[PASSED] Defending Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities

[Dreadton]

The Nation of Dreadton fully supports the rights of LGBT persons. However, as we have learned about the human mind, we also recognized that paraphilias may include sexual orientations that are deviant due to the lack of consent from the other parties involved. ( OOC: https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/dsm-5/ ... -need-know) This legislation would require that these deviant orientations are valid. As such we can not support the legislation as written. Should this legislation pass, We would be forced to hold a referendum within our nation to see if it is still fitting for our nation to remain in this body.

[Kenmoria]

"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."

“I must say that I cannot find this interpretation supported by the text of the proposal. The text of the proposal clearly bans discrimination based upon gender, which is a good thing, but doesn’t have any exceptions for cases where this is necessary, such as the aforementioned shelter example. Of course, Kenmoria will adopt your interpretation of the bill when it is passed, since the authoring nation does and it gets around much of my qualms, but I find the lack of exceptions worrying.”

[Nikton Bria]

I was originally going to vote yes for this, but I think that sexuality and gender need to be more properly defined first. As it stands, I feel that there's too much leeway that can be exploited for less than noble purposes, such as opening a loophole to marrying minors.

[Maowi]

I was originally going to vote yes for this, but I think that sexuality and gender need to be more properly defined first. As it stands, I feel that there's too much leeway that can be exploited for less than noble purposes, such as opening a loophole to marrying minors.

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=27310640&hilit=Marriage#p27310640

This is a previously passed extant GA resolution, no? And it rules that the legal age of marriage cannot be lower than the average onset of reproductive maturity. And in this proposal, civil marriage is granted to people of all sexualities and genders, subject to previously passed extant GA resolutions.

[Nikton Bria]

I was originally going to vote yes for this, but I think that sexuality and gender need to be more properly defined first. As it stands, I feel that there's too much leeway that can be exploited for less than noble purposes, such as opening a loophole to marrying minors.

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=27310640&hilit=Marriage#p27310640

This is a previously passed extant GA resolution, no? And it rules that the legal age of marriage cannot be lower than the average onset of reproductive maturity. And in this proposal, civil marriage is granted to people of all sexualities and genders, subject to previously passed extant GA resolutions.

Ah, so you're right! Thank you then, I feel much better about voting for it then.

[Codd]

This is why I left the WA a long time ago, the power that the WA is giving itself over nations over a ridiculous issue like sexual identity is extremely alarming. So glad my nation doesn't have to abide by this. I warn you, the WA is falling further into communism.

[A Cornstar]

Are you an SJW ? You can't force my government to accept someone's "chosen gender", that's determined by genetics. Period.

Why ask questions you already know the answer to?

[Lord Dominator]

Does it? I would argue it *doesn't* legalize polyamory; if the "two or more" clause in the definition of civil marriage means that all civil marriages are polyamorous, then a nation which doesn't allow polyamory could say they don't allow civil marriages, and then they're not forced to allow all genders the same access to a service (civil marriage) the state doesn't provide. And obviously, on the other hand, if the "two or more" clause means that civil marriage can either be polyamorous or not, then no one is being forced to legalize polyamory.

I would argue for the second reading, which I believe is the intended one, as otherwise it would open a large loophole. It would be nice to know if my reading is correct though, since my nation will most likely vote against any resolution legalizing polyamory.

OOC: I'll admit, when drafting this I didn't realise the possibly forcible legalisation of polygamy. I included the "two or more" so as not to exclude nations which allow polygamy (such as mine). However, when I was made aware of this, I thought of it as the second interpretation you mention.

OOC: I totally agree that the reasonable reading it that 'two or more' includes polyamory but doesn't call all of them such. However, it is implicitly recognizing polyamory as a possible state of a legal civil marriage, which is then (civil marriage that is) required by the proposal to be legally recognized as valid in all member nations. In other words, since the definition includes such and is then required, polyamory becomes legally required as a marriage option in member nations.

This is why I left the WA a long time ago, the power that the WA is giving itself over nations over a ridiculous issue like sexual identity is extremely alarming. So glad my nation doesn't have to abide by this. I warn you, the WA is falling further into communism.

IC: "It's cute that your debating method is calling whatever you don't like communism. Very excellent strategy."

[Maowi]

The Nation of Dreadton fully supports the rights of LGBT persons. However, as we have learned about the human mind, we also recognized that paraphilias may include sexual orientations that are deviant due to the lack of consent from the other parties involved. ( OOC: https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/dsm-5/ ... -need-know) This legislation would require that these deviant orientations are valid. As such we can not support the legislation as written. Should this legislation pass, We would be forced to hold a referendum within our nation to see if it is still fitting for our nation to remain in this body.

OOC: I don't think the link you have attached can be considered very reliable. It seems to say that homosexuality is a personality disorder.

Are you an SJW ? You can't force my government to accept someone's "chosen gender", that's determined by genetics. Period.

This was fine until I reached clause 4 which is plain ridiculous

OOC: I repeat: identifying as a non-binary gender is not ridiculous. I'm not just making this whole gender vs sex thing up, have a look at these websites:

https://au.reachout.com/articles/the-difference-between-sex-sexuality-and-gender

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363.php

https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/what-is-the-difference-between-sex-and-gender.html

http://www.accordalliance.org/faqs/what-are-the-differences-between-sex-gender-and-sexual-orientation/

[Maowi]

Are you an SJW ? You can't force my government to accept someone's "chosen gender", that's determined by genetics. Period.

