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: Sexual Freedom Act, 2103
Details
Submitted by[?]: Corporate Raider 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: August 2108
Description[?]:
| As consenting adults in a free society should have the freedom to love each other in a manner which is pleasing to themselves and not detrimental to society as a whole, citizens 18 years of age or older should be able to engage in the sexual activity of their choice without governmental interference, not to include the production of pornography, nor to legalize prostitution. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on sexual relations.
Old value:: Sexual relation laws are set by local governments.
Current: Sexual relations of all types are legal for consenting adults.
Proposed: Sexual relations of all types are legal for consenting adults.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 03:19:30, August 31, 2005 CET |
From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Sexual Freedom Act, 2103 | | Message | We oppose all 3 articles. The first two articles are abominitions and we must keep them illegal. As to number 3, keep it at the local level. That is where it should reside and not at the federal level. |
| Date | 22:45:53, August 31, 2005 CET |
From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Sexual Freedom Act, 2103 | | Message | We also have to oppose all of these articles. Pornography and prostitution would lead to the break down of families and we strive to preserve the families.
As for sexual relations, we had a spirited debate on this very issue not to long ago. We'll oppose it because the federal government shouldn't decide this issue. This issue is best left up to the local governments themselves. |
| Date | 23:46:41, August 31, 2005 CET |
From | Corporate Raider Party | To | Debating the Sexual Freedom Act, 2103 | | Message | As to the first two articles, the existence and legality neither harms the family. This is a free country, and as long as actions taken by one citizen do not harm or infringe on the rights of another, then they should be legal. There is a large black market in this country for pornography, and the jails are full of hookers on the weekends who were picked up trying to earn money to feed themselves and their children. Making them criminals not only punishes enterprising young ladies, but it also deterrs them from seeking the medical attention necessary to ensure they are clean not carriers of STD's. The only difference between a mechanic and a hooker is that when the mechanic gives you a lube job and tightens your nuts, he can charge you for it and the hooker can't. Seriously, though, it would be a relief on the both the criminal justice system and the National Health Service to legalize prostitution. As for the third proposal, RiP is right, government should not decide the issue....private citizens should be able to make their own decisions about sex. Government, local or otherwise, should have no say about any consenting adults' sexual proclivities. That's why the federal government needs to keep local governments from doing so. |
| Date | 14:41:19, September 01, 2005 CET |
From |  United Labour Party | To | Debating the Sexual Freedom Act, 2103 | | Message | Plus, the present law on sexual relations would break international human rights treaties. But prostitution is a form of slavery, and prostitutes experience greater risks of violence and STDs. |
| Date | 18:29:35, September 01, 2005 CET |
From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Sexual Freedom Act, 2103 | | Message | I would like to have the United Labour's comments struck from the record and ignored since they are not part of this Tribal Council and in the regard that there is no treaty that entitles them to weigh in on bills currenlty in debate. |
| Date | 18:34:37, September 01, 2005 CET |
From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Sexual Freedom Act, 2103 | | Message | CRP, you contradicted yourself. But having the Federal Government making it legal, you have just infact, involved the federal government. That was why we passed the bill to throw it to the local governments. That way, the Federal Government is out of it. If the tribes themselves want to make it legal then that is there option under current law. I have no problem with that. However, I will not support the use of the Federal Government to push an agenda. |
| Date | 19:08:28, September 01, 2005 CET |
From | Corporate Raider Party | To | Debating the Sexual Freedom Act, 2103 | | Message | This is not about an agenda, RiP, this is about personal freedom and responsibility. This is a federal government, meaning that certain rights are secured by the feds in order to keep local governments from infringing upon them. As this is not an issue that is best decided by ANY government, it is up to the federal government to ensure that citizens can make their own individual choices about it. As sexual preference in no way harms the state, people should be given the benefit of the doubt andd their freedom to choose their partners should be safeguarded by the federal government. It really is that simple. |
| Date | 20:32:42, September 01, 2005 CET |
From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Sexual Freedom Act, 2103 | | Message | No it is not up to us what goes on at the tribal level of government. We are here for important issues like taxation and making sure that everything is running smoothly. There are things that the Federal Government shouldn't get involved in but should be left up to the Tribal governments. Sexuality is one of those. Let the local levels decide this issue. They are better suited for it then us. |
| Date | 21:40:24, September 01, 2005 CET |
