Should FOMA be replaced? (Read 1st post)

[Unibot]

I oppose gay marriage primarily on religious grounds.

I never make my opposition to gay marriage known to my gay friends or family members (though some of them do know I oppose gay marriage). I value those relationships and do not like making anyone feel like he is any less of a person.

Perhaps you should question what kind of god would make you choose between your friends and your faith. Mine doesn't, and I think it's a much happier way to live.

[Mahaj WA Seat]

This is just a warning, not only to you, but to anyone:

Repeal the Freedom of Marriage Act, and I WILL Propose to Condemn you. None of this posturing nonsense, like Unibot did.

[Warzone Codger]

I don't have the moral qualms of others and are willing to back that up with force to your region. I don't care if it's founded. We want to make a point.

[Christian Democrats]

I oppose gay marriage primarily on religious grounds.

I never make my opposition to gay marriage known to my gay friends or family members (though some of them do know I oppose gay marriage). I value those relationships and do not like making anyone feel like he is any less of a person.

Perhaps you should question what kind of god would make you choose between your friends and your faith. Mine doesn't, and I think it's a much happier way to live.

A) "Love the sinner, hate the sin."

B) Though I'm not God, I don't believe homosexual acts are a damnable offense, though they are contrary to natural and divine law.

C) Catholics are taught that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality (i.e., homosexual tendencies are "disordered" in the sense that they are not normal yet they are natural), though homosexual acts are sinful.

A homosexual act is considered no more sinful than a variety of other sins, e.g. fornication, and, in fact, isn't as bad as adultery, which hurts another person.

D) What religion are you?

[Christian Democrats]

I don't have the moral qualms of others and are willing to back that up with force to your region. I don't care if it's founded. We want to make a point.

Please elaborate.

[Christian Democrats]

This is just a warning, not only to you, but to anyone:

Repeal the Freedom of Marriage Act, and I WILL Propose to Condemn you. None of this posturing nonsense, like Unibot did.

If you don't mind my asking (you don't have to respond), is there any particular reason why you take such a personal interest in defending gay marriage?

[Unibot]

D) What religion are you?

You'd laugh if I tried to explained it. But it basically concludes their we're all in the dream of a staircase that gets walked over a thousand times a day. I call it Staircism, and I actually do adhere to it. The main principle is that the meaning of life is to amuse yourself and others. So smile!

[Christian Democrats]

[T]he meaning of life is to amuse yourself and others.

This game can be amusing.

[Warzone Codger]

I don't have the moral qualms of others and are willing to back that up with force to your region. I don't care if it's founded. We want to make a point.

Please elaborate.

We are threatening to raid your region if this Act is repealed. It doesn't matter that your region has a founder - It is about making the point.

(OOC: I always found it silly how the "region-crashing" is spilt between raiders and defenders who live in their own little world. It makes more sense and adds to the overall game if it's seen as an extension of a region's foreign policy based on the other things your region does. You don't raid for raiding's sake. But youdo it a particular reason. In this case, disagreement with one's WA views)

[Unibot]

This is just a warning, not only to you, but to anyone:

Repeal the Freedom of Marriage Act, and I WILL Propose to Condemn you. None of this posturing nonsense, like Unibot did.

If you don't mind my asking (you don't have to respond), is there any particular reason why you take such a personal interest in defending gay marriage?

Twenty teen suicides so far in my small town alone is enough to convince me that people need to stick up for people being shunned by society. I don't need a bible to tell me that's wrong, in fact, it wouldn't be very moral at all if I did it just because a maxim, or someone or something told me to do it... I guess I just believe in justice and equality, and my Dad's (who is ironically an admittedly homophobic man) favorite line, "stick up for the little guy" (which is curiously a maxim).

[Kryozerkia]

FOMA in no way prohibits religious ceremonies from being carried out. It does not compel traditional religious institutions to acknowledge these unions. The state itself is compelled to recognize all unions equally.

In a theocracy, where state and religion are intertwine, it may seem that the religion is being forced to acknowledge it. This is why civil contracts exist. The state grants civil contracts to all couples and allows the religious institutions to conduct ceremonies privately. The lines may be blurred but it doesn't change two simple facts: FOMA is only binding on the government and religious institutions are still able to carry out their ceremonies.

