Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: February 5461
Next month in: 02:25:22
Server time: 21:34:37, March 28, 2024 CET
Currently online (2): Arusu-Weareback | hexaus18 | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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: Military Stance on Homosexuality

Details

Submitted by[?]: Lodamun Republican 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: September 2605

Description[?]:

A persons Sexuality has noting to with Defending our Great Nation. A soldiers job is to protect our Nation who cars if they are straight or gay. Don't ask don't tell is a good policy.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date23:55:30, July 12, 2008 CET
FromRepublican Party of Lodamun
ToDebating the Military Stance on Homosexuality
MessageProgress Party will support this.

Date00:36:21, July 13, 2008 CET
FromThe Liberal Party
ToDebating the Military Stance on Homosexuality
MessageOOC: I would gladly support this but according the new Accords which deals with war and military size, this policy will dimish our military's size.

Date00:42:01, July 13, 2008 CET
FromRepublican Party of Lodamun
ToDebating the Military Stance on Homosexuality
MessageBy how much ? Could you give me a link on the rules again ?

Date01:23:22, July 13, 2008 CET
FromThe Liberal Party
ToDebating the Military Stance on Homosexuality
Messagehttp://www.takeforum.com/particracy/viewtopic.php?t=10016&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&mforum=particracy

Date01:23:29, July 13, 2008 CET
FromThe Liberal Party
ToDebating the Military Stance on Homosexuality
Messagehttp://www.takeforum.com/particracy/viewtopic.php?t=10016&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&mforum=particracy

Date01:26:08, July 13, 2008 CET
FromThe Liberal Party
ToDebating the Military Stance on Homosexuality
MessageOur military will be reduced by 2%. Yes, it is not much but when it comes to war, the more we have, the better chance of winning we have (given that the soldiers are properly trained, of course).

Date01:55:07, July 13, 2008 CET
FromRepublican Party of Lodamun
ToDebating the Military Stance on Homosexuality
MessageSorry, but I feel the principle is more important than 2%.

Date04:03:37, July 13, 2008 CET
FromThe Liberal Party
ToDebating the Military Stance on Homosexuality
MessagePP, do yo have any idea how many times I have tried to get this through? Many, many times. I know the principle but 2% is 2%. We do not need the law to do this proposal palns to do.

Tip: The current value doesn't say how homosexuality is allowed in the military. Take it from there.

Date04:13:14, July 13, 2008 CET
FromRepublican Party of Lodamun
ToDebating the Military Stance on Homosexuality
MessageHaha, you're just desperate and want a huge army. I read the Homosexuality is allowed in the military as that homosexuals can publicly announce it, and therefore create problems for those which have moral beliefs or so forth which are not in the same category. And yeah, the law is poorly written.

Date21:11:09, July 13, 2008 CET
FromThe Liberal Party
ToDebating the Military Stance on Homosexuality
MessageExactly, the law is poorly written, it is up to interpretation.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
  

Total Seats: 25

no
   

Total Seats: 94

abstain
   

Total Seats: 31


Random fact: In cases where a party has no seat, the default presumption should be that the party is able to contribute to debates in the legislature due to one of its members winning a seat at a by-election. However, players may collectively improvise arrangements of their own to provide a satisfying explanation for how parties with no seats in the legislature can speak and vote there.

Random quote: "John Burroughs has stated that experimental study of animals in captivity is absolutely useless. Their character, their habits, their appetites undergo a complete transformation when torn from their soil in field and forest. With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped daily into submission, how can we speak of its potentialities?" - Emma Goldman

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 56