Unterwasserseestaat
TNPer
Vote via TG: 5/2
Vote below (as of edit): 0/11
At Vote:Repeal "Definition of Marriage" [Complete]
- Thread starter Unterwasserseestaat
- Start date
Vote via TG: 5/2
Vote below (as of edit): 0/11
Unterwasserseestaat
TNPer
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.
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.
Unterwasserseestaat
TNPer
Here is the text of Resolution 81, in case anyone is interested:
Ermarian, once again, casts NAY.
We've seen this resolution attacked time and time again, and it has thankfully always stood firm.
The author desperately tries to put a legitimate reason on the repeal (finally succeeding in setting up a "beastiality" strawman), but the true motivation is quite clear: "Religion" and "societal structure" (in other words, conservative tradition) of the nation must be allowed to dictate what rights individuals of the nation enjoy, and what not. It boils down to the conflict of national sovereignty vs. codified ethics of the international community - the universal attack that works on any UN resolution from Emission Control to Abolition of Slavery.
Ironically, the strawman aims for the one line of the resolution that actually does endorse national sovereignty. I quote,
To which the author replies:
The only conclusion is this: On one hand, the author demands the sovereignty for a nation to discriminate against its homosexual citizens; on the other, he denies them the sovereignty to endorse beastiality. Since the author is clearly following his own specific set of morals that mandate this ("Homosexuality and Beastiality are WRONG"), why does he not explicitly state these morals in the repeal for all to see and vote upon? Hiding behind vague mutterings about national sovereignty is disingenuous to say the least.
Edit: Grew rather longer than I anticipated. Oh well, apparently it is not against the rules to debate in the UN voting threads.
We've seen this resolution attacked time and time again, and it has thankfully always stood firm.
The author desperately tries to put a legitimate reason on the repeal (finally succeeding in setting up a "beastiality" strawman), but the true motivation is quite clear: "Religion" and "societal structure" (in other words, conservative tradition) of the nation must be allowed to dictate what rights individuals of the nation enjoy, and what not. It boils down to the conflict of national sovereignty vs. codified ethics of the international community - the universal attack that works on any UN resolution from Emission Control to Abolition of Slavery.
Ironically, the strawman aims for the one line of the resolution that actually does endorse national sovereignty. I quote,
To which the author replies:
The only conclusion is this: On one hand, the author demands the sovereignty for a nation to discriminate against its homosexual citizens; on the other, he denies them the sovereignty to endorse beastiality. Since the author is clearly following his own specific set of morals that mandate this ("Homosexuality and Beastiality are WRONG"), why does he not explicitly state these morals in the repeal for all to see and vote upon? Hiding behind vague mutterings about national sovereignty is disingenuous to say the least.
Edit: Grew rather longer than I anticipated. Oh well, apparently it is not against the rules to debate in the UN voting threads.
V
Vallearia
Guest
Nay
Ermarian said it all .....
Ermarian said it all .....
Apollo-Industria
TNPer
NAY.
Monte Ozarka
TNPer
UN: Luteinizing Hormone
Nyet. See Ermarian's post.
Nyet. See Ermarian's post.
Sarcodina
TNPer
*not a UN member in TNP, tempted*
Erm, that is a load of bologne.
Finally on the bold, Erm, welcome to international diplomacy. Shall every resolution have the inner secrets of its writer. Should the pot ones have that the person wants to smoke it, or the ones repealing the pedophilae one about their problem. Heck no, I'd rather only face issues on meritious points not between the line analysis by even such respectable and fine people as yourself, Erm.
Might continue later.
I am not huge fan of the repeal's language, but I think the resolution should be repealed. If I could, I'd support it.
Erm, that is a load of bologne.
You are simulataneously taking two routes. One) Bestiality is obviously not good (or at least imply reasonability of disliking it). Two) People are trying to pass this based on a value system. Well, Erm, you just established that. Bestiality is part of a value system, which to you is at least ok to disallow/ban at least within a marriage arean, but to other people there are values beyond this. To establish a source of more unanimous dislike, it spreads the idea of sovereignty more universally. Most TNPers would likely not be as supportive of a pro-bestiality marriage amendment, so they can possibly comprehend further ability to define a system of ethics and values within their nation. Are you implying that if someone has a more refined sense of ethics that they should be banned from speaking up? Should any minority opinion in the UN have to write in the clearest and most unpopular language their legislation to ensure it fails? The UN is for everybody, love it or leave it.
