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: Bedroom Freedom Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Capitalist Working Families
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: June 3534
Description[?]:
| This bill seeks to give more CIVIL LIBERTIES to Rutanian Citizens by respecting the FREEDOM of adults in a civilized society to do WHATEVER they want in the PRIVACY of their bedrooms without government interference so as long they are not INFRINGING on the RIGHTS of OTHERS. cf. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I (The Philosophy of Liberty) cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_splicing |
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 The government's policy regarding bestiality (performing sexual acts with animals).
Old value:: Bestiality is illegal.
Current: Bestiality is only legal if it causes no damage to the animals concerned.
Proposed: Bestiality is only legal if it causes no damage to the animals concerned.
Article 3
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 4
Proposal[?] to change
The government's policy regarding foreign marriages.
Old value:: All foreign marriages are recognised, regardless of domestic policy regarding marriage.
Current: Only foreign marriages that comply with domestic policy regarding marriage are recognised.
Proposed: Only foreign marriages that comply with domestic policy regarding marriage are recognised.
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change Government policy toward marriage.
Old value:: The government allows all consenting adults to obtain civil marriage contracts.
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.
Article 6
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy with respect to polygamy.
Old value:: The government does not recognise polygamous relationships.
Current: Polygamous marriages are accorded equal recognition to monogamous marriages.
Proposed: Local governments establish policies on polygamy.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 08:26:40, August 21, 2013 CET | From | National Purity Union | To | Debating the Bedroom Freedom Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, We would ask the leader of the CWFP re-read the Parliamentary Etiquette Law, which can be found here (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=324760). This is not the first time this party has violated the Parliamentary Etiquette Law. Specifically, the CWFP has failed to adhere to Article II, section II, which requires that a bill with more than one proposal not be moved to a vote until at least three months have passed, to allow for adequate debate. This is in addition to the infractions regarding civil tone during debate in this august body. If the CWFP continues to violate the protocols of this body, we will have no choice but to move for formal censure of the CWFP, in accordance with Article IV, section II. Mr. Speaker, we ask that you issue a formal warning of the CWFP, if the record does not already contain one, pursuant to Article IV, section I. -Ron Silvermage, NPU spokesman |
| Date | 13:28:08, August 21, 2013 CET | From | Capitalist Working Families | To | Debating the Bedroom Freedom Act |
| Message | Mr. Silvermage, To be COMPLETELY HONEST, I was not even AWARE of the Parliamentary Etiquette Law that says "a bill with more than one proposal must be move to a vote until at least three months have passed, to allow adequate debate." Also, can you PLEASE cite when my "civil tone" was infracted??? To my knowledge, I have always debated with the UTMOST respect and cordial civility. ---The CWFP Spokesman |
| Date | 13:29:41, August 21, 2013 CET | From | Democratic Union | To | Debating the Bedroom Freedom Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, This bill seems to establish "bedroom freedom" and we support that, but is has some articles that go strongly against individual liberties. Articles 2, 4 and 5 shall be removed from this bill to obtain our support. And we agree with Mr. Silvermage; if you violate the PEL again, we will have to take the appropiate measures. --- Erik B. Culster, DU Parlamentary Speaker |
| Date | 15:00:34, August 21, 2013 CET | From | National Purity Union | To | Debating the Bedroom Freedom Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, We recommend that the CWFP spokesman read the PEL . . . again. Specifically, Article I, Section III ("Representatives may only be addressed in the third-person") and Article III, Section I, which states that all statements made during debate must be addressed to the Speaker, not to a member. -Ron SIlvermage, NPU Spokesman |
| Date | 19:48:28, August 21, 2013 CET | From | Sunbeam Squad | To | Debating the Bedroom Freedom Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, This so-called "Bedroom Freedom Act" is a heap of stinking double-speak. It severely infringes on the rights of homosexual Rutanians to be treated as full human beings; and it furthermore sets the government against activities homosexuals may do which is by all rational standards a private matter; it is the complete opposite of freedom. The SS also sternly requests that the CWFP adhere to Parliamentary Etiquette regulations, which shouldn't be too difficult to do since other parties seem to manage without incident. By submitting a bastard of a bill like this bill under debate, the CWFP is wasting government money--the proposals are scattered all over the political spectrum and it cannot be expected that *any* other party will vote for it. It has a *near-zero* chance of passing. It has all the permanence and significance of a fart in the wind. The SS also requests the CWFP to stop yelling in Parliament and to stop introducing other-worldly "arguments" to debate. Morris Ridgeway-Bates SS Dep. Leader |
