A BBC presenter has told TV viewers that he carried out a mercy killing on a former lover who was suffering from AIDS.
Ray Gosling, 70, revealed last night that he had smothered the unnamed partner as he lay in hospital 'in terrible, terrible pain'
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0216/goslingr.html
Tough call?
AM I stealing longrunsthefox's thunder here? He loves these moral dilema threads.
It's murder zap, no matter what way you look at it. There is no law in the UK which permits euthanasia so yer man Gosling took things into his own hands and killed someone
I don't disagree but is it muder when it's done with the intent of helping the victim?
He has been scooped today
It's murder in the eyes of the law, but I wouldn't want him thrown in jail. I've sympathy for people in that situation
Theres nothing to see here ......ardmhachaabu has called it in black and white....move on people :-\
Doesn't sound like assisted suicide, the guy would need to have started smothering himself and got gosling to finish the job for it to fall into that category.
Technically its probably murder but he'll never be charged for it, they don't have a name for the 'victim' and they could never determine if this action actually caused the death or whether the terminally ill man died of natural causes.
As for assisited suicide i think individuals should be allowed to determine how they die and if they want family members to assist them then they shouldn't be prosecuted. Legally the state wants to own your life and death, morally the church want to own it, i say stuff them it belongs to the individual and if anyone should have a say in the matter it should be loved ones and family rather than lawyers and priests.
There is a bit of doubt in the UK today as if this incident ever happened. It was discussed on Pat Kenny earlier.
Quote from: An Gaeilgoir on February 17, 2010, 12:28:05 PM
There is a bit of doubt in the UK today as if this incident ever happened. It was discussed on Pat Kenny earlier.
Thought it was a bit sensationalist myself
Also had the same feeling that it was makey uppey.
As to the central point in this thread - I doubt that any of us would know what we would really do in that situation unless you were in it.
Sure didn't Dot Cotton kill Ethel in a mercy killing and get away with it.
Quote from: give her dixie on February 17, 2010, 01:31:17 PM
Sure didn't Dot Cotton kill Ethel in a mercy killing and get away with it.
What happened her little Willy too ???
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 17, 2010, 09:33:30 AM
It's murder zap, no matter what way you look at it. There is no law in the UK which permits euthanasia so yer man Gosling took things into his own hands and killed someone
Even if there was a law it is still murder. Some countries permit it but it is still taking someones life so it's murder
If someone is suffering badly and wants to die it's a kind and selfless act to help them. You are putting your own future at risk in order to help someone you love. The people who call it murder - what would you do if someone you loved was in horrific pain and wanted to die?
I'm not talking about the BBC presenter case here; just making a general point.
Quote from: Massey-135 on February 17, 2010, 10:35:05 AM
It's murder in the eyes of the law, but I wouldn't want him thrown in jail. I've sympathy for people in that situation
I wouldn't throw him in jail either, I would have a big burly policeman throw a pillow over his head and see how he liked it. That would sort all this bull shit out in no time at all.
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 17, 2010, 02:04:44 PM
If someone is suffering badly and wants to die it's a kind and selfless act to help them. You are putting your own future at risk in order to help someone you love. The people who call it murder - what would you do if someone you loved was in horrific pain and wanted to die?
I'm not talking about the BBC presenter case here; just making a general point.
Nobody wants to die but you can not go around having people throw pillows over peoples heads and say ah they were going to die anyway.
There has to be a line drawn in relation to these matters and when your bit on the side is dying that does not entitle you to end their life on request. nobody knows if he is making this up about actually doing it or if he did do it whether the man asked him to do it or not.
Quote from: Capt Pat on February 17, 2010, 02:27:58 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on February 17, 2010, 02:04:44 PM
If someone is suffering badly and wants to die it's a kind and selfless act to help them. You are putting your own future at risk in order to help someone you love. The people who call it murder - what would you do if someone you loved was in horrific pain and wanted to die?
I'm not talking about the BBC presenter case here; just making a general point.
Nobody wants to die but you can not go around having people throw pillows over peoples heads and say ah they were going to die anyway.
There has to be a line drawn in relation to these matters and when your bit on the side is dying that does not entitle you to end their life on request. nobody knows if he is making this up about actually doing it or if he did do it whether the man asked him to do it or not.
That's why I said I wasn't referring to this particular case but making a general point about euthanasia, which I firmly believe should be legalised.
