[PASSED] Defending Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities

[Groot]

Groot happily nods as he reads through the proposal... until he reaches clause five. “I am Groot,” he says, a hint of sadness in his voice, as he points to the fifth clause. He contemplates for a moment, then reluctantly registers his vote against the proposal.

[Sterkistan]

The Sterkian Delegate stands, looking toward their translator.
"Although we are in support of providing all citizens with equal rights and opportunity, this resolution is intrusive and threatens to compromise our current civil rights laws to such an extent that a full reform would be needed to build around this law. Therefore, while we are in support for the purpose of the bill we do not support its implementation and must reluctantly oppose this bill."

[Verdant Haven]

Groot happily nods as he reads through the proposal... until he reaches clause five. “I am Groot,” he says, a hint of sadness in his voice, as he points to the fifth clause. He contemplates for a moment, then reluctantly registers his vote against the proposal.

Verdant Haven shares the reservations of Groot regarding the fifth clause, as it provides a loophole of enormous proportions for theocracies and other oppressive regimes to use the excuse of religion to codify discrimination. We will, however, vote for this resolution, as it remains an improvement over present circumstances, and nothing in its language prevents further resolutions from closing the religious loophole.

[Araraukar]

1. If a person is aware of himself as a different sex, he must undergo psychological testing and evaluation, and then receive all necessary assistance from the state in carrying out sex change operations.

You do not get to decide who is and isn't trans based on arbitrary tests. You do not get to decide whether or not people get SRS or other surgeries.

OOC: Well, actually, at least in Finland, to get state-funded SRS and hormone therapy, you do need to go through the psychological testing and evaluation to get the gender diagnoses. I know you know because I told you of the process I went through.

[Armagstan]

This is quite outrageous. For one thing, this is an immoral thing. When you are born, you are either a guy or a girl. You can't be anything else. You can try to change yourself, but turning from a guy into a girl is completely immoral. I'm sure that all you folks believe in evolution, or at least most of you. So if we are mere animals, why do we have the sole right to change our gender? You don't see chimps, gorillas, or orangutans changing their gender at whim. You know why? Because we are not animals. Sure, we share DNA with each other, but fruit flies and sheep are very different, and humans and chimps are very different. The point is, if you try to change your gender, you are going against evolution, since evolution is the thing that supposedly made you a guy or a girl.
Secondly, this goes against conscience. Just like with abortion, it sounds weird to change your gender. why should we be allowed to be queer, gay, etc when God already made us to work just fine how we were. If we were intended to change our genders, we should have been clownfish. But we aren't. We are humans, we have a choice. Do we follow the celebrities that go through painful gender-changing procedures to get more like on Facebook, or do we follow our conscience and vote against this preposterous bill? Only you can make that choice.

[United States of Americanas]

Groot happily nods as he reads through the proposal... until he reaches clause five. “I am Groot,” he says, a hint of sadness in his voice, as he points to the fifth clause. He contemplates for a moment, then reluctantly registers his vote against the proposal.

Verdant Haven shares the reservations of Groot regarding the fifth clause, as it provides a loophole of enormous proportions for theocracies and other oppressive regimes to use the excuse of religion to codify discrimination. We will, however, vote for this resolution, as it remains an improvement over present circumstances, and nothing in its language prevents further resolutions from closing the religious loophole.

Clause 5 also makes me want to vomit. Religious organizations are some of the most discriminatory self righteous pious blocs of people that need to be reigned in by government regulations.

If a priest can molest a child then his church sure damn well can marry a gay couple!

GOD is in control, not the man standing behind the podium.

The Bible and all other so called “holy books” were not written by the finger of God but were written by fallen sinners on Earth. They have sowed wars with their words and continue to sow false control over people’s spirits.

Jesus died on that cross not so we would be in the bondage of those laws of sin and death but so we may be free from them.

GOD set a rainbow in the sky according to Biblical accounts stating never would he strike the earth or its people yet the churches continue to strike people spiritually and mentally. Some churches even advocate the return of slavery and stoning.

Clearly there is something psychiatrically wrong with these churches and they all need to be given law for they act like their laws are good for the people yet their laws hurt and oppress.

There is a good reason why nearly nobody follows any “holy book” word for word. Because, they are defective and corrupted images. While elements of them are useful for historic and scientific study they are not suitable to be enforced as law.

