Advertisement
by Quadrimmina » Sun Aug 07, 2011 8:50 am
Casta Nal Expeditionary Forces Command wrote:Please, I understand your point of view but Arcs marrying Humans, do you know what the result could be?
by Eternal Yerushalayim » Sun Aug 07, 2011 8:57 am
by Morlago » Sun Aug 07, 2011 9:14 am
Quadrimmina wrote:We would like to see this Act expanded such that any two sapient beings can be married in any member nation. Close all the loopholes at once!
1) Declaration of equal rights and immunities of married persons.
2) Mandate that any two persons of the same taxonomical species must be allowed to marry.
3) Clarification that member states shall have the final say regarding interspecies marriage and bestiality.
by Quadrimmina » Sun Aug 07, 2011 9:29 am
Eternal Yerushalayim wrote:I say we leave this thread here for a week or so before coming up with a final draft.
by Darenjo » Sun Aug 07, 2011 10:16 am
by Christian Democrats » Sun Aug 07, 2011 10:20 am
Darenjo wrote:repeal FoMA
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Morlago » Sun Aug 07, 2011 10:34 am
Darenjo wrote:Quadrimmina wrote:Maybe, but the competing drafts should also be put forward to the front of the thread in that case so that they can be compared by people entering this debate.
I agree. I also agree with the three points Quad made. However, I feel that you may need to repeal FoMA first - and we all know how fun that's going to be.
by Quadrimmina » Sun Aug 07, 2011 10:45 am
Darenjo wrote:I agree. I also agree with the three points Quad made. However, I feel that you may need to repeal FoMA first - and we all know how fun that's going to be.
by Christian Democrats » Sun Aug 07, 2011 10:46 am
Quadrimmina wrote:Darenjo wrote:I agree. I also agree with the three points Quad made. However, I feel that you may need to repeal FoMA first - and we all know how fun that's going to be.
However, I do question whether repeal of FoMA would have to come first. I mean, as a consequence, FoMA would become a useless resolution. Can't we just repeal it after?
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Mallorea and Riva » Sun Aug 07, 2011 10:58 am
by Mahaj » Sun Aug 07, 2011 10:59 am
<Koth> I'm still going by the assumption that Mahaj is Unibot's kid brother or something
Kandarin(Naivetry): You're going to have a great NS career ahead of you if you want it, Mahaj. :)
<@Eluvatar> Why is SkyDip such a purist raiderist
<+frattastan> Because his region was never raided.
<+maxbarry> EarthAway: I guess I might dabble in raiding just to experience it better, but I would not like to raid regions of natives, so I'd probably be more interested in defense and liberations
by Mallorea and Riva » Sun Aug 07, 2011 11:03 am
Quadrimmina wrote:Casta Nal Expeditionary Forces Command wrote:Please, I understand your point of view but Arcs marrying Humans, do you know what the result could be?
This is valid, hmmm...how about the resolution has a bit of a multi-article mechanism?
1) Declaration of equal rights and immunities of married persons.
2) Mandate that any two persons of the same taxonomical species must be allowed to marry.
3) Clarification that member states shall have the final say regarding interspecies marriage and bestiality.
This would be much more broad than the existing resolution, and would mean that marriage could finally be totally free.
We must also urge the delegation of Tekcirb to reconsider allowing a resolution of such a narrow scope when a much broader solution is available.
by Southern Patriots » Sun Aug 07, 2011 11:09 am
(b) No State shall establish different conditions, requirements or effects to unions of persons of the same or different sex.
Panzerjaeger wrote:Why would Cleopatra have cornrows? She is from Egypt not the goddamn Bronx.
by Quadrimmina » Sun Aug 07, 2011 11:10 am
Mallorea and Riva wrote:Also:Quadrimmina wrote:This is valid, hmmm...how about the resolution has a bit of a multi-article mechanism?
1) Declaration of equal rights and immunities of married persons.
2) Mandate that any two persons of the same taxonomical species must be allowed to marry.
3) Clarification that member states shall have the final say regarding interspecies marriage and bestiality.
This would be much more broad than the existing resolution, and would mean that marriage could finally be totally free.
We must also urge the delegation of Tekcirb to reconsider allowing a resolution of such a narrow scope when a much broader solution is available.
1) Ok.
2) Really? Under any circumstances? You might want to allow a little leeway there.
