Advertisement
by The Holy Cee » Tue May 29, 2018 7:05 pm
by Zone 71 » Tue May 29, 2018 7:36 pm
The Holy Cee wrote:"Ambassador, forgive me. But I cannot help to think that this resolution is -uhh.... a bit one sided for my view. Well, what I mean to say is that what about 'conversion therapy' conducted by LGBT individuals or persons on heterosexuals and the like?"
by The Holy Cee » Tue May 29, 2018 8:04 pm
Zone 71 wrote:The Holy Cee wrote:"Ambassador, forgive me. But I cannot help to think that this resolution is -uhh.... a bit one sided for my view. Well, what I mean to say is that what about 'conversion therapy' conducted by LGBT individuals or persons on heterosexuals and the like?"
*Cricket noises*
"Are you being serious, ambassador?"
by Zone 71 » Wed May 30, 2018 3:32 am
The Holy Cee wrote:
"Why yes, the Holy Ceean Inquisitorial Office has numerous cases and reports of abused minors who are being 'influenced' by LGBT individuals. We are merely clarifying if the proposed resolution tackles or would care to tackle this other side of the fence. The stance of the Holy Cee is FOR the proposed resolution in it's current form. The proposed resolution is in line with our government's policy. We do not force people to undergo 'conversion therapy'. Ceeans do so on their own.", he adjusts his spetacles a bit. "Perhaps I am applying the wrong terminology to what I am pointing out."
by Kenmoria » Wed May 30, 2018 4:24 am
Slightly surprised at the whole conversation, Ambassador Lewitt interjects, "I do feel obligated to point out that the resolution as written would prohibit coercing heterosexuals into homosexuals, as that still results in a change in sexual orientation. Despite the preamble mentioning LGBT youth undergoing conversion “therapy”, being LGBT isn't in the active clauses."Zone 71 wrote:The Holy Cee wrote:
"Why yes, the Holy Ceean Inquisitorial Office has numerous cases and reports of abused minors who are being 'influenced' by LGBT individuals. We are merely clarifying if the proposed resolution tackles or would care to tackle this other side of the fence. The stance of the Holy Cee is FOR the proposed resolution in it's current form. The proposed resolution is in line with our government's policy. We do not force people to undergo 'conversion therapy'. Ceeans do so on their own.", he adjusts his spetacles a bit. "Perhaps I am applying the wrong terminology to what I am pointing out."
Ambassador Crane looks at the Ceean ambassador with a shocked expression. "So you would have me believe that homosexuals oppress heterosexuals with some form of 'conversion therapy' or through other behavioral influences, as a homophobic organization would with conventional conversion therapy towards the LGBT community? Ridiculous," he says in a spiteful, dismissive tone towards the Ceean ambassador.
by United Massachusetts » Fri Jun 01, 2018 8:00 am
by The Holy Cee » Fri Jun 01, 2018 8:23 am
by United Massachusetts » Fri Jun 01, 2018 8:30 am
by Desmosthenes and Burke » Fri Jun 01, 2018 9:27 am
The Holy Cee wrote:"Nonsense?!", the Holy Ceean ambassador expresses his disbelief. "I would not cite the aforementioned scenario if it were not occurring in our nation. *coughs* I would assume such scenario has not happened in your respective nations?", he raises an eyebrow to this. "Nonetheless, I thank you for clearing our nation's concern. We will support your proposed resolution." He hurriedly leaves the room.
by Kenmoria » Fri Jun 01, 2018 10:03 am
by United Massachusetts » Fri Jun 01, 2018 12:30 pm
Kenmoria wrote:"In the noting clause, I would add something about sexual orientation being unchangabe, make conversion “therapy” useless."
by United Massachusetts » Sun Jun 03, 2018 4:22 pm
by The Holy Cee » Sun Jun 03, 2018 7:14 pm
United Massachusetts wrote:"I hope you'll pardon the ignorance of certain members of my faith. Rest assured, their misinterpretations of doctrine do not reflect United Massachusetts or its values."
OOC: I'm just kidding, Holy See. I like your religious wars draft.
by Aexnidaral » Sun Jun 03, 2018 9:20 pm
by Kenmoria » Sun Jun 03, 2018 11:39 pm
United Massachusetts wrote:"Barring further comment, this will be submitted in the next 24 hours."
by Christian Democrats » Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:49 pm
United Massachusetts wrote:"Barring further comment, this will be submitted in the next 24 hours."
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Sierra Lyricalia » Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:27 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:United Massachusetts wrote:"Barring further comment, this will be submitted in the next 24 hours."
I don't see how this proposal complies with this Assembly's resolutions on freedom of speech and freedom of religion. How can you prohibit people from "recommending" conversion therapy without running afoul of free speech and free exercise rights?
EDIT: Also, what's the rationale for your choice of category?
by Christian Democrats » Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:27 am
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Polarisium » Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:48 am
by Pallaith » Tue Jun 05, 2018 1:02 am
by Kenmoria » Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:06 am
Polarisium wrote:Polarisium strongly supports the criticism of this document. The author fails to notice that his resolution does not have any mechanisms for making sure it is followed in every individual WA member state.
by Sierra Lyricalia » Wed Jun 06, 2018 12:33 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:I don't see how the GA or a member state could ban the recommendation of anything. By the logic of this proposal, a person posting on an internet forum would be hauled off to prison if he told homosexual users that they should consider religious counseling.
by Christian Democrats » Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:42 pm
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Christian Democrats wrote:I don't see how the GA or a member state could ban the recommendation of anything. By the logic of this proposal, a person posting on an internet forum would be hauled off to prison if he told homosexual users that they should consider religious counseling.
OOC: recommendation of religious counseling is a far cry from recommendation of conversion therapy. The latter is much closer to recommending self-mutilation or even suicide (which is definitively punishable by law in some jurisdictions). The right to freedom of expression has never been absolute, and as far as I know has never included the right to tell someone to hurt themselves. Considering the methods and common outcomes of conversion therapy, there's no conflict with high principles in forbidding its advocacy to minors.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Auralia » Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:22 pm
United Massachusetts wrote:Noting that countless analyses, studies, and evidenced-based tests have conclusively shown what already makes intuitive sense, that sexual orientation is not a choice, thus rendering conversion therapy useless,
by Kranostav » Wed Jun 06, 2018 11:16 pm
Auralia wrote:United Massachusetts wrote:Noting that countless analyses, studies, and evidenced-based tests have conclusively shown what already makes intuitive sense, that sexual orientation is not a choice, thus rendering conversion therapy useless,
That sexual orientation is not a choice, or that existing methods that purport to change sexual orientation are harmful and ineffective, does not mean that sexual orientation cannot in principle be changed or that any attempt to do so should be categorically forbidden.
We would support a change to this proposal to limit it to coercive attempts to change a person's sexual orientation, or to attempts to change a person's sexual orientation that are known to be harmful and ineffective.
We would also like this proposal to clarify that encouraging persons with same-sex attraction to live in chastity does not constitute an attempt to change a person's sexual orientation.
Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement