[DRAFT #2-ish] Condemn Auralia (the nation)

[Astrobolt]

Opposed, those who are in non-compliance with GA resolutions and don't RP it properly should not be recognized by the SC.

[Ransium]

You should know the reason no mod has marked your proposal is because we are debating it’s legality, particularly with regards to stamps and commercial aspects of NS.

[WayNeacTia]

Afrasiab WA Mission, which held WA membership at the same time as Auralia when it submitted "Commend Auralia" in February 2014, a gross violation of international etiquette for which both nations as well as the Commendation were removed from the WA;

I have issues with this. 1. Do we really need to be glorifying patently rule breaking behavior (i.e. multying) in a resolution? 2. Is it even legal to mention multying in a resolution without violating 2c?

[Tinhampton]

Afrasiab WA Mission, which held WA membership at the same time as Auralia when it submitted "Commend Auralia" in February 2014, a gross violation of international etiquette for which both nations as well as the Commendation were removed from the WA;

I have issues with this. 1. Do we really need to be glorifying patently rule breaking behavior (i.e. multying) in a resolution? 2. Is it even legal to mention multying in a resolution without violating 2c?

1. I'm not "glorifying" this behaviour, I'm attempting to advise future generations against it
2. I believe that Auralia's attempted selfie was mentioned when Wrapper wrote a proposal with this title six years ago; that was legal then.

[WayNeacTia]

Afrasiab WA Mission, which held WA membership at the same time as Auralia when it submitted "Commend Auralia" in February 2014, a gross violation of international etiquette for which both nations as well as the Commendation were removed from the WA;

I have issues with this. 1. Do we really need to be glorifying patently rule breaking behavior (i.e. multying) in a resolution? 2. Is it even legal to mention multying in a resolution without violating 2c?

1. I'm not "glorifying" this behaviour, I'm attempting to advise future generations against it

As if the rules didn't spell it out clearly enough already?

[Sedgistan]

You should know the reason no mod has marked your proposal is because we are debating it’s legality, particularly with regards to stamps and commercial aspects of NS.

As per this, we're introducing a new ruling that commercial features of NationStates (in effect the Store, and anything you can purchase there) cannot be referenced in proposals. For the time being this is being filed under Rule 4(c) but as some are aware there is a planned re-write of the SC rules this year which should see them organised/presented better.

As such the following part of this proposal: "that negatively affects much-needed stamp sale revenue from national post offices" - is illegal.

As a separate note, we have very clear instructions on mentioning illegal behaviour in proposals - "authors should always ask for a ruling before submitting a proposal that cites rules violations" - this seems to have been ignored of late, including with this proposal. That should not be the case.

[WayNeacTia]

Who could have seen that development coming from a mile away?

[Tinhampton]

I will let this fall out of queue naturally at 5am on the 9th of September... and will probably revive this draft (with a greatly slimmed-down version of the OBSERVING clause, if I keep it there at all) in the next few weeks, maybe in October.

AS OF 2324 BST ON FRIDAY: Approvals: 65 out of 64 needed (Tinhampton, Saganye, Whitemore, Disgraces, Acaciatropole, Revoldregs, Soviet watermelon, Very totally free, Ile Morice, Indusse, KanKeta, Allenstadt, Dabberwocky, Xukong, Akarea, Volydian, Nghymru, Vedenmark, The Hellespont, Thembria SSR, Aredita, The Mojave Chapter of the BoS, Some People on Planet Arcadia, Seven Seas, Misted Lake, Libonesia, Kaamatapatnam, Baccalieu, Branch68, A Leaf on the Wind, Kosuto, Awesomeland012345, Sierra Grand, Heale, The Eastern Pacific Islands, Ameiriqua, Kreigswaffe, United States of the Mars, Kor Pantaal, Russia Major, Groot, New Legland, Ilmarene, Zombiedolphins, Central Protectorate of Alkoholi, Gran Serenissima, Madison and Wisconsin, San Lumen, Asian Lands, Pharos12, Roylaii, Alphabetrom, Alcycone, Zentata, Beansworld, Potato Valley Region, South Krimelski, Marrum Graecia, New Seaview Cove, Catboy Ethnostate, Fultzan, Nepriana, Cantanasia Objective, The Yellow Emperor, Horden)

[Tinhampton]

02/05/2022, 23:39:18 BST: Auralia was refounded in Osiris.

...yeah. It isn't October. New draft up, anyway.

I renew my request for a Modly legality ruling on the HORRIFIED, OBSERVING, and (perhaps to a lesser extent) CONVINCED clauses. As if I ever made one in the first instance.

[Honeydewistania]

02/05/2022, 23:39:18 BST: Auralia was refounded in Osiris.

...yeah. It isn't October. New draft up, anyway.

I renew my request for a Modly legality ruling on the HORRIFIED, OBSERVING, and (perhaps to a lesser extent) CONVINCED clauses. As if I ever made one in the first instance.

I remain in full support

[Twertis]

I regret everything I said about this in the past. I am inclined to vote against because Auralia multi-ed to commend themselves, especially if that's one of things you're condemning them for.

However, if they've made amends in some way, you can bring it up in the condemnation, by, say, lambasting them for their mercuriality and not always sticking with their crimes (or for trying to deceive the WA with false apology).

Edit: somehow I'm still in disagreement with Honeydew.

[Honeydewistania]

I regret everything I said about this in the past. I am inclined to vote against because Auralia multi-ed to commend themselves, especially if that's one of things you're condemning them for.

However, if they've made amends in some way, you can bring it up in the condemnation, by, say, lambasting them for their mercuriality and not always sticking with their crimes (or for trying to deceive the WA with false apology).

Edit: somehow I'm still in disagreement with Honeydew.

It's funny, because I support especially if the multiing is included. I think as suggested by his and UM's and MG's previous posts, he doesn't seem to keen on a condemnation. Which makes me think that it's not rewarding a self-commending WA cheat with a different kind of shiny badge, but to him it would actually be a denunciation of his actions. Though I might be wrong, and Auralia can always chime in with his explicit views on the matter

[Twertis]

So, if this a badge of honor, we can't mention the WA cheating. Plus I don't think mentioning it is even legal.

The alternative — it being punishment — doesn't seem to have been done since Topid condemned Unknown and Nazi Europe. I don't think we wanna open that can of worms again.

[Tinhampton]

This Condemnation is a Condemnation, not a Commendation in a little black dress.

I will not be removing the section about Afrasiab WA Mission.

[WayNeacTia]

I regret everything I said about this in the past. I am inclined to vote against because Auralia multi-ed to commend themselves, especially if that's one of things you're condemning them for.

However, if they've made amends in some way, you can bring it up in the condemnation, by, say, lambasting them for their mercuriality and not always sticking with their crimes (or for trying to deceive the WA with false apology).

Edit: somehow I'm still in disagreement with Honeydew.

It's funny, because I support especially if the multiing is included. I think as suggested by his and UM's and MG's previous posts, he doesn't seem to keen on a condemnation. Which makes me think that it's not rewarding a self-commending WA cheat with a different kind of shiny badge, but to him it would actually be a denunciation of his actions. Though I might be wrong, and Auralia can always chime in with his explicit views on the matter

A much as I detest the multying that went on, at the point he was at I may almost call it justified. After getting hosed on the repeal of GAR #2 anyone would have been pissed off. Still in full support.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Still against badging a WA cheat.

[Wallenburg]

This Condemnation is a Condemnation, not a Commendation in a little black dress.

So you already know how strongly I oppose this. No need for me to go into the details, then.

[Alistia]

Support.

[The Forest of Aeneas]

Against due to problematic views by the nominee.

(Edited to fix typo)

[Alistia]

Against due to problematic views by the nominee.

(Edited to fix typo)

Like what?
The Delegation of Alistia would be interested to see evidence of what views the nominee holds which would warrant changing our current position of support for the proposal.

[Auralia]

Though I might be wrong, and Auralia can always chime in with his explicit views on the matter

I would prefer not to be condemned. I would not see it as a "badge of honour".

As I have said in the past, I regret having cheated and having attempted to commend myself. It was an error in judgment for which I am sorry.

At the same time, this was eight years ago. I was duly punished for cheating at the time. I have not reoffended since. I urge everyone to carefully consider the motives of those who keep dredging up ancient history.

[The Forest of Aeneas]

Against due to problematic views by the nominee.

(Edited to fix typo)

Like what?
The Delegation of Alistia would be interested to see evidence of what views the nominee holds which would warrant changing our current position of support for the proposal.

This does seem to be UM's position, though I'd like to see some discussion of this underlying moral claim. To me it seems that it would be in principle desirable to change one's sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, for the same reason that it would be in principle desirable to rid oneself of any kind of inclination towards sin.

No, the Church teaches that homosexuality is objectively disordered but not sinful in and of itself. Homosexual acts are sinful.

Just for one thing, gay people being able to marry will mean an increase in the purchases of wedding apparel, the renting of facilities, etc. Bakeries (some of them, anyway), florists (some of them, anyway), all sorts of people will see an increase in business. That stimulates the economy.

That's true, but I would argue that the damage to traditional marriage and family structures outweighs the economic benefits of same-sex marriages.

Allowing us to marry and to adopt increases the chances for orphaned children to find good homes.

A better solution to the shortage of adoptive parents would be to promote adoption among opposite-sex couples and to reduce the causes of orphaning, such as poverty and father abandonment.

And the most positive impact is that we no longer have a group of citizens who have fewer rights than the majority simply because they are homosexual. That in itself is enough.

That's not a positive. Civil marriage is effectively a state subsidy granted to those who fulfill specific criteria, in order to accomplish a public interest. It is not a right, and there is nothing wrong with depriving those who do not fulfill those criteria of that subsidy.

Even in cases where desistance does not occur, Catholics and other religious groups hold that certain treatments for gender dysphoria, such as sex reassignment surgery, are intrinsically immoral because they involve the destruction of otherwise healthy organs in an attempt to change one's sex, which is impossible. To hold these beliefs, to pass them on to one's children, and to require children to act in accordance with them while subject to parental authority (at least up to a certain age) is not child abuse.

With respect to sexual orientation, Catholics and other religious groups draw a distinction between inclination and conduct. There is nothing sinful about being sexually attracted to persons of the same sex, but it is sinful to act on that inclination. Again, to hold these beliefs, to pass them on to one's children, and to require children to act in accordance with them while subject to parental authority (at least up to a certain age) is not child abuse.

Your beliefs on:
[...]
Gay marriage: Oppose. State recognition of marriage is not a right; it is a privilege granted to those who are relatively likely to have children. Same-sex couples generally do not have children, while opposite-sex couples generally do. That said, I would support granting hospital visitation rights and the like to same-sex couples.
[...]
LGBTQ equal rights: What do you mean? Gay adoption? No. Legal recognition of gender "changes"? No. I don't consider those "equal rights", I consider it harming children in the former case, and entertaining mental illness in the latter.

The state should not provide people with excuses for discrimination. You wouldn't like being denied service, would you?

If I was gay, I wouldn't mind being denied service with respect to the celebration of a same-sex relationship, no. But then again, I believe same-sex relationships are immoral, so...

The point is, they wouldn't. They'd help children even if it hurts their feels that they have to treat everyone as humans.

And you'd think Massachusetts would have simply let Catholic Charities continue to operate, because providing adoption services matters more than the hurt feelings of gay couples.

These resolutions compel nations to recognize the legitimacy of a separate "gender identity" that can be at variance with biological sex, as well as to permit "gender-adequation procedures" such as hormone therapy, genital mutilation, and sterilization.

The Auralian government maintains, in accordance with the teaching of the Catholic Church, that God has created all human beings either male or female. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has taught that "this duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about, as ordained by God."

Moreover, sexuality is an integral part of every human being. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that it "affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul." It is an extraordinary gift, but one that is chosen by God at the moment of our creation. It is not subject to the human will. Pope Benedict condemns as false the notion that sexuality is "a social role that we choose for ourselves" rather than "a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of."

The Auralian government is morally obliged to respect these fundamental metaphysical truths about the human person. Accordingly, any attempt by the World Assembly to compel states to recognize the legitimacy of a "gender identity" distinct from one's biological sex, or to sponsor attempts to "change" a person's sex to correspond to this "gender identity", is contrary to the natural law and void.

However, this does not mean that sexual orientation cannot in principle be changed or that any attempt to do so should be categorically forbidden. The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes homosexual inclination as "objectively disordered". Auralia maintains that it is in principle desirable to voluntarily rid oneself of homosexual desire for the same reason that it would be in principle desirable to rid oneself of any kind of disordered desire or other inclination towards sin.

The Auralian government maintains, in accordance with the teaching of the Catholic Church, that marriage is a union between a man and a woman that is naturally ordered towards the procreation and education of children, mutual aid, and the quieting of concupiscence. Two persons of the same sex cannot contract marriage and same-sex sexual acts are intrinsically evil.

Edit: I think if Auralia denounces these previous problematic views if he really no longer holds them, I'd be willing to support a Commendation or Condemnation. But until then, strong against.

