We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: The Family Values Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Aldegar Freedom Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: October 2389
Description[?]:
| The True Conservative Party is concerned now, more than ever, that this nation's moral fabric is unravelling. And the TCP believes that this nation's families are the ones who are being hurt. We must not forget that the foundation for any just and ordered society stems ultimately from a strong set of morals and values - this nation's people are gradually finding less and less relevance in these values, and the result is the gradual deterioration of our social order. A nation with loose morals and loose values will prove only to fail and turn into anarchy. Therefore, in order to re-establish this nation's moral grounds, and to re-affirm this nation's values, and to re-jeuvinate this nation's safe, wholesome, family friendly social environment, the TCP has proposed the articles outlined in this bill. The TCP hopes sincerely that other parties will think of the families who are suffering under this nation's lack of morals when considering this bill. Good, decent, middle class families, earning a humble living, trying to raise their children to be good, wholesome human adults. And the only way we can help them is to provide them with a safe and wholesome society in which to do so. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning adoption.
Old value:: Adoption is regulated by the government. Applicants can adopt after a routine check-up.
Current: Adoption is regulated by the government. Applicants can adopt after a routine check-up.
Proposed: Adoption is strictly regulated by the government. Only by passing several tests and by following an intensive program applicants can adopt children.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government policy toward marriage.
Old value:: The government allows all consenting adults to obtain civil marriage contracts.
Current: The government allows all consenting adults to obtain civil marriage contracts.
Proposed: The government only recognises civil marriages between a man and a woman.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The governments stance on religious schools.
Old value:: Any religion may set up a school, but they are strictly regulated.
Current: Any religion may set up a school, but they are strictly regulated.
Proposed: Any religion may set up a school, with no regulations.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy with respect to prayer in schools.
Old value:: Teacher-led prayers in schools are forbidden, except in religious schools.
Current: Teacher-led prayers in schools are forbidden.
Proposed: Teacher-led prayers in schools are encouraged.
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change Sexual education in schools.
Old value:: Schools have an obligation to give sexual education at some point in puberty.
Current: Schools have an obligation to give sexual education at some point in puberty.
Proposed: This decision is up to the schools themselves without government regulation.
Article 6
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding sexually explicit material on broadcast television.
Old value:: Sexually explicit material is allowed, but violent or hard core pornography is banned.
Current: Sexually explicit material is not allowed, but nudity that is not sexually explicit is.
Proposed: Nudity on television is banned.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 07:12:44, April 01, 2007 CET | From | Independent Right | To | Debating the The Family Values Act |
| Message | Article 1 is sensible. Article 2 is acceptable, other forms of marriage only serve to discourage population growth, something that should be of the utmost concern. Article 3, however, is not acceptable. There must be certain basic standards that we demand of educational institutions, and allowing religious affiliated institutions to bypass regulation could be disastrous for Aldegar's children. If a small, non-mainstream religion is of the opinion that mathematics and science should not be taught, should we allow them to refrain from teaching mathematics and science? Of course not. Certain standards must be upheld. Article 4 is also unacceptable, and violates the important separation of religion and government. What type of prayer do we encourage? Which religions get to benefit from the government advocating their theology, and which are denied that privilege? Articles 5 and 6 are sensible proposals, and we'd lprefer to vote for them. However, as it stands, with Articles 3 and 4, we cannot support this bill. We'd prefer if they be split into a different bill, otherwise we will be forced to abstain. |
| Date | 07:53:40, April 01, 2007 CET | From | Left Libertarian Party | To | Debating the The Family Values Act |
| Message | Article 1 is acceptable, though we're concerned that the adoption process will be seen as too much of a hassle if it's made too complicated. Article 5 we can support, as we support allowing these decisions to be made at a more local level. Article 6 is not something we favor, but we could allow it to pass if needed. Articles 2, 3, and 4, however, are totally unacceptable to us. |
| Date | 10:39:31, April 01, 2007 CET | From | S.C.A.F.R. | To | Debating the The Family Values Act |
| Message | Sorry, TCP, in which century you think that you live? XV? These bills are the death of progress, and we are ready to make a riot in the country if the Council wi'll approve this abortion. |
| Date | 16:38:25, April 01, 2007 CET | From | Party of Moderates | To | Debating the The Family Values Act |
