Repeal WA resolution #15

[Southern Confederate States (Ancient)]

WA resolution # 15 "freedom of marriage act" although has good intentions, should be repealed. for it forces member nations to accept same-sex marriages. it is up to each individual nation to decide if it wants to allow same-sex marriages. some nations might have laws against, or religious views against same-sex marriages, and this resolution, like stated above forces all member nations to accept, something that they are morally or religiously against. citizens of nations should vote in their each national elections, whether to accept or not accept same-sex marriages, not have it forced upon them by some liberal nutcase.

[Philimbesi]

WA resolution # 15 "freedom of marriage act" although has good intentions, should be repealed. for it forces member nations to accept same-sex marriages. it is up to each individual nation to decide if it wants to allow same-sex marriages. some nations might have laws against, or religious views against same-sex marriages, and this resolution, like stated above forces all member nations to accept, something that they are morally or religiously against. citizens of nations should vote in their each national elections, whether to accept or not accept same-sex marriages, not have it forced upon them by some liberal nutcase.

Actually the law focuses on the civil aspect of same-sex. Not the religious or moral grounds. It provides for a same sex couple to be able to get health care, and in the event of a death protects the survivor and ensures that the estate is legally passed to. Surely a nations homophobia isn't so deep that they would see them deprived of health care and estate?

If your churches want to rail against it and turn your people into mindless homo and xenophobic drones they can.

I do find it ironic that sometime last week the delegate from SCS put forth a measure attempting to ensure the people of the world their right to express themselves by hanging a flag, and now they seek to limit how people can express their love for one another.

[Southern Confederate States (Ancient)]

I don't find it ironic that a liberal would be the first to reply to my request to repeal. they are taking over America now they are trying to take over NS, but I digress, for no matter what I say, I am always wrong to the liberals

[Urgench]

I don't find it ironic that a liberal would be the first to reply to my request to repeal. they are taking over America now they are trying to take over NS, but I digress, for no matter what I say, I am always wrong to the liberals

Is the honoured Ambassador going to answer the esteemed and respected Ambassador for Philimbesi's points as to why this organisation should respect homophobia and racism or are they more interested in making irrelevant references to the mythical "Real World" which have no use here ?

Further, is the honoured Ambassador writing a repeal for the Freedom of Marriage Act or are they just moaning and griping ? If the honoured Ambassador is not writing a repeal for the resolution in question might we make so bold as to suggest that they do so or face the ignoble charge of waisting this organisation's time on their pet peeves.


Yours,

[Southern Confederate States (Ancient)]

1. I ain't an ambassador(I am the leader) 2. if I was endorsed I would be repealing it and 3. cultural heritage, has nothing to do with sexual orientation

[Corintalam]

I don't find it ironic that a liberal would be the first to reply to my request to repeal. they are taking over America now they are trying to take over NS, but I digress, for no matter what I say, I am always wrong to the liberals

Is the honoured Ambassador going to answer the esteemed and respected Ambassador for Philimbesi's points as to why this organisation should respect homophobia and racism or are they more interested in making irrelevant references to the mythical "Real World" which have no use here ?

Further, is the honoured Ambassador writing a repeal for the Freedom of Marriage Act or are they just moaning and griping ? If the honoured Ambassador is not writing a repeal for the resolution in question might we make so bold as to suggest that they do so or face the ignoble charge of waisting this organisation's time on their pet peeves.


Yours,

I believe his point was merely that this should be a Nation by Nation issue. The arguement to inact this resolution was to gain rights for a minority who were being deprived of them, and in that movement is a noble intention. SCS should make a motion, and not start petty attacks upon those who oppose it, though it could be said that the insertation of 'respecting homophobia and racism(what? racism?)' is inflamatory and unsubstantiated. Just because someone is against picking a civil issue over a "moral" issue (be it right or wrong) does not make them harbor any phobia or malice towards those affected by the issue. To say otherwise would be to say that all those who support abortion are OBVIOUSLY inflicted by "Paedophobia". I say all this to make this point: While on the fence on this issue, SCS has the right to make his point (in this case.. whether right or wrong, that he believesthat Same-sex marriage should be a Nation by nation issue), and he has the right to bring this issue without being attacked for it. Address the issues he has rather respectively brought here.

