Advertisement
by Punk Reloaded » Fri May 28, 2010 7:55 am
by Urgench » Fri May 28, 2010 8:13 am
Punk Reloaded wrote:Thanks Hirota...my previous post was written before seeing yours.
I agree with you that the title is a bit of a misnomer...However, since the resolution does state "Freedom of Marriage" and was found to be valid, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that it is not defining the term marriage. And by implication since this definition is different than it was before the resolution, that also by definition is a 'redefining'.
With respect to minors, this isn't rhetorical at all and definitely has relevance to the question of marriage. I'm not clear how you think this is rhetorical, but I'll explain my thinking a bit more. The resolution doesn't restrict itself to minors and therefore is open to minors. Within different member nations there are restrictions to minors for various reasons usually because the minor is not quite psychologically advanced to deal with the issues (i.e. voting) or may not completely understand the consequences of their actions (e.g. criminal cases). My proposal is stating that the resolution is too vague in this instance and far too open for interpretation on this point which could lead to unintended consequences of minors being legally able to marry at whim, be they opposite sex or same sex couples. The question there is do we, as the World Assembly, wish to continue to support a resolution that leaves that loophole. But it's definitely not just a rhetorical statement. I may rephrase just to remove any potential stigmas.
Thank you for your reply, it's much appreciated.
To Zemnaya: valid point
To Nullarni: poster above you says he/she doesn't find much technically wrong with it. You write that I've never even read a proposal. Who should I believe? And further, what branding mistakes are there?
by Zemnaya Svoboda » Fri May 28, 2010 8:28 am
by Nullarni » Fri May 28, 2010 8:37 am
Punk Reloaded wrote:Thanks Hirota...my previous post was written before seeing yours.
I agree with you that the title is a bit of a misnomer...However, since the resolution does state "Freedom of Marriage" and was found to be valid, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that it is not defining the term marriage. And by implication since this definition is different than it was before the resolution, that also by definition is a 'redefining'.
With respect to minors, this isn't rhetorical at all and definitely has relevance to the question of marriage. I'm not clear how you think this is rhetorical, but I'll explain my thinking a bit more. The resolution doesn't restrict itself to minors and therefore is open to minors. Within different member nations there are restrictions to minors for various reasons usually because the minor is not quite psychologically advanced to deal with the issues (i.e. voting) or may not completely understand the consequences of their actions (e.g. criminal cases). My proposal is stating that the resolution is too vague in this instance and far too open for interpretation on this point which could lead to unintended consequences of minors being legally able to marry at whim, be they opposite sex or same sex couples. The question there is do we, as the World Assembly, wish to continue to support a resolution that leaves that loophole. But it's definitely not just a rhetorical statement. I may rephrase just to remove any potential stigmas.
Thank you for your reply, it's much appreciated.
To Zemnaya: valid point
To Nullarni: poster above you says he/she doesn't find much technically wrong with it. You write that I've never even read a proposal. Who should I believe? And further, what branding mistakes are there?
by Philimbesi » Fri May 28, 2010 8:52 am
Put it this way, in Punk Reloaded we have a long tradition of mother's marrying their eldest son if their husband passes away. I see no reason to put forth a resolution that requires the same for all fellow World Assembly nations. Instead, I respect the customs and traditions of my fellow members and think this resolution should be repealed as it unilaterally forces a particular morality on ALL member nations.
by Zemnaya Svoboda » Fri May 28, 2010 8:52 am
HEREBY REPEAL the “Freedom of Marriage” resolution.
by Silver Beach » Fri May 28, 2010 10:04 am
by Philimbesi » Fri May 28, 2010 10:05 am
by Silver Beach » Fri May 28, 2010 10:07 am
Philimbesi wrote:What court does the ambassador refer to?
by Philimbesi » Fri May 28, 2010 10:15 am
by Silver Beach » Fri May 28, 2010 10:28 am
by Toiletdonia » Fri May 28, 2010 10:32 am
Jalanat wrote:Or like that time I misheard something my mom said about the rain and I thought that rain was made of dirty goats for 5 months.
Jalanat wrote:I hope you weren't trying to call me a reindeer, we mooselike are a hundred times better than the reindeerlike. Stupid reindeers. Oh, look at me, I am a reindeer, look at my not so big antlers which look ugly compared to mooses, oooh look at me, I am a reindeer, I am flying in the sky pulling a fat man in red clothes in a sled.
by Silver Beach » Fri May 28, 2010 11:21 am
Toiletdonia wrote:I don't agree with a repeal. Making marriage liberal and free is a very valid resolution.
by Embolalia » Fri May 28, 2010 11:38 am
Philimbesi wrote:OOC: Nope, don't like it vote against it, still don't like repeal, resign, or relax.
