by Old Hope » Tue Aug 11, 2020 8:28 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:13 am
by Old Hope » Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:28 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:There are legitimate reasons for a member nation not to recognise any marriages at all. This resolution would use state power to enforce religious norms. Against.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.
by Kenmoria » Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:43 am
Old Hope wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:There are legitimate reasons for a member nation not to recognise any marriages at all. This resolution would use state power to enforce religious norms. Against.
Legitimate reasons like... what exactly? Nothing in this resolution forces a member state to perform, allow to perform marriage, or to give married people any additional rights beyond notification of other marriages.
by Old Hope » Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:55 am
Kenmoria wrote:Old Hope wrote:Legitimate reasons like... what exactly? Nothing in this resolution forces a member state to perform, allow to perform marriage, or to give married people any additional rights beyond notification of other marriages.
(OOC: Marriage can be viewed as a purely religious ritual, without any governmental regulation or interference. With exceptions for things such as child marriage, this means that laws governing marriage don’t take account of this, very reasonable, situation.)
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.
by Kenmoria » Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:59 am
Old Hope wrote:Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Marriage can be viewed as a purely religious ritual, without any governmental regulation or interference. With exceptions for things such as child marriage, this means that laws governing marriage don’t take account of this, very reasonable, situation.)
OOC:Let`s assume that a member state views marriage as a purely religious ritual.
Why is this resolution a problem for that member state?
by Old Hope » Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:13 am
Kenmoria wrote:Old Hope wrote:OOC:Let`s assume that a member state views marriage as a purely religious ritual.
Why is this resolution a problem for that member state?
(OOC: It is all the clauses apart from clause 3 which would pose the problem. A member state under this model wouldn’t care about marriage, and would leave it entirely to the local religious bodies to decide. In which case, adding regulations would require member states to regulate marriage, compromising the secularity of marriage.)
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.
by Ardiveds » Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:18 am
by Attempted Socialism » Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:54 am
Represented in the World Assembly by Ambassador Robert Mortimer Pride, called The Regicide Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated. My WA Authorship. | Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt? Bobberino: "The academic tone shines through." | Who am I in real life, my opinions and notes My NS career |
by Old Hope » Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:07 am
Attempted Socialism wrote:"We are against government in the bedroom unless there is a real, compelling reason. This shoddy draft reads as a compelling reason to get government farther away from the bedrooms of citizens. I don't think the draft is redeemable."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.
by Attempted Socialism » Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:22 am
Old Hope wrote:Attempted Socialism wrote:"We are against government in the bedroom unless there is a real, compelling reason. This shoddy draft reads as a compelling reason to get government farther away from the bedrooms of citizens. I don't think the draft is redeemable."
General Assembly Resolution #383 already protects that. This draft does not regulate sexual activity at all.
Represented in the World Assembly by Ambassador Robert Mortimer Pride, called The Regicide Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated. My WA Authorship. | Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt? Bobberino: "The academic tone shines through." | Who am I in real life, my opinions and notes My NS career |
by Old Hope » Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:31 am
Attempted Socialism wrote:Old Hope wrote:General Assembly Resolution #383 already protects that. This draft does not regulate sexual activity at all.
"Oh sorry, we must have turned out subtext-to-text translator on by accident. Let me rephrase, then. Government has no legitimate role to play between consenting adults. Especially so if the law in question is written by the delegation from Old Hope."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.
by Barfleur » Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:38 am
Old Hope wrote:Concerned that polygamous marriages frequently become abusive,
Dismayed at the many legal problems another marriage might bring on the other partner(s),
Wishing to protect people from having partners secretly being married to other partner(s),
The World Assembly mandates member states to enact the following as law:
1a.A person already married to one or more partners in marriage must inform these partners about any person they intend to marry(or have married) as soon as reasonably possible.
1b.People who were registered as missing persons at the time of intent to marry do not have to be informed until they ask their other partners about marriages they entered in whilst they were missing.
2.Before marriage, any potential partner must be informed about the other partner(s) marriages, and intents to marry.
3.Trying to get someone registered as missing person to skip the requirements in clause 1a shall be a crime.
by Grays Harbor » Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:39 am
polygamous marriages frequently become abusive
by Old Hope » Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:40 am
Kenmoria wrote:Old Hope wrote:OOC:Let`s assume that a member state views marriage as a purely religious ritual.
Why is this resolution a problem for that member state?
(OOC: It is all the clauses apart from clause 3 which would pose the problem. A member state under this model wouldn’t care about marriage, and would leave it entirely to the local religious bodies to decide. In which case, adding regulations would require member states to regulate marriage, compromising the secularity of marriage.)
Grays Harbor wrote:polygamous marriages frequently become abusive
According to who? I haven’t seen any evidence that it is either more or less so than a 2 person marriage. It would be helpful if you didn’t use a fallacious premise as a basis for your proposal.
