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: Sexual Liberties Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers 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: January 4776
Description[?]:
| . |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy on public nudity.
Old value:: Public nudity is illegal and prosecuted as a civil offence.
Current: Public nudity is illegal, but private nudist colonies and beaches are permitted.
Proposed: Public nudity is illegal, but private nudist colonies and beaches are permitted.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy with respect to polygamy.
Old value:: The government does not recognise polygamous relationships and prosecute those who pursue a polygamous lifestyle.
Current: The government does not recognise polygamous relationships.
Proposed: Polygamous marriages are accorded equal recognition to monogamous marriages.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:01:22, June 24, 2020 CET | From | Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the Sexual Liberties Act |
| Message | Polygamy today stands as a taboo just as strong as same-sex marriage, abortion was centuries ago ago. Yet the moral reasoning behind society’s rejection of polygamy remains just as uncomfortable and legally weak as same-sex marriage opposition was. Many 'progressives' and alleged 'moralists' in the conservative camp reject legal polygamy, because their hearts are not in it. They don't voice their objections as they are not used to rejecting appeals of non-traditional relationships into law. They accept the right of adults to engage in sexual and romantic relationships, but oppose the formal, legal recognition of these relationships. I believe that many are trapped in prior opposition voiced from political pragmatism in order to allow for gay marriage legality. I am no believer in religion and I believe that we should no longer think of the world in an archaic religious and spiritual way, but I have read the Hosian Bible before and came across several important verses about loving one another. I read them to this House: The message you heard from the very beginning is this: we must love one another. (1 Matthias 3:11) And now I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. (Matthias 13:34) Do not take revenge on others or continue to hate them, but love your neighbors as you love yourself. I am the Lord. Above everything, love one another earnestly, because love covers over many sins. Be under obligation to no one—the only obligation you have is to love one another. Whoever does this has obeyed the Law. My children, our love should not be just words and talk; it must be true love, which shows itself in action. (1 Matthias 3:18) No one has ever seen Elyon, but if we love one another, Elyon lives in union with us, and his love is made perfect in us. We are sure that we live in union with Elyon and that he lives in union with us, because he has given us his Spirit. (1 Matthias 4:12-13) Do all your work in love. Be always humble, gentle, and patient. Show your love by being tolerant with one another. Do your best to preserve the unity which the Spirit gives by means of the peace that binds you together. To conclude: you must all have the same attitude and the same feelings; love one another, and be kind and humble with one another. Do not pay back evil with evil or cursing with cursing; instead, pay back with a blessing, because a blessing is what Elyon promised to give you when he called you. Speaker, if we call ourselves representatives of the people, individuals that listen to different opinions, or in a wider sense, human beings that have a common purpose in life, that is to be part of a human community and to consciously recognise our collective humanity, and that we are all the same, no matter what we believe in, no matter what we look like, then is it not so that we should give individuals that want to live a polygamous lifestyle the right to do so? Right now, such marriages are illegal. Those that wish to be polygamous cannot legally become married or get the benefits of marrying or associate with the group of people they would like to. However, don't we liberals have a principle that that the state should not interfere in a person’s choice of social arrangements unless there were decisive reasons to do so? How can we say that we are human or liberal if we ostracise a belief that we deem as taboo, and violating the right to marry, a universally held human right? All men and women without any limitation because of their ethnic composition, their religious beliefs should have the right to marry and to have equal rights to, during and at the dissolution of marriage. Marriage can be entered, when it has the free and full consent of the willing spouses, and family is a unit of society that should be entitled protection by society and by the nation and should not be discriminated against just because their way of living is different than ours. Can we continue to go about our daily lives by shunning such individuals? Is there something really that horrid about them that we have to isolate them from the human community? Is there something about them physically that we don't like? Is there something about them emotionally we don't like? Is there something about them mentally we don't like? Is there really anything to hate about normal human beings that just happen to live a different life than we do? I would like to draw your attention to a favourite book of mine where its author tries to get us to be less prejudiced by not judging people by their appearances. Despite the change in character and personality, sizes other people up before they have the chance to speak. A former criminal becomes a kind and compassionate man who thinks of others rather than himself, but because of his past, the police inspector continues to see him as a criminal. In the long run, the author is telling us that good on the outside equals good on the inside. Tell this author that a polygamous individual is disgusting and not representative of our 'moral' values, and I think they will give you a lesson on how to respect others and to not judge a book by it's cover. Is this the way we think? Do we think