[PASSED] Defending Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

I think I came up with another loophole (at this point the loophole thing is more of a joke):

Make abortion totally legal, just make the process to get a permit to have one approved take 10 months of processing. Problem solved.

OOC:
This has absolutely nothing to do with the proposal at vote.

Lol, wrong thread, my bad.

Version for this thread -

Make gender change totally legal, just make the process to get a permit to have one approved take 90 years of processing. Problem solved.

[Araraukar]

Make gender change totally legal, just make the process to get a permit to have one approved take 90 years of processing. Problem solved.

OOC: You and others seem incapable of understanding that gender/sex change already is "totally legal", has been for years, due to GA #91. There's no "permit" needed, either. But you in particular are starting to lose all credibility on this forum. Outside of the GA forum you can RP whatever way, you can ignore the whole of WA even existing (as many do), but keep the noncompliant RP out of this forum, please.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

Make gender change totally legal, just make the process to get a permit to have one approved take 90 years of processing. Problem solved.

OOC: You and others seem incapable of understanding that gender/sex change already is "totally legal", has been for years, due to GA #91. There's no "permit" needed, either. But you in particular are starting to lose all credibility on this forum. Outside of the GA forum you can RP whatever way, you can ignore the whole of WA even existing (as many do), but keep the noncompliant RP out of this forum, please.

Araraukar, I am not against gender change. My cousin just recently officially became male after 19 years of being mislabeled. We are all with him, and we don't judge him at all.

I just am having fun with loopholes, okay.

[Battlion]

Make gender change totally legal, just make the process to get a permit to have one approved take 90 years of processing. Problem solved.

OOC: You and others seem incapable of understanding that gender/sex change already is "totally legal", has been for years, due to GA #91. There's no "permit" needed, either. But you in particular are starting to lose all credibility on this forum. Outside of the GA forum you can RP whatever way, you can ignore the whole of WA even existing (as many do), but keep the noncompliant RP out of this forum, please.

Exactly this, you got to it before I did

[Wallenburg]

You should read up on the difference between sex and gender.

I am pretty sure they are interchangeable.

*SNIP*

Nice image spam. Dictionaries are not always highly accurate. Sex is a biological classification. Gender is a cultural one.

[Tinhampton]

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: Against. It is the understanding of the Tinhamptonian delegation that this resolution, at the points where it does not contradict standing legislation... wait, Bianca, could you show me where they are again?

[Krav]

The way this legislation is worded, it would be in direct violation of religious freedoms. Yes there should be protections for everyone, but to say that absolutely NO organisation can say anything about a person's sexuality is the first step to banning religion as a whole, which is a serious civil rights violation. Worded the way this is, it would become illegal to be Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or countless other religions. Taking rights and freedoms away from the majority of the population is not going to make the world a better place. In fact, if history tells us anything, trying to ban religious practices could lead to global uprising and warfare. The intent here is good, but it needs to be reworded.

[The New Nordic Union]

The way this legislation is worded, it would be in direct violation of religious freedoms. Yes there should be protections for everyone, but to say that absolutely NO organisation can say anything about a person's sexuality is the first step to banning religion as a whole, which is a serious civil rights violation. Worded the way this is, it would become illegal to be Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or countless other religions. Taking rights and freedoms away from the majority of the population is not going to make the world a better place. In fact, if history tells us anything, trying to ban religious practices could lead to global uprising and warfare. The intent here is good, but it needs to be reworded.

You might be happy to see that clause 5 exists.

[Krav]

The way this legislation is worded, it would be in direct violation of religious freedoms. Yes there should be protections for everyone, but to say that absolutely NO organisation can say anything about a person's sexuality is the first step to banning religion as a whole, which is a serious civil rights violation. Worded the way this is, it would become illegal to be Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or countless other religions. Taking rights and freedoms away from the majority of the population is not going to make the world a better place. In fact, if history tells us anything, trying to ban religious practices could lead to global uprising and warfare. The intent here is good, but it needs to be reworded.

You might be happy to see that clause 5 exists.

Clause 5 also includes the statement that how this pertains to religious organisations should be brought up in future legislation. The is the proverbial slippery slope that leads to all out tyranny. This is not an issue that should be decided by a world government. There are entire cultures who will be punished for their religious beliefs, which is the definition of persecution.

