Page 16 of 17
Posted:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:54 pmby Groot Brittanie
Voting against this resolution is not homophobic, transphobic etc. It’s simply giving the nation and their relevant religious bodies to make their own decisions. This resolution forces beliefs on all member states and should be voted against to protect the freedom of individual member states.
Posted:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:55 pmby Imperium Anglorum
This trope on these forums, apparently shared by a great many number of edge-lords, of saying the equivalent of we can roleplay our way out of your resolution by fundamentally restructuring our forms of government and societal institutions is stupid and massively unrealistic.
And about the above: By what mechanism are states, non-person entities, endowed with rights?
Posted:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 5:19 pmby Juventium
Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Good idea, bad execution, what this draft really needs is a ban on Heterosexual marriage.
bruh
Posted:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 5:31 pmby Tinfect
Juventium wrote:Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Good idea, bad execution, what this draft really needs is a ban on Heterosexual marriage.
bruh
OOC:
I am 100% serious not-kidding sincere. In no remote way can this be construed as a joke as, plainly, it is not.
Posted:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 5:38 pmby Arasi Luvasa
My nation would definitely be forced to resign from the WA if hetrosexual marriages were banned. Extramarital sex is illegal, so having a child who is not adopted would be evidence of a crime (along with being pregnant for that matter).
Posted:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 5:48 pmby Wrapper
Posted:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 5:55 pmby Arasi Luvasa
Ok, I'll hae to rp my ambassador coming across that resolution at some point. Either that or figure out a way to essentially ban said practice by other means.
Posted:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 5:56 pmby The Cansa
I have signed, since I agree with it. However, there are a couple flaws and I think that amendments are necessary.
Posted:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:04 pmby Separatist Peoples
Arasi Luvasa wrote:Ok, I'll hae to rp my ambassador coming across that resolution at some point. Either that or figure out a way to essentially ban said practice by other means.
OOC: Or just comply.
Posted:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:11 pmby Arasi Luvasa
I would, but finding a way to still iillegalise extramarital sex would make more sense IC for my nation.
Posted:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:59 pmby Wallenburg
Arasi Luvasa wrote:I would, but finding a way to still iillegalise extramarital sex would make more sense IC for my nation.
https://youtu.be/rOXaPE6gklI?t=71
Posted:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:19 pmby Reichsstaaten von Germania
"To the interest of preservation of tradition and customs as well as appeasement for the church, I cannot permit homosexual marriage in my nation no matter what, the only way I can see them being married is in governmental name ONLY and not in a church of god"
Kaiser Konrad I von Volkheim
Posted:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:17 pmby Wrapper
defending the rights of sexual and gender minorities was passed 8,777 votes to 7,400.
Posted:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:19 pmby Memeist
Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Good idea, bad execution, what this draft really needs is a ban on Heterosexual marriage.
Heh.
Posted:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:23 pmby Lord Dominator
"My congratulations ambassador on scaring up such excellent entertainment with this, and of course for being successful in passing it."
Posted:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:32 amby Macsenoedd
Maowi wrote:I mean I don't really know and frankly don't have the time to search through the GA proposals to see whether you are allowed to buy religious buildings whether the owner likes it or not, and anyway atheists don't need temples to worship in.
I Mean, I Can Just Offer Exorbitant Amounts Of Money That Actually Have Almost No Value Due To Inflation, So They Give It To Me! Also There Are Almost No Atheists In My Country, So That's Not A Proplem.
Maowi wrote:If you allow civil marriage between say a man and a woman, you have to allow it between any two people. If the only type of marriage you currently allow is religious, then you don't have to allow religious marriages for other people.
Well, That's Good! We Allow Religious Marriages Between A Person And A Person, Marriages Of Non-Religious Nature Or Between A Person And A Non-Person Or Two Non-Persons Are Not Allowed. With A Non-Person Being Defined As Anything That Is Not A Human.
Posted:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:50 amby Macsenoedd
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.
OOC: Please Link To GA #91, I Hope We Are Not In Violation Of It By Only Having 1 Recognised Gender, Thus Making It Impossible To Change One's Gender To Anything Other Than What It Already Is.
Posted:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:08 amby Macsenoedd
OOC: Why'd You Do That? Now I Need To Listen To The Song Meaning It's Longer Before I Can Go To Sleep!
Posted:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:52 amby Araraukar
Macsenoedd wrote:OOC: Please Link To GA #91, I Hope We Are Not In Violation Of It By Only Having 1 Recognised Gender, Thus Making It Impossible To Change One's Gender To Anything Other Than What It Already Is.
OOC: The passed resolutions list is here, just scroll down to find the link:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30Don't post on that thread.
And, again, "changing gender" is not how it works. The only change is made to the paperwork concerning one's gender.
Posted:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:49 amby Aestorn
Tinfect wrote:OOC:
I am 100% serious not-kidding sincere. In no remote way can this be construed as a joke as, plainly, it is not.
OOC: you need help
Posted:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:58 amby Falcania
Aestorn wrote:Tinfect wrote:OOC:
I am 100% serious not-kidding sincere. In no remote way can this be construed as a joke as, plainly, it is not.
OOC: you need help
Why would you say that?
Posted:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:48 amby Macsenoedd
Araraukar wrote:And, again, "changing gender" is not how it works. The only change is made to the paperwork concerning one's gender.
Either Way There'd Be Nothing Changed As We Only Have One State-Recognised Gender.
Posted:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:30 amby Mockia
Wrapper wrote:defending the rights of sexual and gender minorities was passed 8,777 votes to 7,400.
We have banned marriage and forced people to pay a tax for changing their gender, so we don't have to follow this law. U mad?
Posted:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:45 amby Kenmoria
Mockia wrote:Wrapper wrote:defending the rights of sexual and gender minorities was passed 8,777 votes to 7,400.
We have banned marriage and forced people to pay a tax for changing their gender, so we don't have to follow this law. U mad?
(OOC: From what I can gather, both of those things are perfectly within the legal limits of this resolution. Banning marriage is still equal treatment, and a tax probably could still fall under acceptance of gender change.)
Posted:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:08 pmby Wallenburg
Mockia wrote:Wrapper wrote:defending the rights of sexual and gender minorities was passed 8,777 votes to 7,400.
We have banned marriage and forced people to pay a tax for changing their gender, so we don't have to follow this law. U mad?
I mean, if you hate gay and trans people so much that you will get rid of core social elements wholesale, then I guess I'm not really mad as much as I am confused.