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 Reform Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Rutanian Heritage 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 2756
Description[?]:
| The 'Rutanian Heritage Party' proposes two reforms to current military policy. As homosexuality is a morally, emotionally and physically destructive lifestyle choice, we believe it has no place in the military, particularly due to the vital importance that the military remain strong, unified, and without any unnecessary destraction. We do not subscribe to the fallacy of 'egalitarianism', and we do not believe the military should be a vehicle for the government's ideological meat-grinding, through which political ideals and abstract principles are imposed - in short, the military is no place for 'equality'. We also believe that women should be limited to serving in non-military positions, and the first reason for this is self-evident - with women serving among them, our soldiers will be destracted by them and not will become unfocussed in their mission, and things like sexual harrassment and even abuse may become prevalent. The second, and perhaps most important reason, is that women are not, by nature, endowed with the same physical and emotional capacity to fight on the front-lines as men are, and it is important that we recognize this natural distinction - a feminized military force is a weakened one, by necessity. |
Proposals
Article 1
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 2
Proposal[?] to change Women in the military.
Old value:: Women serve alongside men.
Current: Women serve alongside men.
Proposed: Women can only serve in non-battle positions.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 04:19:41, May 11, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Restoration Party | To | Debating the Military Reform Act |
| Message | We would support a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding the first issue, but we cannot support the second. -Thomas Wenzeslaus |
| Date | 06:42:09, May 11, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Heritage Party | To | Debating the Military Reform Act |
| Message | What issue do the 'OP' have with Article 2? |
| Date | 19:37:11, May 12, 2009 CET | From | Popular Socialist Liberation Movement | To | Debating the Military Reform Act |
| Message | We cannot support this legislation. |
| Date | 20:15:24, May 12, 2009 CET | From | New Rutanian Liberal Party | To | Debating the Military Reform Act |
| Message | The NRLP believes that men and women are equals, no one sex is stronger, nor weaker, and should a woman choose to fight on the frontlines for their nation, so be it. We would like a change in the homosexuality stance, but just the same as the OP, we would rather a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, rather than completely getting rid of all homosexual's in the military. Tom Collins Leader - New Rutanian Liberal Party |
| Date | 14:29:32, May 13, 2009 CET | From | Citizens' Initiative | To | Debating the Military Reform Act |
| Message | We agree with the PSLM |
| Date | 15:16:56, May 13, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Heritage Party | To | Debating the Military Reform Act |
| Message | The 'NRLP' claim that women and men are entirely equal in strength, yet this is clearly and undeniably not the case. Women are not naturally endowed with the same physical strength as men, due to the fundamental physiological differences between them - the 'NRLP' cannot possibly deny this distinction. This is not to suggest that men are by far 'superior' to women because of these differences, but we must recognize that the different genders are each naturally bestowed with different physical, mental and emotional attributes, temperments, and predispositions, which make them suited to different roles. In this instance, women are not suited to military roles in combat, and to deny this for some fallacious notion of 'equality' will needlessly weaken our military strength and efficiency. |
| Date | 21:52:18, May 13, 2009 CET | From | New Rutanian Liberal Party | To | Debating the Military Reform Act |
| Message | We do not believe that women have the same amount of 'strength' as men, as that is nature, but a woman can be a very strong person also. Many women in the modern world are stronger than some, if not many men, and if they should so choose, there is no reason for them to not fight alongside men on the front-lines. It has to do with woman's rights, in our belief. A woman should be able to do anything a man can do, and if one of those things is to be a patriotic member of society, by fighting in war, then they should be allowed to do so. |
| Date | 02:10:58, May 14, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Heritage Party | To | Debating the Military Reform Act |
| Message | We respectfully disagree with the 'NRLP' - we do not believe women can do everything that men can do, nor can men do everything that women can do, and again, this stems from the natural physiological and emotional distinctions between the genders. 'Equality', then, is a fallacious ideology that seeks to distort the truth - human-beings are not born equal, but in fact, very unequal. We agree, however, that women can be just as patriotic as men, and indeed, they should be able to contribute to the war efforts - if the situation ever arose that our nation was attacked - in a multitude of other ways. It is women in combat that we are opposed to - surely, the battlefield is no place for a lady. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 78 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 177 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 40 |
| Random fact: The people in your nation don't like inactive parties. When you often abstain from voting for a bill, they will dislike your party and your visibility to the electorate will decrease significantly. Low visibility will means you are likely to lose seats. So keep in mind: voting Yes or No is always better than Abstaining. |
| Random quote: "The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution." - Hannah Arendt |