Gay interest: Discussion v campaigning

[amateur51]

...at least this is a kindergarten free zone and we're spared his roses, crackers, yellow blobs, birds, beer mugs and anything daft he can find

If you like I'll make reference to you my little courgette if that will please you.

Honestly, attention-seeking in the ranks

[amateur51]

It's also quite clear that, in your case, the majority view is of little or no importance and 'the people' can go hang if their idea of morality doesn't coincide with your own.

You have assumed there is a majority on the basis of very little evidence scotty, precisely because it suits your book.

[amateur51]

However, all this is pretty much irrelevant ... it's still up to the Russians to frame their own laws, isn't it?

And up to citizens of the world to call them when their laws stink.

[scottycelt]

Oh dear scotty, how many times must I tell you about quoting from surveys without knowing a) the size of the sample and the sampling methods; and b) who paid for the survey?

I appreciate that you like to take things written in books as gospel (oops!) but you really do need to be more careful

Ah, you're now adopting the ahinton line of conveniently deciding to ignore the evidence, amsey ... if, thankfully, rather more concisely!

Significantly, no gay-rights group has disputed the findings of the poll (to the best of my knowledge).

It was organised by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center and you are absolutely right I need to be more careful.

The latest figure is actually 88% public support in favour of the new law. The 86% figure was taken from last year's poll.

Apologies.

[Richard Barrett]

Well you'd better tell Mr Barrett as he says you say you never got an answer!!

It's hardly surprising that I missed it in the midst of the endless miasma of obfuscation you surround yourself with...

[amateur51]

Ah, you're now adopting the ahinton line of conveniently deciding to ignore the evidence, amsey ... if, thankfully, rather more concisely!

Significantly, no gay-rights group has disputed the findings of the poll (to the best of my knowledge).

It was organised by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center and you are absolutely right I need to be more careful.

The latest figure is actually 88% public support in favour of the new law. The 86% figure was taken from last year's poll.

Apologies.

Eighty-eight per cent of 600 people isn't very representative, even you must concede scotty.

[scottycelt]

You were referring to Catholic Pride taking to the streets of Belfast ... .

Was I ... ?!!

Good Heavens, the amazing and wholly unexpected things one continues to learn about oneself on this forum ...

[scottycelt]

Eighty-eight per cent of 600 people isn't very representative, even you must concede scotty.

Twelve per cent of 600 people (assuming no 'don't knows') is a great deal less representative, even you must concede, amsey ...

[amateur51]

Twelve per cent of 600 people (assuming no 'don't knows') is a great deal less representative, even you must concede, amsey ...

But we need to know the sample size and the sampling method, otherwise it's worthless, whether it's 88% or 12% scotty - I realise that you're out of your depth but please try to take this seriously

[Pabmusic]

Really? Well, my idea of a "human right" is as defined by the "Universal [note the wording: not "universal apart from Scottycelt and Russians"] Declaration of Human Rights", adopted by the UN in 1948 and enshrined in international law in 1976, which was indeed intended explicitly to establish the definition of "human rights" as that phrase appears in the UN Charter which is binding on all member nations. It couldn't be much more clear.

Absolutely right. There is a fixed list of fundamental human rights, clearly listed. They are inalienable (acquired simply by being alive, and not subject to being taken away). Here they are: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Articles 2 and 7 seem especially relevant.

Those familiar with the European Convention on Human Rights will notice that the ECHR is based upon the UN Universal Declaration.

[Beef Oven!]

Absolutely right. There is a fixed list of fundamental human rights, clearly listed. They are inalienable (acquired simply by being alive, and not subject to being taken away). Here they are: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Articles 2 and 7 seem especially relevant.

Those familiar with the European Convention on Human Rights will notice that the ECHR is based upon the UN Universal Declaration.

There's no consensus on what 'human rights' are (except perhaps in the administrative/UN field). Marx and Nietzsche weren't keen on them, and contemporary scholars continue to discuss universality and the subjective nature of many of the developments in human rights thinking over the last 50 years.

[Pabmusic]

There's no consensus on what 'human rights' are (except perhaps in the administrative/UN field). Marx and Nietzsche weren't keen on them, and contemporary scholars continue to discuss universality and the subjective nature of many of the developments in human rights thinking over the last 50 years.

Well, in a sense I agree, which is why the UN issued this declaration in 1948 when it was founded. All UN members are signed up to it (including Russia) though there's no policing mechanism (as there is with the ECHR).

However, it is a public statement of what nations say they agree are unalienable rights (and, importantly, what they agreed at the end of the catastrophe of WW2 were unalienable rights). Its principles are also what much post-war human rights law concerns itself, although in fact most human rights law has come from the ECHR, through which the Universal Declaration has been filtered.

Thus it's rather more than an 'administrative' document.

[scottycelt]

Absolutely right. There is a fixed list of fundamental human rights, clearly listed. They are inalienable (acquired simply by being alive, and not subject to being taken away). Here they are: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Articles 2 and 7 seem especially relevant.

Those familiar with the European Convention on Human Rights will notice that the ECHR is based upon the UN Universal Declaration.

Thanks for that, Pab ... (as Ams might gratefully put it!)

I would have thought the 'right' with the greatest relevance to this discussion is Article 16 (3) which. like so many "answers" here, would appear to have wholly escaped the attention of our visually-challenged members. Let me assure them it does actually exist ... and here it is ...

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

• (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Crikey, no wonder that was missed!

So the Russian obviously people know a thing or two about 'universal human rights' as well, it seems, and need no lectures from outsiders, especially Western 'social liberals' with clear alternative agendas. The Russian Government is clearly acting in the spirit of the above declaration.

As I indicated previously, we could claim just about everything is a 'universal human right' especially on the grounds of freedom of speech alone. Of course we don't. We have laws against freedom of speech when it comes to race. We have forced valuable Catholic adoption agencies to close because the beliefs of those who ran them no longer fit in with the mandatory dogmas of modern liberal secularism. So much for 'human rights'!

Please ... no more pompous lecturing to the Russians or other members here about 'human rights'. The Russians don't want the sort of selective 'human rights' society we have in the West. They want their own which, of course, may well be just as carefully selective in the interpretation of what constitutes a 'universal human right' as ours.

For the umpteenth time, it is up to the Russians themselves to make the judgement on any apparent conflict on the issue of 'human rights' in Russia, not scottycelt, jean or even Mr Barrett.

Let The People Decide ... that 'right,' Mr Barrett?

[Pabmusic]

Thanks for that, Pab ... (as Ams might gratefully put it!)...

I'm sorry, Scotty, but you have a bad habit of looking only for things that support your point of view (typical Christian apologetics, if you don't mind my saying...). Of course the right to family life should be protected, but against those who want to destroy family life. You have given no evidence (and I suspect you couldn't anyway) that gays threaten family life at all. If you believe they do, please produce real evidence.

And stop talking about letting the Russians decide if you wouldn't say the same about Germany in the 1930s.

[scottycelt]

But we need to know the sample size and the sampling method, otherwise it's worthless, whether it's 88% or 12% scotty - I realise that you're out of your depth but please try to take this seriously

On the contrary, when your goodself suddenly dog-paddles into view I instinctively know I must be well and truly in the shallow end, amsey!