Uh? First off I can write a resolution that allows a nation to support penus pumps even though there is no resolution stoppping it nor any resolution that would hinder that. The bestiality marriage is only discussed in this resolution. It is obviously the "right" of the nation even if this was repealed. The only thing that is not a "right" b/c of it is the ability to make a resolution opposing bestiality marriage. There is absolutely no grounds b/c of the DoM res. to establish any ban of marriage from two tangible objects even if for some reason it would be wise to decide such object. Thus the point is not that it forces people to have bestiality marriage, but it protects it as a right just as with the other parts of the resolution. Perhaps every TNP member could imagine something they aren't fond of and thus understand that a person within body they are in has issue with it passing resolutions against its core beliefs. I mean geez. Just b/c you take Intro to Logic doesn't mean you can start throwing around phrases to scare people from disagreeing with you.
Finally on the bold, Erm, welcome to international diplomacy. Shall every resolution have the inner secrets of its writer. Should the pot ones have that the person wants to smoke it, or the ones repealing the pedophilae one about their problem. Heck no, I'd rather only face issues on meritious points not between the line analysis by even such respectable and fine people as yourself, Erm.
Might continue later.
I am not huge fan of the repeal's language, but I think the resolution should be repealed. If I could, I'd support it.
No just the custom to bow down to the first person who uses a logic term. A modus ponens, and bam you got'em by the balls.
Unterwasserseestaat
TNPer
So far as I can see, the last point of the original Resolution is only marginally material. It technically would prevent another resolution coming through the UN specifically banning interspecies or extraspecies marriage (Unterwasserseestaat reserves the right to marry two sentient dolphins who have both accepted Someone as their personal Savior). Perhaps the author is trying to clear the road for such a resolution, but he isn't denying them this sovereignty yet. He's just saying he thinks it's yucky.
More material is the point:
I personally feel that #81 should stand as part of our system of international ethics. Liking it or not comes down to personal viewpoints, which is an entirely understandable motivation for action.
More material is the point:
I might be personally troubled if I'm interested in experimenting with a society with child-rearing collectives of 5-8 people. What about a civil partnership of two like-minded couples? Should we try to clear this and make an even more liberal amendment?
I personally feel that #81 should stand as part of our system of international ethics. Liking it or not comes down to personal viewpoints, which is an entirely understandable motivation for action.
P
Party Mode
Guest
I'm certainly glad the North Pacific is about to vote against this repeal. 
I have had telegram conversations with several nations that consider the removal of 'Definition of Marriage' more overbearing than having the abysmal repeal forever in the list of passed resolutions. I feel such an approach is not necessary for what I regard as a relatively mild resolution, and would sympathise more if the resolution was more harmful. What do you guys think?
I have had telegram conversations with several nations that consider the removal of 'Definition of Marriage' more overbearing than having the abysmal repeal forever in the list of passed resolutions. I feel such an approach is not necessary for what I regard as a relatively mild resolution, and would sympathise more if the resolution was more harmful. What do you guys think?
U
Uninterrupted Relief
Guest
Nay.
Nay.
G
Greater Boblandia
Guest
Certainly a case where the cure is far worse than the disease.
Against.
Against.
A
Aphrite
Guest
AGAINST
Fergi the Great
TNPer
**glad to be among the like minded despite the failure of the foregoing motion**
Unterwasserseestaat
TNPer
With a total vote of 5 for, 13 against I voted AGAINST the repeal of "Definition of Marriage".
Despite this, the resolution Repeal "Definition of Marriage" was passed 8,776 votes to 5,767.
Despite this, the resolution Repeal "Definition of Marriage" was passed 8,776 votes to 5,767.
Unterwasserseestaat
TNPer
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.
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.