Isinbayeva - homophobic?

flashback wrote:

Please explain this thinking. How are women/minorities like gays?

What don't you understand? It is really a very simple concept.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all (people) are created equal.[/quote]

It's not a very simple concept at all. Two of those are innate qualities. One of them is a behavior. They are nothing like each other.

Isin Fan wrote:

I used to be all in favour of gay rights but when someone with a butt that sweet is not; it could swing me.

the law isn't banning homosexuality, just flagrant displays; translation: do what you want but don't flaunt it. Yes, this will bother many who think a gay parade is the epitome of acceptance (many of my gay friends actually avoid the local, big city parade as it's 'too gay')

but it's not really putting anyone out. I wouldn't want my kids to see blatant hetro displays either.

For those who think it is all about religion; I am a card carrying atheist who doesn't give a rats a$% about bible stories.

And what's a "flagrant display"? A couple kissing? I presume you don't have a television?

"Because you think that something should be a universal human right does not mean that it is a universal human right."

Not what I'm saying. The international law against genocide has VAST global support. Extensive groups from both East and West have worked together for many years to establish the right. They have worked with governents around the world. The vast majority of the world recognize and support this right. Just because a few people do not accepet the law does not invalidate the law.

"In order for something to be a universal human right, it has to be universally recognized as a human right."

I disagree. If the vast majority of the world across all cultures support an international human right, I consider it a universal right - even if a tiny village in Africa disagree with it. Your position seems to be that a law is only a law if an entity agrees with it. That is absolutely absurd.

"Your understanding of the Rwandan events is incorrect."

How so? The International Criminal Tribunal arrested and persecuted Rwandan officials for breaking the international law against genocide in an international court of law. Dozens of individuals were convicted and imprisoned. This is a clear implementation of international law. What would you call it?

"International laws are only laws where they are recognized. You cannot punish me in the US for a crime that is only illegal in China. That is not "justice of international law".

Your key term is: "a crime that is only illegal in China". If it is only illegal in China, then by definition it is not an international law.

If you engage in genocide, you can be punished under international law regardless of the country you commit the act.

Mr. Smithers wrote:

Your position seems to be that a law is only a law if an entity agrees with it. That is absolutely absurd.

Your key term is: "a crime that is only illegal in China". If it is only illegal in China, then by definition it is not an international law.

Which is it? These two statements of yours are in direct conflict.

Just because a vast majority of countries agree to a particular law does not mean that that is a universal international law. What it actually means is that particular law is only recognized in those vast countries. Countries are free to pick and choose which international laws they accept and do not accept. International laws are treaties. They only apply where they apply.

There is no majority rule. If a country doesn't recognize a particular law then it is indeed invalid within that country. Every country does this. Even the US doesn't accept every international law.

So if a certain country decides that they want no part of an international law against genocide, and they decide to begin systematically killing an ethnic group within that country, you think they have the right to do so and should not be interfered with. This must be your stance, because if you think the country should be forced to stop this genocide, you would think that international law should apply to this country that has not agreed to the law. You are a despicable human being.

Sure, I'm angry. And I know why. Because a bunch of superstitous fools have written laws that persecute & oppress people with modern attitudes. You may not have brought up religion in your argument, but it is clearly implied. It is the only spoken objection to gay rights there is. (The unspoken objection is self-loathing due to latent homosexualtity, which is easily identifiable when guys go on about how gross & unnatural homosexual sex is.)

Gay rights just happens to be the platform for the culture battle between progressive & regressive ideas these days. But there are many other human rights abuses going on out there, including the appalling incarceration rates in the US due to a failed drug policy, Muslim abuse of women, etc. So yes, I'm angry, and I suspect I will stay angry until the sky-daddy worshippers decide to stop jamming their superstitions down everyone else's throat.

YES SHE IS HOMOPHOBIC END OF THREAD .THANKS FOR YOUR OPINIONS.

Look at all the degraded bodies that suffer from AIDS etc..

Look at the high suicide rates.

