NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Repeal "Defending The Rights Of Sexual gender mino"

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

How good do you think it is?

great
3
12%
good
1
4%
ok
0
No votes
bad
4
16%
terrible
17
68%
 
Total votes : 25

User avatar
East Kirea
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 16
Founded: Mar 27, 2018
Capitalist Paradise

[DRAFT] Repeal "Defending The Rights Of Sexual gender mino"

Postby East Kirea » Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:53 pm

REALISING the many hypocrisys of the Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Minorities resolution ,

NOTING many nations failed to understand the extremitys and implications of this resolution , and

SHOWING the issues with what the resolution described when it comes to how nations wish to treat citizens of nontraditional gender and sexuality and similarity's to the previously repealed WA resolutions; defending the rights of sexual and gender minoritys and Freedom Of Marriage Act,

The resolution in question:

A) DEFINED, "civil marriage" as a legally recognised union of two or more people as partners in a personal relationship, solemnised as a civil contract with or without religious ceremony.

B) FURTHER DEFINED, for the purposes of this resolution, "marriage rights" as privileges granted to an individual solely or in part as a consequence of their civil marriage.

MEANING as the resolution went on to define the marriage rights as for all member nations to allow civil marriages between individuals of all sexualitys and genders, subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions, all nations that allowed civil marriage would have to allow civil marriage between partners of all genders and sexualitys and therefore traditionalist and religious nations would have to go against there moral code in compliance of this resolution,

REMINDING that this act will not cause sexual and gender based discrimination but create equality between those who would want it and those who would be against it
Last edited by East Kirea on Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
(pro: equality ,capitalism, democracy, LGBT+, child rights, fair trial
neutral: democratic socialism, law enforcement,
pedofiles, homophobia, transphobia, biphobia, transtrenders, comunism, death penalty,

User avatar
Falcania
Diplomat
 
Posts: 968
Founded: Sep 25, 2004
Anarchy

Postby Falcania » Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:53 am

No.
II & Sports: The Free Kingdom of Falcania, Jayla, New Nestia, and Realms Otherwise Beneath the Skies

World Assembly: Ser Jeine Wilhelmsen on behalf of Queen Falcon IV, representing the Free Kingdom and the ancient and great region of Atlantian Oceania

User avatar
East Kirea
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 16
Founded: Mar 27, 2018
Capitalist Paradise

Postby East Kirea » Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:55 am

Falcania wrote:No.

Lol what?
(pro: equality ,capitalism, democracy, LGBT+, child rights, fair trial
neutral: democratic socialism, law enforcement,
pedofiles, homophobia, transphobia, biphobia, transtrenders, comunism, death penalty,

User avatar
Falcania
Diplomat
 
Posts: 968
Founded: Sep 25, 2004
Anarchy

Postby Falcania » Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:57 am

Just no, friend, ideologically and practically.
II & Sports: The Free Kingdom of Falcania, Jayla, New Nestia, and Realms Otherwise Beneath the Skies

World Assembly: Ser Jeine Wilhelmsen on behalf of Queen Falcon IV, representing the Free Kingdom and the ancient and great region of Atlantian Oceania

User avatar
East Kirea
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 16
Founded: Mar 27, 2018
Capitalist Paradise

Postby East Kirea » Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:44 am

Falcania wrote:Just no, friend, ideologically and practically.

I'm just pointing out the many problems with the terrible resolution. Don't get me wrong, irl I'm pro marriage rights but this resolution was just bad.
(pro: equality ,capitalism, democracy, LGBT+, child rights, fair trial
neutral: democratic socialism, law enforcement,
pedofiles, homophobia, transphobia, biphobia, transtrenders, comunism, death penalty,

User avatar
Falcania
Diplomat
 
Posts: 968
Founded: Sep 25, 2004
Anarchy

Postby Falcania » Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:56 am

Counterpoint: it was good.
II & Sports: The Free Kingdom of Falcania, Jayla, New Nestia, and Realms Otherwise Beneath the Skies

World Assembly: Ser Jeine Wilhelmsen on behalf of Queen Falcon IV, representing the Free Kingdom and the ancient and great region of Atlantian Oceania

User avatar
The New Nordic Union
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 120
Founded: Jul 08, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The New Nordic Union » Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:57 am

OOC:
East Kirea wrote:REALISING the many hypocrisys of the Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Minorities resolution ,
As there are?

