality. Largely, this idea of what constitutes a "bad choice" is subject to the individual philosophies of the nation involved.
This forms the basis of the discrimination you mention above. In all nations, yours included, some form of sexual discrimination occurs because it must occur to protect the citizens of our nations.



The case of age of consent is not a good comparison. Firstly because this is a fair form of discrimination which exists to protect all citizens under a certain age from exploitation by others. Secondly because the basis for an age of consent is based in common sense and good science.

Discrimination against adults engaging in consenting behaviour which harms no one is not fair and has no common sense or respected scientific basis.

The honoured Ambassador for Ondars makes the claim that " every nation in the World Assembly has some form of legislation in place to protect their citizens from bad choices regarding their sexuality ", on what statistical research is this claim made? What research is the honoured Ambassador using to make such sweeping statements?

Beyond age of consent law, which is really only a default position motivated by a practical approach to society, other forms of discrimination on grounds of sexuality is not necessarily as common as the respected Ambassador imagines, certainly a very very large number of member states of this organisation do not seem to indulge themselves in the kind of discrimination the honoured Ambassador is advocating


yours e.t.c. ,

The case of age of consent is not a good comparison. Firstly because this is a fair form of discrimination which exists to protect all citizens under a certain age from exploitation by others. Secondly because the basis for an age of consent is based in common sense and good science.

Discrimination against adults engaging in consenting behaviour which harms no one is not fair and has no common sense or respected scientific basis.

The honoured Ambassador for Ondars makes the claim that " every nation in the World Assembly has some form of legislation in place to protect their citizens from bad choices regarding their sexuality ", on what statistical research is this claim made? What research is the honoured Ambassador using to make such sweeping statements?

Beyond age of consent law, which is really only a default position motivated by a practical approach to society, other forms of discrimination on grounds of sexuality is not necessarily as common as the respected Ambassador imagines, certainly a very very large number of member states of this organisation do not seem to indulge themselves in the kind of discrimination the honoured Ambassador is advocating


yours e.t.c. ,

Honored Ambassador of Urgench,
I did not intend to make the implication that my "30-year-old courting a 13-year-old" scenario was in any way the same as a non-heterosexual pairing of consenting adults. Rather, I was making the point that reducing the argument to "eliminating discrimination" is a red herring meant to appeal to the emotions.
However, in your response to my statement regarding the implied necessity of sexual discrimination using Age of Consent as an example, you provided the support for my argument that you asked for.
I'm not certain about the "good science" part of your argument (since you didn't supply references), but you mentioned "common sense." You seem to agree with me that sexual exploitation is unethical. Therefore, this form of sexuality, even if it's consented to by both parties, is discriminated against by most ethical nations.
To argue that no form of sexual discrimination occurs, you would need to show that no form of sexual behavior between consenting parties is outlawed. The most consistent method where this can be measured is Age of Consent laws. If your nation has them (and my sincere hope is that every nation would), your nation has selective sexual freedom.

Honored Ambassador of Urgench,
I did not intend to make the implication that my "30-year-old courting a 13-year-old" scenario was in any way the same as a non-heterosexual pairing of consenting adults. Rather, I was making the point that reducing the argument to "eliminating discrimination" is a red herring meant to appeal to the emotions.
However, in your response to my statement regarding the implied necessity of sexual discrimination using Age of Consent as an example, you provided the support for my argument that you asked for.
I'm not certain about the "good science" part of your argument (since you didn't supply references), but you mentioned "common sense." You seem to agree with me that sexual exploitation is unethical. Therefore, this form of sexuality, even if it's consented to by both parties, is discriminated against by most ethical nations.
To argue that no form of sexual discrimination occurs, you would need to show that no form of sexual behavior between consenting parties is outlawed. The most consistent method where this can be measured is Age of Consent laws. If your nation has them (and my sincere hope is that every nation would), your nation has selective sexual freedom.



Our point is not that discrimination of any kind must be banned, that would be idiocy since the law discriminates in myriad ways, rather that the justification for a form of discrimination must be absolutely valid and not influenced by a nonesensical rationale.

yours e.t.c.,

Honorable Gobbannaen Delegate,
Isn't some form of discrimination necessary for the function of an ethical society? Please indulge me in considering an extreme example.
Please excuse me if I don't. You've ignored the implicit "unfair" in my soundbite to construct to construct that particular straw man, which pretty much voids its warranty immediately. Apart from which there are entirely extrinsic reasons for what you conceive of as intrinsic knowledge, but I'm not feeling mean enough to bore everyone rigid with the philosophy, physiology and neurology involved.

Please excuse me if I don't. You've ignored the implicit "unfair" in my soundbite to construct to construct that particular straw man, which pretty much voids its warranty immediately. Apart from which there are entirely extrinsic reasons for what you conceive of as intrinsic knowledge, but I'm not feeling mean enough to bore everyone rigid with the philosophy, physiology and neurology involved.

