|
On March 01 2013 16:19 Angry_Fetus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 16:08 dAPhREAk wrote: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? 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.
oh, i thought you said this:
On March 01 2013 13:44 Angry_Fetus wrote:
I can't believe civil rights are put up to a vote in the first place.
|
On March 01 2013 16:21 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 16:19 Angry_Fetus wrote:On March 01 2013 16:08 dAPhREAk wrote: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? 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. oh, i thought you said this: Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 13:44 Angry_Fetus wrote:
I can't believe civil rights are put up to a vote in the first place.
Yes, in reference to the OP talking about a popular vote on minority rights. Again, you're nitpicking, and have yet to present a legitimate argument.
|
On March 01 2013 16:25 Angry_Fetus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 16:21 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 01 2013 16:19 Angry_Fetus wrote:On March 01 2013 16:08 dAPhREAk wrote: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? 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. oh, i thought you said this: On March 01 2013 13:44 Angry_Fetus wrote:
I can't believe civil rights are put up to a vote in the first place. Yes, in reference to the OP talking about a popular vote on minority rights. Again, you're nitpicking, and have yet to present a legitimate argument.
im not making an argument. i am trying to understand how you can determine civil rights without society putting it up for a vote.
|
On March 01 2013 16:17 Xapti wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 16:14 Shiragaku wrote:On March 01 2013 16:12 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 01 2013 16:11 Xapti wrote:On March 01 2013 13:27 Twinkle Toes wrote:
This is big news. Finally the motion is getting a presidential push. Obama's statement is really appropriate for the times, as well as his symbol as the president of change. 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. 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? 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.
is it exactly the same?
i dont know about the american or canadian marriage, but for germany there are certain rights and obligations that comes with a marriage and these are different from the ones following a civil union.
|
I still don't think they should get married.
Obviously they should be allowed to and I'm happy that they are, but I never understood why they would want to when the civil union brings the same benefits. Gays getting married before the Church is akin to African Americans joining the Ku-Klux-Klan or jews joining the Nazi party.
The catholic church has been discrimatory towards gays for two thousand years, why would you ever find it appealing to get married "before god"? A commited, loving relationship surely doesn't need this "yes-I-do"-pageantry...
|
It's more about the symbol of equality isn't it? Both types of people should have access to the same exact ceremony, and that's what counts. Just having the option seems to generate more feelings of equality imo
|
On March 01 2013 16:20 TOCHMY wrote:
Someone wake up KwarK
I know! He's always a joy to have in these types of threads! Best moderator or best moderator?
It DOES say in the OP that Obama supports all of the legal benefits and never so much the actual "marriage".
More immediately, the administration's position, if adopted by the court, probably would result in gay marriage becoming legal in seven other states that, like California, give gay couples all the benefits of marriage, but don't allow them to wed.
So, I don't think he's trying to say that a Churches should marry gay couples necessarily. But, like I've said so many times in so many other threads... Any gay person who wants to get married by a Church is probably as stupid as the people who don't want them getting married. Civil unions are good. In fact, I'd rather get a civil union, regardless of my sexual preference (I don't think all states that have CU's even allow this? Weird shit, idk)
@Above poster
That won't ever happen ever. Not that anyone should really care. I'd rather people care about bigger inequality issues than some silly ceremony which really doesn't mean anything anyway.
|
On March 01 2013 17:00 Blargh wrote:I know! He's always a joy to have in these types of threads! Best moderator or best moderator? It DOES say in the OP that Obama supports all of the legal benefits and never so much the actual "marriage". Show nested quote +More immediately, the administration's position, if adopted by the court, probably would result in gay marriage becoming legal in seven other states that, like California, give gay couples all the benefits of marriage, but don't allow them to wed. So, I don't think he's trying to say that a Churches should marry gay couples necessarily. But, like I've said so many times in so many other threads... Any gay person who wants to get married by a Church is probably as stupid as the people who don't want them getting married. Civil unions are good. In fact, I'd rather get a civil union, regardless of my sexual preference (I don't think all states that have CU's even allow this? Weird shit, idk)
Lots of churches support gay marriage. A lot of people associate gay marriage with the general trend for religious institutions to evolve and change just as culture does.
|
On March 01 2013 17:05 Mohdoo wrote:Lots of churches support gay marriage. A lot of people associate gay marriage with the general trend for religious institutions to evolve and change just as culture does.
Eh, that's a bit weird. Can you really just change the words of God like that? Do you know who you're fucking with?
|
I think many of you guys would be surprised to hear that not all churches or Christians are anti-gay. There are many churches that would be more than happy to allow a same-sex couple to marry.
Times are changing. I talk to Christians every day who are sick and tired of their homophobic brothers misinterpreting them.
On March 01 2013 17:07 Blargh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 17:05 Mohdoo wrote:Lots of churches support gay marriage. A lot of people associate gay marriage with the general trend for religious institutions to evolve and change just as culture does. Eh, that's a bit weird. Can you really just change the words of God like that? Do you know who you're fucking with?