East Kirea wrote:NOTING many nations failed to understand the extremitys and implications of this resolution ,
Such as?

East Kirea wrote:SHOWING the issues with what the resolution described when it comes to how nations wish to treat citizens of nontraditional gender and sexuality and similarity's to the previously repealed WA resolutions; defending the rights of sexual and gender minoritys and Freedom Of Marriage Act,
What is 'non-traditional'?

East Kirea wrote:The resolution in question:

A) DEFINED, "civil marriage" as a legally recognised union of two or more people as partners in a personal relationship, solemnised as a civil contract with or without religious ceremony.

B) FURTHER DEFINED, for the purposes of this resolution, "marriage rights" as privileges granted to an individual solely or in part as a consequence of their civil marriage.
Yes, it did, so?

East Kirea wrote:MEANING as the resolution went on to define the marriage rights as for all member nations to allow civil marriages between individuals of all sexualitys and genders, subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions, all nations that allowed civil marriage would have to allow civil marriage between partners of all genders and sexualitys and therefore traditionalist and religious nations would have to go against there moral code in compliance of this resolution,
That is exactly what it did, yes. So? If you are that much against it and 'traditional'/'religious' (especially the latter), there is a wide open exemption from the resolution in question: Do not allow civil marriages for anyone, just religious marriages, and just as that you can discriminate all you want.

East Kirea wrote:REMINDING that this act will not cause sexual and gender based discrimination but create equality between those who would want it and those who would be against it
Which act?
Permanent Representative of the Nordic Union to the World Assembly: Katrin við Keldu

User avatar
Samaster
Secretary
 
Posts: 29
Founded: Jan 23, 2019
Anarchy

Postby Samaster » Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:25 am

Falcania wrote:Counterpoint: it was good.


Counterpoint: it was horrible. Only good part is, that there is a loophole in the Law that allows countries to effectively ban it, by installing a 100 years waiting period on gender changes.

User avatar
Maowi
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 197
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:35 am

Samaster wrote:
Falcania wrote:Counterpoint: it was good.


Counterpoint: it was horrible. Only good part is, that there is a loophole in the Law that allows countries to effectively ban it, by installing a 100 years waiting period on gender changes.


What was horrible about it in your opinion?
Only dead fish go with the flow
(mostly assume OOC unless otherwise stated)

Policies of Maowi
Maowese News
The Monthly Humbug

Sloths (yay!)
Maowi does use NS stats gasp (unless they contradict the factbooks)

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 17664
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:01 am

Samaster wrote:
Falcania wrote:Counterpoint: it was good.


Counterpoint: it was horrible. Only good part is, that there is a loophole in the Law that allows countries to effectively ban it, by installing a 100 years waiting period on gender changes.

OOC
GA Resolution #2 says that member nations must interpret resolutions "in good faith".
Imposing such a preposterously long delay would not be acting in good faith.
Under other resolutions now in force, people could complain (IC) to a WA tribunal, which could punish your nation by imposing trade sanctions.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12351
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:23 pm

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
Under other resolutions now in force, people could complain (IC) to a WA tribunal, which could punish your nation by imposing trade sanctions.

OOC: Which can be a good thing, if the nation in question would rather the other WA nations didn't bother it - some of the economics resolutions provide an annoying amount of poking-into-nations'-affairs rights to the other WA nations. Still, that's a serious repercussion and should be treated as such in RP.
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, 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
Wittebosland
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Oct 16, 2018
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Wittebosland » Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:29 pm

As controversial as the law was, this isn't any better. Attempting to include legislation in a repeal, for one, not to mention the counter-liberal points you may have placed in certain intervals. People won't go for it.
If you were expecting a more off-the-walls, horrifically brutal travesty of a country, consider a visit to our colonies. They deal with all the nasties, so we don't have to.