As said before we can all talk about the rights and wrongs of this but none of us really know how we would react in a situation like that. Id like to think if someone i loved was in terrible pain and begging me to end their life to spare them any more pain that i would do it. In a situation like that id find it harder to live with not killing then if that makes any kind of sense.
Its hard for a lot of people to make calls on issues like these - especially where emotions are involved.
Of course if a loved one was suffering you would want to end that suffering - but it doesn't take away from the fact that you just killed a person.
Call it mercy killing or whatever you want - its still killing and that's wrong.
Quote from: tyrone girl on February 17, 2010, 05:25:47 PM
As said before we can all talk about the rights and wrongs of this but none of us really know how we would react in a situation like that. Id like to think if someone i loved was in terrible pain and begging me to end their life to spare them any more pain that i would do it. In a situation like that id find it harder to live with not killing then if that makes any kind of sense.
Kinda sums up how I feel about it too
Quote from: The Iceman on February 17, 2010, 05:30:41 PM
Its hard for a lot of people to make calls on issues like these - especially where emotions are involved.
Of course if a loved one was suffering you would want to end that suffering - but it doesn't take away from the fact that you just killed a person.
Call it mercy killing or whatever you want - its still killing and that's wrong.
I believe it is killing
I dont believe it is wrong - and I think that person will be welcomed into heaven.
Quote from: Celt_Man on February 17, 2010, 01:07:03 PM
As to the central point in this thread - I doubt that any of us would know what we would really do in that situation unless you were in it.
I'm certain I wouldn't' smoother someone with a pillow!
What sort of a society allows you to put an animal out of its misery but not a human?
Quote from: no mo do yakamo on February 17, 2010, 06:05:04 PM
What sort of a society allows you to put an animal out of its misery but not a human?
one where humans can't be trusted to act with good intentions when it comes to killing other humans!
Not all could be trusted ..you're right there....but there are plenty could be
Thats why proper systems would be needed to ensure proper controls
Quote from: Puckoon on February 17, 2010, 05:52:07 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 17, 2010, 05:30:41 PM
Its hard for a lot of people to make calls on issues like these - especially where emotions are involved.
Of course if a loved one was suffering you would want to end that suffering - but it doesn't take away from the fact that you just killed a person.
Call it mercy killing or whatever you want - its still killing and that's wrong.
I believe it is killing
I dont believe it is wrong - and I think that person will be welcomed into heaven.
puck, I don't get this. I honestly don't understand how you can say it's killing but that it is not wrong
Well it is ending someone elses life therefore its killing. Maybe theres a better word, but I dont know it yet.
Theres lots of different types of killing. Killing in self defence, unlawful killing and then killing with the intent of murder IMP.
Most instances of killing need to be judged on their individualities.
If you are going to do something like this - you need to be prepared to stand behind your decision when you meet your maker (if such an event occurs). I think this man would have adequate cause and it would appear as though he did this with the best of intentions. Which is all you can ask of anyone.
The way I see it, all killing is wrong and can never be justified. Call it simplistic if you want, fine by me :)
I will stand by what I believe
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 17, 2010, 07:16:39 PM
The way I see it, all killing is wrong and can never be justified. Call it simplistic if you want, fine by me :)
I will stand by what I believe
Just for humans?
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 17, 2010, 07:16:39 PM
The way I see it, all killing is wrong and can never be justified. Call it simplistic if you want, fine by me :)
I will stand by what I believe
Thats simplistic.
Until 1961, suicide was illegal in Britain. How stupid was that - what, are you going to charge someone who has killed themselves?
There is a campaign for a judicial review which could decide if a mercy killing is legal or not. I don't believe in people taking the law into their own hands, nor should someone be allowed to die if they feel a wee bit down recently, but there needs to be some legal decision on when the law will allow this.
Morally, I'm very uncomfortable with the whole idea and sometimes it's where you need your faith to help you decide what is right and what is wrong. But are we to condemn people for killing themselves of their own volition? Definitely not.
Quote from: Puckoon on February 17, 2010, 07:18:59 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 17, 2010, 07:16:39 PM
The way I see it, all killing is wrong and can never be justified. Call it simplistic if you want, fine by me :)
I will stand by what I believe
Thats simplistic.
I won't argue that, it's just how I see it
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 17, 2010, 07:32:35 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on February 17, 2010, 07:18:59 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 17, 2010, 07:16:39 PM
The way I see it, all killing is wrong and can never be justified. Call it simplistic if you want, fine by me :)
I will stand by what I believe
Thats simplistic.