[Minuda]

Yeah, I’m gonna have to downvote this. Not that I’m particularly against it. But rather that this article seems to force a liberal agenda. It is going after a great cause. But any conservative nation would be forced to bend their own wills for this proposal. For that I’m gonna have to downvote this.

[South World]

I will be voting against this proposal. These are issues better left to the individual nations.

[Falcania]

This is quite outrageous. For one thing, this is an immoral thing. When you are born, you are either a guy or a girl. You can't be anything else. You can try to change yourself, but turning from a guy into a girl is completely immoral. I'm sure that all you folks believe in evolution, or at least most of you. So if we are mere animals, why do we have the sole right to change our gender? You don't see chimps, gorillas, or orangutans changing their gender at whim. You know why? Because we are not animals. Sure, we share DNA with each other, but fruit flies and sheep are very different, and humans and chimps are very different. The point is, if you try to change your gender, you are going against evolution, since evolution is the thing that supposedly made you a guy or a girl.
Secondly, this goes against conscience. Just like with abortion, it sounds weird to change your gender. why should we be allowed to be queer, gay, etc when God already made us to work just fine how we were. If we were intended to change our genders, we should have been clownfish. But we aren't. We are humans, we have a choice. Do we follow the celebrities that go through painful gender-changing procedures to get more like on Facebook, or do we follow our conscience and vote against this preposterous bill? Only you can make that choice.

OOC: is this an IC stance from a national delegation or an OOC player opinion?

[The Grand Duchy of Alsatia]

Wow! This is a tough one!!

Our Nation, The Grand Duchy of Alsatia, completely supports and advocates for full marriage equality and rights for all of our citizens. We also support and advocate for equality for everyone on all levels in our country.

However, the wording of this particular resolution makes it difficult for us to support, only because we also believe deeply in the sovereignty of World Assembly member nations and their ability to govern based on the will of the individual citizens in their country, while respecting their own country’s cultural history and mores. In other words, while our nation wholeheartedly supports both the will and intent of this resolution, we recognize that other nations may have differing backgrounds and customs and therefore may be unable to remain in the World Assembly based on those differences and the mandatory nature of this resolution.

Realizing that the equality of individuals also extrapolates to the equality of nations, The Grand Duchy of Alsatia must therefore regretfully vote against this resolution. If the resolution was worded differently, allowing for some cultural differences, we would support it.

[A Rosa]

Wow! This is a tough one!!

Our Nation, The Grand Duchy of Alsatia, completely supports and advocates for full marriage equality and rights for all of our citizens. We also support and advocate for equality for everyone on all levels in our country.

However, the wording of this particular resolution makes it difficult for us to support, only because we also believe deeply in the sovereignty of World Assembly member nations and their ability to govern based on the will of the individual citizens in their country, while respecting their own country’s cultural history and mores. In other words, while our nation wholeheartedly supports both the will and intent of this resolution, we recognize that other nations may have differing backgrounds and customs and therefore may be unable to remain in the World Assembly based on those differences and the mandatory nature of this resolution.

Realizing that the equality of individuals also extrapolates to the equality of nations, The Grand Duchy of Alsatia must therefore regretfully vote against this resolution. If the resolution was worded differently, allowing for some cultural differences, we would support it.

We feel the exact same, I'm a big believer in every nations sovereignty no matter what the case!

[Sonorous Rex]

People should be able to marry whoever they want, but I can't support this when it's forcing our nations to recognise creeps.

[Greater Germany]

We shall vote against this proposal on the basis of Clause 5 and that its core intent is already covered in previous legislation.

[Arasi Luvasa]

We shall vote against this proposal on the basis of Clause 5 and that its core intent is already covered in previous legislation.

Clause 5 should really not be a problem unless you have a problem with freedom of religion. Why is it fine to force your opinions down the throats of a religious community but that religious community cannot insist that you take into consideration their rights. Only civil marriage should be addressed by legislation on marriage (unless it is barring marriage), religious ceremonies should be dictated by that groups religious values. Theocracies should still be forced to permit a civil marriage even with clause 5.

[A Cornstar]

garbage
Jesus died on that cross not so we would be in the bondage of those laws of sin and death but so we may be free from them.
garbage

Mark 10:6, Acts 10:9-16, Acts 15:5-19, Romans 1:18-27
Ritual law=/=Moral law, honestly WE expect better than this.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

We must vote against this deeply flawed resolution, for both pragmatic and moral reasons.