(Also, not seeing this as significant strength)
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.
by Great Robertia » Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:15 pm
by Morover » Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:18 pm
by Old Hope » Tue Aug 11, 2020 2:02 pm
Great Robertia wrote:"Firmly opposed. This resolution is sticking its long nose into affairs it doesn't belong in."
Morover wrote:"I might support a resolution that makes it so that in instances where marriage is a state-run ordeal, and polygamy is permitted for anybody, it must be permitted for everyone. The keyword is might there, and I just got out of a tiring meeting with my cousin from the other assembly, so even that possible support may be due to the headache that I've endured."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.
by Great Robertia » Tue Aug 11, 2020 2:19 pm
by Godular » Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:00 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:02 pm
Great Robertia wrote:Old Hope wrote:You read the draft, right? Not just the title?
"We did, Ambassador, I find it most curious you think I didn't. Is it reflective of your own style in commenting on proposals?
No, don't answer that, as I digress. My response remains the same, no matter how many times I'll reread the current draft."
by Old Hope » Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:22 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:"We do not object in principle to the concept of notification of parties to a polygamous marriage. We have a problem with any resolution that gives broad religious exceptions to marital regulations. We also share the Godulan opinion. Opposed."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.
by Wealthatonia » Tue Aug 11, 2020 5:02 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Aug 11, 2020 6:57 pm
Old Hope wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"We do not object in principle to the concept of notification of parties to a polygamous marriage. We have a problem with any resolution that gives broad religious exceptions to marital regulations. We also share the Godulan opinion. Opposed."
These exceptions are no longer broad, which was an oversight.
Tax fraud is not the only concern, Ambassador Bell. A partner should simply be notified because it is just not right to put someone into a polygamous marriage without their knowledge.
by Silver Commonwealth » Wed Aug 12, 2020 3:43 am
''We aren't members of WA, so no formal diplomatic messages, but just notes with our opinion.''
''As much as we in the government would dislike and restrict polygamy, and government sticking its nose in such matters is not exactly something we would oppose, in the end in reality of WA it should ultimately be a decision for each country on their own. Opposed.''
Samuel Marshall, the Commonwealth's Representative to WA, and one of the SC's ambassadors
The Ministry of Foreign and Internal affairs as a whole
✥ ᴛʜᴇ ɴᴇᴡꜱ ✥
- ꜱɴɴ
- ᴀʀᴄʜɪᴠᴇ
✉ ʀᴀɴᴅᴏᴍ ✉
- ᴀᴅᴍɪɴɪꜱᴛʀᴀᴛɪᴏɴ
- ꜱᴛᴏʀɪᴇꜱ
✪ ʟᴇᴀᴅᴇʀꜱʜɪᴘ ✪
- ᴘʀᴇꜱɪᴅᴇɴᴛ ᴛᴏᴍ
- ᴏᴛʜᴇʀ ʟᴇᴀᴅᴇʀꜱ
≛ ᴘᴇᴏᴘʟᴇ ≛
- ꜱᴏᴄɪᴇᴛʏ
- ꜱᴛᴜꜰꜰ&ɢᴏᴏᴅꜱ
⚒ ᴛʜᴇ ɴᴀᴛɪᴏɴᴀʟ ᴡᴏʀʟᴅ ʀᴇᴘᴜʙʟɪᴄ ᴏꜰ ꜱɪʟᴠᴇʀ ᴄᴏᴍᴍᴏɴᴡᴇᴀʟᴛʜ ⚒
|☐ʜᴏᴍᴇ☐|❖ꜱᴄ ɪɴ ʜᴏɪ4❖|★ꜱᴄ'ꜱ ʀᴀᴅɪᴏ&ʟᴏᴄᴀᴛɪᴏɴꜱ★|❇ᴄᴏɴꜱᴛɪᴛᴜᴛɪᴏɴ❇|✧ᴍɪʟɪᴛᴀʀʏ✧|✝ᴍᴀᴘꜱ&ɪɴꜰᴏ✝|☢ʜɪꜱᴛᴏʀʏ☢|
⚖ ᴀꜱ ᴛʜᴇ ᴍᴏᴅᴇʀᴀᴛᴇꜱ ᴀʀᴏᴜɴᴅ ᴛʜᴇᴍ ꜰᴇʟʟ, ʀᴀᴅɪᴄᴀʟɪᴢᴀᴛɪᴏɴ ᴏꜰ ꜱᴄ'ꜱ ᴅᴇᴍᴏᴄʀᴀᴄʏ ꜱᴜᴘᴘᴏʀᴛᴇʀꜱ ʙᴇᴄᴀᴍᴇ ᴀ ᴍᴀᴛᴛᴇʀ ᴏꜰ ꜱᴜʀᴠɪᴠᴀʟ ☠
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: A Puppet Collector
Advertisement