A valid arguement would be: I disagree with the repeal, because by making this a state to state issue, we will be dividing the world into "gay friendly" and "non gay friendly" regions. This would be drastically devisive, and could be the first steps in a Left and Right world war. (this is not my view.. but it is a valid arguement, though probably weak)

Try and keep the hate low.. and answer the issue, not your personal bias. (GJ Philimbesi.. your post was pretty compelling)

[Urgench]

I don't find it ironic that a liberal would be the first to reply to my request to repeal. they are taking over America now they are trying to take over NS, but I digress, for no matter what I say, I am always wrong to the liberals

Is the honoured Ambassador going to answer the esteemed and respected Ambassador for Philimbesi's points as to why this organisation should respect homophobia and racism or are they more interested in making irrelevant references to the mythical "Real World" which have no use here ?

Further, is the honoured Ambassador writing a repeal for the Freedom of Marriage Act or are they just moaning and griping ? If the honoured Ambassador is not writing a repeal for the resolution in question might we make so bold as to suggest that they do so or face the ignoble charge of waisting this organisation's time on their pet peeves.


Yours,

I believe his point was merely that this should be a Nation by Nation issue. The arguement to inact this resolution was to gain rights for a minority who were being deprived of them, and in that movement is a noble intention. SCS should make a motion, and not start petty attacks upon those who oppose it, though it could be said that the insertation of 'respecting homophobia and racism(what? racism?)' is inflamatory and unsubstantiated. Just because someone is against picking a civil issue over a "moral" issue (be it right or wrong) does not make them harbor any phobia or malice towards those affected by the issue. To say otherwise would be to say that all those who support abortion are OBVIOUSLY inflicted by "Paedophobia". I say all this to make this point: While on the fence on this issue, SCS has the right to make his point (in this case.. whether right or wrong, that he believesthat Same-sex marriage should be a Nation by nation issue), and he has the right to bring this issue without being attacked for it. Address the issues he has rather respectively brought here.

A valid arguement would be: I disagree with the repeal, because by making this a state to state issue, we will be dividing the world into "gay friendly" and "non gay friendly" regions. This would be drastically devisive, and could be the first steps in a Left and Right world war. (this is not my view.. but it is a valid arguement, though probably weak)

Try and keep the hate low.. and answer the issue, not your personal bias. (GJ Philimbesi.. your post was pretty compelling)

Since the honoured Ambassador has begun the process of offering advice, we have some for them, keep your advice to yourself. No one has attacked the representative of SCS, they have asked them to justify their stated position. The difference is profound.


Who has expressed a personal bias except the representative of SCS ? In this case a bias for apology for prejudice and hate masquerading as "national sovereignty". If the representative for SCS thinks that it is perfectly acceptable for member states to have wicked and pejorative laws which discriminate against whole sections of their society in wholly unconscionable ways then they are an apologist for homophobia and racism. The fact the the FoMA protects inter-racial marriages seems to have slipped the grasp of some of our respected colleagues.

We have questioned this apologia of hate since it does not seem to be accompanied by any legislative effort, which might possibly justify it. Instead we are to be treated to the unsolicited opinions of the representative of SCS as though it were a pleasure. If there is no planned repeal to the FoMA then what is the point in dragging this issue out again ? To satisfy the vanity of the representative for SCS ?


Yours,

[Urgench]

1. I ain't an ambassador(I am the leader) 2. if I was endorsed I would be repealing it and 3. cultural heritage, has nothing to do with sexual orientation

1. Congratulations!, 2. That is highly unlikely, 3. How is the statement- "Cultural heritage,[sic] has nothing to do with sexual orientation" in any way germane to any of the statements your Excellency is presumably replying to ?


Yours,

[Bullgarganif]

Imperial Government of Bullgarganif informs repealing of FoMA. Our argumentation is the following:
1. The resolution does not contain an acceptable definition of «marriage». The proposed definition («union of two people») allows multiple interpretations and, consequently, leads to abuses. In particular, the resolution does not take into consideration the interests of nations and cultures in which marriage traditionally is a union of more than two people.
2. The resolution does not provide for situations where the State is a religious community itself (as in the case of a theocracy, etc.), which creates prerequisites for the discrimination of entire nations on the basis of their polity.
3. The resolution does not take into consideration the interests of nations in which marital relations are governed by customary law, without the participation of state structures.

[Shadowbat]

I don't find it ironic that a liberal would be the first to reply to my request to repeal. they are taking over America now they are trying to take over NS, but I digress, for no matter what I say, I am always wrong to the liberals

That becasue the time of the conservatives ended after the cold war. People are more open minded now because were willing to accept differences rather than make one type of perosn better than all the others.

