Meritocratic Isles
November 12, 2018, 10:48:42 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Please observe the rules set forth in our Civil Code.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Freedom of Marriage Act  (Read 16858 times)
Kadoshim
Archon Basileus
Spartiate
*
*
*

Merit: 14
Posts: 407



« on: September 01, 2008, 05:15:58 PM »

Upon the request of Camenia, we will once again discuss the current activities of the World Assembly. The current resolution being voted upon, the Freedom of Marriage Act, is an interesting and controversial proposal.
WA and non-WA nations alike are invited to share their thoughts on this resolution.
This should get interesting.
Logged
PINERAT
Citizen
Neodamode
*

Merit: 2
Posts: 21


« Reply #1 on: September 01, 2008, 06:36:47 PM »

Thanks to the Honorable Kadoshim for starting this discussion. As I am not yet a citizen, I was unsure of my qualifications for starting discussion.

I am fully in agreement with the proposal in the World Assembly regarding the Freedom of Marriage Act.

I feel that is recognizes the common needs of all our fellow humans for love and commitment and family, and encourages all of those things, something that is so terribly lacking.

I would like to hear the opinions of others here in the Meritocratic Isles. I value my fellow nations' opinions. Respect for differences of opinion is important to Camenia--and would like to hear what others think.

Logged
Shieldelf
Citizen
Perioikos
*
*

Merit: 8
Posts: 182


Commander, Isles Militia


« Reply #2 on: September 01, 2008, 07:23:40 PM »

I feel that we must be nice to all sorts of people, even if we don't approve of their lifestyle.
Logged

King Chester
Geronta
Perioikos
*

Merit: 16
Posts: 183



« Reply #3 on: September 01, 2008, 11:48:50 PM »

A point of order:

Please read into the record exactly what is stated in this "Freedom of Marriage Act", for the benefit of those nations who prefer the self-determination that they enjoy outside of the WA.

Then let us discuss the possible merits of the act.
Logged
Robinho
Ephor
Neodamode
*

Merit: 6
Posts: 44


« Reply #4 on: September 02, 2008, 01:53:40 AM »

Unsuprisingly if you read the debates beteewn myself and the honorable King Chester, I am for the proposal.
Logged
King Chester
Geronta
Perioikos
*

Merit: 16
Posts: 183



« Reply #5 on: September 02, 2008, 06:42:37 AM »

Forgive OUR sloth in not getting the necessary information when last WE viewed this topic.  It was late.

WE have reviewed the so called "Freedom of Marriage Act" and find it to be lacking in substance and a tissue of meaningless phrases designed to subvert the majority population of societies by an elitist minority seeking to justify conduct that the majority does not believe in.

WE do not object to persons entering into agreements for mutual benefits, however not all relationships equally provide the benefit to the state that the traditional marriage relationship does.

OUR main objections:

1st.  The Act, as written, makes no distinction between any two person relationship and incest.

2nd.  There is no definition of the word, "marriage", as to what it is or what it's purpose is.

WE thank God that WE are considered a "rogue nation" by the WA, if this is what they consider good legislation.
Logged
Kadoshim
Archon Basileus
Spartiate
*
*
*

Merit: 14
Posts: 407



« Reply #6 on: September 02, 2008, 02:55:19 PM »

The two basic ideas of this resolution are to protect the rights of those who are married and to ensure that those rights are available to all people regardless of sexual orientation.
Quote
designed to subvert the majority population of societies by an elitist minority seeking to justify conduct that the majority does not believe in.
The right to act in ways which others do not approve of is called freedom. We support the spreading of freedom across the world.
The act of using freedom in a way that harms others or infringes upon their rights is called crime. We do not support crime.
Unless you reject the idea of freedom or somehow show how marriage of homosexuals is a crime, you cannot use this evidence to support your argument.
No, the resolution does not take incest into account, but at the same time it does not restrict laws from being made about incest in member nations.
How can a WA Resolution define marriage? Its purpose must be defined by the lovers who take part in the union.
Logged
King Chester
Geronta
Perioikos
*

Merit: 16
Posts: 183



« Reply #7 on: September 02, 2008, 05:32:11 PM »

1.  How can marriage rights be protected if the meaning of marriage, the purpose of marriage, the benefits of marriage and the RESPONSIBILITIES of marriage are not defined?

2.  No one has said that some may not act in way that others do not approve, but a society does not have to embrace values that it does not believe in.