The Bible is pretty weird. It is heavily relativistic to its situations and as Desmond Tutu said, it is more of a library rather than a single book.
|
@blargh
Well I'm not saying it will or won't happen (because I don't have any idea) -- just saying why gays might want it to happen. Even if it is "logical" or whatever to be happy with having the civil union option since it brings all the same benefits, it is still unsettling for something to exist that is accessible to one type of person, but denied to the other -- based solely on an uncontrollable thing like gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. Although many may prefer civil union over marriage for practical reasons, I'm sure most would feel more equal provided with both options, just as straight people are.
|
|
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On March 01 2013 17:07 Blargh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 17:05 Mohdoo wrote:Lots of churches support gay marriage. A lot of people associate gay marriage with the general trend for religious institutions to evolve and change just as culture does. Eh, that's a bit weird. Can you really just change the words of God like that? Do you know who you're fucking with?
There is quite a bit of variation from interpretations of the Bible, or the Torah, Quran etc. Its why you get so much variation in different sects beliefs and has been the cause of various schisms in the past. Honestly I think its good that some parts of the church are modernising. Society's morality has changed an awful lot in the last two millennia and it would be problematic if such a large institution that a large part of the population derives its beliefs from hadn't changed along with it.
|
On March 01 2013 15:24 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 15:18 Angry_Fetus wrote:On March 01 2013 14:45 Confuse wrote:On March 01 2013 13:44 Angry_Fetus wrote:
I can't believe civil rights are put up to a vote in the first place. 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" you havent explained how these rights should be determined. there is no piece of paper that lists all unalienable rights that exist.
it's called the Bill of Rights
and if anyone is denied rights because of anything other than their criminal status than it's a violation
lmao there's no piece of paper that lists all unalienable rights
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
On March 01 2013 16:51 kafkaesque wrote:
I still don't think they should get married.
Obviously they should be allowed to and I'm happy that they are, but I never understood why they would want to when the civil union brings the same benefits. Gays getting married before the Church is akin to African Americans joining the Ku-Klux-Klan or jews joining the Nazi party.
The catholic church has been discrimatory towards gays for two thousand years, why would you ever find it appealing to get married "before god"? A commited, loving relationship surely doesn't need this "yes-I-do"-pageantry...
Why are you associating marriage with the church? I'm pretty sure Obama is just addressing people being able to get married before the state.
|
On March 01 2013 17:20 Pholon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 16:51 kafkaesque wrote:
I still don't think they should get married.
Obviously they should be allowed to and I'm happy that they are, but I never understood why they would want to when the civil union brings the same benefits. Gays getting married before the Church is akin to African Americans joining the Ku-Klux-Klan or jews joining the Nazi party.
The catholic church has been discrimatory towards gays for two thousand years, why would you ever find it appealing to get married "before god"? A commited, loving relationship surely doesn't need this "yes-I-do"-pageantry... Why are you associating marriage with the church? I'm pretty sure Obama is just addressing people being able to get married before the state.
yeah I think that guy's post is hilarious
This isn't akin to african americans joining the ku klux klan but rather the civil rights problems we were having pre 1960s
This is discrimination being done by the government and everyone against it is somehow justifying it publicly through their religion and politics
it's really sickening
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On March 01 2013 17:17 pbjsandwich wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 15:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 01 2013 15:18 Angry_Fetus wrote:On March 01 2013 14:45 Confuse wrote:On March 01 2013 13:44 Angry_Fetus wrote:
I can't believe civil rights are put up to a vote in the first place. 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" you havent explained how these rights should be determined. there is no piece of paper that lists all unalienable rights that exist. it's called the Bill of Rights and if anyone is denied rights because of anything other than their criminal status than it's a violation lmao there's no piece of paper that lists all unalienable rights
The bill of rights is by no means all-encompassing or unchangeable. It was written in the late 18th century and, apart from amendment about congressional pay, hasn't been changed since. Because of this there are quite a few things that are considered basic human rights that aren't included.
|
Did anybody say it was either all encompassing or unchangeable?
But everyone is equal under the law
That isn't apart of the bill of rights but it is in the constitution and the fact that it is being violated is terrible
|
On March 01 2013 17:29 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 17:17 pbjsandwich wrote:On March 01 2013 15:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 01 2013 15:18 Angry_Fetus wrote:On March 01 2013 14:45 Confuse wrote:On March 01 2013 13:44 Angry_Fetus wrote:
I can't believe civil rights are put up to a vote in the first place. 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" you havent explained how these rights should be determined. there is no piece of paper that lists all unalienable rights that exist. it's called the Bill of Rights and if anyone is denied rights because of anything other than their criminal status than it's a violation lmao there's no piece of paper that lists all unalienable rights The bill of rights is by no means all-encompassing or unchangeable. It was written in the late 18th century and, apart from amendment about congressional pay, hasn't been changed since. Because of this there are quite a few things that are considered basic human rights that aren't included.
And yet, people still refuse to acknowledge that the 2nd amendment ought to be changed or that the Bible shouldn't be taken seriously. Weird that.
Good on Obama. It's about time to see something like this. Even though all he's going to do is generate more opposition at least he's sticking true to his original "promises".
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On March 01 2013 17:33 pbjsandwich wrote:
Did anybody say it was either all encompassing or unchangeable?
But everyone is equal under the law
That isn't apart of the bill of rights but it is in the constitution and the fact that it is being violated is terrible
You were trying to claim that it lists all unalienable rights which for that to be the case it would have to be all encompassing and probably unchangeable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