As Plato tells us in the Republic, our communities must "be established in accordance with nature." As Cicero's De Re Publica further expounds "there is indeed a law ... in accordance with nature; existing in all, unchangeable, eternal. ... No other law can be substituted for it, no part of it can be taken away, nor can it be abrogated altogether. Neither the people or the senate can absolve from it. It is not one thing at Rome, and another thing at Athens : one thing to-day, and another thing to-morrow ; but it is eternal and immutable for all nations and for all time."

Clause 4 of this resolution grossly violates this command even more so than the already deeply problematic so-called "Convention on Gender" and "Ban on Conversion Therapy" resolutions, with which we comply with the upmost reluctance, and only exactly to the legislated words.

We also object on grounds that while sex-based discrimination is often problematic, it is not always so. We do not find it reasonable that we should fine and close (or refuse to open) battered women's shelters because they seek to follow professional best practices and employ only (or express strong preference for only) women to serve as counselor's, medical staff, etc. Nor do we find it reasonable to fine and close battered women's shelters on grounds that they do not, in accordance with sound professional best practices, serve men. Both of these outcomes seem mandated by clause 3 of this resolution when read in light of clause 2. We can think of a myriad of other circumstances where an organization or government might engage in behaviour that violates clause 3 (for instance, to our knowledge, every police force has guidelines that discriminate based on gender in regards to who collects the "rape kit" from sexual assault victims). We are fairly certain it would not take much imagination to find an instance where it would be physically impossible to provide male and females "exactly the same ... services" due to simple, undeniable, biological impossibility for the overwhelming majority of persons.

Prior delegations seem to have obliquely referenced this in prior drafts by suggesting a requirement to equivalent rights &c, or providing equality only to the reasonable or practicable extent. We suggest future drafts limit themselves to the marriage issue, or, at the very least, consider the full implications of what they have written and draft more conservatively.

OOC: Though I do appreciate the clear banning of so-called "affirmative action" (or "positive" discrimination).

[Genovian Empire]

I do not believe that nations should be forced to accept this legislation with so many disorders. "Changing genders, all genders" really, there are only two genders in this world and only one type of marriage between a man and a woman. "civil unions" and homosexuals are intrinsically disordered.
Forcing nations to accept this disorder legislation that seeks to destroy society and the family is just the first step in the complete destruction of society with common sense and morality.

!!I will be withdrawing from the World Assembly if this resolution passes!!

We must vote against this deeply flawed resolution, for both pragmatic and moral reasons.

As Plato tells us in the Republic, our communities must "be established in accordance with nature." As Cicero's De Re Publica further expounds "there is indeed a law ... in accordance with nature; existing in all, unchangeable, eternal. ... No other law can be substituted for it, no part of it can be taken away, nor can it be abrogated altogether. Neither the people or the senate can absolve from it. It is not one thing at Rome, and another thing at Athens : one thing to-day, and another thing to-morrow ; but it is eternal and immutable for all nations and for all time."

Clause 4 of this resolution grossly violates this command even more so than the already deeply problematic so-called "Convention on Gender" and "Ban on Conversion Therapy" resolutions, with which we comply with the upmost reluctance, and only exactly to the legislated words.

We also object on grounds that while sex-based discrimination is often problematic, it is not always so. We do not find it reasonable that we should fine and close (or refuse to open) battered women's shelters because they seek to follow professional best practices and employ only (or express strong preference for only) women to serve as counselor's, medical staff, etc. Nor do we find it reasonable to fine and close battered women's shelters on grounds that they do not, in accordance with sound professional best practices, serve men. Both of these outcomes seem mandated by clause 3 of this resolution when read in light of clause 2. We can think of a myriad of other circumstances where an organization or government might engage in behaviour that violates clause 3 (for instance, to our knowledge, every police force has guidelines that discriminate based on gender in regards to who collects the "rape kit" from sexual assault victims). We are fairly certain it would not take much imagination to find an instance where it would be physically impossible to provide male and females "exactly the same ... services" due to simple, undeniable, biological impossibility for the overwhelming majority of persons.

Prior delegations seem to have obliquely referenced this in prior drafts by suggesting a requirement to equivalent rights &c, or providing equality only to the reasonable or practicable extent. We suggest future drafts limit themselves to the marriage issue, or, at the very least, consider the full implications of what they have written and draft more conservatively.

