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: Conservative Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Spenocratic 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 2611
Description[?]:
| Before any parties acuse the Spenocrats of being discriminatory, let me state the case. Firstly, if we allow children to be adopted by a couple displaying activities that would be classified as too irregular, the child should not have to suffer the mental effects. At the moment, there are studies on both sides, some claiming that it doesn not effect the child, others saying that it does. So while we wait for the real answer, let's keep it safe. This is NOT an act against the couple, it is an act FOR the child. We only want what is best for the child. We do not want a child to have to suffer any irregular behavior from the adoptive family. We do not want the child to get picked on in school. We do not want the child to wonder why he has two dads, and every other family has a mom and a dad, that kind of thing can really confuse a kid, especially during their young years. The second act is also not discriminating agianst the gay soldiers. It is for Unit Cohesion. The other parties always talk about having an efficient, strong, world class military. It is Proven that most people who voluntarily enlist for the military are conservative. It would be a distraction for the gays as they may be attracted to their unit soldiers. It would be a worry for the soldiers, the majority of which are conservative, to have to take showers with guys that are attracted to the same sex. Lastly, we have noticed that the current government has rufused to uphold the definition of marriage. This is also NOT an act against gays, it is an act to preserve dictionary definitions! Marriage has always been defined as One Man and One Woman. Once we start changing it to something that it is not, we begin to allow marriage to be between anyone and / or anything. They can be in a relationship if they want, they can even give it a fancy name if they'd like, but don't go turning things into things that they aren't. There is nothing stopping gays from being together in this nation. Whether gay marriage is legal or not, it's just not marriage. That's not what marriage is. |
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 and singles may adopt children.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Military stance on homosexuality.
Old value:: Homosexuality is allowed in the military.
Current: Homosexuality is allowed in the military.
Proposed: Homosexuality is not tolerated in the military. The military actively seeks to remove homosexuals from it.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Government policy toward marriage.
Old value:: The government does not involve itself in marriage or civil unions.
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.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:43:36, July 24, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Conservative Act |
| Message | Innocente Immeressen released the following statement: "The Spenocrats claimed on three distinct occassions that their new legislations were not, in any way, discriminating against homosexuals. The Spenocrats then procede to introduce three proposals, linked only in one respect - they all remove rights from homosexuals. One law would be about military service, one about the definition of marriage, one about who should be allowed to adopt. The ONLY link between the three articles is that homosexuals are currently accorded the same rights as heterosexuals in each case, and these laws would overturn that. As such - no matter what the Spenocrats say - this is discrimination, pure and simple. To address each point, we shall begin with the first. A few hundred years ago, conservatives in Likatonia objected to Merians marrying ethnic Cho-kunn or Shkoldran. They made all kinds of comments about how the children would get picked on, how it puts a burden on the children having to deal with parents of 'mixed' family. They made exactly the sorts of claims that the Spenocrats are making now. But we've been allowing 'mixed' marriages for a long time, now - and there is yet to be any indication that children raised by two parents that love each other, are affected by the colour of their skins. Similarly - the law in Likatonia allows homosexuals the SAME right that heterosexuals have in terms of adoption. And these laws have been allowing that right (on and off) for five centuries. How much longer do we NEED to work out if it's 'okay'? The most important factor, I think we can all agree, is "Do my parents LOVE me?" We'd rather put children in caring homes, than in orphanages. Regarding the military clause - there has been no evidence, at all, that homosexuality is causing problems in the army. Frankly speaking, anyone who is sat in the heat of battle, with their biggest concern being "is that guy checking out my lunchbox?", probably shouldn't be allowed near a gun in the first place. And - of course - being homosexual doesn't actually mean a soldier is going to be trying to have relations with other soldiers, any more than being straight means that our straight male and female soldiers are all banging boots when they are on joint operations. Regarding the last article - marriage means 'bringing things together to join them'. You can 'marry' two pieces of a jigsaw, you can 'marry' three interlocking faces to make a corner of a cube. If the Spenocrats want to try to redefine the word to mean something about religious ceremonies, and specific orientations of the partners, we're going to give them an uphill fight." (In the interests of full disclosure, the SuDP feel they have to volunteer that Innocente Immeressen is a Veteran of the Lodamese Border Crisis of 2588, and the current president of the "Gay Straight Alliance"). |
| Date | 04:57:17, July 25, 2008 CET | From | Red Tory Party | To | Debating the Conservative Act |
| Message | Absolutely, positively, no. |
| Date | 05:16:40, July 25, 2008 CET | From | Berosian Party | To | Debating the Conservative Act |
| Message | Chip Parker, leader of the Berosian party, released this statement concerning this particular act: "There are several points to legislation promoting equality among sexual orientation. What this act fails to acknowledge, is that equality is a struggle. Some children with "non-traditional" parents or a "non-traditional" family may be picked on, they may even be confused as to why his or her family is different from others. But if this legislation passes, this will always be the case. Children will always be picked on, and will always be confused. Under current legislation, children are becoming less confused, and less mistreated. They are becoming integrated into our society, and our society is learning to accept homosexuals, rather than discriminate against them. The Spenocrats mention that this act is "for the child... for Unit cohesion... for the preservation of dictionary definitions." Well, this may have been true years ago, but as it stands, our society is becoming more accepting. No longer is our society filled with fear of those who are deemed different, of those who would disrupt "traditional values". Our society is progressing, but if this legislation passes, it will be regressing." |
| Date | 06:05:32, July 25, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Conservative Act |
| Message | From time to time, we in the SuDP agree with the Berosian Party. Not as oftena s we might like - but this is definitely one of those times. |
