*United Nations* launches **worldwide** gay rights campaign

[Geilinor]

So whatever happened to letting people make their own decisions?

The campaign is all about letting LGBT people make their own decisions. Which is more important? Individual rights or the rights of tyrannic and often murderous governments? Seven countries still have the death penalty for homosexuality.

[Hushabagain]

World wide gay rights campaign????

Meanwhile in Africa....

(Image)

I wish you could give a post a thumbs up on NSG, because if you could, I'd be doing it so hard right now.

By that logic, all progress the world over would have to be stopped because children are starving in Africa. What do you think stops people from starving? It's not food availability. It's lack of progress that prevents food to reach the consumer. Without progress we would have millions more starving children.

[Geilinor]

I wish you could give a post a thumbs up on NSG, because if you could, I'd be doing it so hard right now.

By that logic, all progress the world over would have to be stopped because children are starving in Africa.

"Kids are starving in Africa, let's stop building new schools and homeless shelters so we can feed them!"
No. Governments can multi-task. The stupid arguments of those posters are stupid.

[Occupied Deutschland]

By that logic, all progress the world over would have to be stopped because children are starving in Africa.

"Kids are starving in Africa, let's stop building new schools and homeless shelters so we can feed them!"
No. Governments can multi-task. The stupid arguments of those posters are stupid.

Well sure they can multitask, but only on important things.

Y'know, like blowing up brown people.

[Olthar]

Woo! Let's lesbian everywhere! Lesbian all the world!

[Luveria]

By that logic, all progress the world over would have to be stopped because children are starving in Africa.

"Kids are starving in Africa, let's stop building new schools and homeless shelters so we can feed them!"
No. Governments can multi-task. The stupid arguments of those posters are stupid.

It's an argument out of desperation.

[Hushabagain]

By that logic, all progress the world over would have to be stopped because children are starving in Africa.

"Kids are starving in Africa, let's stop building new schools and homeless shelters so we can feed them!"
No. Governments can multi-task. The stupid arguments of those posters are stupid.

And arguments that compare everything to Nazis. "Nazis went to school and were well-fed so we shouldn't be!" not sure how that relates to the topic, but I felt a need to say it and come the consequences so they may, God damn it, I am going to speak my mind.

[Geilinor]

"Kids are starving in Africa, let's stop building new schools and homeless shelters so we can feed them!"
No. Governments can multi-task. The stupid arguments of those posters are stupid.

It's an argument out of desperation.

And an attempt to cover bigotry.

[Condunum]

This is so Gay.

Well, it's not surprise you would have nothing to say on the topic but a tiny one-lined insult.

[Hushabagain]

It's an argument out of desperation.

And an attempt to cover bigotry.

Just like "respecting the sanctity of marriage: the sacred union between man and spare rib"

[Luveria]

It's an argument out of desperation.

And an attempt to cover bigotry.

"I'm not a homophobe guize, really. I care about the UN using its resources efficiently, we can't save starving children and advance gay rights at same time."

It's a shoddy as fuck attempt to hide homophobia.

[Fartsniffage]

It's also a huge source of concern to those who don't fit into the current social standard. How many countries don't allow homosexual couples access? Are there any countries that allow polygamous groups access?

Removing it as an institution would instantly grant everyone access to the same protections without having to go through the political fight.

1. Yes, but that doesn't meant that the institution must be eliminated. That would be counter-intuitive and, frankly, quite cowardly.
2. Too many countries do not recognize same-sex marriage, but that trend is changing nowadays.
3. A few countries recognize polygamy to a certain degree. How is this relevant?
4. Removing it as an institution and granting everyone indiscriminate access to all rights, obligations and protections of civil marriage would mean the end of the social benefits of marriage. And, again, it's counter-intuitive and cowardly. Already the tide is turning towards marriage equality, and this false compromise would do LGBT people no good whatsoever.