Why ask questions you already know the answer to?

Hey there, I'm just loving the sig

[Falcania]

With gender being undefined, a person could literally claim their gender is whatever they say it is. One of our subjects can say his gender is "Grand Poobah of the Universe" and we're supposed to accept it? I think not.

Why not?

Are you an SJW ? You can't force my government to accept someone's "chosen gender", that's determined by genetics. Period.

We are an entire nation of social justice warriors, with a historical emphasis on the warrior part. Also, no, it isn't. Exclamation mark.

This is why I left the WA a long time ago, the power that the WA is giving itself over nations over a ridiculous issue like sexual identity is extremely alarming. So glad my nation doesn't have to abide by this. I warn you, the WA is falling further into communism.

Why are you in this debate chamber?

[White Bluff]

I helped approve it into the voting station, so of course I am gonna vote for it.

[Battlion]

Completely support, I think it’s notable that some delegates aren’t able to support this resolution.

Any region not actively lobbying their delegate to vote for this resolution should be ashamed of themselves.

This resolution narrows down on existing resolutions and does exactly what it says on the title, anyone voting against in my own view is either attacking those rights or standing idly by and neither are acceptable.

[Wallenburg]

Completely support, I think it’s notable that some delegates aren’t able to support this resolution.

Any region not actively lobbying their delegate to vote for this resolution should be ashamed of themselves.

This resolution narrows down on existing resolutions and does exactly what it says on the title, anyone voting against in my own view is either attacking those rights or standing idly by and neither are acceptable.

Or maybe I think that we can defend LGBT+ rights without prohibiting sex segregation in prisons?

[Northeast American Federation]

"The Northeast American Federation has always stood opposed to General Assembly resolutions that substantially infringe upon national sovereignty and self-determination. The fact that this resolution will do both gives us grave concerns about the World Assembly as a whole. We have seen other nations fall down into an endless hole of insanity based on policies similar to the one we discuss today, and we fought a war to prevent such insanity from being imposed on us. If the World Assembly itself intends to force this on us, then we shall in turn be forcing all World Assembly officials from our country, and our delegation will be recalled."
-Ambassador Gregory Williams

[Aelyria]

First Speaker Ezekiel stands. "Aelyria cannot, and will not, abide by the forced institution of legal polygamous unions within its borders, regardless of the identities or orientations involved; the associated history of exploitation, in such unions of record, speaks for itself. Should this legislation pass, we will with great reluctance be forced to leave these halls. If amendment or alteration were permissible at this stage, perhaps we could stay, as the heart of the proposal is laudable, and recognizing a pragmatic reality. Absolute enforcement of all multi-spousal unions, however, is neither, yet it is the clear and required meaning of the presented text." His face momentarily betrays the emotions lying beneath his stoic expression. "I strongly encourage my fellow delegates to oppose this measure, not for its intent, but for its mistaken drafting, that a new measure may be drafted which does not so enforce such a requirement, while still recognizing spousal commitments and concomitant rights and privileges of all individuals, and permitting member nations to define the number of spousal participants as suits their respective conscience." He sits again, and stares into middle distance.

[Brittany Normandy Aquitaine]

Define gender minority, considering there is only male and female, which one would be in this case the minority, or is this towards nations who have either male or female above the other in rights.

[A Cornstar]

Clause 1: no civil marriages anyway
2: All Cornoes have the right to marry one person of the opposite sex
3:Organizations may now be classified as individuals
4: We'll replace the word gender with something more fitting

libtards owned epic style

[Falcania]

libtards owned epic style

Could you explain what a 'libtard' is?

[Wallenburg]

Clause 1: no civil marriages anyway
2: All Cornoes have the right to marry one person of the opposite sex
3:Organizations may now be classified as individuals
4: We'll replace the word gender with something more fitting

libtards owned epic style

Do I hear orcs in the voting hall?

[Separatist Peoples]

Clause 1: no civil marriages anyway
2: All Cornoes have the right to marry one person of the opposite sex
3:Organizations may now be classified as individuals
4: We'll replace the word gender with something more fitting

libtards owned epic style

Do I hear orcs in the voting hall?

"It certainly sounds like the fevered grunting of an orc. You know how to defeat them, right?"

[Lord Dominator]

Do I hear orcs in the voting hall?

"It certainly sounds like the fevered grunting of an orc. You know how to defeat them, right?"

"MOAR DAKKA of course."

[Separatist Peoples]

"It certainly sounds like the fevered grunting of an orc. You know how to defeat them, right?"

"MOAR DAKKA of course."

"No, silly, that's how you bait them. You defeat them by ignoring their crap."

[Lord Dominator]

"MOAR DAKKA of course."

"No, silly, that's how you bait them. You defeat them by ignoring their crap."

"Damn you for thinking of the reasonable solution..."

[A Cornstar]

libtards owned epic style

Could you explain what a 'libtard' is?

A person that votes for what feels good, but not what does good.