• U.N. council passes gay rights resolution
    80 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Zero Ziat;30534246]fuck yes. we are also first latinamerican country to adopt gay marriage :flashfact:[/QUOTE] Wasn't it Argentina?
WHY NO SINGAPORE. :saddowns:
[QUOTE=yaik9a;30534090]I predicted Russia for against because Russia was always against gays, which is not based on religion but they considered homosexuality a metal disorder, I guess that attitude extends to today and most african countries are fanatically religious. (Most likely due to lack of education)[/QUOTE] Which is ironic because they were also the earliest modern civilisation to except homosexuality openly. Then it did a complete 180 [editline]18th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Jenkem;30534103]marriage, however, is a traditional and typically religion-defined practice[/QUOTE] Jenkem, we've been over this many times over, you just don't seem to get it through your head: Marriage was originally for Norman primogeniture and has gone through literally thousands of changes in the last thousand years alone. Marriage has only recently in Europe become a religious supported institution. Even then, you can now get married by a law book as opposed to a bible. Now, it's changed a lot even then, do you still select a husband for your daughter to marry regardless if she wants to or not? Well, you might if you in the unlikely case have children, but most people don't. [editline]18th June 2011[/editline] Now that's cleared up, you have no excuse to mistake this again. [editline]18th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Jenkem;30534183]That is not even the point, assuming any of that were true. It's not a part of human nature by default like an emotion, thoughts, ect. It's an institution, and is practiced by many religions in their own way; a familiar concept, and each culture treats it a certain way. Thus, to force one sole interpretation of marriage over all cultures under the UN's wing (which this effectively does when the numerous governments take hints and enforce it) is actually a violation of rights and beliefs in practice no matter how "unfair" it is to the gay community. If it's for the benefits marriage grants, give them civil union. If it's about a title, they should convert to a supporting religion and adhere to that standard, or else leave everyone else alone about it. We shouldn't have to be made to accept another's way of life (this is different than "tolerance") by force of law, which this effectively does by it's very nature.[/QUOTE] Yes, because separate but equal was always fair! you would have been a blast during the Jim Crow Era.
Its all well and dandy that the UN knows the right thing to do, but it isn't going to really carry it out that much.
[QUOTE=DanRatherman;30533033]I'm actually surprised at how many African countries signed against it. Alot of them have huge Animalism or Non-Theistic populations who I would've guessed were ok with homosexuality. Guess the people in charge aren't so tolerant.[/QUOTE] Uganda has introduced a bill to reinstate the execution of homosexuals, many of whom are forced to live in slums because newspapers will print pictures of a gay person upon finding out that they're gay, and allowing the public to savagely beat them not really ok with homosexuality
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30549556]Its all well and dandy that the UN knows the right thing to do, but it isn't going to really carry it out that much.[/QUOTE] Yeah, if only the U.N. had a way to enforce the shit it passes.
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;30549700]Yeah, if only the U.N. had a way to enforce the shit it passes.[/QUOTE] The more authoritarian something is, the better ability it has to enforce things.
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;30541515]WHY NO SINGAPORE. :saddowns:[/QUOTE] They weren't part of the vote, same reason Canada wasn't there
[QUOTE=-Mud-;30534338]I was going to reply to this but then I realized it was Jenkem. You almost had me going there with the new avatar and gold membership.[/QUOTE] Let's hear it, then. Where did I actually make an error? What's wrong with what I said? [QUOTE=Zeke129;30534401]Yeah, that's human nature for those people. Sure. Why would anyone argue otherwise? But you were talking earlier about what marriage traditionally was, not what people regard it as today, and you had the traditional definition of marriage incorrect.[/QUOTE] It is not base human nature; headhunting is a learned and/or developed practice, or else every culture would have been doing it extensively at some point, which is not the case to my knowledge. Most humans were never doing this. What I am referring to is characteristics all humans draw on - emotions and reason are two good examples of this. Marriage is not. As a concept, I imagine it's present in basically every culture due to one original practice that was adopted by the offshoots of that people. This doesn't change the nature of how people are themselves, it's simply grafted into their behavior (but is not instinctual). I did not define marriage specifically, because it varies by religion. Islam, for instance, permits up to four wives if memory serves right, whereas Jews and Christians generally have one. [QUOTE=FreakyMe;30538578]How does two men you will never meet getting married and being in love infringe on your rights?[/QUOTE] Mainly, because they're attempting to rewrite the legal definition of my beliefs (as well as others) across the board; it's not whether it even affects me directly or not that's the issue, it's the principle here. Probably by extension this would force ministers to wed couples against their own religion's system, which makes it doubly wrong. [QUOTE]I'm sorry but you have to clarify because the stupidity of that statement is overwhelming. Also funny that you are against them "cramming their beliefs down your throat", yet your kind are the ones attempting to pass legislation in secular countries that only favors the rules of your religion.[/QUOTE] What are you on about? I don't know anything about that. If you're getting at the US stepping on anyone they don't like or who looks at them funny, I'm against that.
