NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Defending Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar
Envoy
 
Posts: 338
Founded: Mar 17, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar » Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:41 am

The New Nordic Union wrote:
Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote: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.
To Contact the Nagathar Delegate to the General Assembly Contact: Dhanvantari.Krishnan.CGAC@outlook.com
Author of GA #455
My RL Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCXzH27eOIA (Starting 1:48 at least)
Aspiring Issue Author (6-times-failed)

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12849
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:45 am

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote: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.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar
Envoy
 
Posts: 338
Founded: Mar 17, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar » Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:48 am

Araraukar wrote:
Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote: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.
To Contact the Nagathar Delegate to the General Assembly Contact: Dhanvantari.Krishnan.CGAC@outlook.com
Author of GA #455
My RL Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCXzH27eOIA (Starting 1:48 at least)
Aspiring Issue Author (6-times-failed)

User avatar
Battlion
Diplomat
 
Posts: 587
Founded: Aug 01, 2011
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Battlion » Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:49 am

Araraukar wrote:
Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote: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 :lol2:

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19802
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:40 am

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:
The New Nordic Union wrote: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.
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Tinhampton
Senator
 
Posts: 4963
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:13 am

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?

* Mayor: Saffron Howard (UCP; libertarian)
* Foreign Minister: Ryan Terrence (TLP)
* WA Delegate-Ambassador: Alexander Smith (NatSov)
* WA Assistant: Bianca Venkman (IntFed)
* Nat'l Football Team Manager: Harta-Yunal Den (QUS)
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (trigram TIN, pop. 319,372)
Author: SC#250, SC#251, SC#267
Football: Cup of Harmony 73 Champions - KPB rank 37th (18.05pts), UICA rank 59th (6pts)

User avatar
Krav
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: Dec 27, 2017
Father Knows Best State

Poorly Worded

Postby Krav » Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:16 am

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.

User avatar
The New Nordic Union
Envoy
 
Posts: 265
Founded: Jul 08, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The New Nordic Union » Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:21 am

Krav wrote: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.
Permanent Representative of the Nordic Union to the World Assembly: Katrin við Keldu

User avatar
Krav
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: Dec 27, 2017
Father Knows Best State

Postby Krav » Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:35 am

The New Nordic Union wrote:
Krav wrote: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.

User avatar
Maowi
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 466
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:39 am

Krav wrote: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.

User avatar
Krav
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: Dec 27, 2017
Father Knows Best State

Postby Krav » Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:49 am

Maowi wrote:
Krav wrote: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.

User avatar
Maowi
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 466
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:54 am

Krav wrote: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.

User avatar
Mundiferrum
Diplomat
 
Posts: 812
Founded: Apr 07, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby Mundiferrum » Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:54 am

Krav wrote:
Maowi wrote:
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
MARCVSGRAVELLIVSCISTERNAEMAGNORATOR-ORATORMVNDIFERRIADCONCILIVMMNDVM
Marcus Gravellius Cisternae Magnorator, Mundiferri Representative to the World Assembly
"Call me Gravey. Only my really close friends call me Marcus, and I don't think we're that close yet. Maybe."
No, we are not a nation of cat people. We're all humans (and a few annoying gnomes) here. The cat's just there because our king is such a genius, he saw that it would be a good military strategy to have a distractingly cute flag, to blind our enemies to (our) victory!
Technological level: FUTURE TECH. We also have MAGICAL TECH, and a lot of the people here still play with MEDIEVAL TECH and PRESENT TECH. We're cool that way.

User avatar
The New Nordic Union
Envoy
 
Posts: 265
Founded: Jul 08, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The New Nordic Union » Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:21 pm

Krav wrote:
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?
Last edited by The New Nordic Union on Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Permanent Representative of the Nordic Union to the World Assembly: Katrin við Keldu

User avatar
Marxist Germany
Diplomat
 
Posts: 635
Founded: Jun 07, 2018
New York Times Democracy

Postby Marxist Germany » Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:50 pm

The New Nordic Union wrote:
Krav wrote:
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??
"Marxist" no longer applies to this country. This country was made back when I was a leftist.

Author of GA#461
Political Compass
Pro:Laissez-faire, Nationalism, Guns, Free speech, Christianity, Same-sex marriage, United Ireland.
Anti:Transgenderism, Abortion, Socialism, Interventionism, Mass-migration.

User avatar
Maowi
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 466
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:58 pm

Marxist Germany wrote: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.

User avatar
Krav
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: Dec 27, 2017
Father Knows Best State

Postby Krav » Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:52 pm

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.

User avatar
Maowi
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 466
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:56 pm

Krav wrote: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?

User avatar
Republican Union WA
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Jan 20, 2019
Corporate Bordello

Postby Republican Union WA » Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:10 pm

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.

User avatar
Arasi Luvasa
Diplomat
 
Posts: 640
Founded: Aug 29, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Arasi Luvasa » Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:12 pm

Krav wrote: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).
Ambassador Ariela Galadriel Maria Mirase
37 year old Arch-bishop of the Arasi Christian Church (also the youngest ever arch-bishop and fifth woman in the church hierarchy). An attractive but stern woman with a strict adherence to religious and moral ethical codes, also somewhat of an optimist. She was recently appointed to the position following the election of Adrian Midnight to the position of Patriarch.

User avatar
Arasi Luvasa
Diplomat
 
Posts: 640
Founded: Aug 29, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Arasi Luvasa » Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:13 pm

Republican Union WA wrote: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.
Ambassador Ariela Galadriel Maria Mirase
37 year old Arch-bishop of the Arasi Christian Church (also the youngest ever arch-bishop and fifth woman in the church hierarchy). An attractive but stern woman with a strict adherence to religious and moral ethical codes, also somewhat of an optimist. She was recently appointed to the position following the election of Adrian Midnight to the position of Patriarch.

User avatar
Maowi
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 466
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:15 pm

Arasi Luvasa wrote:
Republican Union WA wrote: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

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 4462
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:12 pm

Marxist Germany wrote:
The New Nordic Union wrote:
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.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Elyreia
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 166
Founded: Jun 29, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Elyreia » Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:32 pm

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.
Last edited by Elyreia on Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Principality of Elyreia (Dārilarostegun Elyreia)
The Principality of Elyreia Wiki

World Assembly Ambassador: Āeksio Korus Vaelans (Character Dossier) << New, more to come.

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3245
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:44 pm

Marxist Germany wrote:
The New Nordic Union wrote:
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.
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Lieutenant, The Red Fleet
The Mostly Alright Steph Zakalwe *
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Illustrious Bum #279
Ambassador-At-Large
Pol. Compass: Econ. -5 to -8, Soc. -8 to -9 (depending), 8values: LibSoc
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People’s Stick.'" -Mikhail Bakunin (to Karl Marx)


PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads