Imperium Anglorum wrote:In before people not understanding marginal analysis.
You're too late.
Advertisement
by Separatist Peoples » Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:54 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:In before people not understanding marginal analysis.
by Falcania » Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:00 pm
by Phydios » Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:23 pm
If you claim to be religious but don’t control your tongue, you are fooling yourself, and your religion is worthless. Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you. | Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. On judgment day many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’ But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’James 1:26-27, Matthew 7:21-23
by Araraukar » Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:33 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:"This repeal is rooted in a deep understanding of the underlying structure of intestacy, tax, and to a lesser extent, family law. Specifically, my objections are out of a desire to prevent either a total failure of the law or unfair advantages by certain individuals over the general population."
"This is not the case in a polygamous marriage, where several people can work together to acquire benefits otherwise unavailable."
"This is most clear in tax law, where one could incorporate additional individuals into a marriage to reduce the overall tax burden of a household."
"Far worse is the risk of the law utterly failing, as I've explained using the next of kin argument for a person in a coma."
"By permitting member states to recognize, or not, polygamous marriage, one permits member states to evade those conundrums without uprooting entire fields of law, which are the basis of rational, effective policy."
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar » Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:48 am
by Slackertown » Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:20 pm
by Lord Dominator » Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:15 pm
Slackertown wrote:While we're at it, let's ban gay couples, they're too complex on the taxes too...
by Aelyria » Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:34 am
by Aelyria » Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:47 am
Battlion wrote:Must say, I’m in agreement with Araraukar that if your own law creates loopholes because of WA resolutions then that sounds like a problem with the law in your own country.
by Battlion » Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:49 am
Aelyria wrote:Battlion wrote:Must say, I’m in agreement with Araraukar that if your own law creates loopholes because of WA resolutions then that sounds like a problem with the law in your own country.
"In what way does the requirement that polygamy be legalized entail flaws in any given member state's laws? All that matters is that they have literally any form of state-recognized marriage, which now induces a requirement to recognize all 'civic marriages,' and thus all marriages of 'two or more' persons."
by The Marconian State » Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:25 am
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:31 am
The Marconian State wrote:To the Ambassador for the Separatist Peoples to the WA, while it may be fair to consider that the possibility of polygamy alongside all the problems of law, tax, and all such previously mentioned topics raise concern, it might be fair to consider the caliber of many ambassadors and nations joining you in wanting to repeal GAR#457 are not really thinking about those issues. I'm sure you, like many others, saw the level of bigotry raised in the debate against GAR#457, all of which will be allowed to be hidden behind the excuse of tax problems. Bigotry will be allowed to revel as we are found by all those people who say, "Ooh, ooh, I found a loophole, now I don't have to care about this bill I'm voting against!"
I think the better solution here would be to draft a legislation that deals with the problems you seem to have encountered in DRoSaGM, rather than, as they say, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. However much ground has been gained for nonbinary peoples will have been lost for a comparatively minor problem. Have you considered working with the Ambassador from the Nation of Maowi to resolve these issues in another bill rather than repealing 457? I, and my President, believe that would be the best solution.
by Wallenburg » Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:14 am
Aelyria wrote:"To those claiming that the law, as stated, allows selective interpretation of the 'or': if this is the case, can we not also selectively interpret, say, the word 'civil' to only mean those marriages recognized by the state after their recognition by a religious authority? Why does this disjunction permit alternate interpretation, but other terms do not?"
"As it stands, the current legislation requires that all member nations which have state-recognized marriage must recognize all 'civic marriages,' after having already defined 'civic marriage' to include any number of partners. This is the plain text of the resolution. There is no room for member nations to recognize only marriages of two persons, but not three or more. Either it must recognize no marriages at all, or it must recognize absolutely all 'civic marriage,' and that term explicitly is for any number greater than one person."
"Aelyria supports the repeal, and immediate replacement with a new bill that explicitly permits member states to define the permissible number of participants in a 'civil marriage.' Then each member state may determine for itself whether the consequences of legal polygamy are an acceptable burden, or not."
by Elyreia » Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:21 pm
by Gudmund » Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:02 pm
by Kenmoria » Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:34 am
Gudmund wrote:Overall I disagree with the original resolution entirely, just for a few different reasons. Considering the very first line disregards the physical differences between male and female, I already thought it was pretty stupid. My nation does not have marriage, so #1 (a, b, c, d) of the original resolution does not apply to me. However, I'm more concerned with the original resolution's explanation of #2 and #3:2. MANDATES that every member nation must grant exactly the same rights, powers, permissions and services to individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to exactly the same qualifying conditions. Such conditions may not include the sexuality or gender of the individual(s) concerned.
3. ORDERS all member nations to impose exactly the same sanctions or punishments on all organisations which deny any right, power, permission or service to an individual based on their sexuality or gender, as the sanctions or punishments imposed on organisations discriminating on the basis of other arbitrary, reductive criteria (such as, but not limited to, ethnicity, age and religion).
This means services/businesses like Boy or Girl scouts will practically not exist due to the enforcement of these 2 rules. For example, the resolution forces nations to punish such organisations if they don't allow any gender except male from joining the boy scouts. Neither will there be separation between sports, since qualifying conditions '...may not include the sexuality or gender of the individual(s) concerned.'
This also prevents businesses from hiring only male or female workers for specific roles. Contracting/building companies usually hire all-male since they're often better suited for heavy lifting and dangerous work. I'm not even going to get into the many issues with healthcare that this brings forth.
How this resolution even managed to pass in the first place honestly astounds me.
by Gudmund » Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:00 am
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: That is true. However, luckily, there is a loophole. Although it has to be technically illegal under the law, it only has to be punished ‘as the sanctions or punishments imposed on organisations discriminating on the basis of other arbitrary, reductive criteria’. The punishments for those conditions are grouped under CoCR, GA #35, which does have an exception for compelling practical purposes. Therefore, the fines a nation would have to impose on a business could be lessened to token amounts via this loophole, if the member state claimed a compelling practical purpose, although the actions themselves would still have to be illegal.)
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Feb 13, 2019 6:21 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Brenadin, DEEZJJJF, Haymarket Riot, Nu Elysium, The Ice States, The Overmind
Advertisement