| Date | 06:57:34, July 25, 2008 CET | From | Red Tory Party | To | Debating the Conservative Act |
| Message | Tyler MacNeill addresses the bill put forth: "Different does not mean deficient. The best way to tackle an issue like this is through tolerance. The Spenocratic Party wishes to revitalize the now quelled prejudice that was once held by society. A person's sexual orientation cannot be made a factor in the adoption of a child. The second article put before us is utter rubbish. Our soldiers have self control. Not allowing homosexuals to fight for their homeland just because of a silly speculation about the possibility of them becoming attracted to another soldier is preposterous! We have women in the military, why not take all of the men out, for they may be attracted to them? The argument is invalid. Lastly, the third article is overflowing with discrimination. Equality is not an unreachable state. With bills like this, we are taking steps backward in our search for balance." |
| Date | 18:17:31, July 25, 2008 CET | From | Traditional Conservative Party | To | Debating the Conservative Act |
| Message | Letting homosexuals adopt children takes away the childs right of protection from cruel or unusual treatment. And there is tons of evidence showing homosexualty is unnatural and unhealthy. It is an addiction, just like people get addicted to alcohol, drugs, or pornography. And THAT is a fact. It is a lack of self-control. |
| Date | 21:52:00, July 25, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Conservative Act |
| Message | Innocente Immeressen issued the following response to the Traditional Conservative Party: "Cruel and unusual treatment requires something to occur that is a 'treatment', towards the person, that is both cruel and unusual. The orientation of your parents, is not a 'treatment'. Neither is cruelty suggested or implied. And - if current scientific thought is to be believed - it's not THAT unusual, either. There is no evidence showing homosexuality is unnatural. It occurs in every culture, and in every species. It's ubiquitous presence in nature suggests that 'natural' is practically the definition of it. There is no evidence that suggests homosexuality is unhealthy. There is no evidence that homosexuality is an addiction. There is no evidence that homosexuality is a lack of self-control. Indeed, that raises an interesting question - if the TCP believe that homosexuality IS a lack-of self-control... wouldn't that mean that the TCP feel they have to control themselves to avoid doing something homosexual? The TCP arguments are spurious, at best. We reject them utterly. Thankyou for your time". |
| Date | 06:42:24, July 26, 2008 CET | From | Traditional Conservative Party | To | Debating the Conservative Act |
| Message | First off, what you just wrote is simply not true. There is evidence showing that homosexualty is an addiction, much like alcoholism, and there is tons of evidence showing that it is unhealthy, it transmits tons of diseases. And you don't have a very good sense of humor my friend. By lack of self-control I mean that anybody could rid themselves of homosexualty if they put their minds to it, just like a drug addict has the ability to get off drugs. It takes self-control to do it. In today's secular society people are encouraged to do whatever makes them feel good ragardless of how immoral, abnormal, or unhealthy it is. And it is quite true that this is a lack a lack of self-control. It is not "natural". |
| Date | 17:35:05, July 26, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Conservative Act |
| Message | Innocente Immeressen released the following statement: "Again, the TCP says it's a lack of self-control. Which means, they feel homosexual urges are something that needs to be controlled. This present us with two thoughts - one: you don't have to supress thoughts you aren't having. and two: don't heterosexual urges need to be supressed, too? Again, there is NO evidence that homosexuality is an addiction. That doesn't even make sense - does the TCP perhaps suggest that anyone can become a 'homosexuality addict'? Not only is there no evidence that homosexuality transmits disease, it doesn't even make sense. Disease isn't spread by your sexuality - it's spread by sex (not sexuality), and the biggest vector for the spread of disease is actually sexual activity between heterosexual couples. If the TCP really care about the spread of disease, they'd be trying to ban heterosexual intercourse - that's where the biggest risk is. No - the TCP don't care about disease - that's just an excuse in their campaign against the gay community. The TCP says that anyone 'can rid theirselves of homosexuality if they put their minds to it'. Logically, then - anyone must be able to rid themselves of heterosexuality if they put their minds to it, yes? We're not going to dignify the TCP 'religious' arguments. Sexuality is neither religious nor secular. It's not worth a response. As for the subject of being 'natural'... if it occurs in 'nature', how can it not be 'natural'?" |
| Date | 02:07:57, July 27, 2008 CET | From | Traditional Conservative Party | To | Debating the Conservative Act |
| Message | Fistly, we STRONGLY agree that heterosexual urges must be controlled also, and that it is wrong to have sex outside of marriage. And obviously we, as a government party cannot control what goes on in the minds of people, and we certianly don't want to, however, we believe that local governments should be able to criminalize "immoral sexual acts". We do not in anyway think that any thoughts should be criminalized, that would be preposterous. Personally, we do believe that any form of immoral thoughts is wrong, but we do not seek to enforce that as a law. We seek to allow local governments to criminalize immoral sexual acts. |
| Date | 02:13:02, July 27, 2008 CET | From | Traditional Conservative Party | To | Debating the Conservative Act |
| Message | And we seek to keep marriage as the traditional definition, because thats what marriage, it is the joining of a man and women. And like the spenocratric party has pointed out, allowing gays to marry just to more people wanting to get married to other things. The definition of marriage is the joining of one man and women, why change that? |
| Date | 02:40:28, July 27, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Conservative Act |
| Message | Innocente Immeressen issued the following statement: "The LIKATONIAN definition of marriage is not one man and one woman. We are not sure why people keep saying it's otherwise - we can assure you it isn't 'one man and one woman', and hasn't been in a long, long time. And it won't be, as long as we have anything to do with it. We will not allow gendernazi's to regulate who can love whom." |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 40 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 626 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Whilst the use of non-English languages can be appropriate for nation names, party names, constitutional titles and other variables, English is the official language of communication in the game. All descriptive texts and public communications should be in English or at least appear alongside a full English translation. |
| Random quote: "The 20th century has been characterised by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda against democracy." - Alex Carey |