Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Uruguay, a shining example to the rest of the world.

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    dublinbhoy88
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 503 ✭✭✭dublinbhoy88


    Henlars67 wrote: »
    I always ask this, and I've yet to get an answer. Why do people think that making drug use legal will result in increased usage?[/Q UOTE] the anti brigade are scraping the barrel for excuses at this stage,they will eventually put away their cardigans, wake up and smell the coffee.


  • Options
    #93
    eireannBEAR
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,713 ✭✭✭eireannBEAR


    Q:What you call a crippled uruguayan...

    A:paraguayan!


  • Options
    #94
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    Mr Benevolent wrote: »
    'without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion'

    Where is sexuality mentioned?

    I was responding to a post which seemed to refer to the UDHR to back up an assertion that there was no "right to marry" (no reference to same-sex marriage).

    The absence of express wording referring to same sex marriage in the UDHR is neither surprising (given the time it was drafted and the fact that it is a work of political compromise) nor determinative of the matter.

    There are many rights recognised by law notwithstanding that they were not expressly enumerated in any constitution or declaration.

    Similarly there are many instances of the courts upholding a denial of what we now believe to be fundamental human rights.

    The UDHR is essentially the minimum that could be agreed by the UN at the time of its drafting. It is not and was never intended to be exhaustive.

    Indeed, it doesn't even define what form of marriage that right applies to - e.g. monogamous or polygamous marriage. It certainly doesn't preclude same sex marriage as a right.

    However if it is accepted there is a right to marry for some and that there is a right to equality for all, one has to question whether there is any reason why that right should not be extended to cover the rest of society.

    Uruguay, which is ostensibly the subject of this thread, has determined that there is no good reason for not so extending it.


  • Options
    #95
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    Just a question.. how does allowing drug use equate to a human/equal right exactly?

    The argument would be that it would fall under the banner of rights to privacy and personal autonomy. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home should be their own business, etc.


  • Options
    #96
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for equal rights and would not object to gay marriage but I've never understood why it is always held up as the ultimate litmus test for a progressive liberal society.

    Surely in that sort of society a mechanism by which people fortunate enough to love and be loved by another person wouldn't exist to bestow extra privileges on those compared to others less fortunate. In addition marriage has always been historically used as a discriminatory tool - structured in such a way to hinder the poor from marrying or to preserve social hierarchy.

    Adoption and guardianship rights are far more worthy of attention than trying to fix everything through the one-size fits all marriage solution.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    1ZRed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,293 ✭✭✭1ZRed


    Jimoslimos wrote: »
    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for equal rights and would not object to gay marriage but I've never understood why it is always held up as the ultimate litmus test for a progressive liberal society.
    Because it's pretty much the last biggest breach of human rights there is currently. Men and women have been made equal, "white superiority" has been abolished, now it's time to level the playing field for anyone who isn't straight. It's held so highly because it's very important and a move in the right direction.
    Surely in that sort of society a mechanism by which people fortunate enough to love and be loved by another person wouldn't exist to bestow extra privileges on those compared to others less fortunate. In addition marriage has always been historically used as a discriminatory tool - structured in such a way to hinder the poor from marrying or to preserve social hierarchy.

    Adoption and guardianship rights are far more worthy of attention than trying to fix everything through the one-size fits all marriage solution.

    Don't care, it's a great place to start. Both adoption and guardianship can be sorted by allowing same-sex couples to adopt as well as get married. Two birds, one stone.


  • Options
    #98
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    1ZRed wrote: »
    Because it's pretty much the last biggest breach of human rights there is currently. Men and women have been made equal, "white superiority" has been abolished, now it's time to level the playing field for anyone who isn't straight. It's held so highly because it's very important and a move in the right direction.
    Really? I hate myself for suggesting it but...first world problems? Men and women are far from equal in most countries and most of the world's wealth is concentrated in the hands of a tiny percentage of a few rich white men. I don't disagree that equality for gay and lesbian people should be tackled alongside these other problems but to suggest gay marriage is the pressing issue of our times is hyperbole and a touch self-indulgent.

    I'd argue that the issue of gay marriage is closer to being a civil right rather than a human one. Doesn't make it unworthy of attention but let's try cut the exaggeration.
    1ZRed wrote: »
    Don't care, it's a great place to start. Both adoption and guardianship can be sorted by allowing same-sex couples to adopt as well as get married. Two birds, one stone.
    A crude solution to a complex issue. People should have the same rights if they choose not to marry. Impossible at the moment regardless of whether they are straight or same-sex couples.


  • Options
    #99
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,053 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    1ZRed wrote: »
    Because it's pretty much the last biggest breach of human rights there is currently.

    No no no no no no no no no no. I VEHEMENTLY disagree with this. It most certainly is not. There are so many breaches of human rights going on in the world on an hourly basis.

    It is important but please do not under any circumstances trivilalise massive human rights abuses like rape, genocide, racism, torture, extreme poverty etc by overstating its importance.

    There are hourly breaches of human rights in Ireland and across the world.

    I really really wish people in favour of marriage equality wouldnt over exaggerate its importance and completely trivialise so many other human rights breaches and abuses.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #100
    Norwesterner
    Registered Users Posts: 725 ✭✭✭Norwesterner


    Back when we thought we were the 2nd richest country in the World, we only spoofed about doing this kind of stuff.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8309583.stm
    Yes, a Latin American country can afford free laptops for every student.
    Instead we blew it all buying fields from farmers, and thus our kids remain in portacabins reading overpriced books.


Advertisement