Gobbanaen Representative,
I apologize if you feel that I quoted you out of context. I have reviewed your original statement, however, and I don't believe that's what happened. In fact, given that you as well as the honored Representative from Urgench have brought up the idea of "unfair" discrimination, my argument is even more pertinent.
Regarding the Age of Consent laws again, every nation has their own idea of when that age is. 13? 16? 18? 21? Marriage only? This distinction is at the whim of the nation and its values. However, the fact that it varies implies that this idea of how late in life someone needs to be protected from their sexuality is far less intrinsic (as you use the term) than many of us would like it to be.
This idea of "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" here is therefore misleading. It's not applied to other forms of sexual ethics, so is philosophically inconsistent.
Furthermore, I suggest that the Gobbanaen Representative doesn't have any understanding of the Ondarian stance on this issue. Earlier in this discussion we affirmed non-heterosexual rights and the validity of non-heterosexual civil unions. You don't seem to have an accurate idea of what we think is "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" knowledge, so your argument has no real merit.

Gobbanaen Representative,
I apologize if you feel that I quoted you out of context. I have reviewed your original statement, however, and I don't believe that's what happened. In fact, given that you as well as the honored Representative from Urgench have brought up the idea of "unfair" discrimination, my argument is even more pertinent.
Regarding the Age of Consent laws again, every nation has their own idea of when that age is. 13? 16? 18? 21? Marriage only? This distinction is at the whim of the nation and its values. However, the fact that it varies implies that this idea of how late in life someone needs to be protected from their sexuality is far less intrinsic (as you use the term) than many of us would like it to be.
This idea of "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" here is therefore misleading. It's not applied to other forms of sexual ethics, so is philosophically inconsistent.
Furthermore, I suggest that the Gobbanaen Representative doesn't have any understanding of the Ondarian stance on this issue. Earlier in this discussion we affirmed non-heterosexual rights and the validity of non-heterosexual civil unions. You don't seem to have an accurate idea of what we think is "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" knowledge, so your argument has no real merit.


The honoured Ambassador continues to make the false comparison between age of consent law and the denial of certain legal statuses to certain groups within society on a permanent basis. An age of consent is in fact the age at which certain rights are conferred on an individual, the period before this in a person's life is finite and justifiable, the denial of legal status to personal unions is a diminishment of a persons rights and is permanent and unjustifiable ( unless the criteria for justifiability is supernatural or unreasoned ). The difference is profound, the similarities are superficial.


Yours e.t.c. ,

Honorable Delegates,
The core of my argument isn't legal, it's ethical. I believe that I've made my point that sexual ethics are, by their nature, subjective, and attempting to reduce this argument to one of discrimination is misleading.
As a progressive theocracy, Ondars will continue to acknowledge and protect its non-heterosexual population. However, as a theocracy, Ondars also understands its more conservative theocratic peers' goals. Being that sexual ethics *are* subjective, legislating the required acceptance of one set of values or another, especially by the narrow number of votes that World Assembly Resolution #15 passed, is a questionable practice.
Ondars calls on its fellow theocracies and other conservative nations to understand and protect their minority populations, regardless of distinction of sexuality or otherwise. Ondars also calls on the entire World Assembly to understand and negotiate with nations whose ideologies differ from their own, regardless of on this issue or others, rather than attempting to legislate them out of existence.

Honorable Delegates,
The core of my argument isn't legal, it's ethical. I believe that I've made my point that sexual ethics are, by their nature, subjective, and attempting to reduce this argument to one of discrimination is misleading.
As a progressive theocracy, Ondars will continue to acknowledge and protect its non-heterosexual population. However, as a theocracy, Ondars also understands its more conservative theocratic peers' goals. Being that sexual ethics *are* subjective, legislating the required acceptance of one set of values or another, especially by the narrow number of votes that World Assembly Resolution #15 passed, is a questionable practice.
Ondars calls on its fellow theocracies and other conservative nations to understand and protect their minority populations, regardless of distinction of sexuality or otherwise. Ondars also calls on the entire World Assembly to understand and negotiate with nations whose ideologies differ from their own, regardless of on this issue or others, rather than attempting to legislate them out of existence.




This is a spurious argument which seeks to justify discrimination with the ethically bankrupt philosophy of moral relativism. The honoured Ambassador discounts the votes of thousands of members of this organisation and accuses them of trying to legislate theocracies out of existence simply buy having offered a basic level of legal status to human beings who's rights had been deprived by the whim of ancient prejudices. What theocracy could actually claim that its existence had been banned by such an act?

Are we to negotiate with genocidal regimes or are we protect those persecuted by racism? Are we to seek to pander to prejudiced governments or try to prevent them from persecuting their peoples?

The decision is simple respected Ambassador.

And after all this debate is the honoured delegation of Ondars actually bringing a repeal before this organisation?

Yours e.t.c. ,

This is a spurious argument which seeks to justify discrimination with the ethically bankrupt philosophy of moral relativism. The honoured Ambassador discounts the votes of thousands of members of this organisation and accuses them of trying to legislate theocracies out of existence simply buy having offered a basic level of legal status to human beings who's rights had been deprived by the whim of ancient prejudices. What theocracy could actually claim that its existence had been banned by such an act?