The personality and eye color of whatever boring ambassador I send to a gathering is none of your damn business.

User avatar
Samaster
Secretary
 
Posts: 29
Founded: Jan 23, 2019
Anarchy

Postby Samaster » Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:33 pm

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
GA Resolution #2 says that member nations must interpret resolutions "in good faith".
Imposing such a preposterously long delay would not be acting in good faith.
Under other resolutions now in force, people could complain (IC) to a WA tribunal, which could punish your nation by imposing trade sanctions.


Who said the WA resolution was even made in good faith? #2 also declares the principle of national sovereignity which was interpreted in bad faith in the other resolutions so far. GenSec seems to have their own agenda, so counting them as neutral doesn't work in my opinion.

I think the resolution is way too restrictive against conservative or theocratic nations, just because it doesn't hurt my nation and I complied to it anyways doesn't make it better in general. If we are going with leftist ideals as a world consens then let's ban corporate police states and theocracies too, right?

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12351
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:47 pm

Samaster wrote:Who said the WA resolution was even made in good faith?

OOC: Not what good faith means in that one.

GenSec seems to have their own agenda, so counting them as neutral doesn't work in my opinion.

Who ever claimed they're neutral? They just have the ultimate say on whether something is against the proposal rules or not. They're regular players with regular opinions on various issues.
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, 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
Elyreia
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 130
Founded: Jun 29, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Elyreia » Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:50 pm

Another repeal draft that has no unbiased, strong reason to exist beyond trying to repress undesirables.

Elyreia stands opposed.
The Principality of Elyreia (Dārilarostegun Elyreia)
The Principality of Elyreia Wiki

World Assembly Ambassador: Āeksio Korus Vaelans (Character Dossier)

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2083
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:03 pm

Samaster wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:OOC
GA Resolution #2 says that member nations must interpret resolutions "in good faith".
Imposing such a preposterously long delay would not be acting in good faith.
Under other resolutions now in force, people could complain (IC) to a WA tribunal, which could punish your nation by imposing trade sanctions.


Who said the WA resolution was even made in good faith? #2 also declares the principle of national sovereignity which was interpreted in bad faith in the other resolutions so far. GenSec seems to have their own agenda, so counting them as neutral doesn't work in my opinion.

I think the resolution is way too restrictive against conservative or theocratic nations, just because it doesn't hurt my nation and I complied to it anyways doesn't make it better in general. If we are going with leftist ideals as a world consens then let's ban corporate police states and theocracies too, right?


OOC: GAR#2 declares the principal of national sovereignty "subject to the immunities recognized by international law." IE national sovereignty is subordinate to GA resolutions. There's no bad faith interpretation in other resolutions so far. They fulfil the exact purpose of the GA (see the FAQ).
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
East Kirea
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 16
Founded: Mar 27, 2018
Capitalist Paradise

Postby East Kirea » Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:01 pm

The New Nordic Union wrote:OOC:
East Kirea wrote:REALISING the many hypocrisys of the Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Minorities resolution ,
As there are?

East Kirea wrote:NOTING many nations failed to understand the extremitys and implications of this resolution ,
Such as?

East Kirea wrote:SHOWING the issues with what the resolution described when it comes to how nations wish to treat citizens of nontraditional gender and sexuality and similarity's to the previously repealed WA resolutions; defending the rights of sexual and gender minoritys and Freedom Of Marriage Act,
What is 'non-traditional'?

East Kirea wrote:The resolution in question:

A) DEFINED, "civil marriage" as a legally recognised union of two or more people as partners in a personal relationship, solemnised as a civil contract with or without religious ceremony.

B) FURTHER DEFINED, for the purposes of this resolution, "marriage rights" as privileges granted to an individual solely or in part as a consequence of their civil marriage.
Yes, it did, so?