From | Corporate Raider Party | To | Debating the Sexual Freedom Act, 2103 | | Message | My learned colleague RiP eloquently explains his position as one of allowing local governments to regulate who a person can and can't have sex with. But he has yet to explain why sodomy should be legal in one part of the country and illegal in another part. He has yet to explain how the acty differs from one region to the next. This is not a question of how fast you are allowed to drive on a ciity street. This not a question of how much sales tax you pay when you buy groceries. This is a question of personal freedom and is only appropriately handled by the federal government. It is we who, through our constitution and our legislation, guarantee the basic rights of the people shall not be infringed, and there is no more basic right than the right to choose who one is able to have sex with. As a federal government, we have decided to allow gun ownership. Why isn't that a local question? I ask all who support personal freedom and responsibility to step forward and announce their support for this measure. |
| Date | 21:43:43, September 01, 2005 CET |
From | Corporate Raider Party | To | Debating the Sexual Freedom Act, 2103 | | Message | As a sidebar, perhaps my learned colleague can tell us why it is OK for the federal government to ban prostitution and pornography, but it is not OK for us to weigh in on the issue of sodomy? |
| Date | 22:24:12, September 01, 2005 CET |
From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Sexual Freedom Act, 2103 | | Message | Hehe. The SDP continues to support the existing legislature in the first two cases, but supports the CRP in the third. |
| Date | 23:30:01, September 01, 2005 CET |
From | Corporate Raider Party | To | Debating the Sexual Freedom Act, 2103 | | Message | SDB, would you vote yes on the entire package, or would you vote no against the last prop in order to defeat the first two? |
| Date | 01:52:25, September 02, 2005 CET |
From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Sexual Freedom Act, 2103 | | Message | I think he means he's against what your doing for one and two but supports number 3.
We are opposed to all articles as mentioned previously. |
| Date | 22:39:06, September 02, 2005 CET |
From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Sexual Freedom Act, 2103 | | Message | Apologies - we oppose. The somewhat procedural third article - the renationalisation of the issue - is less important to us than the policy decisions in the first two. We will naturally campaign in regional government on the third issue in any case. |
| Date | 17:56:19, September 04, 2005 CET |
From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Sexual Freedom Act, 2103 | | Message | We are still opposed. This is involving the federal government in the affairs of others. No! That is not our way. This should remain at the Tribal Level and not here at the federal level. |
| Date | 23:42:22, September 04, 2005 CET |
From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Sexual Freedom Act, 2103 | | Message | This bill effectively prohibits all government from intervention in the affairs of others - it leaves the decisions up to the individuals. The SDP does not believe that local government has the right to meddle with the affairs of others. |
| Date | 01:03:19, September 05, 2005 CET |
From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Sexual Freedom Act, 2103 | | Message | Neither does the federal government and that is precisely what we are doing here. This is a tribal issue and not a federal one. Leave it at the Tribal Level. That is where this issue belongs. |
| Date | 20:49:54, September 05, 2005 CET |
From | Corporate Raider Party | To | Debating the Sexual Freedom Act, 2103 | | Message | It belongs at no level! No government should be able to say no on this issue. That is why it is up to the federal government to safeguard the individual's right to choose in this matter. |
| Date | 23:14:20, September 05, 2005 CET |
From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Sexual Freedom Act, 2103 | | Message | Why is it, RiP, that one elected body has the right to decide on individual affairs, but another does not?
Why not leave ?
And please don't say "Let the local levels decide this issue. They are better suited for it then us." a sixth time - explain *why* they any are better suited to decide. |
| Date | 02:53:13, September 06, 2005 CET |
From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Sexual Freedom Act, 2103 | | Message | They are better suited because of the people in there tribes. If a group of people doesn't want homosexuality to be legal then it shouldn't be legal in that tribe. I will not have this body turned into a special interest group tribal council. That is precisely what it will become if this bill passes.
The local governments are closer to the people than we are. They will have a better understanding of what they want than us so why not let those that know the people better decide an issue such as this. |
| Date | 23:38:48, September 07, 2005 CET |
From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Sexual Freedom Act, 2103 | | Message | Let them hold a referendum on the issue. If they vote no then I guess that settles the issue then! |
| Date | 19:05:52, September 08, 2005 CET |
From | United Labour Party | To | Debating the Sexual Freedom Act, 2103 | | Message | If a group of people want homosexuality to be illegal, then frankly, it's none of their business what other people do. |
| Date | 23:37:51, September 08, 2005 CET |
From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Sexual Freedom Act, 2103 | | Message | RiP, you've ignored a direct question.
We believe in devolving the decision not merely to the tribal level, but to the individual level.
When the decision is made at the tribal level, you (potentially) have the preposterous situation of people's private relationships being private affairs in one location, but regulated by government in the next village, as if human rights were subject to geography. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 89 |
| no | Total Seats: 210 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Players are expected to play the game independently and should not share their passwords or allow others to access their accounts. |
| Random quote: "The trouble with unemployment is that the minute you wake up in the morning you're on the job." - Slappy White |