At Vote:Repeal "Gay Rights" [Complete]

[Former English Colony]

Voting on this proposal ends Saturday, so get your votes in by Friday. Thanks!

Repeal "Gay Rights"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution
Category: Repeal
Resolution: #12
Proposed by: Omigodtheykilledkenny

Description: UN Resolution #12: Gay Rights (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: This Assembly,

AFFIRMING that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals are deserving of full and equal protection under the law;

REAFFIRMING its earlier stance in Resolution #99: Discrimination Accord, that the resolution Gay Rights "in practice does virtually nothing to protect citizens' rights";

VOICING its concern that keeping poor, ineffectual legislation such as Resolution #12 on the books will do nothing to advance the cause for human rights, and will in fact hamper this body's ability to make further strides in that arena;

ACKNOWLEDGING that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals are ALREADY afforded substantial protections under international law through past declarations of this body; protections including, but not limited to:

1) Freedom to marry individuals of the same sex or gender;
2) Freedom to express their love for persons of the same gender;
3) Freedom from imprisonment based on sexuality;
4) Freedom from discrimination;
5) Freedom of sexual privacy; thus

DEEMING the Gay Rights resolution redundant and unnecessary;

MINDFUL that it is in the interests of the United Nations to streamline and strike out superfluous and ineffective legislation;

RECOGNIZING that the enactment of this article will NOT permit member states to discriminate against gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender individuals; hereby

REPEALS Resolution #12: Gay Rights.

 

[Former English Colony]

This resolution is currently up for vote in the UN.

Please post your views and stance on this resolution below. Note, however, that you must have a UN nation in The North Pacific, or on active NPA duty, in order for the Delegate to count your vote.

 

[Hersfold]

Well, I can't say I'm surprised at the author's name... But anyway.

[align=center]Gay Rights

WHEREAS it has been clearly witnessed there is an outspoken minority who wish to oppress gays.

We, the People's Republic of Kundu and the other peoples of the world wishing for the preservation of freedom and the respect of all hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life. We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.

The repeal makes several very good points. Unfortunately, it can't specifically name the resolutions that duplicate these protections due to the stupid UN rules, but I have a feeling there's at least three that cover this in some degree of detail. While it could be easily argued that those others are the redundant ones, having been passed after this, there's no further reason to keep this around.

And it was signed. I HATE signed resolutions.

In Favor.

 

[Nova Sardonikker]

What's up with all these repeals recently? Build it up, tear it down?

This is more of a 'meh' kinda thing

but -

hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life

then why create one specifically for gay rights?

For...., bizarrely.

 

[wizardofoz01]

I'm sorry -- once again there is a repeal (proving it's easier to tear down previous resolutions than to actually think about a new one that makes the UN better). And once again I feel like Lear shouting in the storm as one of the few people (perhaps) who will vote against the repeal.

First of all -- a very subtle difference that is NOT mentioned in the repeal: Resolution 12 does establish (in one short sentence) a legalization of gay marriage. As far as I'm concerned, gay marriage is outside the scope of ensuring fundamental rights against discrimination that Resolution 99 does. That is to say, it is one thing to prohibit discrimination, but another to say we are going to protect gay marriage. If one needs an example, here in the US there are laws to prohibit discrimination, but gay marriage is not legalized. So I think there IS some solid, germane difference between Res 12 and 99. #12 is NOT all redundant as this repeal author claims.

Secondly, although discrimination laws have been on the books in many countries such as the US for many, many years, up until recently many people felt that those rules didn't even apply to gays and lesbians. There is still a minority in the world who feel that these people are not even people. It is, in a sense, the same thing that happened with slavery. There were laws in some states from the very beginning talking about equality -- but in many Northern states, even at the time of the Civil War, blacks were still looked down upon. Therefore, I believe Res 12, although short and not complex, serves a symbolic purpose -- that is, to reaffirm that the most "recent" outcasts in our society should not be outcasts.

Thirdly, the rhetoric in this repeal saying how Res 12 may actually HURT efforts to improve human rights is bogus. I can see how some people may think Res 12 may not improve human rights, but to say that leaving this resolution on the books HURTS such efforts is blatant rhetoric of the worst order. Does it clutter the UN? In the minds of some, perhaps. Is it badly written? Perhaps. Does its mere presence cause human rights to be set back 200 years? Hardly.


AGAINST, with all fervor.

 

[Hersfold]

Wizard, FYI:

4) Expresses its conviction that individuals should not be judged by society for the decisions they make, provided these decisions meet the condition set in Clause 5a of this document;

The Sexes Rights Law (Resolution #69 - most of the resolution)

ARTICLE IV- One should have the right to express their love for a member of the same sex.

DEFINES marriage as the civil joining of a member of any nation with any other member of any nation, regardless of sex, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, color, or any other characteristic, with the exception of age;

In the exercise of any power, the United Nations, and every agency, organization and officer thereof, acting on the behalf thereof, or acting with the authority thereof, shall fairly, evenly, and appropriately exercise such power when interacting with any person or government, without regard to the race, ethnicity, gender, of any person or any political consideration (including, but not limited to, the outcome of any conflict, or the ideology of any government).

Discrimination Accord, Resolution #99 (again, most of the resolution - specifies gay discrimination)

Those are all (or most - I was skimming the titles on NS Wiki) of the resolutions that even remotely touch on gay rights. One of these does clearly specify legalized gay marriage, and another discrimination. No offense, but I think it pretty much shoots down the majority of your first two arguments.

And as to your third point, while it doesn't exactly set us back, it does prevent us from expanding further on them. With that Resolution in place, any proposal about Gay Rights has a severe risk of being shot down for duplication. With it out of the way, a newer, more complete resolution can be passed that will help to advance human rights where we currently cannot.

 

[wizardofoz01]

Well, I'll take the last point first.

Any Gay Rights proposal, even if this one is removed, will be shot down JUST like this one is attempting to be shot down -- make no mistake about that. People can use the same argument against a more "complete' Gay Rights proposal.

Res 99 mentions discrimination (only briefly, at the end) against sex/sexual orientation; not things such as gay marriage.

The resolution you cite on Definition of Marriage DOES mention gay marriage but I would draw everyone's attention to the fact that the author does not mention the DoM proposal in his repeal even though he mentions Res 99. This means s/he did not believe that DoM had any relevance, which further implies that he believed 12 and 99 to be the same, which is wrong.

53 does not mention gay marriage explicitly. Neither does 88.

 

[Hersfold]

You're right, they don't mention it explicitly, but being gay is some what of a choice - as far as I'm aware, nothing has yet been proven that it's genetic. 88 doesn't really mention it, no, I just included it in with gender. So I guess it can at least be thrown out.

It's up to you, of course. I was just putting that out there.

 

[Sarcodina]

1) Freedom to marry individuals of the same sex or gender

This is based explicitly on the one resolution that says explicity that gay marriage is ok (Definition of Marriage). Additionally, it is the first thing mentioned in the list, which I think shows the writer was not slow to address it.

He could have skipped it, and let people find out themselves. Instead, he made it his first point...

 

[wizardofoz01]

Bottom line - he doesn't explicitly mention DoM.

I've been saying again and again -- it's not enough that people pass repeals because we agree with the repeal author. That only condones BADLY WRITTEN repeals. If someone tells me that freedom to marry who you want is a UN resolution, I won't believe you until you cite the specific resolution. I shouldn't have to do any digging FOR the repeal author -- if they don't lay things out specifically, they won't get my vote. And that's the way it should be. It is their goal to convince us -- not to try to get our votes through sympathy.

They're trying to repeal something -- they have burden of proof.

 

[Ator People]

As in my usual format:

Direct from the Capital:

The House of Citizens, after taking a vote of its members, does hereby officially give its support for the resolution to formally repeal "Gay Rights"  King Henry VI has certified his agreement to this decision so the current stance of the nation is FOR this resolution of the NS United Nations.

Seal of the King of Ator

Seal of the House of Citizens

 

[Apollo-Industria]

I stand for repealing it. It's just not natural. *flinches several times*

 

[Hersfold]

They're trying to repeal something -- they have burden of proof.