[QUOTE=Jenkem;30551199] It is not base human nature; headhunting is a learned and/or developed practice, or else every culture would have been doing it extensively at some point, which is not the case to my knowledge.[/QUOTE] hey guess what, "base human nature" doesn't exist either. the only thing that is not learned behaviour in humans is shitting and crying
[QUOTE=Jenkem;30551199] It is not base human nature; headhunting is a learned and/or developed practice, or else every culture would have been doing it extensively at some point, which is not the case to my knowledge. Most humans were never doing this. What I am referring to is characteristics all humans draw on - emotions and reason are two good examples of this. Marriage is not. As a concept, I imagine it's present in basically every culture due to one original practice that was adopted by the offshoots of that people. This doesn't change the nature of how people are themselves, it's simply grafted into their behavior (but is not instinctual). I did not define marriage specifically, because it varies by religion. Islam, for instance, permits up to four wives if memory serves right, whereas Jews and Christians generally have one.[/QUOTE] So if you're admitting this, why were you stating earlier that the Christian definition of marriage is the one that should be used when deciding upon marriage-related legislation Doesn't that infringe on the rights of others, something you said allowing gay marriage would do
Why is marriage so important anyways? It's almost like its forcing the couple to remain together to show their love to each other after all the paperwork is done. If they really loved each other they would stay together without having it done in paperwork and such. (I think that was actually one Roman method, they would stay together for a length of time and just say they were partners rather than having a ceremony for it or anything)
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30552030]Why is marriage so important anyways?[/QUOTE] a boatload of legal benefits
[QUOTE=Zeke129;30551824]So if you're admitting this, why were you stating earlier that the Christian definition of marriage is the one that should be used when deciding upon marriage-related legislation Doesn't that infringe on the rights of others, something you said allowing gay marriage would do[/QUOTE] Are you trolling or something? I don't think I ever said that.
[QUOTE=Jenkem;30552591]Are you trolling or something? I don't think I ever said that.[/QUOTE] Here is where you say that marriage is between a man and a woman (highlighted in bold, which is the Abrahamic definition of it only) and that the law shouldn't allow otherwise (highlighted in red): [QUOTE=Jenkem;30534103]I'm all for equal rights as far as human beings go; marriage, however, is a traditional and typically religion-defined practice, [b][I]not a "right" inherent to mankind itself between a man and whatever random thing he chooses to be legally joined to[/I][/b], and thus violating it is also a violation of others' rights and beliefs, among other problems. [highlight]They could make them an appropriation for civil union, but that's enough[/highlight] enough when they're trying to cram their own beliefs down our throat by force of law.[/QUOTE] What about the people who don't share your definition of marriage? Isn't your proposal "cramming" your definition "down our throats"? check
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30550464]The more authoritarian something is, the better ability it has to enforce things.[/QUOTE] The ideal solution would be that it didn't have to force anything, but that the countries would realize on their own. Which is why the UN has largely failed I guess.
[QUOTE=Jenkem;30551199]Mainly, because they're attempting to rewrite the legal definition of my beliefs (as well as others) across the board; it's not whether it even affects me directly or not that's the issue, it's the principle here. Probably by extension this would force ministers to wed couples against their own religion's system, which makes it doubly wrong.[/QUOTE] [quote=Jenkem] because they're attempting to rewrite the legal definition of my beliefs[/quote] The Legal version of Marriage has NOTHING to do with a fucking Religious Marriage. [quote=Jenkem] Probably by extension this would force ministers to wed couples against their own religion's system, which makes it doubly wrong.[/quote] FFS... okay... ALL they want is to be [B]legally[/B] married for [B]legal benefits[/B]! Even if they wanted to have a religious marriage the pastor can refuse to marry them.
I love how Jenkem brings his usual shitposting in here again, then completely ignores the posts that prove him wrong and continues to go on a childish tangent on how his rights are getting infringed upon. Never change.
[QUOTE=Aspen;30534310]this thread is a riot. shut the fuck up and move to a new thread or take it to PMs you sloppy cunts [highlight](User was banned for this post ("what are you doing" - Starpluck))[/highlight][/QUOTE] Ahahahaha! Welcome to Facepunch! :fuckyou: :fuckyou: :fuckyou: [QUOTE=Jenkem;30551199]Mainly, because they're attempting to rewrite the legal definition of my beliefs (as well as others) across the board; it's not whether it even affects me directly or not that's the issue, it's the principle here. Probably by extension this would force ministers to wed couples against their own religion's system, which makes it doubly wrong.[/QUOTE] You'd have to be either incredibly insane, or simply stupid to believe such a thing. Gay marriage only affects you when [B][I][U][highlight]YOU[/highlight][/U][/I][/B] make it an issue. [B][h2]YOU[/h2][/B] nosing into their business is what makes it an issue. They have a right, but it isn't yours unless they're directly, physically harming you. People who have such Medieval thoughts like this, and try getting into other peoples business that doesn't concern them is why we are getting no where.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;30538865][img]http://www.huge.id.au/Images/Homer_on_Uruguay.gif[/img][/QUOTE] Yes, we get that joke a lot from foreigners. Like, predictably. [QUOTE=Zukriuchen;30539224]Wasn't it Argentina?[/QUOTE] Apparently I got it wrong and we are the first latinamerican country to allow same sex adoption, which is another level of equality.
I'm glad my country was in favour for that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.