Do you believe in equality under the law for women and gays?
Do you believe in equality under the law for women and gays?
I do for gays but not for women and children.
When it comes to women and children, I think men are duty bound to put family duty and responsibilities above themselves and thus men should not consider themselves as equal to women and children.
Think in terms of the good logic of the law of the sea being applied to land.
Thoughts?
Regards
DL
yes
Side Score: 9
|
 |
no
Side Score: 9
|
|
|
|
|
Cartman The law does not put the equality law in the way you and I see things and that may add to horrendous number of fathers who become deadbeat dads. If the law was written more like what you and I see things, it could save a lot of marriages as the men might go into them with a clearer picture of their duty. Regards DL Side: yes
Hello DL: I might.. But, I don't quite understand your question.. In any case, I think the 14th Amendment covers it, and I like its language better: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." I'd LOVE to discuss children's rights, because I'm all over the board on that.. For example, I DO believe a cop or a school CAN'T search children.. That's just one.. excon Side: yes
excon "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" Many of your laws go against the principles above via laws that you must follow so it all depends on the interpretation and emphasis you use. Pot is a good one which shows a relatively harmless intoxicant as compared to alcohol yet it is illegal while alcohol is not even though it creates a lot more harm. Not to mention tobacco. Taxes also deprive you of your property. As to your example of a cop searching a child. A cop can search you anywhere and any time should he choose to do so, so to exempt children would be foolish, especially given the kill/murder rate in the U.S. This O.P. was written more to get opinions on gay rights and misogyny. Regards DL Side: yes
Modern families and modern companies are led by people of all genders and walks of life. The belief that men have the primary duty is a holdover from centuries of only men being allowed to do it. And in the present many of those men are deadbeats, abandoning their families and/or failing to provide sufficiently. Also there are families where the men are doing their best but the wife earns more. It's a blend. To say equal opportunity and equal respect should not exist is to admit you're a good ol' boy. I saw a reference to children in a response and children truly are different due to not being legal adults. Side: yes
Grenache You make a decent point. Basically we are mammalian animals and in all other mammalian animals, the larger and stronger usually instinctively is the one who steps up when protecting family is an issue. Do you not think we should be following natural law? Regards DL Side: yes
Basically we are mammalian animals and in all other mammalian animals, the larger and stronger usually instinctively is the one who steps up when protecting family is an issue. We no longer live in caves and most of us in the developed world don't live side-by-side, and having to contend, with wild animals. Unless you're in a very dangerous community, or a country like Nigeria or India where there is a real threat of rape, abduction or murder to your family, there is not enough physical threat in the modern world to justify needing to put the strongest member of your family in the role of "protector". In other mammals, it is quite common for the mother to be the protector as the father often leaves after impregnating the female. An example of this is the stoat. Side: no
1
point
I want equal rights for women and gays. That's why I attest Islam. You'd think liberals would foam at the mouth towards Islam, but alas, they never make sense and are never consistent. The very things they hate are okay if you belong to a certain race, sex or group. Side: yes
brontoraptor I think the left did not really know how far left they were going and how badly they were eroding the middle by going that far. I think they will learn to curb their political correctness and start calling a spade a spade soon as I think they have learned that they have to appease the right a bit more so that they do not have to go as far as a, yuk, Trump. The left went too far left and basically created a hole for Trump to fall into. Regards DL Side: yes
It would be unfair to deny women the same opportunities that are given to men, that is just a fact. You might argue that women are traditionally housewives, but we don't live in the past anymore. We live in a time where we don't need more people (there are BILLIONS OF US), so it isn't required for a woman to take on that role. In addition, women have already shown they can take on the same responsibilities as men, so what is the point of denying them their rights? They are a part of the workforce, they are taxpayers, and (in case there is a war) they can fight for the country too. They make up half the population, so why ignore the various benefits they bring to society? As for gay people, the only thing that makes them different from a straight person is who they are attracted to. I'd like to refer to this video (1) which debunks the major arguments against gay marriage. Gay people can also provide to society in the same ways I explained for women, so there isn't a point in repeating that. Sources: Side: yes
|
Neither of them should be discriminated against. But they are not and should not be considered equal. For example, male homosexuals should not recieve women health benefits and have "periods" leave. The reason I didn't put a lot into my answer was because I was (in part) just trolling. But this was well deserved, because the debate topic is not well enough formulated. Side: yes
|