Unfortunately, they can't really do that anymore. I'm surprised they got away with citing what Resolutions they did, but under current rules, if you so much as mention another Resolution in your proposal, it can be deleted. It's called "House of Cards" violations, and is based on the fact that the Resolution you mentioned could eventually be repealed and ruin your whole argument. I think it's stupid, and will personally never report such a violation, but those are the rules.

 

[Ator People]

Unfortunately, they can't really do that anymore. I'm surprised they got away with citing what Resolutions they did, but under current rules, if you so much as mention another Resolution in your proposal, it can be deleted. It's called "House of Cards" violations, and is based on the fact that the Resolution you mentioned could eventually be repealed and ruin your whole argument. I think it's stupid, and will personally never report such a violation, but those are the rules.

You can still mention other resolutions, just as long as your resolution can stand alone if these former resolutions were repealed.

 

[Apollo-Industria]

So, how many are for and how many are against, Erastide?

 

[mr_sniffles]

AGAINST

is it just me or is it that the UN hasn't met a resolution it hasn't liked? It just keeps rubberstamping anything and everything that comes along.

 

[Former English Colony]

I stand for repealing it. It's just not natural. *flinches several times*

Your UN is not in TNP, I can't count your vote on this.

 

[Former English Colony]

So, how many are for and how many are against, Erastide?

Current vote is 4 to 2 in favor of the repeal.

 

[Sarcodina]

Wizard, the writer, as Herfold points out, couldn't say that the repeal ensured gay marriage in the UN because that'd be making another resolution unrepealable (as stated an illegal act). Thus the most reasonable expection is a mention it is currently protected by the UN...which he did. Your argument appears weak in my eyes.

is it just me or is it that the UN hasn't met a resolution it hasn't liked? It just keeps rubberstamping anything and everything that comes along.

Agreed, that's why some need to be repealed...I'd reconsider your vote if that is your only issue with the REPEAL.


Is someone getting a related advertisement banner below...

/

 

[Gruenberg]

Hi. This isn't a vote, as I'm not a TNP nation. However, I TGed Erastide to see if I could register on the forum, and they allowed me to do so. I was involved in the campaigning for this repeal, and wanted to briefly explain what the people who proposed it and are supporting it think, as this is likely to be a very close vote on a controversial topic.

Firstly, this is a 'FAQ' Omigodtheykilledkenny made on the repeal:

Proposal FAQ:

Why repeal this resolution? Removing one barrier of protection for gays will only make other protections more vulnerable, won’t it?
Well, first off, let me reiterate: This proposal does nothing, so we aren’t really removing anything. The only protections the standing resolution grants are: outlawing discrimination against gays, and allowing gay marriage. (Anti-)Discrimination Accord (Res. #99) already protects gays from discrimination, and does a much better job than this waste of paper – just as Definition of Marriage (Res. #81) does a better job at protecting gay marriage. Also, the chances of repealing those two resolutions are very slim, so the protections outlined in this proposal remain intact (and, in my humble opinion, invulnerable), even if this article is struck out.

But what if we’d rather repeal (and replace) other bad resolutions, like Rights of Minorities and Women, and Sexual Freedom? Wouldn’t repealing this as well leave a void?
No. The only resolutions Gay Rights overlaps are #81 and #99, so repealing RoMaW and SF would still leave a “void,” even without this repeal.

Seriously, why repeal something with such a lofty goal as protecting gay rights?
Because it doesn’t really protect them. All it does is give broad generalities about what the goals should be (“protect all people from discrimination,” “gay marriages should be protected”), without outlining how it should be done. Since this bill was passed, the United Nations has had the chance to improve significantly on its provisos, with the passage of (anti-)Discrimination Accord and Definition of Marriage, so this resolution is no longer necessary. This body’s (anti-)Discrimination Accord flatly states that Gay Rights “in practice does virtually nothing to protect citizens’ rights”; why would the United Nations keep a resolution it has already condemned as ineffective and unnecessary?

This repeal is prejudiced and homophobic!!!!!!!! Vote AGAINST!!!!!!!
That’s not even a question. I’ve already explained why this isn’t a campaign to deny gay rights. Read the damn proposal. As a super-special player opined of this proposal on an off-site forum: “This repeal is undoubtedly the most sympathetic repeal anyone could imagine, and its opening paragraphs probably do more for the cause than the original proposal ever did ...”

I agree with this repeal. Gays are cute, cuddly and beloved by children everywhere, and they should have rights.
Umm, I don’t think you understand what “repeal” means. Here’s a dictionary. Look it up.

I am sick of all these repeals!!!! Why can’t you guys come up with NEW legislation, instead of just repealing everything?!
(Sigh) Why don’t you write something new? No one’s holding a gun to your head not to.

Secondly, I wanted to respond to the criticism of not citing references. Basing a proposal on several resolutions is at the least frowned upon, and at most liable to have the proposal deleted. We referenced Discrimination Accord because it's the most compelling, but as has been mentioned Definition of Marriage is also important, because it reaffirms the legality of gay marriage.

Finally, I wanted to restress that this is not a 'homophobic' repeal. The author isn't a homophobe; it's supporters aren't homophobes. Given the opening clause of the repeal, we're actually inviting true homophobes to oppose this statement. The issue is about getting rid of old, wasteful legislation. There's undoubtledly a lot of sentimentality and emotion with this resolution, but we should aim for objectivity.

Thank you to Erastide for allowing me to post here. I'm not trying to pressure anyone; merely weighing in with my thoughts, discussion of which I welcome, and transferring a useful FAQ which those who don't frequent the UN forum could miss out on.

 

[Fedele]

What about nations who wish to be run as Moralistic Democracies or base their nation upon their religion? Any resolution demanding that same-sex marriages be allowed is, in my opinion, seriously infringing on a nation's right to rule their nation as they please. As for a resolution requiring that no nation be allowed to persecute homosexuals in any way, I would be in support of that.

 

[mr_sniffles]

is it just me or is it that the UN hasn't met a resolution it hasn't liked? It just keeps rubberstamping anything and everything that comes along.

Agreed, that's why some need to be repealed...I'd reconsider your vote if that is your only issue with the REPEAL.

No, I'm against because as a gay male the argument that to have equal rights be viewed as special rights is insulting if not condescending. As if we need to be as seen different from both the law and society. I've always felt like a minority; from being an immigrant in a mostly white country, to having a sexual orientation that is not exactly kosher with my culture (damn near every culture really), to having radical political views. But we're all humans; race, sexual orientation, beliefs, religion are all sidenotes. However society doesn't work that way, it creates little categories at the expense of all not included, hence the need for law to codify equal treatment.

My statement is just that we approve laws just as fast as we repeal them. It seems to be a never ending cycle, yes some things need to be streamlined but not at the expense of the environment, labour rights, and minority rights. I never thought I'd see the day when people would complain about too much protection of rights, "oh no! The environment is too well protected by law! Gasp, horrors!"

 

[Unterwasserseestaat]

I'm wondering, if the resolution that's up for repeal says nothing, why are we going to say nothing again in repealing it? To take something out just because it's poorly written is a waste of the UN's time.

I'm AGAINST this repeal.

 

[wizardofoz01]

Wizard, the writer, as Herfold points out, couldn't say that the repeal ensured gay marriage in the UN because that'd be making another resolution unrepealable (as stated an illegal act). Thus the most reasonable expection is a mention it is currently protected by the UN...which he did. Your argument appears weak in my eyes.

What a straw man argument.

If he mentions Res 99 and "got away with it", what's so different about DoM? I could buy your argument if he didn't mention ANY UN resolution, but mentioning one and not the other? Come on..


@ Fedele - As I said in a previous UN resolution debate awhile back, there is a line between sovereignty and being "too aware". The example I used at the time was: We do not vote against democratic freedom initiatives because they won't be liked by countries with dictators. It is the same deal here. We are dealing with basic human rights -- not whether a country has sovereignty over a specific bank, corporation, or piece of land. If one votes against anything that impedes even the slightest bit of national self-government, the UN as a fundamental body would cease to exist. The UN does exist because a vast majority of nations agree on basic principles, and CLEARLY everyone here agrees on the principle in question -- if they didn't they would repeal DoM or some other resolution.

