And bananas too.

If they ask for voting rights in a way that we could understand, than yes.

If they're not interested in voting, and I'm sure they're not, then there's no reason to FORCE them to have equal rights

By the way , I stopped on Africa, because I was talking about human kind.

:P

But banans do try to vote, bending either to the left, right or forwards (i.e. the progressive party). The question is, should we give them voting rights in their destinating countries where sold, or just where they grew up?

As I've said, if you ask them and they respond, then why the hell not? ;p

Maybe the banana by growing up is just showing you its middle finger? You never bothered to ask and you interpret their voice for them :P Maybe they just want you to leave them the fuck alone? You can't answer for them :P

You mean to say that all men hate women?

Two ends of the "should a man be a feminist"-spectrum anyway. Some female feminists say that men can't be that even if they wanted, some others say only sexist misogynists don't consider themselves feminists.

About the pointsof the first post):

1) There's certainly no hierarchy, but some scientists still say there are minor differences between "races", like asians being a little more intelligent logically-wise, and the black-skinned being slightly worse at that. I say this is very hard to evaluate nowadays, though, considering most black people were historically left on the poor side of society, where they very rarely get the same level of education of rich white people. Either way, these differences, if they exist, should be very minor, and certainly not a valid reason to treat anyone differently - there are many examples proving that anyone can become something in life. Today's racists act based more on ignorance than on anything else.

2) Yes - one of the best things to ever happen to western (and eastern, where it applies) civilization.

3) The notion of global waming being cause by men is still widely disputed, specially on the internet. With that said, I think there are enough other reasons to care about pollution. Just look at China.

4) Agreed. The debate is now about civil liberties rather than whether it's bad or not,

5) I agree. I still see way too many politicians, both here and in the USA, being openly homophobic.

About the liberty of cults, intolerance only generates more intolerance, and that's what the big amount of islamic extremists are doing for themselves. The bad part is that it's largely caused by christian extremists, who are just as bad.

War is seen as much worse than ever before, but still not enough, seeing as Bush got most of the american population to agree with invading Iraq. On the good side, a much smaller amount of soldiers had to die for people to change their minds. Too bad it was too late. And it doesn't look like things in Iraq will get that much better as a consequence.

Agree with all that comes after this.

Politicians? Dude, visit Poland. There are like 70% of people against gay marriage, and around 80-85% against child adoption rights.

Oh, and many still find correlations between being gay and being pedophile. Like being gay means youre likely to be pedophile. Yes.

I don't have statistics from here, but I see the Catholic Church has way too much power on both our countries. Most Brazilians, however, just ignore whatever the church says. The real problem is the growth of other, more fanatical churches, though. Almost every religion-oriented politician comes from them, using the ignorant as a guaranteed electorate.

But we have a huge differential here: the media is, somehow, mostly pro-gay rights. By consequence, so are many Brazilians, even against their own religion.

Reading the above I'd like to ask you, and everyone else:

Is being against gay marriage and/or against gay couples adopting being homophobic?

I can't see any other explanation.

Bullshits like "sanctity of marriage" are used only as smoke screens.

Being against gay marriage is the same thing as being against "mixed race" marriage not so long time ago. Same fucking thing

And about adopting children - I think it's the parents will to decide. If they want to give their child to gay couple, nobody should forbid that just because they are gay.

And you can't really stop two lesbians from having a child.

How the hell did you end up getting that conclusion from what I said??

What I meant is that it's that women that support that only females can be feminists, are relatively easy to slip to the "anyone not supporting us, hates us" rhetoric.

They are not wildly different ideas. One is extreme, the other is even more extreme. I have a feeling that women that consider themselves feminists have a broader spectrum of ideas to ascribe to.

Simply by putting together "men can't be feminists" and "anyone who doesn't consider him-/herself a feminist hates women", as you suggested they'd usually coincide. If someone feels both are true at the same time, that leads to an idea of all men hating women (or at least being against the gender equality).

Maybe you meant something completely different, but that's what you get if you combine the two, I wouldn't combine them, because I feel they are pretty much the opposite ideas: one says that men shouldn't even try to be feminists (because you can't be a feminist without a vagina), while the other says that all men and women should be feminists because otherwise they would be against women (or gender equality).

They are pretty much the total opposites in the "should a man be a feminist?"-spectrum. I have absolutely no idea why you feel they are even in the same ballpark. Think it over.

But yes, I am sure there are even more ideas among people who consider themselves "feminists", whatever that means to anyone.

I have to agree with Keeveek there. I find it funny when people say "I don't have anything against gay people, I don't mistreat then, but I'm against gay marriage and adoption". If you have nothing against them, then what reason is there to limit their civic rights? If you think their existence and just allowing them to be has a bad influence on society, then you just are against them.

It is just a pretty bad disguise for homophobia.

One thing that we all agree with is that Roman 5 is completely right as always.

Thank you for your time and attention.





Ok i'm abusing this joke, i promise i'll stop.

I feel lucky never having met a single person that has that kind of thinking.

Please don't! :)

Yes... let this be a lesson to you.