NationStates

removed

No.

Falcania wrote:No.

Lol what?

Just no, friend, ideologically and practically.

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.

Counterpoint: it was good.

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comes to how nations wish to treat citizens of nontraditional gender and sexuality and similarity's to the previously repealed WA resolutions; defending the rights of sexual and gender minoritys and Freedom Of Marriage Act,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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

Elyreia stands opposed.

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).

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.

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.

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

“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.

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!

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.

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?

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.

So? In issues, you can illegalise abortion in all cases, even though there are currently GA laws against that.