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: Definition of Marriage
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative Neoliberalist Party
Status[?]: passed
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: May 2053
Description[?]:
Again this assembly must open its eyes and see the conditions that exist today for those in this nation. We must again, for the sake of all Kalistani citizens, define marriage solely as between a man and a woman.
We must struggle to uphold the tradition and culture of this rich nation, whether based upon history or upon the religious beliefs of the people. |
Proposals
Article 1
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.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 02:51:55, May 16, 2005 CET |
From | Conservative Neoliberalist Party | To | Debating the Definition of Marriage | | Message | Its amazing how the first people to call religion intolerant are themselves the intolerant ones. We only mentioned religion as one of the many different reasons that people believe, and our culture created through, that marriage is between a man and a woman only. |
| Date | 03:13:49, May 16, 2005 CET |
From | Conservative Neoliberalist Party | To | Debating the Definition of Marriage | | Message | Really? I am sure culture was in there too ... as was heritage. Besides I was under the impression that Society today was to represent the will of the people and polls clearly show that not only do the people support this bill, but they also want no part in your so called society, where they are not represented by their own politicians. |
| Date | 03:19:40, May 16, 2005 CET |
From | Neo-Libertarian Party of Kalistan | To | Debating the Definition of Marriage | | Message | Culture and heritage are only results of history and religion.
Also, if you only look after the "polls" for what you believe in, then you have no backbone. You will never progress in the world today--- remember. There is not only Kalistan. |
| Date | 03:53:32, May 16, 2005 CET |
From | Conservative Neoliberalist Party | To | Debating the Definition of Marriage | | Message | My job is not to represent what I believe in, my job is to represent the people of this great nation. And since culture and heritage is defined by religion, as you say it is, do we simply throw it all out the window so you can form a new society that the people themselves even reject? |
| Date | 06:03:25, May 16, 2005 CET |
From | | To | Debating the Definition of Marriage | | Message | Obviously the SoG strongly disagrees with this, for reasons mentioned before.
This bill is discrimination, based on "they way things used to be" and "the way some people think it should be".
The times they are 'a changing. It is only by supporting this change that we can make it as positive a transition as possible. Denying civil rights to the minorities that are "different" just enhances discrimination and hate. And how does that fit with the "religious beliefs" of the people? |
| Date | 06:15:13, May 16, 2005 CET |
From | Neo-Libertarian Party of Kalistan | To | Debating the Definition of Marriage | | Message | I am surprised that you vote yes on this, NDP. I suppose the polls mean more to you then your platform? You fight for the people of Kalistan. Do you only fight for the heterosexuals, then? Gays are people too. |
| Date | 14:39:18, May 16, 2005 CET |
From | Imperial Kalistan Party | To | Debating the Definition of Marriage | | Message | Yes, gays are people too. But science, or, in the case of homosexual studies "pseudo science", has yet to prove beyond any doubt that homosexuality is a genetically predisposed condition, much like criminality isn't.
So therefore if I chose to color my hair blue and companies refuse to hire me... would they then be discriminating against something that was obviously by choice? |
| Date | 14:40:34, May 16, 2005 CET |
From | Imperial Kalistan Party | To | Debating the Definition of Marriage | | Message | The NDP is absolutely sticking to its socially conservative platform. We are nationalists and ultimately therefore are traditionalists... we don't need our culture to die any more than it already has. |
| Date | 02:13:28, May 17, 2005 CET |
From | Neo-Libertarian Party of Kalistan | To | Debating the Definition of Marriage | | Message | You are NATIONALISTS.
So... what if the next poll said that a new progressive wind was sweeping Kalistan by storm? Would you just switch your platform so you could "please the people of Kalistan"? |
| Date | 02:22:34, May 17, 2005 CET |
From | Conservative Neoliberalist Party | To | Debating the Definition of Marriage | | Message | We just wish to ask the FRP, which is their primary duty in this assembly, representing the people of this country or representing their party platform? Mind you, there must be a balance, but we just wish to know which the FRP finds to be more important |
| Date | 02:32:26, May 17, 2005 CET |
From | Conservative Neoliberalist Party | To | Debating the Definition of Marriage | | Message | Ahh I see ... so you tell the people what is best for them. That's not the definition of big government at all.
Its sad to see such hypocracy spewing from the FRP |
| Date | 02:44:37, May 17, 2005 CET |
From | Neo-Libertarian Party of Kalistan | To | Debating the Definition of Marriage | | Message | I don't tell the people what is best for them. On the contrary, we merely exhist to spread our word to like-minded individuals among Kalistan, and to spread our agenda of civil-rights and small government.
You are a much greater threat of big government then we are. You claim that you "grant individual liberties". Well, what does that mean? I only see you striving to take them away. |
| Date | 02:52:10, May 17, 2005 CET |
From | Neo-Libertarian Party of Kalistan | To | Debating the Definition of Marriage | | Message | I don't tell the people what is best for them. On the contrary, we merely exhist to spread our word to like-minded individuals among Kalistan, and to spread our agenda of civil-rights and small government.
You are a much greater threat of big government then we are. You claim that you "grant individual liberties". Well, what does that mean? I only see you striving to take them away. |
| Date | 04:59:13, May 17, 2005 CET |
From | Neo-Libertarian Party of Kalistan | To | Debating the Definition of Marriage | | Message | We aren't authoritarian in forcing people into positions, in telling people that we are right. We are merely a party, an ideal.
A party that WE believe is best for the country, yes, but we don't force that belief. We are an open, idealistic party that looks to expand its horizon. We hope we aren't the only one, because if we are, Kalistan is in trouble. |
| Date | 05:04:35, May 17, 2005 CET |
From | Conservative Neoliberalist Party | To | Debating the Definition of Marriage | | Message | Thats odd because you, in this very bill interestingly enough, go against the will of the people, and by opposing this bill are indeed attempting to force a belief upon the people of this nation that they want no part in. You are right about one thing, with parties like you Kalistan is in trouble |
| Date | 05:32:20, May 17, 2005 CET |
From | Neo-Libertarian Party of Kalistan | To | Debating the Definition of Marriage | | Message | You have the right to your own opinion. We shall not hold your bitterness against you, for that would be against our own platform.
I just hope that you let us keep our opinions, in your INFINATE MERCY. |
| Date | 05:37:16, May 17, 2005 CET |
From | Conservative Neoliberalist Party | To | Debating the Definition of Marriage | | Message | Amazing how you speak of bitterness and yet it is you who is lashing out, vehemently, at this bill. Spite perhaps? Regardless you may have your opinion, but perhaps you should think that it MAY come into question before you start campaigning against a bill. After all if you crusade against the opinion of these parties and of the people, some other parties may start to just as closely examine your own opinion. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 245 |
| no | Total Seats: 142 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: RP laws follow the same passing rules as in-game variable laws. Laws that are not of a constitutional nature require a simple majority "Yes" vote from active parties currently holding seats. Laws that are of a constitutional nature require a 2/3 majority "Yes" vote from active parties currently holding seats. RP laws may be abolished a simple majority vote this applies to ANY RP law. |
| Random quote: "A lie told often enough becomes the truth." - Vladimir Lenin |