OOC: Though I do appreciate the clear banning of so-called "affirmative action" (or "positive" discrimination).

This is quite outrageous. For one thing, this is an immoral thing. When you are born, you are either a guy or a girl. You can't be anything else. You can try to change yourself, but turning from a guy into a girl is completely immoral. I'm sure that all you folks believe in evolution, or at least most of you. So if we are mere animals, why do we have the sole right to change our gender? You don't see chimps, gorillas, or orangutans changing their gender at whim. You know why? Because we are not animals. Sure, we share DNA with each other, but fruit flies and sheep are very different, and humans and chimps are very different. The point is, if you try to change your gender, you are going against evolution, since evolution is the thing that supposedly made you a guy or a girl.
Secondly, this goes against conscience. Just like with abortion, it sounds weird to change your gender. why should we be allowed to be queer, gay, etc when God already made us to work just fine how we were. If we were intended to change our genders, we should have been clownfish. But we aren't. We are humans, we have a choice. Do we follow the celebrities that go through painful gender-changing procedures to get more like on Facebook, or do we follow our conscience and vote against this preposterous bill? Only you can make that choice.

[Greater Pan-Slaviya]

I will actually withdraw if this is passed.

[Imperial Domain of Persia]

Does this cover the topic of incest? Or do I now have to allow family members to Habsburg each other for the rest of time?

[Wallenburg]

I will actually withdraw if this is passed.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Kenmoria]

Does this cover the topic of incest? Or do I now have to allow family members to Habsburg each other for the rest of time?

(OOC: This does not, in any way, cover incest.

We also object on grounds that while sex-based discrimination is often problematic, it is not always so. We do not find it reasonable that we should fine and close (or refuse to open) battered women's shelters because they seek to follow professional best practices and employ only (or express strong preference for only) women to serve as counselor's, medical staff, etc. Nor do we find it reasonable to fine and close battered women's shelters on grounds that they do not, in accordance with sound professional best practices, serve men. Both of these outcomes seem mandated by clause 3 of this resolution when read in light of clause 2. We can think of a myriad of other circumstances where an organization or government might engage in behaviour that violates clause 3 (for instance, to our knowledge, every police force has guidelines that discriminate based on gender in regards to who collects the "rape kit" from sexual assault victims). We are fairly certain it would not take much imagination to find an instance where it would be physically impossible to provide male and females "exactly the same ... services" due to simple, undeniable, biological impossibility for the overwhelming majority of persons.

That is a very convincing point, and one with which I do agree. Luckily there is a loophole I’ve spotted, but that is enough for me to change my vote to against.

‘Gender’ is defined as being ‘either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female’, on the google dictionary

OOC: And Wiktionary defines it as "Identification as a man, a woman or something else, and association with a (social) role or set of behavioral and cultural traits, clothing, etc; a category to which a person belongs on this basis." My point was simply that in addition to "male" and "female", you only really need "trans" to account for the nonbinaries, and "a" for those who don't identify as any. It's really not that difficult. The already existing resolution (GA #91) already makes things more difficult than they need be.

Oh, I think I misunderstood your original point; that makes more sense.

In NDH we disagree with this. Genders simply are NOT equal no matter what this proposal says. And most definitely we wont allow homosexual marriages nor homosexual relations which are punished by forcer labour in concentration camps. Our nation and region is against this immoral and unholy proposal which discredits all moral and religious beliefs. Even if this proposal passes we will not respect it in our country because we are a sovereign nation which will decide on its own.

Regards,
Nikola Filipović,
Prime minister, NDH Republic

Don’t do that; noncomplying with a proposal merely because you want to and without properly considering the actual effects is frowned upon quite a lot in the forums, and is generally seen as bad practice. Also, most of this is already covered by Charter of Civil Rights, GA 35, so you want to consider the effect that would have on your nation as well.)

[NDH Republic]

In NDH we disagree with this. Genders simply are NOT equal no matter what this proposal says. And most definitely we wont allow homosexual marriages nor homosexual relations which are punished by forcer labour in concentration camps. Our nation and region is against this immoral and unholy proposal which discredits all moral and religious beliefs. Even if this proposal passes we will not respect it in our country because we are a sovereign nation which will decide on its own.