In my nation, Christian Democrats, every marriage must be blessed by a priest or deacon before it is considered valid because marriage is viewed as a covenant, not a contract. This includes . . . gay marriages; otherwise, I'd be violating provision 3c of GAR #15. So, even gay marriages are blessed, despite an overwhelming ammount of opposition.

Violence against the LGBT community is extremely uncommon because my citizens are taught to love everyone ( ). Those who do commit acts of violence against LGBT people receive long prison terms. (The exact length of time depends upon the act of violence.)

Well, your nation is not the World Assembly, now is it? And it's clear you've found a loophole (remember that noncompliance bit I've mentioned in the past? Guess, what, you do utilize it, whether you believe it or not), which is not having a government contract but instead a covenant. Now that you've essentially weaselled your way out of a resolution, does it truly matter whether or not it exists? It's rather petty.

Again, what does your nation have to do with the resolution? I'm strongly suspecting heavy national sovereignty in the text and tone of the repeal. What does the violence have to do with anything? It suggests that might makes right.

And of my other points?

[New Azura]

In my nation, Christian Democrats, every marriage must be blessed by a priest or deacon before it is considered valid because marriage is viewed as a covenant, not a contract. This includes . . . gay marriages; otherwise, I'd be violating provision 3c of GAR #15. So, even gay marriages are blessed, despite an overwhelming ammount of opposition.

Violence against the LGBT community is extremely uncommon because my citizens are taught to love everyone ( ). Those who do commit acts of violence against LGBT people receive long prison terms. (The exact length of time depends upon the act of violence.)

Well, your nation is not the World Assembly, now is it? And it's clear you've found a loophole (remember that noncompliance bit I've mentioned in the past? Guess, what, you do utilize it, whether you believe it or not), which is not having a government contract but instead a covenant. Now that you've essentially weaselled your way out of a resolution, does it truly matter whether or not it exists? It's rather petty.

Again, what does your nation have to do with the resolution? I'm strongly suspecting heavy national sovereignty in the text and tone of the repeal. What does the violence have to do with anything? It suggests that might makes right.

And of my other points?

I would have expected a moderator to use a bit more discretion before posting in such a manner. I mean no offense to your character as a person, of course, but do find it a bit disconcerting the way you've jumped into this mess.

[Christian Democrats]

Please elaborate.

We are threatening to raid your region if this Act is repealed. It doesn't matter that your region has a founder - It is about making the point.

(OOC: I always found it silly how the "region-crashing" is spilt between raiders and defenders who live in their own little world. It makes more sense and adds to the overall game if it's seen as an extension of a region's foreign policy based on the other things your region does. You don't raid for raiding's sake. But youdo it a particular reason. In this case, disagreement with one's WA views)

ULTIMATUM:

The Most Holy and Grand Empire of Christian Democrats is fully prepared to begin the process of condemnation against both the the Protectorate of Warzone Codger and her region, Warzone Airspace, if any such attempt of an invasion is made by Warzone Airspace or any region within said region's sphere of influence.

The Protectorate of Warzon Codger hereby is warned not to:

• Attempt an invasion of Catholic or any allied region,
• Attempt to condemn Catholic or any allied region,
• Attempt a condemnation of the Most Holy and Grand Empire of Christian Democrats or any of her allies, or
• Attempt any act banned on NationStates such as hijacking

Such provisions shall apply not only to the nation and the region to which this ultimatum is issued but to any nation believed to be acting with stated nation or region.

Delegate approval of any Security Council resolution hostile to our nation, our region, an allied nation, or an allied region shall lead to an initiation of condemnation as stated in the opening paragraph of this ultimatum.

The Protectorate of Warzone Codger additionally is directed to oppose in forums and message boards any proposal to take hostile actions as outlined in this ultimatum.

[Christian Democrats]

In my nation, Christian Democrats, every marriage must be blessed by a priest or deacon before it is considered valid because marriage is viewed as a covenant, not a contract. This includes . . . gay marriages; otherwise, I'd be violating provision 3c of GAR #15. So, even gay marriages are blessed, despite an overwhelming ammount of opposition.

Violence against the LGBT community is extremely uncommon because my citizens are taught to love everyone ( ). Those who do commit acts of violence against LGBT people receive long prison terms. (The exact length of time depends upon the act of violence.)