[Matryn]

ABC

[Urgench]

you guys (honorable what ever's ), realize that this is a game right.
P.S oh and the law should not be repealed.
P.P.S especially for religious reasons.

O.O.C. It's called r.p. go and read a sticky.

[Corintalam]

Is the honoured Ambassador going to answer the esteemed and respected Ambassador for Philimbesi's points as to why this organisation should respect homophobia and racism or are they more interested in making irrelevant references to the mythical "Real World" which have no use here ?

Further, is the honoured Ambassador writing a repeal for the Freedom of Marriage Act or are they just moaning and griping ? If the honoured Ambassador is not writing a repeal for the resolution in question might we make so bold as to suggest that they do so or face the ignoble charge of waisting this organisation's time on their pet peeves.


Yours,[/quote]




I believe his point was merely that this should be a Nation by Nation issue. The arguement to inact this resolution was to gain rights for a minority who were being deprived of them, and in that movement is a noble intention. SCS should make a motion, and not start petty attacks upon those who oppose it, though it could be said that the insertation of 'respecting homophobia and racism(what? racism?)' is inflamatory and unsubstantiated. Just because someone is against picking a civil issue over a "moral" issue (be it right or wrong) does not make them harbor any phobia or malice towards those affected by the issue. To say otherwise would be to say that all those who support abortion are OBVIOUSLY inflicted by "Paedophobia". I say all this to make this point: While on the fence on this issue, SCS has the right to make his point (in this case.. whether right or wrong, that he believesthat Same-sex marriage should be a Nation by nation issue), and he has the right to bring this issue without being attacked for it. Address the issues he has rather respectively brought here.

A valid arguement would be: I disagree with the repeal, because by making this a state to state issue, we will be dividing the world into "gay friendly" and "non gay friendly" regions. This would be drastically devisive, and could be the first steps in a Left and Right world war. (this is not my view.. but it is a valid arguement, though probably weak)

Try and keep the hate low.. and answer the issue, not your personal bias. (GJ Philimbesi.. your post was pretty compelling)[/quote]




Since the honoured Ambassador has begun the process of offering advice, we have some for them, keep your advice to yourself. No one has attacked the representative of SCS, they have asked them to justify their stated position. The difference is profound.


Who has expressed a personal bias except the representative of SCS ? In this case a bias for apology for prejudice and hate masquerading as "national sovereignty". If the representative for SCS thinks that it is perfectly acceptable for member states to have wicked and pejorative laws which discriminate against whole sections of their society in wholly unconscionable ways then they are an apologist for homophobia and racism. The fact the the FoMA protects inter-racial marriages seems to have slipped the grasp of some of our respected colleagues.

We have questioned this apologia of hate since it does not seem to be accompanied by any legislative effort, which might possibly justify it. Instead we are to be treated to the unsolicited opinions of the representative of SCS as though it were a pleasure. If there is no planned repeal to the FoMA then what is the point in dragging this issue out again ? To satisfy the vanity of the representative for SCS ?


Yours,[/quote]


I am not a representative of SCS, nor this or any of his political movements. I merely was pointing out that all who desire to negate the statement (and possibly later movement) of SCS should answer the issue he is addressing. That issue of national sovereignty is a valid issue, and none of the 'hate' propaganda you have so elequently (no sarcasm intended) put out is going to change the fact that you didn't address the issue at all. I state again, that I do not intend to make a movement for it's repeal. I am only attempting to focus your rightous wrath on the appropriate target.

[Urgench]

I am not a representative of SCS, nor this or any of his political movements. I merely was pointing out that all who desire to negate the statement (and possibly later movement) of SCS should answer the issue he is addressing. That issue of national sovereignty is a valid issue, and none of the 'hate' propaganda you have so elequently (no sarcasm intended) put out is going to change the fact that you didn't address the issue at all. I state again, that I do not intend to make a movement for it's repeal. I am only attempting to focus your rightous wrath on the appropriate target.

So if the honoured Ambassador of Corintalam is not a representative for the Southern Confederated States why do they feel so bound to offer endless excuses for them ?

Our "wrath", which is in fact merely irritation, is not specifically provoked by the representative for SCS's actual or possible views regarding homosexual marriage, instead it is why they felt it necessary to propose a repeal which they have no intention of writing. The intention is clear, mischief making and devilment.

Though we imagine that the honoured Ambassador for Corintalam has only good intentions we remind them again, we do not need them to focus anything for us.