East Kirea wrote:MEANING as the resolution went on to define the marriage rights as for all member nations to allow civil marriages between individuals of all sexualitys and genders, subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions, all nations that allowed civil marriage would have to allow civil marriage between partners of all genders and sexualitys and therefore traditionalist and religious nations would have to go against there moral code in compliance of this resolution,
That is exactly what it did, yes. So? If you are that much against it and 'traditional'/'religious' (especially the latter), there is a wide open exemption from the resolution in question: Do not allow civil marriages for anyone, just religious marriages, and just as that you can discriminate all you want.

East Kirea wrote:REMINDING that this act will not cause sexual and gender based discrimination but create equality between those who would want it and those who would be against it
Which act?

thanks for actually giving me genuine constructive criticism, unlike most others on this forum.
(pro: equality ,capitalism, democracy, LGBT+, child rights, fair trial
neutral: democratic socialism, law enforcement,
pedofiles, homophobia, transphobia, biphobia, transtrenders, comunism, death penalty,

User avatar
Falcania
Diplomat
 
Posts: 968
Founded: Sep 25, 2004
Anarchy

Postby Falcania » Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:12 pm

Samaster wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:OOC
GA Resolution #2 says that member nations must interpret resolutions "in good faith".
Imposing such a preposterously long delay would not be acting in good faith.
Under other resolutions now in force, people could complain (IC) to a WA tribunal, which could punish your nation by imposing trade sanctions.


Who said the WA resolution was even made in good faith? #2 also declares the principle of national sovereignity which was interpreted in bad faith in the other resolutions so far. GenSec seems to have their own agenda, so counting them as neutral doesn't work in my opinion.

I think the resolution is way too restrictive against conservative or theocratic nations, just because it doesn't hurt my nation and I complied to it anyways doesn't make it better in general. If we are going with leftist ideals as a world consens then let's ban corporate police states and theocracies too, right?


The purpose of the World Assembly is to make the world better, one resolution at a time. That goal is very much at odds with conservative ideology.
II & Sports: The Free Kingdom of Falcania, Jayla, New Nestia, and Realms Otherwise Beneath the Skies

World Assembly: Ser Jeine Wilhelmsen on behalf of Queen Falcon IV, representing the Free Kingdom and the ancient and great region of Atlantian Oceania

User avatar
East Kirea
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 16
Founded: Mar 27, 2018
Capitalist Paradise

Postby East Kirea » Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:18 pm

Falcania wrote:
Samaster wrote:
Who said the WA resolution was even made in good faith? #2 also declares the principle of national sovereignity which was interpreted in bad faith in the other resolutions so far. GenSec seems to have their own agenda, so counting them as neutral doesn't work in my opinion.

I think the resolution is way too restrictive against conservative or theocratic nations, just because it doesn't hurt my nation and I complied to it anyways doesn't make it better in general. If we are going with leftist ideals as a world consens then let's ban corporate police states and theocracies too, right?


The purpose of the World Assembly is to make the world better, one resolution at a time. That goal is very much at odds with conservative ideology.

so what are you trying to say? I'm not even conservative it's just a poorly written resolution that I hope after is repealed can be rewritten to be more inclusive of secular nations that don't allow marriage between certain partners or religious nations that allow non-religious marriage
(pro: equality ,capitalism, democracy, LGBT+, child rights, fair trial
neutral: democratic socialism, law enforcement,
pedofiles, homophobia, transphobia, biphobia, transtrenders, comunism, death penalty,

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 3788
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:26 pm

“I’ve our some feedback in my traditional shade of red.”
East Kirea wrote:REALISING the many hypocrisys of the Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Minorities resolution , That isn’t how ‘hypocrisies’ is spelt. Also, you need to clarify exactly what hypocrisies you are referring to, otherwise this is just a platitude with no evidence,

NOTING many nations failed to understand the extremitys and implications of this resolution , and Many nations failing to understand something isn’t grounds for a repeal; a much better argument would be that the target resolution is ambiguous or subject to multiple interpretations. Also, ‘extremities’ is the correct spelling.