Are we to negotiate with genocidal regimes or are we protect those persecuted by racism? Are we to seek to pander to prejudiced governments or try to prevent them from persecuting their peoples?

The decision is simple respected Ambassador.

And after all this debate is the honoured delegation of Ondars actually bringing a repeal before this organisation?

Yours e.t.c. ,

Honorable Representative of Urgench,
It is outrageous to liken this situation to genocide. You are equating the leaders of my nation (and the leaders of other national theocracies) to mass murderers. Extreme examples do not make for rational arguments. I might have likened Resolution #15 to allowing people to marry their livestock, but that argument wouldn't have been valid, and neither is likening conservative nations to genocidal regimes.
Rather than discounting the thousands of votes that passed World Assembly Resolution #15, I ask the World Assembly to consider the thousands of votes that opposed it. This particular resolution passed by a narrow majority of 55%; not exactly resounding support for a resolution that has been heralded in this discussion as involving "intrinsic" rights.
Ondars will not be presenting a repeal of Resolution #15 to the World Assembly floor at this time. After the honored Delegate of Urgench explained some of the nuances of Resolution (a clarification we assure you we remember and will continue to appreciate), Ondars sees no need to directly oppose Resolution #15. We believe that Resolution #15 is worthy of respect in its intention, if not its implementation. Therefore, we will support a repeal if it should make quorum, but will not be presenting one of our own.
Ondars will continue to represent the interests of theocracies; especially progressive theocracies. We may suggest a replacement for Resolution #15 in the future, however, assuming we find what we feel is an acceptable compromise between the secular need to protect minorities and the ecclesiastical need to protect tradition. To that end, we encourage conservative and theocratic nations to enter a discussion with us regarding how such a compromise might be reached.

Honorable Representative of Urgench,
It is outrageous to liken this situation to genocide. You are equating the leaders of my nation (and the leaders of other national theocracies) to mass murderers. Extreme examples do not make for rational arguments. I might have likened Resolution #15 to allowing people to marry their livestock, but that argument wouldn't have been valid, and neither is likening conservative nations to genocidal regimes.
Rather than discounting the thousands of votes that passed World Assembly Resolution #15, I ask the World Assembly to consider the thousands of votes that opposed it. This particular resolution passed by a narrow majority of 55%; not exactly resounding support for a resolution that has been heralded in this discussion as involving "intrinsic" rights.
Ondars will not be presenting a repeal of Resolution #15 to the World Assembly floor at this time. After the honored Delegate of Urgench explained some of the nuances of Resolution (a clarification we assure you we remember and will continue to appreciate), Ondars sees no need to directly oppose Resolution #15. We believe that Resolution #15 is worthy of respect in its intention, if not its implementation. Therefore, we will support a repeal if it should make quorum, but will not be presenting one of our own.
Ondars will continue to represent the interests of theocracies; especially progressive theocracies. We may suggest a replacement for Resolution #15 in the future, however, assuming we find what we feel is an acceptable compromise between the secular need to protect minorities and the ecclesiastical need to protect tradition. To that end, we encourage conservative and theocratic nations to enter a discussion with us regarding how such a compromise might be reached.




Honoured Ambassador we are certain that we need not tell you that prejudice is prejudice and that philosophies which are motivated by it are capable of monstrous things. Governments motivated by prejudice often begin there work in hate with petty and harmless seeming acts such as denial of legal status or denial of access to justice or government services or legal rights.

This was not in fact however the point we were really trying to make. We are pointing out that Moral Relativism leads to appeasement and hypocrisy. Theocracies have what they imagine to be "moral" positions on certain matters, and so do atheistic or pluralist governments, often these are not compatible. Moral imperative demands that we strive and fight for what we believe to be true and moral and not pretend that our morals only apply in certain specific situations and to only a circumscribed few.

We commend the honoured Ambassador for Ondar for their stoicism and dedication to the rights of Theocracy. We hope they see that our position is merely the mirror image of theirs and that we have only the happiness and well-being of individual human beings at the forefront of our considerations.


Yours sincerely,

This idea of "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" here is therefore misleading. It's not applied to other forms of sexual ethics, so is philosophically inconsistent.
Alternatively, we are collectively inconsistent in our considerations and applications of sexual ethics as a whole. Frankly, you don't have to spend long paying attention to conclude that that's really quite a plausible explanation.

Furthermore, I suggest that the Gobbanaen Representative doesn't have any understanding of the Ondarian stance on this issue. Earlier in this discussion we affirmed non-heterosexual rights and the validity of non-heterosexual civil unions. You don't seem to have an accurate idea of what we think is "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" knowledge, so your argument has no real merit.
Oh, the Ondarian stance is just fine by me. It's your argument that I'm having issues with. You were the one to bring up the idea of intrinsic difference -- from context, appearing to mean ab initio knowledge with little or no logical backing -- while I'm arguing that not only is that not a good place to start, it's not a necessary place either. It's just that human beings are pretty rubbish at applying logic to sex at all, so we lazily apply emotion instead.