/ˌɛmboʊˈlɑːliːʌ/ | My mostly worthless blog Economic Left/Right: -5.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51 Liberal atheist bisexual, and proud of it.
|
by TurtleShroom » Fri May 28, 2010 11:53 am
Urgench wrote:And exactly what kind of morality does your Majesty suggest is being forced on all member nations by the FoMA?
Silver Beach wrote:Since it was passed, it infringes WAY too much on the sovereignty of nations, and this is enough cause for Silver Beach to withdraw from the WA. It is being discussed in Parliament, if the Repeal of the Freedom of Marriage Act is lost, then Silver Beach will either A. go to court with the WA or B. withdraw from the WA
THE FUTURE
IS IN THE
PAST!!
by Philimbesi » Fri May 28, 2010 11:58 am
by Embolalia » Fri May 28, 2010 12:07 pm
TurtleShroom wrote:They are forcing all countries in the World Assembly to legitimatize and recognize gay marriage/same-sex unions as equal to the real thing, and making them extend the benefits of holy matrimony to said perverts.
/ˌɛmboʊˈlɑːliːʌ/ | My mostly worthless blog Economic Left/Right: -5.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51 Liberal atheist bisexual, and proud of it.
|
by Urgench » Fri May 28, 2010 12:25 pm
TurtleShroom wrote:
IC:FROM THE REPUBLIC OF TURTLESHROOM:
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
JONESBORO OFFICE #2
BUREAUCRAT
To Whom it May Concern:
They are forcing all countries in the World Assembly to legitimatize and recognize gay marriage/same-sex unions as equal to the real thing, and making them extend the benefits of holy matrimony to said perverts. It bars them from banning marriage of the same gender! The Holy Republic of TurtleShroom dropped out of the WA because it refuses to compromise its morals just because the homosexuals so demand "recognition" of a defiance of human genetics and mating. They can be gay in private and amongst their own kind, but when the try and force their way of life down the State and the majority's throats, we take action. Marriage is the union of one male and one female, of whom were that gender at birth. No compromise, no exception!
We applaud the logic of King Maximus.
Regards,
Sobe Ittson, Bureaucrat of the Federal Government of the Holy Republic of TurtleShroom, acting on behalf of the Chancellary
by Silver Beach » Fri May 28, 2010 2:29 pm
by Urgench » Fri May 28, 2010 3:20 pm
Silver Beach wrote:Yes, but we must remember that gay marriage used to vary from nation to nation, and this is a thing that should be a domestic affair. You should not be forced to make this law in your nation, it is a domestic issue that needs to be decided by the people
by Silver Beach » Fri May 28, 2010 3:33 pm
Urgench wrote:Silver Beach wrote:Yes, but we must remember that gay marriage used to vary from nation to nation, and this is a thing that should be a domestic affair. You should not be forced to make this law in your nation, it is a domestic issue that needs to be decided by the people
Why is one human being on one side of a border more equal than there analogue on the other side of that border? How is equality divisible by nationality? One person is either equal to all others or they are not your Excellency, which is it? And if the happenstance of nationality can decide a single person's right to be treated equally on what possible logic is this justified?
Yours,
by Urgench » Fri May 28, 2010 3:41 pm
Silver Beach wrote:
Sir,
One human on one side of the border is NOT as equal as someone else. BUT, this bill should be decided by the directly elected represenatives of the people, not by the World Assembly. This bill is a domestic bill, not a bill decided by the international community, but a domestic policy. This is each indivual nation's own buisness, and that is how it should stay
by Silver Beach » Fri May 28, 2010 3:55 pm
by Punk Reloaded » Fri May 28, 2010 6:32 pm
by Sionis Prioratus » Fri May 28, 2010 6:39 pm
Punk Reloaded wrote:I obviously agree with the gentleman/woman from Silver Beach...marriage is a union between 1 man and 1 woman.
However, the repeal I am now proposing does not have anything to do with that actually, and I believe I will strike the mention of 'redefining' of marriage from the latest proposal. Moreso, I think the loophole with respect to children AND the fact that healthcare isn't explicitly stated give rise to exploitation of children and allows for 2nd class unions which I do not believe was the intent of the framers.
Advertisement
Advertisement