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[?]: The Family First 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: July 2475
Description[?]:
| Family First believes that the social institution of the family unit is under threat, and in dire need of protection through moralistic reform. Family First believes that education regarding matters of sexual intercourse should not be required of schools, but should rather, left to parents - only parents can decide when their children are at a mature enough age to learn about such private matters. Sexual education in schools is currently taught at ages that many parents in this nation may find premature, and in ways that many parents may find immoral and innapropriate. Sexual education for children of such tender ages may be damaging to the mental health of the child in question, and may severely skew their perceptions of the world around them, stunt their mental maturity, and comprimise their moral values. It may also encourage children to have sex at young ages, rather than acting as a detterrant. Such private matters should be left to parent's discretion, and should be left for them parents to decide when they are appropriate to teach to their children, and in what ways are appropriate for them to be taught. Sexual education is no affair for schools. Secondly, Family First believes that the only circumstance in which a child can have a healthy upbringing is with an equal masculine and feminine influences. Furthermore, Family First believes that children should be raised in an environment in which they are taught important morals and values. Family First believes that two same-sex individuals are incapable of providing a child with a healthy and balanced upbringing, and believes that they are incapable of teaching their children the importance of certain very important social morals, such as morals surrounding sexuality and marriage. Therefore, Family First does not think that children should be available for adoption for anyone other than heterosexual couples, to ensure that they are granted a healthy and balanced upbringing. Thirdly, Family First believes that the sacred bond of marriage between a man and woman is currently being sabotaged by couples who are unfit for marriage and who are getting married without thoroughly considering whether they are ready to commit to a life-long bond. Because of this, marriage is become less and less permenant, and is deteriorating in importance to the extent that it is virtually perceived as a social contract which can be freely entered and exited, whenever the participants see fit. The degradation and deterioration of marriage, an extremely important and sacred bond, and a crucial societal construct, may result in the collapse of our society's moral fabric and the destruction of the traditional family unit. Family First will stand to preserve the sanctity and permenant status of marriage at all costs - therefore, to ensure that couples only enter into marriage when they are absolutely certain that they can committ to a life long bond, and that they do not divorce over trivial matters or on a whim, Family First proposes that marriage may only be forfeit with due cause, such as domestic violence, adultery, or any other indecent and immoral behaviour. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning who can proceed with adoption; in case adoption is legal.
Old value:: Everyone may adopt children.
Current: Everyone may adopt children.
Proposed: Only heterosexual couples may adopt children.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The legality of divorces (if marriages are recognised).
Old value:: Divorces are legal, be it mutual consent, grounded cause or if one partner wants it.
Current: Divorces are legal, be it mutual consent, grounded cause or if one partner wants it.
Proposed: Divorces are only legal with grounded cause (such as adultery, or violence).
Article 3
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: Schools should not educate students in sexual matters.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 13:58:53, October 16, 2007 CET | From | Hobrazian Peoples Party | To | Debating the The Family Values Act |
| Message | We can accept article 2 so maybe that bill should be introduced in a seperate bill. |
| Date | 05:05:03, October 17, 2007 CET | From | National Imperial Hobrazian Front | To | Debating the The Family Values Act |
| Message | Nay to all. This is not proper political discourse as the family matters should be ultimately left up to the family. |
| Date | 10:44:31, October 17, 2007 CET | From | The Family First Party | To | Debating the The Family Values Act |
| Message | We do not understand the Christian Socialist Party's concerns with this legislation. The point of this legislation is to protect the family unit - without protection, families may not even exist one hundred years down the path. In order to protect the family unit, the government has an obligation to set certain standards around issues of marriage, adoption, and indeed anything else concerning family affairs. Without this protection, the family unit will soon be infiltrated by many who seek to destroy it, such as same-sex couples, couples who marry on a whim and then divorce, leaving their children with inadequate circumstances for a healthy upbringing, and schools that wish to disempower parents in regards to the education of their own children in such private and personal matters as sexual intercourse. Family First will not stand for the destruction of the family unit, and as a devout Christian party ourselves, we cannot see how the CSP would see any otherwise. |
| Date | 15:12:46, October 17, 2007 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the The Family Values Act |
| Message | We cannot accept this bill, not just because it imposes government will onto the people who should have the choice to make such decisions or themselves, but moreover it is these mistakes in life, should they be made, that allow people to grow in knowledge and understanding so that they will not make those same mistakes in the future. If the the Lord Hoba did not wish us to make these mistakes and so be in a position to learn from them then the Lord would not have allowed us to have free will. It is only with this freedom that people learn and so reach enlightenment, and it is only through the acceptance that people can make mistakes that people can grow. However, we would also point out that not teaching children about sexual matters only increases the risk that those same children will have unprotected sex that the Family First Party seems so concerned about. Statistical evidence shows that educated people are more likely to make decisions about their sexuality and its consequences and take action to not have abortions, unwanted pregnacies etc. that an uneducated society is so likely to have. We cannot guarantee that parents will teach these children what they need to know and so it is the responsibility of the education system to guarentee that all young people are prepared for their future in all areas of their life, and this includes knowledge of sexuality. |
