| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
TNK
United States163 Posts
On March 01 2013 14:35 Nick_54 wrote: Obama was supossed to have adressed this 5 years ago, what was the delay? For most presidents they do most of the riskier stuff in the second term while playing safe in the first term. Sometimes I don't know why some presidents don't run for just one term. | ||
|
HTOMario
United States439 Posts
On March 01 2013 13:41 HaniStream wrote: This is going to piss a lot of people off, but it's for the best. Change is always harder on the stupid ones, that's what I learned from sc2 patch changes and life in general. Just because a person has different believes doesn't mean they are unintelligent... Don't get me wrong homosexuality kind of freaks me out but I am all for them having the same rights I do. It's just that you are generalizing an opinion or belief and calling it stupid. Isn't that close to what is being done to the gay community? | ||
|
Angry_Fetus
Canada444 Posts
On March 01 2013 14:45 Confuse wrote: What else would you propose? Someone special decides what the civil rights are? Rights should be equal across the board. No one man needs to decide, nor should it ever be put up to a popular vote. How can you honestly defend minority rights being voted on? That's mob rule, not democracy. It's in your Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On March 01 2013 15:18 Angry_Fetus wrote: Rights should be equal across the board. No one man needs to decide, nor should it ever be put up to a popular vote. How can you honestly defend minority rights being voted on? That's mob rule, not democracy. It's in your Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" you havent explained how these rights should be determined. there is no piece of paper that lists all unalienable rights that exist. | ||
|
Angry_Fetus
Canada444 Posts
Article 16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. | ||
|
Blargh
United States2103 Posts
On March 01 2013 15:07 HTOMario wrote: Just because a person has different believes doesn't mean they are unintelligent... Don't get me wrong homosexuality kind of freaks me out but I am all for them having the same rights I do. It's just that you are generalizing an opinion or belief and calling it stupid. Isn't that close to what is being done to the gay community? It IS stupid when there is no logical proof or reasoning behind it. That's called being stupid. Just so you know. But let's not get into that. I might have a religious argument or some shit with someone. Anyway, interesting, but it's not like public announcements ever actually reflect what a president believes. Ever. I wonder what the biggest downfall of humanity will be. Politics or a lack of common sense? | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
On March 01 2013 15:26 Angry_Fetus wrote: I'm referring to current established rights that are limited to a subset of people, not entirely new concepts. Besides, your point doesn't even make any sense. The United States signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Sadly most of the countries who signed that don't have allowances for gay marriage. Governments love being hypocritical. | ||
|
EpiK
Korea (South)5757 Posts
On March 01 2013 14:35 Nick_54 wrote: Obama was supossed to have adressed this 5 years ago, what was the delay? chances of re-election | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On March 01 2013 14:45 Confuse wrote: What else would you propose? Someone special decides what the civil rights are? That they are auto-granted regardless of the vote? Just like we can't vote right now to force black people to use a separate bathroom, even an overwhelming majority of people would like for that to happen. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
Also, I do not understand the people who are so paranoid about government having too much power by allowing gays to marry. The state prohibits gay marriage, the government is simply lifting the ban. Also, this story although depressing is pretty funny http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_same-sex_marriage_in_Spain | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On March 01 2013 15:26 Angry_Fetus wrote: I'm referring to current established rights that are limited to a subset of people, not entirely new concepts. Besides, your point doesn't even make any sense. The United States signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. wasnt the decision to sign that by the U.S. put up to a vote? | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On March 01 2013 15:07 HTOMario wrote: Just because a person has different believes doesn't mean they are unintelligent... Don't get me wrong homosexuality kind of freaks me out but I am all for them having the same rights I do. It's just that you are generalizing an opinion or belief and calling it stupid. Isn't that close to what is being done to the gay community? It doesn't mean they aren't unintelligent either. And most of them are definitely unintelligent. Many generalizations end up being true. I don't even understand how homosexuality can freak someone out. What is there to be "freaked out" by... :S | ||
|
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
On March 01 2013 16:08 Shiragaku wrote: If you read the whole article, it's not that strange when you read the part that says "First legal same-sex marriage in 2005: Although the first known attempt at same-sex marriage is that of Marcela and Elisa, same-sex marriage was legalized in Spain in 2005, by law 13/2005."Also, this story although depressing is pretty funny http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_same-sex_marriage_in_Spain On March 01 2013 13:27 Twinkle Toes wrote: This is big news. I disagree. I consider it to be completely minor news. What matters most is their rights. There's almost zero significance in a word/name. Yeah it's probably a good thing, but it really doesn't change much at all. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On March 01 2013 16:11 Xapti wrote: I disagree. I consider it to be completely minor news. What matters most is their rights. There's almost zero significance in a word/name. Yeah it's probably a good thing, but it really doesn't change much at all. Clearly the LGBT community thinks otherwise. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
On March 01 2013 16:12 FabledIntegral wrote: Clearly the LGBT community thinks otherwise. Language is a pretty powerful factor and tool. Words are not meaningless at all. Also, how weird is it to ask your partner to "civil union" me? | ||
|
Teoman
Norway382 Posts
On March 01 2013 13:39 ElvisWayCool wrote: Is the article quoting Obama's father near the end, or the president himself? Why would they call him Mr. Obama instead of President Obama? Besides that, I like the article. Hopefully gay marriage becomes legal all over the states. Let love love. Yea. He didn't spend six years in american president school to be called mr. Anyway, i hope this changes something. It has been said to death, but there is absolutly no valid reason for a modern society to deny homesexuals the right to marry. | ||
|
Patate
Canada441 Posts
If by marriage, they mean a civil union, then I totally support him, but if by marriage they mean forcing the church to marry them, then I disagree. | ||
|
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
On March 01 2013 16:14 Shiragaku wrote: Language is a pretty powerful factor and tool. Words are not meaningless at all. Also, how weird is it to ask your partner to "civil union" me? You don't need to call it civil union; you could call it marriage, or whatever you want to call it; The government only calls it a civil union. But to answer your question, I don't think it's weird. Considering that Christianity invaded/conquered the word marriage, it makes sense that people use a word that is non-religious — especially when it comes to a GOVERNMENT which is supposed to be generally secular. I think it's absolutely silly that there's 2 names for something that's exactly the same, but while silly, it has virtually no significant impact when they're merged into one. Edit: For the record, in my original post I didn't cut out the quote appropriately. I only disagree with the first sentence, not the rest. | ||
|
Angry_Fetus
Canada444 Posts
On March 01 2013 16:08 dAPhREAk wrote: wasnt the decision to sign that by the U.S. put up to a vote? You're really nitpicking now. That's not what I said. "No one man needs to decide, nor should it ever be put up to a popular vote. How can you honestly defend minority rights being voted on?" *hint: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is all encompassing. It doesn't deal with minority rights. | ||
|
TOCHMY
Sweden1692 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Online Event
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Mihu vs QiaoGege
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs TBD
Online Event
Sparkling Tuna Cup
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Bonyth vs TBD
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