1: Why? Marriage is a human construct, why not replace it with another one?
2: Which is great.
3: Polygamy is just as valid a reason for marriage or an equivalent as a het or homo union in my opinion.
4: I'm not primarily looking at the LGBT community with this. If we got rid of marriage as an institution then it would free up a lot of other things to me. A contract based system would mean that people could pick and choose what bits they wanted.

[Olthar]

And an attempt to cover bigotry.

Just like "respecting the sanctity of marriage: the sacred union between man and spare rib"

I don't think Adam and Eve ever actually got married. Who would have married them? There were no governments back then. Clearly, Adam and Eve had premarital sex and bore children out of wedlock. Some "sanctity" that is!

[Souseiseki]

Just like "respecting the sanctity of marriage: the sacred union between man and spare rib"

I don't think Adam and Eve ever actually got married. Who would have married them? There were no governments back then. Clearly, Adam and Eve had premarital sex and bore children out of wedlock. Some "sanctity" that is!

common law!

e: the government was god

[Hushabagain]

1. Yes, but that doesn't meant that the institution must be eliminated. That would be counter-intuitive and, frankly, quite cowardly.
2. Too many countries do not recognize same-sex marriage, but that trend is changing nowadays.
3. A few countries recognize polygamy to a certain degree. How is this relevant?
4. Removing it as an institution and granting everyone indiscriminate access to all rights, obligations and protections of civil marriage would mean the end of the social benefits of marriage. And, again, it's counter-intuitive and cowardly. Already the tide is turning towards marriage equality, and this false compromise would do LGBT people no good whatsoever.

1: Why? Marriage is a human construct, why not replace it with another one?
2: Which is great.
3: Polygamy is just as valid a reason for marriage or an equivalent as a het or homo union in my opinion.
4: I'm not primarily looking at the LGBT community with this. If we got rid of marriage as an institution then it would free up a lot of other things to me. A contract based system would mean that people could pick and choose what bits they wanted.

You do realize that the institution of marriage is a financial union as well, right? That financials are why people historically got married, right?

[Condunum]

1. Yes, but that doesn't meant that the institution must be eliminated. That would be counter-intuitive and, frankly, quite cowardly.
2. Too many countries do not recognize same-sex marriage, but that trend is changing nowadays.
3. A few countries recognize polygamy to a certain degree. How is this relevant?
4. Removing it as an institution and granting everyone indiscriminate access to all rights, obligations and protections of civil marriage would mean the end of the social benefits of marriage. And, again, it's counter-intuitive and cowardly. Already the tide is turning towards marriage equality, and this false compromise would do LGBT people no good whatsoever.

1: Why? Marriage is a human construct, why not replace it with another one?
2: Which is great.
3: Polygamy is just as valid a reason for marriage or an equivalent as a het or homo union in my opinion.
4: I'm not primarily looking at the LGBT community with this. If we got rid of marriage as an institution then it would free up a lot of other things to me. A contract based system would mean that people could pick and choose what bits they wanted.

1: Because you don't need to completely remove it. Just present the contract-based alternative for everyone.

[Fartsniffage]

Removing it as an institution would instantly grant everyone access to the same protections without having to go through the political fight.

By making sure that nobody has the right, sure.


However, as we've seen from a lot of civilized countries, it's not the end of the fucking world to go through that political fight.

People would still have the right. The right to enter into a contract is protected in the majority of countries and it may even open up a few rights to women in the places where they're still pretty oppressed.

I don't think this could ever happen but I'm coming more around to liking the idea in principle.

[Condunum]

1: Why? Marriage is a human construct, why not replace it with another one?
2: Which is great.
3: Polygamy is just as valid a reason for marriage or an equivalent as a het or homo union in my opinion.
4: I'm not primarily looking at the LGBT community with this. If we got rid of marriage as an institution then it would free up a lot of other things to me. A contract based system would mean that people could pick and choose what bits they wanted.

You do realize that the institution of marriage is a financial union as well, right? That financials are why people historically got married, right?

I'm assuming he's aware of that, considering the last sentence of 4.