Yours,

[Philimbesi]

1. I ain't an ambassador(I am the leader)

Well I am the ambassador, my leader is much more busy running the nation to be standing here, but my leader is in agreement with it.

2. if I was endorsed I would be repealing it

Good luck on your repeal, though think with then branding and RL references you won't get far.

3. cultural heritage, has nothing to do with sexual orientation

No.. .it doesn't , however the displaying of that cultural heritage (which by the way I'd fight to the death for you to be able to do) is you exercising your freedom of expression, so therefore... in one way you want to be able to express your feeling but same sex couples... not so much.

Nations should decide that's a perfectly valid view point... and one that I'm sure came up in the debate of the topic but the body of this organization voted to pass the law, so I'm betting that you're going to need a better reason to pass the repeal. Again good luck.

OOC: There are other boards for the liberal vs conservative stuff... do us a favor and find them... it's old and tedious, and this isn't Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken's radio shows. I'm sure there are people who would enter into it on those boards. For the record my politics as well as my mind are too big to fit in one neat little box, I have conservative views and liberal views, on this topic I'm more liberal, talk to me about the death penalty and things would be different. To me the world is much too big a place for blind allegiance, the only blind allegiance I have is to the Red Sox.

[Isle de Beaulieu]

3. cultural heritage, has nothing to do with sexual orientation

I had hoped the Ron Paulians died after the election...

In any case, you are absolutely right. Environment and upbringing have nothing to do with sexual orientation. It is scientifically proven and accepted that homosexuality is biological in origin. Gays do not choose to be gay, like blacks didn't choose to be black, or blonds choose to be blond.
That being said, to deny them basic and equal rights under the law--and that includes civil unions--is unconstitutional and violates basic human rights. A nation's preferences should be totally irrelevant.
Should we deny blond-haired people to marry, as well?

[Corintalam]

3. cultural heritage, has nothing to do with sexual orientation

I had hoped the Ron Paulians died after the election...

In any case, you are absolutely right. Environment and upbringing have nothing to do with sexual orientation. It is scientifically proven and accepted that homosexuality is biological in origin. Gays do not choose to be gay, like blacks didn't choose to be black, or blonds choose to be blond.
That being said, to deny them basic and equal rights under the law--and that includes civil unions--is unconstitutional and violates basic human rights. A nation's preferences should be totally irrelevant.
Should we deny blond-haired people to marry, as well?

This is an In character forum, designed to make movement of change at a global level. I know not of this "Ron Paul" you speak of, and think you should stop talking about this "Real World". If you want to have that debate, go elsewhere.
((OOC: Also.. there are no such studies that conclusively prove anything of the kind. Anytime you make such a claim you need to state your sources, and trust me.. I have a Ph.D in Psychology, and am not biased of my religion over scientific proof. There is no such study that has successfully found a 'gay gene'.))

[Valipac]

3. cultural heritage, has nothing to do with sexual orientation

I had hoped the Ron Paulians died after the election...

In any case, you are absolutely right. Environment and upbringing have nothing to do with sexual orientation. It is scientifically proven and accepted that homosexuality is biological in origin. Gays do not choose to be gay, like blacks didn't choose to be black, or blonds choose to be blond.
That being said, to deny them basic and equal rights under the law--and that includes civil unions--is unconstitutional and violates basic human rights. A nation's preferences should be totally irrelevant.
Should we deny blond-haired people to marry, as well?

This is an In character forum, designed to make movement of change at a global level. I know not of this "Ron Paul" you speak of, and think you should stop talking about this "Real World". If you want to have that debate, go elsewhere.
((OOC: Also.. there are no such studies that conclusively prove anything of the kind. Anytime you make such a claim you need to state your sources, and trust me.. I have a Ph.D in Psychology, and am not biased of my religion over scientific proof. There is no such study that has successfully found a 'gay gene'.))

Actually the WA forum has historically been mixed character, with some users choosing to respond in an IC fashion and others choosing to respond OOCly. You'll note that the only true full IC forums are denoted as In-Character when you view the board index.

[Urgench]

Actually the WA forum has historically been mixed character, with some users choosing to respond in an IC fashion and others choosing to respond OOCly. You'll note that the only true full IC forums are denoted as In-Character when you view the board index.