Regards,
Nikola Filipović,
Prime minister, NDH Republic

[Aexnidaral]

Europeia hopes this passes.

[Bears Armed]

We also object on grounds that while sex-based discrimination is often problematic, it is not always so. We do not find it reasonable that we should fine and close (or refuse to open) battered women's shelters because they seek to follow professional best practices and employ only (or express strong preference for only) women to serve as counselor's, medical staff, etc. Nor do we find it reasonable to fine and close battered women's shelters on grounds that they do not, in accordance with sound professional best practices, serve men.

OOC
This proposed resolution states clearly that it applies only "subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions". The situation about which you are concerned here is specifically stated as a form of legally-allowed discrimination, under the "compelling practical purposes" exemption (which would also apply to other cases of a comparable nature) in GA Resolution #35 'The Charter of Civil Rights'. Thus, this proposed resolution would not prevent those practices.

[Maowi]

"MANDATES that all member nations must allow each of their citizens to choose or change their own gender, and that member nations must officially recognise and accept the individual's chosen gender."

Are we serious? Official recognition of changed gender is forced?

You didn't even spell recognize correctly.

Against 100 times over. This law infringes on my national sovereignty so much.

The proposal states the following:

"MANDATES that all member nations must allow each of their citizens to choose or change their own gender, and that member nations must officially recognise and accept the individual's chosen gender."

This removes safeguards for public safety and mental health. There are reasons why anyone wanting sex reassignment surgery require a psychological evaluation. The consequences of SRS is extreme and permanent, and some who do go through it find themselves regretting it, which lead to terrible consequences for that individual. This change can't be considered lightly and certainly not for social reasons or pressure.

Furthermore, the proposal puts minors at risk for serious harm and abuse. Under this resolution, any individual can declare their own gender, including minors. That doesn't take into account the pressure and manipulation from parents. As a result, this can lead to serious mental damage for a minor, and the possibility for serious harm.

This bill also puts people in serious danger in general. Under this proposal, a sexual deviant, with no intention to become a gender other than their biological sex, can simply change genders to gain entry to public places that are segregated by genders. For example, any man can declare themselves a woman to enter the women's restroom or locker room for malicious purposes, and the state cannot take preventative action to keep the public safe.

With these in mind, I am strongly AGAINST this resolution and urge all members to vote in opposition as well.

In our country, the law on the legality of same-sex relations and their marriage has long been passed.
We are trying in every way to eradicate all possible discrimination regarding sexual preferences.

But we do not quite agree in particular with paragraph 4. And here we want to partially support and refer to the statement of our friends with you - Kokoku

...

In general, we do not strongly encourage sex change. But in our country, as long as a person is alive and aware of himself, he has the right to do with himself what he pleases.
But, there are several few clarifications that we would like to offer and see them in the future.
1. If a person is aware of himself as a different sex, he must undergo psychological testing and evaluation, and then receive all necessary assistance from the state in carrying out sex change operations.
2. It is necessary not to allow one to define oneself as the opposite sex without any visual, physical or other changes.
An exception may be cases when a citizen has the intention to perform an operation, but still in the process of definition and self-consciousness. In this case, he may be presented with a temporary official definition, of him, as a representative of the other sex. It has a sort of, all the same loophole for sexual crimes imposed by Kokoku . In this case, it is necessary to interpret any illegal actions of a sexual nature, during this "temporary period of determination" - as a serious crime.
3. And also to maximize the limitation of cases when after a change of gender a person regrets what he has done, it is necessary to limit the age of a citizen, when he can make such a decision and make such a choice.
Our recommendation is 25 years, but in any case, this value should not be less than 21.
At the age of 25, a person already, in principle, realizes what he wants from life, and leaves as much as possible from impulse solutions.
While people age 21 and less prone to hasty and impulsive decisions.