[Luveria]

By making sure that nobody has the right, sure.


However, as we've seen from a lot of civilized countries, it's not the end of the fucking world to go through that political fight.

People would still have the right. The right to enter into a contract is protected in the majority of countries and it may even open up a few rights to women in the places where they're still pretty oppressed.

I don't think this could ever happen but I'm coming more around to liking the idea in principle.

You're coming around to liking the idea of denying people rights. All you're doing is preventing marriage equality, by advocating abolishing marriage.

[Condunum]

By making sure that nobody has the right, sure.


However, as we've seen from a lot of civilized countries, it's not the end of the fucking world to go through that political fight.

People would still have the right. The right to enter into a contract is protected in the majority of countries and it may even open up a few rights to women in the places where they're still pretty oppressed.

I don't think this could ever happen but I'm coming more around to liking the idea in principle.

Marriage should never be removed from government recognition, at least until whatever system you propose as an alternative has completely and fully replaced it.

[Geilinor]

By making sure that nobody has the right, sure.


However, as we've seen from a lot of civilized countries, it's not the end of the fucking world to go through that political fight.

People would still have the right. The right to enter into a contract is protected in the majority of countries and it may even open up a few rights to women in the places where they're still pretty oppressed.

I don't think this could ever happen but I'm coming more around to liking the idea in principle.

How would we manage the 1,100 benefits without marriage? 1,100 separate contracts is ridiculous and most people are not legally literate. The poor also may not be able to access a lawyer for those contracts. You don't need a lawyer to get married. The average person can figure out how to register for a marriage certificate. The average person cannot figure out how to get 1,100 contracts made or write their own marriage contract.

[Fartsniffage]

Removing it as an institution would instantly grant everyone access to the same protections without having to go through the political fight.

You're advocating something that isn't going to happen.

Because I actually give a fuck about equality unlike you, I want everyone to have the right to marry, instead of saying "hurr durr if we abolish marriage then we're all equal!" when I know it's impossible to abolish marriage at this point.

Plenty of people advocate things that aren't going to happen. Should we ban anarchists from the board?

The reasons I'm starting to come around to liking the idea of abolishing marriage are not purely about equality, although I'm pretty keen on that.

[Hushabagain]

People would still have the right. The right to enter into a contract is protected in the majority of countries and it may even open up a few rights to women in the places where they're still pretty oppressed.

I don't think this could ever happen but I'm coming more around to liking the idea in principle.

How would we manage the 1,100 benefits without marriage? 1,100 separate contracts is ridiculous and most people are not legally literate. The poor also may not be able to access a lawyer for those contracts. You don't need a lawyer to get married. The average person can figure out how to register for a marriage certificate. The average person cannot figure out how to get 1,100 contracts made or write their own marriage contract.

+1

[Luveria]

People would still have the right. The right to enter into a contract is protected in the majority of countries and it may even open up a few rights to women in the places where they're still pretty oppressed.

I don't think this could ever happen but I'm coming more around to liking the idea in principle.

How would we manage the 1,100 benefits without marriage? 1,100 separate contracts is ridiculous and most people are not legally literate. The poor also may not be able to access a lawyer for those contracts. You don't need a lawyer to get married. The average person can figure out how to register for a marriage certificate. The average person cannot figure out how to get 1,100 contracts made or write their own marriage contract.

It all seems like a very elaborate way of trying to avoid the issue of LGBT marriage equality.

[Geilinor]

How would we manage the 1,100 benefits without marriage? 1,100 separate contracts is ridiculous and most people are not legally literate. The poor also may not be able to access a lawyer for those contracts. You don't need a lawyer to get married. The average person can figure out how to register for a marriage certificate. The average person cannot figure out how to get 1,100 contracts made or write their own marriage contract.

It all seems like a very elaborate way of trying to avoid the issue of LGBT marriage equality.

It is. "Instead of expanding the definition of marriage to include more people, let's just ban it!" It's nothing more than a red herring.