| Date | 14:01:46, August 22, 2013 CET | From | Capitalist Working Families | To | Debating the Bedroom Freedom Act |
| Message | "It severely infringes on the rights of homosexual Rutanians to be treated as full human beings;"--MRB Mr. Speaker, We would like to KNOW how would the distinguished members of the Sunbeam Squad would "respond" to the FACT that "two men" cannot SCIENTIFICALLY (and NATURALLY) have a child??? In fact, NO "homosexual" in HISTORY has been able to PROCREATE and/or "pass" their genes which would enhance the human population from a DARWINIAN EVOLUTIONARY perspective. However, when "liberals" try to "equate" homosexual rights to mixed race couples (in Rutania), they FORGET to acknowledge that MIXED RACE couples (whether society "accepts" them or not) can STILL have a NATURAL and/or SCIENTIFIC child. Moreover, we would like ANY of the parties in opposition to supply us with SCIENTIFIC evidence outlining a so-called "Gay Gene" like racial minorities do INDEED have GENES that code for traits such as "kinky hair" and/or "DARK skin." ---The Capitalist WORKING FAMILIES Party Spokesman |
| Date | 14:44:05, August 22, 2013 CET | From | Democratic Union | To | Debating the Bedroom Freedom Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker of the CWFP, I'm sorry to tell you that the final goal of a pair isn't always procreation. Sometimes their only goal is been together, without having children. The legality of a pair doesn't depends on if it can have children or if it doesn't. If it would, I suppose the CWFP also wanted to forbid infertile people to have a civil marriage, as they can have no children. Furthermore: the CWFP is for encouraging adoption to avoid abortion. Homosexual pairs can't have natural children, but if they want to they always can adopt. In this bill they try to forbid homosexual couples to adopt children. It has a name: homophoby. --- Erik B. Culster, DU Parlamentary Speaker |
| Date | 05:23:25, August 23, 2013 CET | From | Capitalist Working Families | To | Debating the Bedroom Freedom Act |
| Message | "The legality of a pair doesn't depends on if it can have children or if it doesn't. If it would, I suppose the CWFP also wanted to forbid infertile people to have a civil marriage, as they can have no children."--EC, DU Parliamentary Speaker <http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=390280> Mr. Speaker, (1) In response to Mr. Culster, we just would like to respond that the FUNDAMENTAL difference between "Infertile" HETEROSEXUALS and members of the GLBT community is that although the heterosexual couples are "infertile," they STILL (nonetheless) possess the GENETIC POTENTIAL at the earliest stage of their development (conception) to PROCREATE when homosexual couples NEVER have that ability. ;) (2) On the issue of "infertility" in GENERAL, there is actually NO such thing as a "baren" WOMAN. That was just a PRIMITIVE concept in the ancient times of Rutania's history b/c people did not UNDERSTAND the science of reproduction (for obvious reasons). For example, EVERY woman is "technically" FERTILE in the sense that she produces at least 1 egg cell per month from the moment that she enters puberty. Unfortunately, what happens in the specific case of the "infertile" woman is that one of her Falliopian Tubes is BLOCKED and the sperm cells CANNOT reach the egg. However, modern science can ALLEVIATE (solve) this by simply fertilizing the egg cell via IN VITRO fertilization OR (in the case of the Patriarchial Church of Rutania that doesn't subscribe to "In Vitro" fertilization on moral grounds) the Doctor can simply remove the egg cell from the woman's tubes and RE-insert it in the uterus in the hopes that sperm from the male partner will fertilize the egg through natural sexual intercourse. In the case of MALE infertility (which is actually MUCH more common), he can simply go to a Doctor and take "Testosterone Pellets" (or drink "Raw eggs" daily as was done in old times) to RAISE his natural Testosterone level which would BUILD UP his sperm count eventually (and, of course, do NOT wear "briefs" but loose BOXERS). Unfortunately, homosexual couples do NOT have that luxury of Medical Science even though INDIVIDUAL Gay or Lesbian Rutanian citizens may even be 100% FERTILE (if they were to MATE with a member of the opposite sex). (3) Now, we have laid out OUR case on how homosexuality is CLEARLY not based on MEDICAL SCIENCE!!! Therefore, the "burden of proof" is on the LIBERALS to supply this Legislature body with SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE outlining a specific GENE in the Terran's DNA that CODES for homosexual behavior as their ARE genes that code for traits like "Dark skin" and "kinky hair," "blue eyes," "straight blond hair," "pale skin," etc.??? ---Joint Parliamentary Testimony of Dr. Patricia A. Grove, Associate Professor of Biology at The College of Mt. Saint Vincent (in Ardina Province) & Christian E. Savage, ADOPTED Rutanian Citizen raised by an "INFERTILE" Couple; OOC: David A., first and foremost, I want to enthusiastically thank you for having this productive discussion on this very SENSITIVE topic. Personally, while I did not support the recent Supreme Court's decision recognizing "Gay Marriage" on EQUAL PROTECTION grounds based on the SCIENTIFIC evidence irrespective of "religion," I would like to say that I as a STRICT-Constructionist in the mold of Justice Hugo Black (F.D.R.