like those who judge by appearance, who thinks that someone that looks different breaks our moral compass and cannot be accepted, and end up regretting our decision because we come to the realisation that they are not representative of your values, yet are normal, perfectly happy human beings that just happen to want to enjoy the life that they live? Or do we think like the reformed criminal, that there is good in every individual and that no matter what, their happiness comes first over his own interests? I implore this body to think about this and ask themselves: Are polygamous individuals really worth isolating, really worth ostracising and really worth of denying them the lifestyle they want to live, if they are just human beings like us that happen to believe in different things? Each and every citizen, man and woman have a right to choose who they want to spend their life with and how they want to. Exactly just like how we should not isolate our children and scold them if they live a playful lifestyle or are homosexual and go against everything that we stand for. Rather than telling them you are a stain on our family and I do not accept you as my son because you are gay and are not civilised, tell them, although I do not approve of that lifestyle, you are still my child, because me and your mother conceived you and raised you, so you will always be loved, and you have every right to be the person that you want to be. Doing so makes individuals happier and contributes to societal harmony rather than societal division. By legalizing polygamy, this allows people to finally live the way they have wanted to, without having to be restricted by social stigma or out of date principles. People that might be having two person marriages but have long felt they belong in a three person or more marriage will finally have the right to do so. Polygamous marriage allows a person to marry more than one spouse. With this they feel more comfortable with their partners. If all the spouses agree on term that they will all be living under the same roof then it doesn’t go against their human rights of having the right to marry and entitled to protection by State and society, and thus they will be accepted. Currently people think that polygamous marriage takes away the woman’s right but there will be conditions allowing each wife to have an equal right amongst the others. Of course each country will have its own set of conditions and terms, but if they approve and act accordingly they will be a polygamous family, and we should not, and never shall set foot on the life that they want to live, because after all, we are progressives, not religious conservatives. We do not think that all countries should ban polygamy simply because it's disgusting and immoral, but there are countries, and even religions that allow polygamy but in a different manner. Some countries allow this because their development, tradition or religion requires them to. It is tolerated in Daenism, where marriage is seen as a purely secular and not some religious affair like clerical celibacy, that somehow having sexual thoughts are sinful, but if you can control these sexual thoughts, why should you not have the right to marry if it is a universal human right? Even the adherents of Ahmadism, a religion that we somehow demonise with the scapegoat of 'radical Ahmadism' when it is nothing of the sort, examples of polygamy can be found. Prophet Ahmad was in a monogamous relationship with his first wife but, upon her death was known to have had up to 10 wives, but obviously not all at once. Modern day Ahmadism permits a man to marry up to four wives, but but only if he is able to support all of them. A wife is permitted, in the marriage negotiations, to require her husband to refrain from taking a further wife during their marriage. Everyone has their reasons to do so, and if we just took the time to sit down and talk with people like this, I believe we can find a lot of common ground despite our different beliefs in marriage. On the other hand, Hosianism rejects the notion of polygamy, but it has been sanctioned in the past, perhaps most famously by Martyn Luthor, who felt that it was not against any of the teachings of scripture. This was based upon the long standing polygamy in early Yeudism where the Katub commanded a man to marry the widow of his brother and specifically made the provision that if there were to be a second marriage, the position of the first wife should not suffer. I understand that Hosianism requires people to be monogamous. However, if they believe in Elyon, and if they believe Elyon has granted them the right to live the lifestyle that they want to, then it is their right to choose whom they want to marry and they should not be bogged down by holy scripture that prohibits them from doing so. Obviously we shouldn't encourage polygamy, but it has its benefits and we should give them a better understanding, just like how we gave LGBT and abortion our recognition. If LGBT and abortion are approved in some nations, why can't polygamy be approved in others? Many people are either biased or stereotyped against polygamous marriage. Though polygamous marriage has already been approved in some countries, they all have a civil law condition, and are protected by the State and are free to live this life. By having polygamous marriage recognised people will have the choice to marry whosoever they please, and we would no longer treat individuals like aliens, because after all, we are all human beings. Everyone, no matter what their beliefs, what their lifestyle, what their race is, is a human being. Speaker, if we really are upholders of human rights and believe that we are a collective human community rather than a separate one, and that we genuinely believe in loving one another, then I ask members of this body to consider the words that I have said today and vote for this bill. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes |
Total Seats: 392 | ||
| no | Total Seats: 120 | ||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 138 |
| 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: "There is a mandate to impose a voluntary return to traditional values." - Ronald Reagan |