Spiritually - God can't dwell in unclean temples.

Every one is a sinner but Christ also said to sin no more and to be perfect as His Heavenly Father is perfect

All men, not all innate qualities. The qualities don't matter. Everyone should she be entitled to the same rights and freedoms. Even if homosexuality is a choice (which i am confident it isn't) it still shouldn't matter.

rkffi wrote:

flashback wrote:

Please explain this thinking. How are women/minorities like gays?

What don't you understand? It is really a very simple concept.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all (people) are created equal.

It's not a very simple concept at all. Two of those are innate qualities. One of them is a behavior. They are nothing like each other.[/quote]

Look at all the brains twisted by religion.

TcepseR wrote:

So if a certain country decides that they want no part of an international law against genocide, and they decide to begin systematically killing an ethnic group within that country, you think they have the right to do so and should not be interfered with. This must be your stance, because if you think the country should be forced to stop this genocide, you would think that international law should apply to this country that has not agreed to the law. You are a despicable human being.

At no point have I said how I think things should or should not be. You are getting upset all by yourself.

-----------------------------------------------------------

gigolo Wrote: In what way does it degrade those who practice it? I don't think any of my gay friends feel their sex lives degrade them.

As for being sinful.. that is an opinion based on your personal beliefs. Isn't everyone a sinner?

---------------------------------------------------------

Look at all the degraded bodies that suffer from AIDS etc..

Look at the high suicide rates.

Spiritually - God can't dwell in unclean temples.

Every one is a sinner but Christ also said to sin no more and to be perfect as His Heavenly Father is perfect

no, not really! wrote:

All men, not all innate qualities. The qualities don't matter. Everyone should she be entitled to the same rights and freedoms. Even if homosexuality is a choice (which i am confident it isn't) it still shouldn't matter.

No, that's not how that works. One is a behavior, the other two are not. They are completely different issues when talking about historical civil rights.

If a behavior is harmful, then it should not have the same rights and freedoms. A race or gender is not a behavior so it can't cause harm so it should have no restrictions.

So you decide if a type behaviour is harmful to a consenting adult?

fibokbv wrote:

countries are free to create whatever laws they want

Governments always create laws by force, and force isn't freedom, so I wouldn't say they are free to do so. They do by force, and against the will of the people.

your aren't very smart wrote:

Oh come on...until 30 years ago...hell 2 years ago in a lot of circles...homophobia and rampant discrimination against gays was AMERICAN culture too. We grew up and are changing. So can they.

America is going morally backwards. Russia is going morally forwards. In time, as Khrushchev told John Kennedy, they will indeed "bury us."

Right and wrong is not ours to determine. The distinction is God's, and his alone. When man can make a universe and divide the light from the darkness, he can decide right from wrong. Until then, while we are living in God's universe and breathing his air, the rules are his. We can vote and legislate against his standards all we want, but they remain the law of any land.

Both nations and individuals are as subject to God's moral laws as they are to the laws of physics. It may take moral law a little longer than gravity to catch up to us, but over time spiritual principles are just as relentlessly and consistently enforced as physical principles are.

Typical ..................when someone has an opposing view, your the enemy, with all the vile that comes with it. Doesn't say much for the way you were raised.

Homosexuality isn't a behavior. It is a sexual orientation. You are born with it, like you are born with a race and a gender. Still, as far as rights go, even if it is a behavior, bays should still have the same rights as someone who behaves differently than they do.How is homosexuality harmful? Please back up your claims with research.

rkffi wrote:

no, not really! wrote:

All men, not all innate qualities. The qualities don't matter. Everyone should she be entitled to the same rights and freedoms. Even if homosexuality is a choice (which i am confident it isn't) it still shouldn't matter.

No, that's not how that works. One is a behavior, the other two are not. They are completely different issues when talking about historical civil rights.

If a behavior is harmful, then it should not have the same rights and freedoms. A race or gender is not a behavior so it can't cause harm so it should have no restrictions.