They have a right not to be attacked for it, and discriminatory policy expressly banning their ability to have marriage creates attacks every single time, so the bare minimum of tolerance is necessary. Fun fact too, countries Ghana had a lot more of a “live and let live” policy less than a few years ago, though that changed as protests FROM AMERICAN HATE GROUPS created social unrest, we quite literally had far-right groups exporting hate and creating the conditions for large scale violence. I also stated that the UN is a sort of parliament-style governing body, not often making binding decisions, but able to create a system of countries pressuring one another in the UN forum, which the larger countries have been doing in an indirectly governing fashion, so in the most technical of ways, there is a government up there, and the big ones enforce human rights, alongside taking action that their citizens agree with, leading to a form of social progress towards making gay marriage a semi-enforced right. It’s a stretch for me to be making these logical arguments, but that’s how I view it.
@Patriot-#1776Constitution3mos3MO
Where do you think that right "not to be attacked for it" comes from? What authority are you appealing to, that's obviously higher than government?
@9CJ6CB63mos3MO
It came from the agreement of the United Nations, an organization representative of the nations of the world, the vast majority of which hold to a democratic-republic, with these rights being created and agreed upon by people, and enforced by governments, the same way as every human right, constitutional right, and expressed right out there. Human rights states no one should be violently hurt for an immutable aspect of oneself, that includes being gay, and the policies of Ghana are an extremely common, almost concrete, sign that they are willing to allow and accept violence against these mino… Read more
