curl-6 said:
Marriage doesn't need protection. Homosexuality does not threaten it. |
I would beg to differ. What you are doing is re-defining marriage and rights to whatever someone personally feels. Why not allow multiple wives and husbands? Why not allow marriage between animals and humans? Why not with children under the age of 13? Why not with anything. If you re-define basic rights as anyone could do whatever they like because it's right than you have to question why can't just create my own rights. Why are your rights more true than mine? Why is anything not a right. Your left with everything relative and nothing meanings anything because it's meaningless like Nietzsche would say.
Is human rights a man made idea in which is completely subjective and if so why not just say your opinion is as neutral as the opposite opinion? Example, did the nazi do anything wrong because they believe humans rights were for there specific people oppose to you who felt the opposite? Is it just a difference in moral opinions on human rights?
"Excuse me sir, I see you have a weapon. Why don't you put it down and let's settle this like gentlemen" ~ max