[Maowi]

Clause 5 also includes the statement that how this pertains to religious organisations should be brought up in future legislation. The is the proverbial slippery slope that leads to all out tyranny. This is not an issue that should be decided by a world government. There are entire cultures who will be punished for their religious beliefs, which is the definition of persecution.

As far as I'm concerned, feel free to vote against future proposals which want to exert greater control over religious matters (although I'm not sure whether I would agree with you), but that has absolutely nothing to do with this proposal.

[Krav]

Clause 5 also includes the statement that how this pertains to religious organisations should be brought up in future legislation. The is the proverbial slippery slope that leads to all out tyranny. This is not an issue that should be decided by a world government. There are entire cultures who will be punished for their religious beliefs, which is the definition of persecution.

As far as I'm concerned, feel free to vote against future proposals which want to exert greater control over religious matters (although I'm not sure whether I would agree with you), but that has absolutely nothing to do with this proposal.

If you actually look at the world around us, you'll see that there are nations that all follow the same or very similar religions. If the UN was to tell Iran how to make policy on this issue it would start an immediate religious war because of the severe cultural conflict. This whole proposition is nothing but liberal propaganda that expects the entire planet to cater their specific ideals without any actual concern for other beliefs, practices, or cultures.

[Maowi]

If you actually look at the world around us, you'll see that there are nations that all follow the same or very similar religions. If the UN was to tell Iran how to make policy on this issue it would start an immediate religious war because of the severe cultural conflict. This whole proposition is nothing but liberal propaganda that expects the entire planet to cater their specific ideals without any actual concern for other beliefs, practices, or cultures.

Look: this proposal does not affect religious organisations! I don't understand what problem you have with it, maybe I'm just reading your posts all wrong.

[Mundiferrum]

As far as I'm concerned, feel free to vote against future proposals which want to exert greater control over religious matters (although I'm not sure whether I would agree with you), but that has absolutely nothing to do with this proposal.

If you actually look at the world around us, you'll see that there are nations that all follow the same or very similar religions. If the UN was to tell Iran how to make policy on this issue it would start an immediate religious war because of the severe cultural conflict. This whole proposition is nothing but liberal propaganda that expects the entire planet to cater their specific ideals without any actual concern for other beliefs, practices, or cultures.

Shouldn't have joined the WA then. Key note: the WA is not whatever the 'UN' is.
viewtopic.php?p=2035664#p2035664

[The New Nordic Union]

If you actually look at the world around us, you'll see that there are nations that all follow the same or very similar religions. If the UN was to tell Iran how to make policy on this issue it would start an immediate religious war because of the severe cultural conflict. This whole proposition is nothing but liberal propaganda that expects the entire planet to cater their specific ideals without any actual concern for other beliefs, practices, or cultures.

OOC:
Actually, not the entire planet, but all planets, systems, and other bodies represented in the World Assembly

Also, repeating myself, theocracies and states that do not recognise civil marriages are explicitly exempt from this proposal. What more could you want for those?

[Marxist Germany]

If you actually look at the world around us, you'll see that there are nations that all follow the same or very similar religions. If the UN was to tell Iran how to make policy on this issue it would start an immediate religious war because of the severe cultural conflict. This whole proposition is nothing but liberal propaganda that expects the entire planet to cater their specific ideals without any actual concern for other beliefs, practices, or cultures.

OOC:
Actually, not the entire planet, but all planets, systems, and other bodies represented in the World Assembly

Also, repeating myself, theocracies and states that do not recognise civil marriages are explicitly exempt from this proposal. What more could you want for those?

ooc: So i can become a theocracy to circumvent this resolution??

[Maowi]

ooc: So i can become a theocracy to circumvent this resolution??

If you became a theocracy whose government didn't recognise secular marriages, you would be exempt from part 1 of this resolution.

[Krav]

Look: this proposal does not affect religious organisations! I don't understand what problem you have with it, maybe I'm just reading your posts all wrong.[/quote]

There is a big difference in a religious organization and a culture. If an entire culture is against it, then their entire nation will be unfairly punished for not following a rule that goes against their cultural beliefs. This issue should be left to the individual nations to decide.