3.  WE have not stated that non-traditional relationships are crimes.  WE have made no motion to incarcerate homosexual persons.  However, WE are also sensible that not all relationships have equal merit and therefore hold that the relationship between a man and a woman is FUNDAMENTALY DIFFERENT from the relationship of two men or the relationship of two women.  Therefore, WE as a state, recognize that traditional marriage IS marriage and that other non-traditional relationships are NOT marriage.

4.  A well thought out and well worded resolution would have either voided the concept of an incestuous marriage or embraced it.  The person(s) drafting the legislation made an inadequate effort.

5.  How can anyone make a law or resolution and not consider the defining characteristics of  Who, What, Where, When and How?

6.  If something must be defined by the participants, than it can also be named or renamed by the participants.  If the persons involved insist on calling their non-taditional relationship, "marriage", when marriage has been defined, generally, in it's traditional sense, since the beginning of civilization, it means that they want the society to change to their point of view.  Why don't they call it "handfasting", which, WE believe, is a pagan/neo-pagan practice of supposedly equal merit and estate?  WE can even agree that in the eyes of the law that "handfasting" will convey the same benefits and responsibilities as "marriage", but the non-traditional radicals will never meet the traditionalists in that view.  The non-traditionalists ONLY want to have their ideas become the traditions.

BTW, Shieldelf, WE fully agree with your sentiment that WE ought to be nice to people.  WE do OUR best to embrace the concept of loving one's neighbor as one loves themself.  That does not mean WE embrace every popular idea because it attempts to invoke the word "love".
« Last Edit: September 02, 2008, 09:44:42 PM by King Chester » Logged
Kadoshim
Archon Basileus
Spartiate
*
*
*

Merit: 14
Posts: 407



« Reply #8 on: September 03, 2008, 01:46:31 PM »

Let us assume that the relationship between a man and a woman is fundamentally different from that of a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
Would you be alright with homosexual "handfastings" which gave these couples identical rights and responsibilities to heterosexual "marriages"?
Logged
King Chester
Geronta
Perioikos
*

Merit: 16
Posts: 183



« Reply #9 on: September 03, 2008, 07:37:51 PM »

Have WE not stipulated that WE are willing to cede equal rights, benefits and responsibilities to a same sex couple entering into a social contract EXCEPT that WE are not willing to call that relationship a "marriage".

WE we hoping that some of OUR previous objections would be addressed.  Now WE shall further expand upon OUR unanswered points:

1.  The majority of OUR population, those religious and those not, other than those already of a criminal nature, do not persecute homosexual persons and are willing to give them the opportunity (and continue to give them opportunities) to make their various civil rights grievances without fear of reprisal.  Basic human decency required that we enforce the laws equally for all of OUR citizenry, including communities that may have been tragically overlooked.  Both the majority and the minority have the right to petition the Crown.  But unless the majority is engaging in unlawful acts that will bring ruin upon the kingdom, there will be more peace in the kingdom if the majority's sensibilities are respected over the sensibilities of the minority.

2.  Traditional marriage naturally benefits the state in manners that same-sex non-traditional relationships cannot.

Excuse US, we have not been totally well this day and must stop for now.  WE are certain that on the morrow, WE shall be much more capable.  However, WE are not calling for this most important subject to be stalled in OUR absence.  Pray, continue.
Logged
Kadoshim
Archon Basileus
Spartiate
*
*
*

Merit: 14
Posts: 407



« Reply #10 on: September 04, 2008, 05:27:25 PM »

Your Majesty,
1. You seem to sway back and forth between the importance of equal rights and the importance of popular opinion. While it is not clear to us which one of these is a higher priority to you, we would like to state that we strongly feel that equal rights are more important.
Popular opinion has, and always will, change with time. On the other hand, basic human rights have stayed nearly the same for centuries.
Quote
2.  Traditional marriage naturally benefits the state in manners that same-sex non-traditional relationships cannot.
Can you give an example of such manners?
Logged
King Chester
Geronta
Perioikos
*

Merit: 16
Posts: 183



« Reply #11 on: September 04, 2008, 07:43:36 PM »

WE thought that something that opposite sex couples could naturally do and same sex couples couldn't naturally do would be ... obvious.

The state benefits from traditional marriage by having it's population replenished, by a man and a woman who will provide role models of proper behavior of how men and women are supposed to act politely with one another (forgive the rambling sentence).

Still, for the two reasons previously listed, this supposed "Freedom of Marriage Act" is a badly written and worthless bit of drivel.

WE are weary of defending our postition, which isn't the topic.  Can ANYONE, using the text of this Act, make an arguement that WE are wrong?
« Last Edit: September 04, 2008, 10:11:07 PM by King Chester » Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1 RC2 | SMF © 2001-2005, Lewis Media Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!