SHOWING the issues with what the resolution described when it comes to how nations wish to treat citizens of nontraditional gender and sexuality and similarity's to the previously repealed WA resolutions; defending the rights of sexual and gender minoritys and Freedom Of Marriage Act, What issues? You need to be more specific in your clauses, ideally with reference to specific elements of the target resolution. This clause as a whole is quite unclear due to its length without any breaks, so I recommend rephrasing it.

The resolution in question:

A) DEFINED, "civil marriage" as a legally recognised union of two or more people as partners in a personal relationship, solemnised as a civil contract with or without religious ceremony. What is bad about this? Just including sections of the target is meaningless unless they link to a flaw you have found.

B) FURTHER DEFINED, for the purposes of this resolution, "marriage rights" as privileges granted to an individual solely or in part as a consequence of their civil marriage. You should use ‘that’ rather than ‘this’, since you are not writing the target resolution. The comment on the above clause also applies here.

MEANING as the resolution went on to define the marriage rights as for all member nations to allow civil marriages between individuals of all sexualitys and genders, subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions, all nations that allowed civil marriage would have to allow civil marriage between partners of all genders and sexualitys and therefore traditionalist and religious nations would have to go against there moral code in compliance of this resolution, This isn’t a very good argument - the WA has a lot of business in interfering with traditionalist and religious nations in the cause of human rights. Here, you need to argue why their right to national sovereignty, which is by the way generally seen as a poor concept, should trump the civil rights of sexual and gender minorities. Because that would be quite hard to do, I recommend re-focusing this on possible negative effects on the inhabitants of those member states or the WA itself.

REMINDING that this act will not cause sexual and gender based discrimination but create equality between those who would want it and those who would be against it I don’t believe you need this final clause, as it is implied by the protocols of this assembly.
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
East Kirea
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 16
Founded: Mar 27, 2018
Capitalist Paradise

Postby East Kirea » Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:29 pm

Kenmoria wrote:“I’ve our some feedback in my traditional shade of red.”
East Kirea wrote:REALISING the many hypocrisys of the Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Minorities resolution , That isn’t how ‘hypocrisies’ is spelt. Also, you need to clarify exactly what hypocrisies you are referring to, otherwise this is just a platitude with no evidence,

NOTING many nations failed to understand the extremitys and implications of this resolution , and Many nations failing to understand something isn’t grounds for a repeal; a much better argument would be that the target resolution is ambiguous or subject to multiple interpretations. Also, ‘extremities’ is the correct spelling.

SHOWING the issues with what the resolution described when it comes to how nations wish to treat citizens of nontraditional gender and sexuality and similarity's to the previously repealed WA resolutions; defending the rights of sexual and gender minoritys and Freedom Of Marriage Act, What issues? You need to be more specific in your clauses, ideally with reference to specific elements of the target resolution. This clause as a whole is quite unclear due to its length without any breaks, so I recommend rephrasing it.

The resolution in question:

A) DEFINED, "civil marriage" as a legally recognised union of two or more people as partners in a personal relationship, solemnised as a civil contract with or without religious ceremony. What is bad about this? Just including sections of the target is meaningless unless they link to a flaw you have found.

B) FURTHER DEFINED, for the purposes of this resolution, "marriage rights" as privileges granted to an individual solely or in part as a consequence of their civil marriage. You should use ‘that’ rather than ‘this’, since you are not writing the target resolution. The comment on the above clause also applies here.

MEANING as the resolution went on to define the marriage rights as for all member nations to allow civil marriages between individuals of all sexualitys and genders, subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions, all nations that allowed civil marriage would have to allow civil marriage between partners of all genders and sexualitys and therefore traditionalist and religious nations would have to go against there moral code in compliance of this resolution, This isn’t a very good argument - the WA has a lot of business in interfering with traditionalist and religious nations in the cause of human rights. Here, you need to argue why their right to national sovereignty, which is by the way generally seen as a poor concept, should trump the civil rights of sexual and gender minorities. Because that would be quite hard to do, I recommend re-focusing this on possible negative effects on the inhabitants of those member states or the WA itself.

