Dec 14, 17 / Cap 12, 01 10:40 UTC
Gay rights ¶
Could we please specifically mention gay peoples in the constitutional areas dealing in equal rights. To allow no question now or 1000 years from now!
Dec 19, 17 / Cap 17, 01 19:53 UTC
To be fair, unless it says so, someone could well make the argument that it does not mean equal rights for sexual minorities.
Religious Fundamentalists have been using such logic and arguments to exclude and oppress the world for a very long time.
Dec 19, 17 / Cap 17, 01 19:55 UTC
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not mention this directly either.
In a similar way to the Asgardian Constitution, the UDHR could get around to it through general means:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
I will have to add this to my Rewrite of the Constitution.
Dec 19, 17 / Cap 17, 01 20:02 UTC
How does this look to cover all sexual minorities:
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as gender identity, sexual orientation, sexual identity, romantic identity, familial arrangement, or other similar traits and distinctions.
Dec 19, 17 / Cap 17, 01 20:33 UTC
how about all humans are treated equal no matter what their differences or similarities. That covers every thing.
Dec 19, 17 / Cap 17, 01 21:33 UTC
I agree Joshua! Otherwise i want a clause that states all mixed race people that have balding brown hair hazel eyes that are ambidextrous that are taller than 5'5" and less than 5'7" that eat meat and are male that just so happens to like my little pony because of being brainwashed by two girls aged 6 and 13. that owns two guinea pigs, two cats one dog and lives in a town with a pop. no greater than 310 "some sheep may have been counted in that number" that is from California but now lives in middle america Iowa. that also likes very fast import sports cars and likes to tinker with stuff , garden and works in a hospital. to be specifically included into the Constitution as well ! see kinda silly isnt it?
Mar 4, 18 / Ari 07, 02 23:53 UTC
I'm not sure I'd agree with any law enshrining any group's right to do something. The state, in my view, must remain out of people's personal lives, neither disallowing someone from doing something, until such time where it can be demonstrated to be detrimental to society, nor forcing someone to respect someone else's views, choices, or sexual dispositions.
By this I mean that, as a person, you do no deserve respect simply because you are a human. You are free to do as you please, and do whatever you please, so long as it is not antithetical to someone else's well-being.
TL:DR You can be gay, but you can't force someone to not publicly disagree with your sexual disposition.