 

[Sarcodina]

Straw-man argument? Well, I am in philosophy 101 too, but this has nothing to do with that. A straw-man argument would be taking something and making it unnecessarily extreme and false. Example: if we pass this repeal, gays will be forced to hide their ways or face violent harassment by evil mobled tyrants bent on forming everyone to a fundamentalist viewpoint.

Not that extremely but true nonetheless, I'd say that YOU are doing that by making a claim that this is a homophobic or anti-gay repeal because a resolution mentioning gay marriage was not mentioned by name (just by mentioning gay marriage and how gay rights is important). It is also a genetic fallacy (another illogical argument), in other words the claim that this was created to be anti-gay (because of the writer ---which I remember you raising a fit about recently on another repeal ---, I can't support it...). *You: I never said it was anti-gay* Well, you appear to be implying by repeatedly worrying about something being what it is not (that is it is NOT anti-gay) that you did not research nor have personal knowledge of...

Here's argument why it is not anti-gay...
If it were anti-gay, it would not mention gay marriage or protection for gays to help with future repeals of anti-gay marriage and anti-gay rights.
It does mention gay marriage and protection for gays (and in a positive light).
Thus, it is not anti-gay.

I'm wondering, if the resolution that's up for repeal says nothing, why are we going to say nothing again in repealing it? To take something out just because it's poorly written is a waste of the UN's time.

The UN is a governing body that is supposed to represent a body of prestige by protecting human rights and postive things (like democracy, freedom of speech etc.) If it is a trash heap of unnecessary resolutions amongst good ones and poorly worded trash amongst well thought out legislation that creates anger (see Fedele ) instead of tolerance...thus I think it is not doing its job. The UN shouldn't be just about giving props to good causes, but spreading good and just causes. Thus there needs to be more debate and discussion, and less resolutions that are great for people who like it and make others just hate the UN...this is counterproductive for those in support of the UN.

No, I'm against because as a gay male the argument that to have equal rights be viewed as special rights is insulting if not condescending.

? I don't understand, so you are against having a resolution titled "gay rights" because it makes it look like they are special (the rights) or in need of passing laws about...not just a part of society.

@ Fedele - As I said in a previous UN resolution debate awhile back, there is a line between sovereignty and being "too aware". The example I used at the time was: We do not vote against democratic freedom initiatives because they won't be liked by countries with dictators. It is the same deal here. We are dealing with basic human rights -- not whether a country has sovereignty over a specific bank, corporation, or piece of land. If one votes against anything that impedes even the slightest bit of national self-government, the UN as a fundamental body would cease to exist.

1st highlight: If so many resolutions are passed that are oppositional to a certain person's viewpoint, wouldn't that cause them to dislike the UN or quit. Thus the UN fails at promoting its values.
2nd Highlight: We are not dealing with basic human rights, but a repeal that does nothing.
3rd Highlight: I think the reason there are so many repeals is maybe because people are not that big of fans of the UN. Also, the reason no good resolution is being discussion is due to the lack of interest...both leading me to belive that the UN is becoming defunct due to it imposing too much. (I mean if it can't let go of imposing something that does nothing, then what right does it give to an indiviual nation.)

 

[Fedele]

If it is a trash heap of unnecessary resolutions amongst good ones and poorly worded trash amongst well thought out legislation that creates anger (see Fedele rolleyes.gif ) instead of tolerance...thus I think it is not doing its job.

I just dislike the UN because they want everyone to be a New York Times Democracy...

 

[mr_sniffles]

No, I'm against because as a gay male the argument that to have equal rights be viewed as special rights is insulting if not condescending.

? I don't understand, so you are against having a resolution titled "gay rights" because it makes it look like they are special (the rights) or in need of passing laws about...not just a part of society.

Wrong, the reason why these laws need to be passed is because current societal values and laws purposely exclude minorities. And I'm not against the law for this, I'm against this repeal because it strips away the protections needed to truly have an equal society.

 

[wizardofoz01]

It is also a genetic fallacy

A genetic fallacy... What is that? An illogical argument involving genes?