3) Why? Just make it a "sentient beings" clause.
by Mallorea and Riva » Sun Aug 07, 2011 11:12 am
by Morlago » Sun Aug 07, 2011 11:15 am
Southern Patriots wrote:(b) No State shall establish different conditions, requirements or effects to unions of persons of the same or different sex.
I may be misreading greatly, but no conditions or requirements to unions of persons of different sexes sounds like no state can prevent interracial marriage, since obstructing that practice would seem to be a condition or requirement to unions.
by Quadrimmina » Sun Aug 07, 2011 11:21 am
Mallorea and Riva wrote:2) Interfamilial marriages? Underage marriages? Etc etc etc.
3) It simplifies things.
by Christian Democrats » Sun Aug 07, 2011 11:22 am
Southern Patriots wrote:(b) No State shall establish different conditions, requirements or effects to unions of persons of the same or different sex.
I may be misreading greatly, but no conditions or requirements to unions of persons of different sexes sounds like no state can prevent interracial marriage, since obstructing that practice would seem to be a condition or requirement to unions.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Quadrimmina » Sun Aug 07, 2011 11:23 am
Southern Patriots wrote:(b) No State shall establish different conditions, requirements or effects to unions of persons of the same or different sex.
I may be misreading greatly, but no conditions or requirements to unions of persons of different sexes sounds like no state can prevent interracial marriage, since obstructing that practice would seem to be a condition or requirement to unions.
by Unibot II » Sun Aug 07, 2011 11:24 am
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
General Halcones wrote:Look up to Unibot as an example.
by Connopolis » Sun Aug 07, 2011 11:28 am
Unibot II wrote:Christian Democrats wrote:I agree.
"Well of course, *you* agree. So, The Ecclesiastical Altar-Boy Wonder wants to reduce the internationally-recognised rights of the LGBT community again, eh? Perhaps he's forgotten about our little discussion? If only we could channel this 'moral courage'1. into something productive like getting clean water and food to needy children -- we'd solve those problems in a week, as opposed to worrying about whose bums are being ridden. " Eduard said smoking a pipe whilst snickering with a mischievous grin.
1. Moral Courage. n. to do what is wrong in spite of community outrage for the sake of doing something that is wrong and please master in this devout process.
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
by Mallorea and Riva » Sun Aug 07, 2011 11:30 am
Christian Democrats wrote:Southern Patriots wrote:I may be misreading greatly, but no conditions or requirements to unions of persons of different sexes sounds like no state can prevent interracial marriage, since obstructing that practice would seem to be a condition or requirement to unions.
I've thought the same thing; however, if that were the correct interpretation, then FOMA would prevent nations from establishing any conditions for marriage (age, residency, etc.).
Freedom of Marriage Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Mendosia
Description: The Nations of the World Assembly,
CONVINCED that the union of two persons should be equally protected by the State regardless of gender or sexual orientation,
CONVINCED that it is necessary to adopt worldwide standards for the protection of minorities whenever persons of these minorities decide to share a life together,
DETERMINED to further the rights of persons that have been oppressed and discriminated against for ages,
RESOLVED to provide a legal framework that enhances the social recognition of these minorities,
RECOGNIZING that religious communities have different views and are free to recognize or not such unions,
ADOPT the following resolution:
Article 1 (Object)
(a) This resolution applies to civil contracts regulating the union of two persons and its effects on the common estate and inheritance rights of the participants.
(b) This resolution does not affect the criteria and restrictions in existence for the celebration of rites within religious communities.
Article 2 (Protection of Marriage)
(a) All States shall have the minimum conditions to protect the union of two persons which shall include but are not restricted to provisions regulating the administration of the common estate and the inheritance rights acquired by those entering into such a union.
(b) The protection referred to in the previous section does not automatically confer any rights other than those that the State specifically provides for the protection of the union between two persons.
(c) The provisions of this article shall not be construed to diminish the status, rights or recognition of civil contracts already in existence.
Article 3 (Non-discrimination)
(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.
(b) No State shall establish different conditions, requirements or effects to unions of persons of the same or different sex.
(c) No State shall create special categories of contracts with similar goals and effects to those stated in the previous article while imposing any of the restrictions stated in the previous sections.
by Unibot II » Sun Aug 07, 2011 11:32 am
Connopolis wrote:[...] You can express your disagreement without being so cynical.
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
General Halcones wrote:Look up to Unibot as an example.
by Nature-Spirits » Sun Aug 07, 2011 11:33 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bananaistan, The Ice States
Advertisement