"There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation" -Pierre Trudeau.
What if you are getting up to highly illegal stuff in your bedroom, involving drugs or abuse for example ??
Dubz
Not the context in which it was said.
Aha, so a person only takes what they want from it ?? It's open to interpretation
This is exactly what I was saying about drawing lines.
Dubz
The quote is from the then Justice Minister, and future Prime Minster as a response to the recently changed divorce laws, and decriminilization of abortion and homosexuality in the 60s.
That's what I take from it.
Dubz, yes...the people have voted, but I agree with Ale that when it comes to BASIC rights like equality, that shouldn't be up for a vote. If it says "all men are created equal"...that's it. Period. We are all equal and should have the same rights.
But some people would argue that statement "all men are created equal" isn't true as a gay man is not a proper man. And even though I do agree with you that everyone should have the same basic rights regardless of any colour creed sexuality age or any other criteria. Where do we draw the line? There is already a problem with affirmative action.
for example- kids are extremely impressionable and while I have no problem with telling them that there is nothing wrong with having two Dads or two Moms, should it be encouraged or promoted ?
The problem I have with a certain area of the gay community is that it's got nothing to do with genetics or hormones but it's a lifestyle choice, it's attention seeking, it's being different for the sake of it, this generally happens with men more than women, but I mean seriously can a man not be in love with another man without developing effeminate tendancies, like a squeeky voice or the other thing were Gay men think it's pefectly ok to be extremely crude and disgusting about sex and in particular women's genitalia ?? If a straight man talks like this he's just a dirty , filthy disgusting pervert but because the perpretrator is gay it's ok, why because he's not a threat, If anyone(regardless of sexuality, colour or creed) speaks this way in frnt of Dee they are liable to a quick warning followed by a belt to the mouth if it persists.
Dubz
I'm not gay, so I can't say whether or not people are born that way, or if it's an environmental thing/lifestyle choice. It's probably both. However, I don't feel like it was a CHOICE for me to be attracted to men. That's just the way I am.
I'm sure there are some people out there who have issues and act gay and flamboyant just to be different and seek attention, but the majority of gay people are just normal folks who happen to like the same sex. And as far as your comments on gay people who are crude and disgusting about sex, there are gay AND straight people like this and they're all arse holes for acting that way in public, lol.
last i heard, they were still deciding whether or not all those people that were previously married were going to be forced into annullment.
Stupid.
and it passed by what...2%?
it's ridiculous.
And i saw last night that you can be fired in 31 states for being gay. WHAT?
There's a court case coming on in FInland, where a freshly appointed editor of a newspaper was fired before she even started her job. The reason given was a lack of confidnce, but the most likely reason was the fact that she lives with a woman in a realtionship, and the religious readers of the paper wouldn't have taken that too kindly.
By law that would be illegal and discrimination. The case will keep a lot of tabloid journalists busy.
I think what makes the passage of Prop 8 particularly scary is that it is CHANGING the constitution, the very bedrock of our democracy, to LIMIT rights which is in direct opposition to its original purpose which was to ENSURE rights. In this case, you have a slim majority wanting to limit the rights of a minority. It would be a very small leap to further ammend the constitution to next define marriage has being between one white man and one white woman. It seems preposterous but it's entirely possible when you allow a simple majority to amend the constitution.
"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." --Thomas Jefferson
I think what makes the passage of Prop 8 particularly scary is that it is CHANGING the constitution, the very bedrock of our democracy, to LIMIT rights which is in direct opposition to its original purpose which was to ENSURE rights. In this case, you have a slim majority wanting to limit the rights of a minority. It would be a very small leap to further ammend the constitution to next define marriage has being between one white man and one white woman. It seems preposterous but it's entirely possible when you allow a simple majority to amend the constitution.
Basic rights are open to interpretation, as your example suggests, like the right to bear arms, how about the right of a person to walk through a rich neighbourhood without being gunned down ? The right of a citizen to believe whatever he/she wants only to have those beliefs taken away from them by laws going against them?
Not to mention the fact that the constitution was drafted 300 years ago by men who could ot envisage in their wildest drams the world in which we live today, and if a week is a long time in politics...
It reminds me of when the extreme right guy got in in France or Italy or somewhere, All the lefties and Liberals over Europe were in uproar "You can't do that" was the cry, but hang on a minute is that not what a democracy is, The people vote the people have spoken.
Dubz
Hello mate.
Could be logical and as clear as that but wasn't. Democracy of course is supposedly led by the people/voters. What happened in 2002 in France was the the left wing leaders didn't unite as they normally would have and should have which enabled the National Front to arrive 2nd. The electoral system is in two rounds in France for the Presidential and for the final round the National Front leader faced Chirac. Most people in the first assumed that the Socialists leader Jospin would get in the second round against Chirac and took it for granted. They wanted to use their vote on the first round to express their 'rebellion' (so french) and voted for a lot of minor alternative leader. That dilluted the votes and enabled the right extremists to get in second and Jospin 3rd. After that everybody was well pissed off and particularly with themselves. As for example voted Green and cried the night we discovered the results.
HOpe all is good your end.