Your second paragraph seems to consist of arguing with yourself and predicting what I would say in that argument. I won't attempt to wholly decipher that stream of consciousness, but first of all, your assumption that I believe the repeal is anti-gay is incorrect. It is a question of reasonable doubt. In my mind, I doubt what exactly the author's intents are due to his haphazard WRITING of his repeal and his failure to mention certain arguments. That is grounds for vetoing/rejecting anything.

Secondly, the argument that the author did not mention DoM because of the "house of cards" rule is indeed a straw-man fallacy precisely because it is false to the point of excessiveness. Occam's Razor states that the simplest theory is the correct one. I don't believe that he did not cite DoM simply because he forgot to or because of this ban on mentioning other repeals. I do not believe this because he did mention one repeal by name and number. Now, using Occam's Razor, what's the simplest solution we can draw from that? It is the following: he did not believe DoM to be important in his argument.

We see that the repeal author specifically cited Res 99 because he believed that one was most germane to his repeal attempt (otherwise why would he cite it?). The fact that he did not believe DoM to be important to his argument means that there is a psosibility he did not READ Res 12 closely enough to catch the sentence about gay marriage.

Sarco, your inference that I'm using this to play "the gay card" (ie, paint the repeal as homophobic) is somewhat of a weak accusation. My point all along has been on the specifics of such repeals and how their arguments should be evaluated by all UN nations. Don't assume I would stoop to such cheap levels.


Also, regarding your highlights. We are dealing with a repeal that references basic rights. Even if, in your opinion, the original res "does nothing", its topic is basic rights. If the UN fails at promoting its values, it is because of this very problem -- an influx of repeals. And here I'm speaking generally. You mention resolutions being passed that nations are opposed to -- it's the same thing with repeals. MAny of those are passing that nations are opposed to. If nations in the UN truly believe the UN is demanding too much, they are free to leave. Proposing repeal after repeal is what weakens the stature of the UN. It tells outside observers that many nations are too schizophrenic to make up their minds on an issue.

 

[Sarcodina]

A genetic fallacy... What is that? An illogical argument involving genes?

No, lol. It is when you argue the origin of something not its merits. For example, the writer of the Resolution A is a bad person would be a genetic fallacy. Because even if he is not nice, it is still not a logical argument against the resolution.

As for this repeal, you appear to be infering that he doesn't care that much about DoM. To say he doesn't know about it is false. Because he wrote the UN protects gay marriage, and that it is the only resolution other than this that has that in it. Thus, two options. One: He couldn't put it in for a legal issue or he decided to just mention one instead of the multiple resolutions involved. Two: He purposely left it out for suspectful reasons. I feel you are implying the second, and that is just wrong.

If nations in the UN truly believe the UN is demanding too much, they are free to leave. Proposing repeal after repeal is what weakens the stature of the UN. It tells outside observers that many nations are too schizophrenic to make up their minds on an issue.

*savors the moment* Well if people are tired of all these repeals, they are free to leave the UN... (I always wanted to do that).

Wrong, the reason why these laws need to be passed is because current societal values and laws purposely exclude minorities. And I'm not against the law for this, I'm against this repeal because it strips away the protections needed to truly have an equal society.

I don't belive the repeal does anything. Additionally, the promotion of an equal society is not fully the UN's role in its current form. I'd imagine the cause would be improved of creating that international view on society if the UN opened up, get down on unnecessary resolutions, and started debates on a good and civil society. These resolutions are read by few and followed by force. A resolution that does nothing will hardly be missed nor do I see it hurting the rights of homosexuals.

 

[wizardofoz01]

As for this repeal, you appear to be infering that he doesn't care that much about DoM. To say he doesn't know about it is false. Because he wrote the UN protects gay marriage, and that it is the only resolution other than this that has that in it. Thus, two options. One: He couldn't put it in for a legal issue or he decided to just mention one instead of the multiple resolutions involved. Two: He purposely left it out for suspectful reasons. I feel you are implying the second, and that is just wrong.

What is wrong is to give him the benefit of the doubt.

As I have said many times, the repeal author has the burden of proof to convince us that something the UN passed in the past should now not be on the books.

What are UN member nations supposed to do? Just say, "hey yeah, I think this repeal author is a good guy. We'll give him the benefit of the doubt and not wonder why he didnt mention this other resolution". Let's be realistic here. The simplest logical reason (as I have said before and as I have yet to see anyone disprove) from the standpoint of someone reading this repeal is that the author did not mention DoM because he didn't feel that it applied.