O.O.C. actually this is an IC forum, but it is accepted that some do not treat it as such, and no one minds that much about IC or OOC as long as both are clearly delineated. Its considered good manners to make it absolutely clear that you are speaking OOC, and IC posters are not required to respond or to accept the relevance of OOC posts. I hate making OOC posts and really resent it when posters respond OOC to my IC posts, and confusing the two normally leads to tears and tantrums.

[Rutianas]

Actually the WA forum has historically been mixed character, with some users choosing to respond in an IC fashion and others choosing to respond OOCly. You'll note that the only true full IC forums are denoted as In-Character when you view the board index.

OOC: I've always seen it as an IC forum, but meh, that's just me. I tend to respond to posts IC unless I clearly state OOC.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Actually, if you read the FAQ and the stickies, it's semi-OOC, meaning you can go either way, but it is a rather pointless thing to argue about.

IC: On a matter of principle, the Federal Republic does not consider the question of marriage to be of international importance, and thinks it silly for the WA to be regulating the institution. We are not opposed to gay marriage, but we are not prepared to force it on all member states. We would not oppose a repeal outright; it would depend on what tone the repeal argument took. If it is clear the repeal author genuinely wants to preserve national self-determination on the question of marriage, we're all for it; if it becomes obvious he or she is just a homophobe seeking to discriminate against gay people, we're not.

Besides, the author of the original really got on our nerves; he was obviously a zealot so bent on winning a symbolic victory for the gays he didn't care if his resolution, in practice, would have allowed theocratic governments with no concept of "civil" unions to continue to discriminate against gay couples, or any government, for that matter, to continue to outlaw sodomy -- meaning any same-sex couple seeking marriage at the courthouse could be jailed for admitting to breaking the law. It was later ironed out with an (all-too-permissive) sexual-freedom act, but meh. The Mendosian representative was a tool.

[Urgench]

Besides, the author of the original really got on our nerves; he was obviously a zealot so bent on winning a symbolic victory for the gays he didn't care if his resolution, in practice, would have allowed theocratic governments with no concept of "civil" unions to continue to discriminate against gay couples, or any government, for that matter, to continue to outlaw sodomy -- meaning any same-sex couple seeking marriage at the courthouse could be jailed for admitting to breaking the law. It was later ironed out with an (all-too-permissive) sexual-freedom act, but meh. The Mendosian representative was a tool.

Considering that the legal lumps and bumps which were created by the FoMA have now been ironed out and the Mendosians no longer frequent these hallowed halls what would be the point in a repeal ? Unless one takes a doctrinaire Nat-Sov position on this issue that is.

Yours,

[Dunczton]

I agree. I think that it should only go to the nations that agree with it. In fact they should make an issue about it.

[Philimbesi]

Besides, the author of the original really got on our nerves; he was obviously a zealot so bent on winning a symbolic victory for the gays he didn't care if his resolution, in practice, would have allowed theocratic governments with no concept of "civil" unions to continue to discriminate against gay couples, or any government, for that matter, to continue to outlaw sodomy -- meaning any same-sex couple seeking marriage at the courthouse could be jailed for admitting to breaking the law. It was later ironed out with an (all-too-permissive) sexual-freedom act, but meh. The Mendosian representative was a tool.

We are in agreement over the tool-ish nature of the resolution's author (Mendosa I mean) however this repeal sounds very much like a Nat-Sov based argument, and as you can't use that as your only reason for repeal, I don't see a true legal basis for the repeal. I could be wrong, honestly the Nat-Sov line is one that I'm terrible at distinguishing, but again I don't see a legal reason other than "We don't like it and you're forcing us to."

[Urgench]

Actually, if you read the FAQ and the stickies, it's semi-OOC, meaning you can go either way, but it is a rather pointless thing to argue about.

Conventions in the WA Forum

Most of what goes on in the WA forum is debate over the merits of passed or proposed legislation. Generally the debates are In-Character (that is, roleplay), but sometimes Out-of-Character (that is, non-roleplay) observations are made to clarify or support a point. It is considered good form to make the distinction between your comments as a nation and your comments as a player clear. A lack of such a distinction often leads to misunderstanding and hostility, which are not things we like to encourage here. In terms of etiquette, it's considered polite to post a copy of your proposal here if you want support for it and use diplomatic language when addressing other representatives, though this is not required. There does not seem to be much agreement over the proper way to conduct a WA debate, and given the lack of standardization you might find other posters doing long, rambling, pretentious posts, humorous roleplayed dialogues, or massive point-by-point debating posts.

O.O.C. Taken from the sticky, just to satisfy Kenny