This is quite outrageous. For one thing, this is an immoral thing. When you are born, you are either a guy or a girl. You can't be anything else. You can try to change yourself, but turning from a guy into a girl is completely immoral. I'm sure that all you folks believe in evolution, or at least most of you. So if we are mere animals, why do we have the sole right to change our gender? You don't see chimps, gorillas, or orangutans changing their gender at whim. You know why? Because we are not animals. Sure, we share DNA with each other, but fruit flies and sheep are very different, and humans and chimps are very different. The point is, if you try to change your gender, you are going against evolution, since evolution is the thing that supposedly made you a guy or a girl.
Secondly, this goes against conscience. Just like with abortion, it sounds weird to change your gender. why should we be allowed to be queer, gay, etc when God already made us to work just fine how we were. If we were intended to change our genders, we should have been clownfish. But we aren't. We are humans, we have a choice. Do we follow the celebrities that go through painful gender-changing procedures to get more like on Facebook, or do we follow our conscience and vote against this preposterous bill? Only you can make that choice.

We must vote against this deeply flawed resolution, for both pragmatic and moral reasons.

As Plato tells us in the Republic, our communities must "be established in accordance with nature." As Cicero's De Re Publica further expounds "there is indeed a law ... in accordance with nature; existing in all, unchangeable, eternal. ... No other law can be substituted for it, no part of it can be taken away, nor can it be abrogated altogether. Neither the people or the senate can absolve from it. It is not one thing at Rome, and another thing at Athens : one thing to-day, and another thing to-morrow ; but it is eternal and immutable for all nations and for all time."

Clause 4 of this resolution grossly violates this command even more so than the already deeply problematic so-called "Convention on Gender" and "Ban on Conversion Therapy" resolutions, with which we comply with the upmost reluctance, and only exactly to the legislated words.

We also object on grounds that while sex-based discrimination is often problematic, it is not always so. We do not find it reasonable that we should fine and close (or refuse to open) battered women's shelters because they seek to follow professional best practices and employ only (or express strong preference for only) women to serve as counselor's, medical staff, etc. Nor do we find it reasonable to fine and close battered women's shelters on grounds that they do not, in accordance with sound professional best practices, serve men. Both of these outcomes seem mandated by clause 3 of this resolution when read in light of clause 2. We can think of a myriad of other circumstances where an organization or government might engage in behaviour that violates clause 3 (for instance, to our knowledge, every police force has guidelines that discriminate based on gender in regards to who collects the "rape kit" from sexual assault victims). We are fairly certain it would not take much imagination to find an instance where it would be physically impossible to provide male and females "exactly the same ... services" due to simple, undeniable, biological impossibility for the overwhelming majority of persons.

Prior delegations seem to have obliquely referenced this in prior drafts by suggesting a requirement to equivalent rights &c, or providing equality only to the reasonable or practicable extent. We suggest future drafts limit themselves to the marriage issue, or, at the very least, consider the full implications of what they have written and draft more conservatively.

OOC: Though I do appreciate the clear banning of so-called "affirmative action" (or "positive" discrimination).

I do not believe that nations should be forced to accept this legislation with so many disorders. "Changing genders, all genders" really, there are only two genders in this world and only one type of marriage between a man and a woman. "civil unions" and homosexuals are intrinsically disordered.
Forcing nations to accept this disorder legislation that seeks to destroy society and the family is just the first step in the complete destruction of society with common sense and morality.

!!I will be withdrawing from the World Assembly if this resolution passes!!

"We would like to emphasise once more the difference between gender and sex, a socially constructed sense of identity and your biological features. The intention of this proposal was not to ban restrictions on SRS, although our nation is very liberal on SRS. It was to make sure that all people can find a place in their society in which they feel at ease, individual and not constricted by the values normally associated with a certain gender. To those who use the argument that "nature made us male or female so we should keep it that way", we agree that nature made us primarily male or female in sex - of course excepting intersex people - (although we do not consider that a valid reason for banning or restricting SRS). However, nature did not make us only male or female in gender. People are born being considered male or female in gender because by default, nations assign people the same gender as their sex. However, not everyone is actually male or female in gender, and they only realise their true gender at a later stage in life, when they are more educated and aware. This is why we believe that every nation should allow all their citizens to be recognised as any gender.

Do we follow the celebrities that go through painful gender-changing procedures to get more like on Facebook, or do we follow our conscience and vote against this preposterous bill? Only you can make that choice.

"We find it deeply insulting that the delegate from Armagstan believes that celebrities change their gender/sex solely to gain popularity on social media. This is a gross undermining of all the people who suffer deep mental and social damage because they do not fit in their assigned gender or sex.