-appointee) and Justice Byron White (J.F.K.-appointee), I actually SUPPORT Gay Marriage and, if you will, "Full Marriage Equality," if the Gay couples were to get married in a LIBERAL church like the United Church of Christ, The AMERICAN (*Not* "Roman") Catholic Church, or the Marble Collegiate Church b/c based on those specific Church's BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION and/or theology, Gay Marriage is ALLOWED. Therefore, I feel that those marriages are FULLY PROTECTED under the "Free Exercise of Religion Clause" of the 1st Amendment. I just fundamentally disagree with a SECULAR judge performing such "marriages" b/c of the SCIENTIFIC INVALIDITY. Thanks again. :) |
| Date | 11:41:33, August 23, 2013 CET | From | Democratic Union | To | Debating the Bedroom Freedom Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, On response to Dr. Grove and Mr. Savage, we have to say that: (1) Infertile pairs CAN be treated under the methods that they described, but it's not 100% sure that they will be able to have children after the treatment. (2) I don't understand why the members of the CWFP insist in the absence of a "gay gene". It's not about genes. Do our genes determine whether we like chocolate ice cream, or vanilla ice cream, or both? So do our genes determine whether we like men, or women, or even both? No. It's our mind, our subconscious who determine what do we like and what not. (3) I want to insist on something that Dr. Grove and Mr. Savage haven't answered; if their party encourages adoption, why do they want to forbid homosexual couples to adopt children? Aren't they able to adopt a child? So a single man or woman can adopt, but not a couple of lesbians or gays? I beg to the CWFP to tell this Parliament the reason of this proposal. --- Erik B. Culster, DU Parlamentary Speaker |
| Date | 18:47:01, August 23, 2013 CET | From | Capitalist Working Families | To | Debating the Bedroom Freedom Act |
| Message | http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=390280 Mr. Speaker, In response to the DU Parliamentary Speaker, Mr. Erik B. Culster: (1) The idea of a "Gay Gene" is very IMPORTANT in determining if homosexuality is either NATURAL (and therefore a HUMAN RIGHT like people in South Africa have asserted HUMAN RIGHTS based on the color of their skin) or just a BEHAVIOR??? If the GLBT community CANNOT prove that homosexuality is NATURAL, then WHY should society RECOGNIZE such BEHAVIOR when the MAJORITY of them believe that behavior is IMMORAL as it violates their conscience??? (2) That being said, The CWFP is NOT opposed to Gays being entitled EQUAL rights; For example, INDIVIDUAL Gays and Lesbians have the RIGHT to Private Property, Start a business, Work, own a home, get an education healthcare, receive a Trial by Jury, and the Right to own a gun for his/her SELF-defense (if he/she CHOOSES to exercise that right, of course). (3) However, we are just opposed to them having SPECIAL rights of forming a Social Union that is NOT compatible with DARWINIAN EVOLUTION via the HUMAN GENETIC CODE as OTHER minority groups in Rutania like Blacks, Yeuds, and Guids ALL can locate the features of their body that have ignited racial prejudice by the Anglo-Saxon majority population in their GENETIC CODE ("Dark Skin," "Coarse beards & long noses as [Yeuds]," and "Chinky eyes" (as in Guid Rutanians) thus CONFIRMING that they have been denied their HUMAN RIGHTS. (4) Finally, we are specifically opposed to homosexual couples ADOPTING children b/c the overally WELFARE of the child is at stake. For example, we cite PROMINENT Sociologists in Rutania that argue that children are BETTER equipped (or raised) in households with a Mother (woman) AND a Father (man). For this very reason, are even against entrusting an adopted child in a single HETEROSEXUAL parent home with just ONE Father or ONE mother. Moreover, we believe that the Divorce laws in Rutania need to be updated b/c of the DEVASTATING effects that Divorce can have on the PSYCHOLOGICAL well-being of the child. (5) In conclusion, and nonetheless, we will END the discussion on a POSITIVE note that we SUPPORT Gay Marriage rights if their SPECIFIC religion subscribes to it like the Bishopal Church in the Commonwealth of Rutania under the FULLEST EXPRESSION of the "FREEDOM of RELIGION." We just draw a "HARD LINE in the SAND" for a SECULAR judge to "marry" homosexual couples when their BEHAVIORIAL LIFESTYLE is SCIENTIFICALLY INVALID regardless of "religion" in this debate. Thanks again for a productive discussion. ---Joint Parliamentary Testimony by Dr. Patricia A. Grove (Associate Professor of Biology) & Christian E. Savage (ADOPTED son of an INFERTILE Rutanian woman); |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 20 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 467 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Real life-life nationalities, cultures or ethnicities should not be referenced in Particracy (eg. "German"). |
| Random quote: "To the youth of America, I say, beware of being trivialized by the commercial culture that tempts you daily. I hear you saying often that you're not turned on by politics. The lessons of history are clear and portentous. If you do not turn onto politics, politics will turn on you." - Ralph Nader |