REMINDING that this act will not cause sexual and gender based discrimination but create equality between those who would want it and those who would be against it I don’t believe you need this final clause, as it is implied by the protocols of this assembly.

thank you for the constructive critisism!
(pro: equality ,capitalism, democracy, LGBT+, child rights, fair trial
neutral: democratic socialism, law enforcement,
pedofiles, homophobia, transphobia, biphobia, transtrenders, comunism, death penalty,

User avatar
East Kirea
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 16
Founded: Mar 27, 2018
Capitalist Paradise

[DRAFT] Repeal "Defending The Rights Of Sexual gender mino"

Postby East Kirea » Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:28 pm

REALISING the many hypocrisies of the Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Minorities resolution including the fact that within the game secular nations may not allow marriage equality meaning the resolution in question would contradict these game mechanics, and

NOTING many nations failed to understand the extremities and implications of this resolution, those being secular nations, which make up the majority of nations no longer be allowed to host non-religious marriages without unwillingly allowing people of all sexuality and gender to marry,

The resolution in question:

A) DEFINED, "civil marriage" as a legally recognized union of two or more people as partners in a personal relationship, solemnized as a civil contract with or without religious ceremony.

B) FURTHER DEFINED, for the purposes of that resolution, "marriage rights" as privileges granted to an individual solely or in part as a consequence of their civil marriage.

MEANING as the resolution went on to define the marriage rights as for all member nations to allow civil marriages between individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions, all nations that allowed civil marriage would have to unwillingly allow civil marriage between partners of all genders and sexualities and therefore traditionalist and religious and some secular nations would have to go against their moral code in compliance of this resolution,
THEREFORE all secular nations that do not allow marriages of nontraditional gender and sexuality would be unwillingly forced to align their nations with something they do not agree with due to the poor writing of the resolution in question and religious nations that allowed non-religious marriage would also be forced to allow marriages of all genders.
Last edited by East Kirea on Thu Feb 14, 2019 4:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
(pro: equality ,capitalism, democracy, LGBT+, child rights, fair trial
neutral: democratic socialism, law enforcement,
pedofiles, homophobia, transphobia, biphobia, transtrenders, comunism, death penalty,

User avatar
Maowi
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 197
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:33 pm

First of all, the game mechanics thing is wrong. Issues and the WA are entirely separate. GA resolutions only affect role playing on the forums and nation stats.

Also why have you made a new thread for a new draft of the same proposal?
Only dead fish go with the flow
(mostly assume OOC unless otherwise stated)

Policies of Maowi
Maowese News
The Monthly Humbug

Sloths (yay!)
Maowi does use NS stats gasp (unless they contradict the factbooks)

User avatar
East Kirea
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 16
Founded: Mar 27, 2018
Capitalist Paradise

Postby East Kirea » Thu Feb 14, 2019 4:02 pm

Maowi wrote:First of all, the game mechanics thing is wrong. Issues and the WA are entirely separate. GA resolutions only affect role playing on the forums and nation stats.

Also why have you made a new thread for a new draft of the same proposal?

I agree that WA and issues are separate but it somewhat breaks the games emersion when a WA law is for all nations that allow non-religious marriage to also allow untraditional marriage when the game allows WA nations to allow non-religious marriage but not untraditional marriage.
(pro: equality ,capitalism, democracy, LGBT+, child rights, fair trial
neutral: democratic socialism, law enforcement,
pedofiles, homophobia, transphobia, biphobia, transtrenders, comunism, death penalty,

User avatar
Maowi
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 197
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Thu Feb 14, 2019 4:04 pm

So? In issues, you can illegalise abortion in all cases, even though there are currently GA laws against that.
Only dead fish go with the flow
(mostly assume OOC unless otherwise stated)

Policies of Maowi
Maowese News
The Monthly Humbug

Sloths (yay!)
Maowi does use NS stats gasp (unless they contradict the factbooks)

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bananaistan

Advertisement

Remove ads