| Message | Number 1 is acceptable. Number 2 should allow for exceptions for certain, "special," channels. Number 3 is totally unacceptable. Teachers shouldn't force their beliefs upon their students. While we believe that school prayers should be allowed, they should be optional and made only at the choice of the students. Number 4 is logical. Number 5 isn't acceptable. We shouldn't make any group inferior to another unless their moral behavior warrants it. There is no reason to discriminate against homosexuals. However, we can compromise on the issue of marriage and allow for separate and equal civil unions to be developed for homosexuals. We also oppose article 6 in the name of the security of our citizens. Under the proposed article, extremists and cultists can set up schools that teach and inspire hatred. While with some major changes, we can eventually support this bill, we currently can't accept it. Some policies will have to change and some conditions will have to be added in the description. |
| Date | 00:44:13, April 02, 2007 CET | From | Communist Party of Aldegar | To | Debating the The Family Values Act |
| Message | Article One - No support for this - we must ensure that our young people are educated to protect them from teenage pregnancies and STDs. Article Two - No support. Nudity is not necessarily erotic. Article Three - Certainly not. Teachers are supposed to remain impartial - your party would hate it if leftist teachers were able to voice their opinions. Article Four - We could support this. Article Five - Why? Is homosexual love inferior to straight love? If two adults love one another, why should they not be allowed to marry? Article Six - No support at all. There must be at least some regulations. |
| Date | 15:52:57, April 02, 2007 CET | From | Aldegar Freedom Party | To | Debating the The Family Values Act |
| Message | The TCP would like to clear up any doubts regarding Article 5 of this act - At no stage did this legislation specify that homosexuals could not engage in a civil union. However, 'marriage' is a religious bond, a sacred bond that was initiated by the church. Considering that homosexuals go against the word of God in biblical texts, why should they be wed in an institution whose SOLE purpose is worshipping that same God that cannot accept the homosexual way of life? This kind of thinking is deeply, deeply flawed, and the TCP questions why any homosexual would actually WANT to be married under a particular religious faith when there are no faiths whose scripture allows for their way of life. It would be like a member of the TCP joining the Marxist Party, and still keeping conservative views. It does not make sense. The TCP is prepared to allow for a new form of civil union made specifically for people who cannot be wed in the religious, sacred bond of marriage. Marriage in the church is between a man and a woman - it has always been this way, and WILL always be this way. But the TCP is not trying to stop gays from living together or spending their life together. The TCP would like to make that point very clear at this juncture. |
| Date | 16:48:21, April 02, 2007 CET | From | Party of Moderates | To | Debating the The Family Values Act |
| Message | We would like a resolution in the description specifically saying this. |
| Date | 20:14:47, April 14, 2007 CET | From | Party of Moderates | To | Debating the The Family Values Act |
| Message | We vote against this based on the reasons cited before. Pass resolutions in regard to articles 1, 2, 5, and 6, and then either remove or convince us about the necesity of article 3 before you can expect our support. As to article 1, pass a resolution in addition to the article thats says that STDs will still be covered in the school's curriculum. As to article 2, pass a resolution in addition to the article that says that pornography will still be allowed on pay-per-view channels. As to article 5, pass a resolution in addition to the article that says that the government will recognize separate but equal civil unions between same-sex couples. Lastly, as to article 6, pass a resolution in addition to the article that says that religious schools teaching hatred will be banned. |
| Date | 06:37:39, April 15, 2007 CET | From | Libertarian Party | To | Debating the The Family Values Act |
| Message | We agree with some, but you're backtracking with other articles. No. |
| Date | 10:26:42, April 15, 2007 CET | From | Aldegar Freedom Party | To | Debating the The Family Values Act |
| Message | Let's not get ourseleves too bound up in bureaucratic red tape - the PM's proposals, whilst they are valid concerns, are unnessicary. If the TCP were to try and cover every tiny technicality into this kind of bill, we'd end up with page after page of definition, and the more technicalities are covered, the more scope there is for people to operate outside the intended laws and manage to bypass the law claiming on a small technicality, on so much as one word in the legislation - better to have a broader, all encompassing legislation, and we can deal with specifics later on. As for schools teaching hatred and such things, the PM need not worry - there are other laws, such as slander laws, that will prevent these schools from practicing such values. If the TCP remove article 3, is there a chance that the PM will support? |
| Date | 04:36:23, April 16, 2007 CET | From | Party of Moderates | To | Debating the The Family Values Act |
| Message | Hm, we'll support on the condition that you also put in a legislature's resolution regarding article 5 saying that the government recognizes separate but equal civil unions between same-sex couples. While we agree that our proposals may have been too full of technicalities, we feel that the suggested resolution about article 5 is actually part of the big picture. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 160 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 365 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 64 |
| Random fact: "Jezvraljogadsrlji" means "Social" in the Jelbic languages. |
| Random quote: "All within the state; nothing outside the state; nothing against the state." - Benito Mussolini |