NationStates

Afrasiab WA Mission, which held WA membership at the same time as Auralia when it submitted "Commend Auralia" in February 2014, a gross violation of international etiquette for which both nations as well as the Commendation were removed from the WA;

Wayneactia wrote:

Afrasiab WA Mission, which held WA membership at the same time as Auralia when it submitted "Commend Auralia" in February 2014, a gross violation of international etiquette for which both nations as well as the Commendation were removed from the WA;

I have issues with this. 1. Do we really need to be glorifying patently rule breaking behavior (i.e. multying) in a resolution? 2. Is it even legal to mention multying in a resolution without violating 2c?

Tinhampton wrote:

Wayneactia wrote:

Afrasiab WA Mission, which held WA membership at the same time as Auralia when it submitted "Commend Auralia" in February 2014, a gross violation of international etiquette for which both nations as well as the Commendation were removed from the WA;

I have issues with this. 1. Do we really need to be glorifying patently rule breaking behavior (i.e. multying) in a resolution? 2. Is it even legal to mention multying in a resolution without violating 2c?

1. I'm not "glorifying" this behaviour, I'm attempting to advise future generations against it

Ransium wrote:You should know the reason no mod has marked your proposal is because we are debating it’s legality, particularly with regards to stamps and commercial aspects of NS.

Tinhampton wrote:

02/05/2022, 23:39:18 BST: Auralia was refounded in Osiris.

...yeah. It isn't October. New draft up, anyway.

I renew my request for a Modly legality ruling on the HORRIFIED, OBSERVING, and (perhaps to a lesser extent) CONVINCED clauses. As if I ever made one in the first instance.

Twertis wrote:I regret everything I said about this in the past. I am inclined to vote against because Auralia multi-ed to commend themselves, especially if that's one of things you're condemning them for.

However, if they've made amends in some way, you can bring it up in the condemnation, by, say, lambasting them for their mercuriality and not always sticking with their crimes (or for trying to deceive the WA with false apology).

Edit: somehow I'm still in disagreement with Honeydew.

Honeydewistania wrote:

Twertis wrote:I regret everything I said about this in the past. I am inclined to vote against because Auralia multi-ed to commend themselves, especially if that's one of things you're condemning them for.

However, if they've made amends in some way, you can bring it up in the condemnation, by, say, lambasting them for their mercuriality and not always sticking with their crimes (or for trying to deceive the WA with false apology).

Edit: somehow I'm still in disagreement with Honeydew.

It's funny, because I support especially if the multiing is included. I think as suggested by his and UM's and MG's previous posts, he doesn't seem to keen on a condemnation. Which makes me think that it's not rewarding a self-commending WA cheat with a different kind of shiny badge, but to him it would actually be a denunciation of his actions. Though I might be wrong, and Auralia can always chime in with his explicit views on the matter

Tinhampton wrote:This Condemnation is a Condemnation, not a Commendation in a little black dress.

The Forest of Aeneas wrote:Against due to problematic views by the nominee.

(Edited to fix typo)

Honeydewistania wrote:Though I might be wrong, and Auralia can always chime in with his explicit views on the matter

Alistia wrote:

The Forest of Aeneas wrote:Against due to problematic views by the nominee.

(Edited to fix typo)

Like what?
The Delegation of Alistia would be interested to see evidence of what views the nominee holds which would warrant changing our current position of support for the proposal.

Wayneactia wrote:

Honeydewistania wrote:
It's funny, because I support especially if the multiing is included. I think as suggested by his and UM's and MG's previous posts, he doesn't seem to keen on a condemnation. Which makes me think that it's not rewarding a self-commending WA cheat with a different kind of shiny badge, but to him it would actually be a denunciation of his actions. Though I might be wrong, and Auralia can always chime in with his explicit views on the matter

A much as I detest the multying that went on, at the point he was at I may almost call it justified. After getting hosed on the repeal of GAR #2 anyone would have been pissed off. Still in full support.

The Forest of Aeneas wrote:

Alistia wrote:Like what?
The Delegation of Alistia would be interested to see evidence of what views the nominee holds which would warrant changing our current position of support for the proposal.

Auralia wrote:This does seem to be UM's position, though I'd like to see some discussion of this underlying moral claim. To me it seems that it would be in principle desirable to change one's sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, for the same reason that it would be in principle desirable to rid oneself of any kind of inclination towards sin.

Auralia wrote:
That's true, but I would argue that the damage to traditional marriage and family structures outweighs the economic benefits of same-sex marriages.



A better solution to the shortage of adoptive parents would be to promote adoption among opposite-sex couples and to reduce the causes of orphaning, such as poverty and father abandonment.



That's not a positive. Civil marriage is effectively a state subsidy granted to those who fulfill specific criteria, in order to accomplish a public interest. It is not a right, and there is nothing wrong with depriving those who do not fulfill those criteria of that subsidy.

Auralia wrote:With respect to sexual orientation, Catholics and other religious groups draw a distinction between inclination and conduct. There is nothing sinful about being sexually attracted to persons of the same sex, but it is sinful to act on that inclination. Again, to hold these beliefs, to pass them on to one's children, and to require children to act in accordance with them while subject to parental authority (at least up to a certain age) is not child abuse.

Auralia wrote:Even in cases where desistance does not occur, Catholics and other religious groups hold that certain treatments for gender dysphoria, such as sex reassignment surgery, are intrinsically immoral because they involve the destruction of otherwise healthy organs in an attempt to change one's sex, which is impossible. To hold these beliefs, to pass them on to one's children, and to require children to act in accordance with them while subject to parental authority (at least up to a certain age) is not child abuse.

These resolutions compel nations to recognize the legitimacy of a separate "gender identity" that can be at variance with biological sex, as well as to permit "gender-adequation procedures" such as hormone therapy, genital mutilation, and sterilization.

The Auralian government maintains, in accordance with the teaching of the Catholic Church, that God has created all human beings either male or female. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has taught that "this duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about, as ordained by God."

Moreover, sexuality is an integral part of every human being. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that it "affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul." It is an extraordinary gift, but one that is chosen by God at the moment of our creation. It is not subject to the human will. Pope Benedict condemns as false the notion that sexuality is "a social role that we choose for ourselves" rather than "a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of."

The Auralian government is morally obliged to respect these fundamental metaphysical truths about the human person. Accordingly, any attempt by the World Assembly to compel states to recognize the legitimacy of a "gender identity" distinct from one's biological sex, or to sponsor attempts to "change" a person's sex to correspond to this "gender identity", is contrary to the natural law and void.

However, this does not mean that sexual orientation cannot in principle be changed or that any attempt to do so should be categorically forbidden. The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes homosexual inclination as "objectively disordered". Auralia maintains that it is in principle desirable to voluntarily rid oneself of homosexual desire for the same reason that it would be in principle desirable to rid oneself of any kind of disordered desire or other inclination towards sin.

The Auralian government maintains, in accordance with the teaching of the Catholic Church, that marriage is a union between a man and a woman that is naturally ordered towards the procreation and education of children, mutual aid, and the quieting of concupiscence. Two persons of the same sex cannot contract marriage and same-sex sexual acts are intrinsically evil.

Edit: I think if Auralia denounces these previous problematic views if he really no longer holds them, I'd be willing to support a Commendation or Condemnation. But until then, strong against.