[Zyvetskistaahn]

I have a difficulty with the concept of condemning a nation for resolutions that have been authored by it. They are resolutions that the World Assembly has passed and supports, at least insofar as they are not repealed. I do not see the consistency in maintaining the resolutions and yet condemning a nation for drafting them. The same is not entirely true for repeals (which cannot themselves be repealed) but the lack of replacement for the repealed resolutions suggests the Assembly's view on them. Writing resolutions, to my mind, is commendable behaviour. It is obviously unfortunate for Auralia that they have effectively disqualified themselves from being commended but that does not make behaviour that would be commendable condemnable.

I am also uncomfortable with passing a condemnation for cheating. Whether the intention of this proposal is to be a "badge of honour" or a genuine condemnation, the fact of the matter is that condemnations are widely seen to be the former. Condemnations have been (rightly) repealed for cheating and I don't see a good reason to give a condemnation for cheating here.

[Fachumonn]

It's funny, because I support especially if the multiing is included. I think as suggested by his and UM's and MG's previous posts, he doesn't seem to keen on a condemnation. Which makes me think that it's not rewarding a self-commending WA cheat with a different kind of shiny badge, but to him it would actually be a denunciation of his actions. Though I might be wrong, and Auralia can always chime in with his explicit views on the matter

A much as I detest the multying that went on, at the point he was at I may almost call it justified. After getting hosed on the repeal of GAR #2 anyone would have been pissed off. Still in full support.

^
|
Support.

[Fachumonn]

Like what?
The Delegation of Alistia would be interested to see evidence of what views the nominee holds which would warrant changing our current position of support for the proposal.

This does seem to be UM's position, though I'd like to see some discussion of this underlying moral claim. To me it seems that it would be in principle desirable to change one's sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, for the same reason that it would be in principle desirable to rid oneself of any kind of inclination towards sin.

That's true, but I would argue that the damage to traditional marriage and family structures outweighs the economic benefits of same-sex marriages.



A better solution to the shortage of adoptive parents would be to promote adoption among opposite-sex couples and to reduce the causes of orphaning, such as poverty and father abandonment.



That's not a positive. Civil marriage is effectively a state subsidy granted to those who fulfill specific criteria, in order to accomplish a public interest. It is not a right, and there is nothing wrong with depriving those who do not fulfill those criteria of that subsidy.

With respect to sexual orientation, Catholics and other religious groups draw a distinction between inclination and conduct. There is nothing sinful about being sexually attracted to persons of the same sex, but it is sinful to act on that inclination. Again, to hold these beliefs, to pass them on to one's children, and to require children to act in accordance with them while subject to parental authority (at least up to a certain age) is not child abuse.

Even in cases where desistance does not occur, Catholics and other religious groups hold that certain treatments for gender dysphoria, such as sex reassignment surgery, are intrinsically immoral because they involve the destruction of otherwise healthy organs in an attempt to change one's sex, which is impossible. To hold these beliefs, to pass them on to one's children, and to require children to act in accordance with them while subject to parental authority (at least up to a certain age) is not child abuse.

These resolutions compel nations to recognize the legitimacy of a separate "gender identity" that can be at variance with biological sex, as well as to permit "gender-adequation procedures" such as hormone therapy, genital mutilation, and sterilization.

The Auralian government maintains, in accordance with the teaching of the Catholic Church, that God has created all human beings either male or female. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has taught that "this duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about, as ordained by God."

Moreover, sexuality is an integral part of every human being. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that it "affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul." It is an extraordinary gift, but one that is chosen by God at the moment of our creation. It is not subject to the human will. Pope Benedict condemns as false the notion that sexuality is "a social role that we choose for ourselves" rather than "a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of."

The Auralian government is morally obliged to respect these fundamental metaphysical truths about the human person. Accordingly, any attempt by the World Assembly to compel states to recognize the legitimacy of a "gender identity" distinct from one's biological sex, or to sponsor attempts to "change" a person's sex to correspond to this "gender identity", is contrary to the natural law and void.

However, this does not mean that sexual orientation cannot in principle be changed or that any attempt to do so should be categorically forbidden. The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes homosexual inclination as "objectively disordered". Auralia maintains that it is in principle desirable to voluntarily rid oneself of homosexual desire for the same reason that it would be in principle desirable to rid oneself of any kind of disordered desire or other inclination towards sin.

The Auralian government maintains, in accordance with the teaching of the Catholic Church, that marriage is a union between a man and a woman that is naturally ordered towards the procreation and education of children, mutual aid, and the quieting of concupiscence. Two persons of the same sex cannot contract marriage and same-sex sexual acts are intrinsically evil.

Edit: I think if Auralia denounces these previous problematic views if he really no longer holds them, I'd be willing to support a Commendation or Condemnation. But until then, strong against.

One of these is IC. See "The Auralian government"