| Date | 02:26:39, October 18, 2007 CET | From | National Imperial Hobrazian Front | To | Debating the The Family Values Act |
| Message | @FF: As a devout Christian party, we are not judging anybody that does not adhere to Christian principles. To do so would be rather un-Christian. "The point of this legislation is to protect the family unit - without protection, families may not even exist one hundred years down the path" Then Hobrazia would have died a long time ago. This legislation has been around for a long time. And to say that homosexuals "marry on a whim" is regrettably naive, as many heterosexual couples do the same with greater frequency. We appreciate your concern for the family unit and think that this bill is well-intentioned, but it wouldn't do anything to strengthen healthy families. |
| Date | 03:32:59, October 18, 2007 CET | From | The Family First Party | To | Debating the The Family Values Act |
| Message | There is a moral crisis in this nation right now. If our fellow parties cannot recognize this, they are not looking hard enough. If same-sex couples are allowed to marry, more and more individuals will think it is acceptable to become a homosexual. Children, especially those raised by homosexuals, will think it's alright and will inevitably become homosexuals themselves, because ultimately homosexuals, whether intentionally and conciously or not, will impose their views upon their child - as any parent would. More and more people will become homosexual, more and more people will move away from the traditional family unit, people will take marriage less and less seriously and will get divorces left right and center, jeaopordising their child's upbringing. Eventually this nation will become one great big puree of single mothers, homosexual couples, non-married couples, and perhaps most importantly, moral reprobates. The moral fabric of this nation will deteriorate further and further, and the family unit will be destroyed. This is indisputable - it's already happening. In regards to sexual education, Family First would like to see where the We Say So! Party has sourced their statistics, because generally speaking, as sexual education is taught at younger and younger ages, and in more and more gratuitous fashions, the more children are experimenting with sex, and the more children are getting STD's at younger and younger ages. As for the CSP, it is not un-Christian to uphold Christian values and try to protect the family unit from being destroyed. We are a party of Christians ourselves, and if the CSP is truly a Christian party, why do they insist on the destruction of the family, and of other Christian values, in order to protect civil liberties? Yes, Christian values hold that a Christian should not judge others, but if there is no prospect for upholding Christian values in the first place, Christianity itself will die soon aswell, and there will be no-one to hold Christian values in the first place. With a deteriorating family comes a deteriorating and immoral community - with a deteriorating and immoral community comes a deteriorating and immoral society, and in an immoral society, individuals have no interest in values, or morals, and certainly not Christianity. The family unit is essential to the inner mechanisms of society, and is the foundation for our communities. If the CSP and other parties want to leave the family open to sabotage, open to attack, and leave our entire society in jeaopardy as a result, so be it, but Family First will not stand by and let this happen - we will promote this type of legislation and continue to try and convince our fellow parties until it is successful and the family unit is secured. |
| Date | 15:44:20, October 18, 2007 CET | From | Hobrazian Peoples Party | To | Debating the The Family Values Act |
| Message | Again we advice the FFP to split the proposals to get the most possible chance of passing some of the proposals. |
| Date | 06:40:26, October 19, 2007 CET | From | National Imperial Hobrazian Front | To | Debating the The Family Values Act |
| Message | There is no attack against the family unit- that is nothing more than a moral panic. These policies have been in place for centuries without such deterioration. Most of these laws have remained relatively unchanged since our party's inception in 2047. Over 400 years later, we're still a strong and healthy nation. We in the CSP hold that the Church should not interfere with the state and that the state should reciprocate this policy. Morality should come from communion with God and not from legislation. The state is no substitute for faith. ooc- Note that in Hobrazia Christians are a minority, albeit a large one. The two main religions here are the Hobrazian Orthodox Church (which is Christian and with great vigor the CSP defends) and the pre-Christian religion of Hobaism. |
| Date | 09:16:39, October 19, 2007 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the The Family Values Act |
| Message | We question the FFP's belief that the number of children having sex at a young age has increased from earlier times. Historically it was routine for a young woman to be married and to begin child bearing at ages of 12-14. It is only in more recent "enlightened" times that these young women (and men) have been classified as children and taught about the consequences of their actions. Moreover, teaching the young about the risks of STD's and the use of contraception has helped maintain low levels of STD spread compared to Countries where there is no such education. We would also state that since the formation of this Country as a single united Republic we have not seen any decrease in the numbers of family units nor the decline of morals that the FFP seems to believe to be occurring. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 83 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 257 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 60 |
| Random fact: Once approved, players should copy Cultural Protocols into a bill in the debate section of their nation page, under the title of "OOC: Cultural Protocols". This bill should include links to the passed Cultural Protocol bill and the Moderation approval. |
| Random quote: "The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy." - Edwin W. Edwards |