Well, your nation is not the World Assembly, now is it? And it's clear you've found a loophole (remember that noncompliance bit I've mentioned in the past? Guess, what, you do utilize it, whether you believe it or not), which is not having a government contract but instead a covenant. Now that you've essentially weaselled your way out of a resolution, does it truly matter whether or not it exists? It's rather petty.

Again, what does your nation have to do with the resolution? I'm strongly suspecting heavy national sovereignty in the text and tone of the repeal. What does the violence have to do with anything? It suggests that might makes right.

And of my other points?

I said my nation begrudgingly blesses gay marriages.

[Kryozerkia]

Well, your nation is not the World Assembly, now is it? And it's clear you've found a loophole (remember that noncompliance bit I've mentioned in the past? Guess, what, you do utilize it, whether you believe it or not), which is not having a government contract but instead a covenant. Now that you've essentially weaselled your way out of a resolution, does it truly matter whether or not it exists? It's rather petty.

Again, what does your nation have to do with the resolution? I'm strongly suspecting heavy national sovereignty in the text and tone of the repeal. What does the violence have to do with anything? It suggests that might makes right.

And of my other points?

I said my nation begrudgingly blesses gay marriages.

In this thread you implied otherwise, which is why I was asking. It seemed as though you found your own little method of noncompliance/

[Christian Democrats]

I said my nation begrudgingly blesses gay marriages.

In this thread you implied otherwise, which is why I was asking. It seemed as though you found your own little method of noncompliance/

My nation complies with both the language and original intent of all resolutions.

[Christian Democrats]

Because of what the poll is showing, I'm probably going to abandon this. The current WA is much more left-wing than its predecessor (see initial post).

Just to point out a few facts now that I've abandoned this proposal . . .

SUPPORT FOR AN INTERNATIONAL REQUIREMENT (ON NATIONSTATES) TO RECOGNIZE GAY MARRIAGES:

08/30/2006 . . . . . 40% support
09/03/2008 . . . . . 56% support
CURRENT POLL . . . 75% support

It appears as if gay marriage is here to stay.

[Unibot]

It appears as if gay marriage is here to stay.

Thank God.

[Rawrgirnia]

It appears as if gay marriage is here to stay.

For good reason, too! It was a hard battle to attain those rights. If you attempt to remove them, your nation will be seen as an enemy of equality and human rights.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Oh, is that how we set legislative policy in the WA now? By nonbinding forum polls? Awesome, I guess half the things I introduced before may now be repealed, seeing how most of them failed at forum vote.

[TannerFrankLand]

I'd cast my region's vote for this. But I won't and didn't vote in a forum poll.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

For good reason, too! It was a hard battle to attain those rights. If you attempt to remove them, your nation will be seen as an enemy of equality and human rights.

Really? You were around in the summer of '08 when this passed? You can speak with authority about how easy or hard it was to pass it? It was a single vote, swiftly adopted because it had a popular title. Moreover, I am sick and tired of the continuing assumption that because this resolution has a fluffy title, it automatically makes it a good resolution. Freedom of Marriage Act is a horrid resolution, plagued by legalese and ambiguous mandates; it was hard to tell if any nation was in compliance with it at all. Note that Brutland and Norden sought to get around this resolution by discontinuing all state-sponsored marriages...to this day I sill don't know if that was a legit response.

[Rawrgirnia]

Really? You were around in the summer of '08 when this passed? You can speak with authority about how easy or hard it was to pass it? It was a single vote, swiftly adopted because it had a popular title.

Surely the ambassador realizes that legislation passed here affects more than just those who are in the debate. This is a debate that has been going on for a long time outside these halls, participated in by millions of citizens of the various nations in this.. um.. universe. Whether or not a nation was a part of the WA at that time has little bearing on the fact that they had to fight for equal rights.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

The WA was established in April of '08, and the marriage act was adopted four months later. Prior to that, the UN operated under multiple resolutions, dating back to its earliest days, protecting (or seeking to protect) marriage rights for same-sex couples. In this universe (specifically, the part of it affected by UN/WA laws), where fluffy resolutions are extraordinarily easy to get passed, the struggle was not hard-fought. What happens outside the WA has no bearing here, as non-WA nations are under no obligation to follow WA laws.

[Rawrgirnia]

I'm not quite sure I understand. What exactly is your problem with the resolution? I mean specific pieces, because just calling it "fluffy" makes no point.