Repeal the Sexual Privacy Act, Final Draft

[Missourian Rebels]

Category: Repeal

REMEMBERING that Resolution #16, Also known as the Sexual Privacy Act, Forbids ALL WA member nations to ban Homosexuality, which is a breach upon the Idealogies of Certain Religions of Which May have a Degree of Control on Nations, and May Have control over just certain areas of nations,

This resolution Mandates that Resolution #16 is to Be regarded as REPEALED, should this resolution be passed

[Grays Harbor]

repeals do not have a 'strength"

[TerraPublica]

It manages to be short, hateful, and antagonistic. How disgustingly remarkable...

Jacob Eastwick,
Terra Publican Representative to the WA.

[Greenlandic People]

This is your final draft? I shudder to think what the previous iterations of this repeal looked like.

-Sigismund Ibsen
Greenlandic Ambassador to the World Assembly

[Hirota]

Category: Repeal

REMEMBERING that Resolution #16, Also known as the Sexual Privacy Act, Forbids ALL WA member nations to ban Homosexuality, which is a breach upon the Idealogies of Certain Religions of Which May have a Degree of Control on Nations, and May Have control over just certain areas of nations,

This resolution Mandates that Resolution #16 is to Be regarded as REPEALED, should this resolution be passed

Opposed, always.

The only reason I'd consider endorsing or voting for this is if a stronger, even more pro-homosexuality proposal was in the drafting phase.

[Aranoff]

This is an outright absurd notion. Those member-nations who have theocratic regimes, centered around a powerful dictatorship, are clearly in the minority, and as such, the World Assembly spoke its majority when it passed Resolution #16. A repeal of this magnitude is not only illogical, but also sets the tone and paves the way for more discriminatory laws against homosexuals. We Aranovians cannot possibly support this, as we believe personal autonomy and freedom would be infringed upon. While nations need autonomy, the World Assembly must also look out for individuals as well.

[Embolalia]

Category: Repeal

REMEMBERING that Resolution #16, Also known as the Sexual Privacy Act, Forbids ALL WA member nations to ban Homosexuality, which is a breach upon the Idealogies of Certain Religions of Which May have a Degree of Control on Nations, and May Have control over just certain areas of nations,

This resolution Mandates that Resolution #16 is to Be regarded as REPEALED, should this resolution be passed

Opposed, always.

The only reason I'd consider endorsing or voting for this is if a stronger, even more pro-homosexuality proposal was in the drafting phase.

Mandatory homosexuality! Aye say I!

[Estruia]

The thought of the majority, catering to the minority, is quite, well to be honest, moronic, people who want to ban homosexuality and other sexual orientations are a minority here, as shown by the passing of the sexual privacy act, Personally, I suggest just accepting things as they are, Or try to find a loophole if you are so set against people who differ from yourself.

[Ardchoille]

Fair go, guys. Here's someone trying to learn the tricks of the trade. You could at least refer him to the how-to section:

Repeals

Yes, you can Repeal, provided you use the Repeal function. If you make your own Proposal in some other category and calling it a Repeal, it's going to be deleted. Remember, Repeals can only repeal the existing resolution. You can provide reasons for repeal, but not any new provisions or laws.

Furthermore, simply stating "National Sovereignty" is not sufficient grounds for a Repeal. Since such a stance could be used on every single Resolution, it is little more than saying "I don't like it."

Also, Repealing on the grounds of an old Resolution violating the current rules is not sufficient. Many old Resolutions were in existence before this rule set (or the Enodian rules) were in effect; some were in effect before Moderators existed. On a more practical side, Repealing because a Resolution violates the rules is itself a MetaGaming violation: the laws do not "exist" from an In Character standpoint.

I've bolded the bit that refers to the weakness in this repeal and underlined the sections you should always keep in mind when writing one.

By saying "it breaches the ideologies of certain religions" you're arguing that the sovereignty of those ideas -- the national sovereignty of such nations -- is more important than the decisions of the WA. We used to get (actually, we still do get) so many repeals based solely on that notion that Hack wrote a special rule just for them.

The point is: the WA has already decided that, in a given case, it will over-ride the sovereignty of certain nations. So repeals based on national sovereignty simply say, "Repeal it, WA, because those nations think you made the wrong decision." You need better arguments than that to convince the WA to change its mind.

Check out a few of the repeals in this thread to see how it's done.

[Missourian Rebels]

It's not really stating NATSOV, it's Stating RELSOV

[Missourian Rebels]

I'm Not saying it invades National Soverignty, I'm trying to say that it Invades on the right of Religious People within the Governments

[Estruia]

So then, you would intrude upon the sovereignty of other nations, just to appease a religion of YOUR nation?

[Sionis Prioratus]

Category: Repeal

REMEMBERING that Resolution #16, Also known as the Sexual Privacy Act, Forbids ALL WA member nations to ban Homosexuality, which is a breach upon the Idealogies of Certain Religions of Which May have a Degree of Control on Nations, and May Have control over just certain areas of nations,

This resolution Mandates that Resolution #16 is to Be regarded as REPEALED, should this resolution be passed

[Darenjo]

When i first read your previous drafts, i seriously thought that you might've driven all the way to california, moved there, voted for Proposition 8, then moved back to wherever you live.

As always, we oppose any resolution attempting to repeal the SPA, on the grounds that it is illegal and horribly prejudiced.


Also, in response to your religious argument, most nations are secular (even if they have a nat. religion they still permit others), and theocracies (in the RL sense) probably couldn't retain the govt. if they were members of the WA.

[The Nuclear Fist]

We will not support this repeal under any circumstances, and feel that the use of religion is merely hide your nation's blatant and ignorant homophobia.

-Supreme Chairman Vladislav Radelescu

[Enn]

I'm Not saying it invades National Soverignty, I'm trying to say that it Invades on the right of Religious People within the Governments

... which in no way addresses Ardchoille's points. I suggest re-reading her post, and seeing just what she was indicating.

[Mikedor]

Why must you be so insecure as to persecute people for homosexuality?

Is the Ambassador from Missourian Rebels perhaps in denial?

[Philimbesi]

I'm Not saying it invades National Soverignty, I'm trying to say that it Invades on the right of Religious People within the Governments

Actually no it doesn't it says that a government can't discriminate on the basis of a citizen's sexuality. It says nothing about the churches or religious persons in the government. They are free to be as bigoted and short-sighted as they'd like. They just can't act on it.

[The Ainocran Embassy]

Opposed

We feel that an individual has the right to do whatever they please with another consenting adult.

[Hirota]

Why must you be so insecure as to persecute people for homosexuality?

Is the Ambassador from Missourian Rebels perhaps in denial?

I've already suggestedthat by way of example.

I'm already rage-drafting a stronger, despicable gay rights proposal that will force all theocracies to not knock it until they've tried it.

[Mousebumples]

I'm Not saying it invades National Soverignty, I'm trying to say that it Invades on the right of Religious People within the Governments

Actually no it doesn't it says that a government can't discriminate on the basis of a citizen's sexuality. It says nothing about the churches or religious persons in the government. They are free to be as bigoted and short-sighted as they'd like. They just can't act on it.

Further, I believe that there is no stipulation in the SPA that requires churches to allow homosexual marriage. However, individual member nations must allow it, even if it is secular marriage.