I don't care if he does know or doesn't know about DoM. That isn't even the question. What IS the question is the business end of it -- did he acknowledge it? We have no way of knowing. And since we have no way of knowing, we can't automatically assume he does.

I question why he mentioned Res 99 instead of DoM. 99 is more general and DoM is more direct on an aspect of gay rights.

 

[Sarcodina]

Two points

1) He did mention DoM by saying the UN protects gay marriage, but he just didn't name it.
2) You are stating the repeal is questionable not on its merits, but the possible opinion of the author. Legislation should be decided based on it alone, not the author. I really find you are being hypocritical. I was against Labor Unions partially because it was written by an anti-capitalist, pro-socialist conference...you bashed me for it. Now, you are saying that due to him not giving enough acknowledgement to a certain resolution is your sole reason for voting against. The writer can't be a total bigot, he did not mention pro-rights resolutions, and he stated his support of gay rights (not the resolution mind you.)

I'd really suggest reading the original resolution, and seeing how poorly written and poorly thought out it was compared to the repeal. I don't belive it being repealed is going to do anything to the cause of gay rights...other than show it wants the cause well written.

 

[Gruenberg]

Could I just point out: I was involved in the drafting and campaigning, and I know the repeal author well. He knows about DoM, and he wouldn't have tried this repeal without it. He wants to remove redundant laws, that's it. Yes, again, it's just my word, but the text of the repeal is ultimately all you can really be sure of.

 

[wizardofoz01]

Two points

1) He did mention DoM by saying the UN protects gay marriage, but he just didn't name it.
2) You are stating the repeal is questionable not on its merits, but the possible opinion of the author. Legislation should be decided based on it alone, not the author. I really find you are being hypocritical. I was against Labor Unions partially because it was written by an anti-capitalist, pro-socialist conference...you bashed me for it. Now, you are saying that due to him not giving enough acknowledgement to a certain resolution is your sole reason for voting against. The writer can't be a total bigot, he did not mention pro-rights resolutions, and he stated his support of gay rights (not the resolution mind you.)

Again, you seem unwilling to understand what I've been saying..

Firstly, if he didn't mention DoM by name, he didn't mention it.

Secondly, this isn't about the author at all. Accusing me of being hypocritical is just flailing personal attacks instead of discussing the issues.

I have never attacked the author of this or any other repeal in a personal manner. Whether he is a bigot or not is outside the scope of the repeal. What is NOT outside the scope is what he presents to us or does NOT present to us in his repeal. What he does show me through his writing of the repeal is carelessness bordering on negligence. If someone I knew here on TNP wrote this repeal, I would vote against it and say the exact same things I am saying now. This is not a "personal trait" of the author as you imply, but rather how the author chooses to present his material. It was the same thing with Labor Unions. I complained at that time about the very same thing -- content and transparency in repeals. If content is presented in an arbitrary way, then that is grounds for voting against. Purely because content is presented in an arbitrary way does not mean that the author is somehow personally defunct.

What I DID say was that we cannot be sure of the motives of his repeal. I said this not because I believe he is a bigot, but because his reasoning breaks down at the lack of an explicit mention of a key resolution (DoM) that is related to his repeal. IF there is a flaw in a repeal author's reasoning or content, that is grounds to question what his real reasoning is. Beyond that, there is no need to speculate because at that point, there is already grounds to vote against a repeal.

EDIT: @ Gruenberg -- Yes, you are correct: we do only have your word for that. As I've said all along, the content of the repeal is all we should judge on.

 

[Sarcodina]

Ok, Wizard. I just wanted to clear up your stance. I don't agree with it, but I respect you for wanting transparency. I feel transparency is there, yet I'll stop there.

We had good debate. It was engaging and philosophical

No offense intended at any point.

 

[wizardofoz01]

Same to you, Sarc.

 

[Former English Colony]

And after the lovely debate between wizard and sarc, I voted No on the resolution, however it passed. On to the next we go!

 

[Former English Colony]

Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the UN Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.