We also object on grounds that while sex-based discrimination is often problematic, it is not always so. We do not find it reasonable that we should fine and close (or refuse to open) battered women's shelters because they seek to follow professional best practices and employ only (or express strong preference for only) women to serve as counselor's, medical staff, etc. Nor do we find it reasonable to fine and close battered women's shelters on grounds that they do not, in accordance with sound professional best practices, serve men. Both of these outcomes seem mandated by clause 3 of this resolution when read in light of clause 2. We can think of a myriad of other circumstances where an organization or government might engage in behaviour that violates clause 3 (for instance, to our knowledge, every police force has guidelines that discriminate based on gender in regards to who collects the "rape kit" from sexual assault victims). We are fairly certain it would not take much imagination to find an instance where it would be physically impossible to provide male and females "exactly the same ... services" due to simple, undeniable, biological impossibility for the overwhelming majority of persons.

"Although it is true that were this proposal passed, it would be illegal for battered women's shelters to deny a non-female person the right to apply for a job, they would be allowed to reject them because of their lack of ability to do the job properly, if their gender truly does prevent them doing their job properly. In this case, they would not be discriminating in terms of gender, but in terms of the applicant's ability to do the job. They would also have to allow men to ask for their help, although that help might be best carried out in admitting their lack of expertise in the subject and directing the man to a place where they can get help."

if there is a theocracy that legally recognises marriages for people of a certain gender, and the marriage is formalised as a civil contract, it will have to legally recognise civil marriages between people of any gender.

Not if step 1 is getting the state religion's endorsement.

"If this proposal becomes a resolution, the state will legally have to allow civil marriages for all genders if it allows them for any one combination of genders, regardless of whether or not the state religion approves."

While the Malstian delegation is displeased to see that once again religious organisations seem to get a free pass when it comes to ingrained hierarchies and discrimination ...

Groot happily nods as he reads through the proposal... until he reaches clause five. “I am Groot,” he says, a hint of sadness in his voice, as he points to the fifth clause. He contemplates for a moment, then reluctantly registers his vote against the proposal.

Verdant Haven shares the reservations of Groot regarding the fifth clause, as it provides a loophole of enormous proportions for theocracies and other oppressive regimes to use the excuse of religion to codify discrimination. We will, however, vote for this resolution, as it remains an improvement over present circumstances, and nothing in its language prevents further resolutions from closing the religious loophole.

Clause 5 also makes me want to vomit. Religious organizations are some of the most discriminatory self righteous pious blocs of people that need to be reigned in by government regulations.

If a priest can molest a child then his church sure damn well can marry a gay couple!

GOD is in control, not the man standing behind the podium.

The Bible and all other so called “holy books” were not written by the finger of God but were written by fallen sinners on Earth. They have sowed wars with their words and continue to sow false control over people’s spirits.

Jesus died on that cross not so we would be in the bondage of those laws of sin and death but so we may be free from them.

GOD set a rainbow in the sky according to Biblical accounts stating never would he strike the earth or its people yet the churches continue to strike people spiritually and mentally. Some churches even advocate the return of slavery and stoning.

Clearly there is something psychiatrically wrong with these churches and they all need to be given law for they act like their laws are good for the people yet their laws hurt and oppress.

There is a good reason why nearly nobody follows any “holy book” word for word. Because, they are defective and corrupted images. While elements of them are useful for historic and scientific study they are not suitable to be enforced as law.

We shall vote against this proposal on the basis of Clause 5

We shall vote against this proposal on the basis of Clause 5 and that its core intent is already covered in previous legislation.

Clause 5 should really not be a problem unless you have a problem with freedom of religion. Why is it fine to force your opinions down the throats of a religious community but that religious community cannot insist that you take into consideration their rights. Only civil marriage should be addressed by legislation on marriage (unless it is barring marriage), religious ceremonies should be dictated by that groups religious values. Theocracies should still be forced to permit a civil marriage even with clause 5.

"In Maowi we believe in religious freedom. We also believe that the level of a Government's interference in religion is a national matter: by all means, if your Government wishes to bar sexual and gender discrimination even in religious institutions, please do so. But we think that in some countries religion is such an integral part of society that it would be wrong to blanket force religions to carry out deeds that deeply go against their beliefs. As the delegate from Verdant Haven has pointed out, this proposal leaves space for future resolutions to legislate on religious matters, and although Maowi would likely vote against restricting religious freedoms as we believe this is a national issue, we invite you to put forward legislation on this topic if it is something you feel strongly about."