[Maowi]

There is a big difference in a religious organization and a culture. If an entire culture is against it, then their entire nation will be unfairly punished for not following a rule that goes against their cultural beliefs. This issue should be left to the individual nations to decide.

Why should your Government forcefully impose the culture of the majority onto the minority? What's wrong with cultural diversity?

[Republican Union WA]

Point 3 and 5 contradict each other laying fine print for future legislation to force religious institutions to accept this personal choice of lifestyle as means for marrying when there is already civil unions and state marriage.

[Arasi Luvasa]

Look: this proposal does not affect religious organisations! I don't understand what problem you have with it, maybe I'm just reading your posts all wrong.

There is a big difference in a religious organization and a culture. If an entire culture is against it, then their entire nation will be unfairly punished for not following a rule that goes against their cultural beliefs. This issue should be left to the individual nations to decide.[/quote]

If it is a universally accepted norm in your nations culture, how would having the law on your books affect anything? It would be like having a law saying dragons cannot perch on skyscrapers in America, it affects litterally no-one.

I would be hard on this if it tried to force religions to behave in a certain manner, based on the same logic as Maowi above because no-one is forced to be part of a religion. Part of being a member of a religion is buying into their values, if you don't share those values you can leave the religion or form a denomination (particularly if it is based on a diffrent reading of religious mythos or laws).

[Arasi Luvasa]

Point 3 and 5 contradict each other laying fine print for future legislation to force religious institutions to accept this personal choice of lifestyle as means for marrying when there is already civil unions and state marriage.

It clearly does not, seeing as it is an exemption from what would have been held true.

[Maowi]

Point 3 and 5 contradict each other laying fine print for future legislation to force religious institutions to accept this personal choice of lifestyle as means for marrying when there is already civil unions and state marriage.

It clearly does not, seeing as it is an exemption from what would have been held true.

Thank you, exactly that

[Kenmoria]

OOC:
Actually, not the entire planet, but all planets, systems, and other bodies represented in the World Assembly

Also, repeating myself, theocracies and states that do not recognise civil marriages are explicitly exempt from this proposal. What more could you want for those?

ooc: So i can become a theocracy to circumvent this resolution??

(OOC: Yes, that is a reasonable course of action to take. However, be aware that you would also have to not have secular marriages, which would prove a problem for various pieces of law, should you choose to role play those. On the other hand, I hope that somebody will soon draft a piece of legislation to specifically address LGBTI+ rights in theocracies and religious nations, to close the current loophole.)

[Elyreia]

I feel it may be worth pointing out that, scientifically and biologically, people do not fall into two bar graphs of "boy" and "girl", but instead it's a double bell curve (or bimodal curve) - a larger number fall in line with definitions of male and female traits, but there are outliers. Enough so to warrant noting that your medical forms do not generally ask for "gender" but instead ask for "sex". This is because regardless of what gender you are, people who were born genetically of the female sex will have different health issues than those of the male sex (i.e. ovarian cysts or testicular cancer). As such, scientifically, gender and sex are not interchangeable, especially in today's modern society.

Seriously, darlings, gender isn't hard unless you make it hard.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC:
Actually, not the entire planet, but all planets, systems, and other bodies represented in the World Assembly

Also, repeating myself, theocracies and states that do not recognise civil marriages are explicitly exempt from this proposal. What more could you want for those?

ooc: So i can become a theocracy to circumvent this resolution??

OOC: To be clear, a theocratic state that does not give any benefits to religiously-married couples above and beyond the benefits that they give to random sets of unmarried people would be in compliance. If the state recognizes marriage in any material way, it must permit and recognize marriages of any gendered set, theocracy or no. The effect of clause 5 is to say that individual churches don't necessarily have to perform such marriages. To the extent that religious marriage is synonymous with civil marriage or otherwise recognized by the state, CoCR already requires that anyone performing them perform them for any gendered set barring a "compelling practical purpose." I've detailed one example of the extremely stringent and weird conditions that might lead to such a purpose being considered as a good faith effort to comply with WA law here - suffice to say most nations don't qualify (as even the average theocratic state can't possibly sincerely believe that the vengeful hand of The Goddess is responsible for every random misfortune). It's not enough to just have a theocracy that doesn't give state benefits to any married couple - you pretty much have to be primitive as hell on top of it.

TL;dr - yeah, but like a literal medieval hellhole.