I won't argue that, it's just how I see it
It's just easier that way isn't it
Must be great living in your certain world ardmhachaabu
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 17, 2010, 07:32:35 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on February 17, 2010, 07:18:59 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 17, 2010, 07:16:39 PM
The way I see it, all killing is wrong and can never be justified. Call it simplistic if you want, fine by me :)
I will stand by what I believe
Thats simplistic.
I won't argue that, it's just how I see it
But I think you know deep down its not that simple. If someone is pointing a gun at your child, and your choice is to watch that child be killed or kill that person, you know what you would do. And you wouldnt be wrong, or a sinner, or necessarily going to hell.
So if there is even only one example where it isnt that black and white, then you have to admit there is at least one shade of grey (although the reality is that there are maybe thousands of shades of grey).
Quote from: Puckoon on February 17, 2010, 07:43:31 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 17, 2010, 07:32:35 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on February 17, 2010, 07:18:59 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 17, 2010, 07:16:39 PM
The way I see it, all killing is wrong and can never be justified. Call it simplistic if you want, fine by me :)
I will stand by what I believe
Thats simplistic.
I won't argue that, it's just how I see it
But I think you know deep down its not that simple. If someone is pointing a gun at your child, and your choice is to watch that child be killed or kill that person, you know what you would do. And you wouldnt be wrong, or a sinner, or necessarily going to hell.
So if there is even only one example where it isnt that black and white, then you have to admit there is at least one shade of grey (although the reality is that there are maybe thousands of shades of grey).
Just because you think you are justified Puck doesn't mean you are.
Lots of people can be "justified" in their actions but it doesn't make it ok. You have made it quite clear your position on the troubles and the armed struggle in particular - both sides of the equation believe they are "justified" but its black and white in these cases right?
You really have to look at this from a distance and not get emotionally involved. It's a black and white issue.
Killing is killing is killing
Couldnt disagree more Iceman - maybe Ill try and explain, if you will bear with me.
I cannot for one second agree with the suggestion that the justification of the armed struggle in Ireland is the same as walking into a situation where someone is seconds away from killing my child. There may have been reactionary situations in the troubles, for sure - but these things took planning, and calculations.
This discussion is not about my opinions on the troubles, or the fact that I try to think pacifistically (does that word exist)? There to me, is a difference in the calculated violence of the armed struggle, and trying to use a suitable example to make a point regarding the lack of black and white when it comes to killing.
Granted, situations like this dont arise very often, and pretty much all of the time, killing is killing is killing and is wrong.
There are situations however (and Im not saying that this IS one of them, as the buck doesnt stop with me) where the explanation of one human taking the life of another, isnt so clear cut.
Id have full confidence that if there is a God, and he does judge us at the end, then this mans actions should be understood.
I dont think you would let someone walk into your house and murder your family, and if you had to kill them to stop them, you would do it without a second thought. Its human nature to protect ones self and it is reactionary. On the same hand I dont expect you to go out looking for someone who broke into your house and stole things that belong to you and put a bullet in their heads. One would be very wrong and one would be less wrong (and in the opinion of some, the right thing to do).
puck, I understand where you are coming from. I still don't agree but I do understand
It's a pity the rest of us can't live in the same world you boys live in if you think killing is never justified or necessary.
It's a good job others were around to do the fighting for yous or God knows what sort of a society or country we'd have, we'd probably be speaking German for a start.
As opposed to English? ???
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 17, 2010, 09:21:41 PM
It's a pity the rest of us can't live in the same world you boys live in if you think killing is never justified or necessary.
It's a good job others were around to do the fighting for yous or God knows what sort of a society or country we'd have, we'd probably be speaking German for a start.
What would have been wrong with that? Freed from British occupation at last, there would have been no Troubles as we know them.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 17, 2010, 09:27:27 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 17, 2010, 09:21:41 PM
It's a pity the rest of us can't live in the same world you boys live in if you think killing is never justified or necessary.
It's a good job others were around to do the fighting for yous or God knows what sort of a society or country we'd have, we'd probably be speaking German for a start.
What would have been wrong with that? Freed from British occupation at last, there would have been no Troubles as we know them.
Whole other set of problems under a Nazi regime though wouldn't there, or whatever other dictator we'd have.
We'd probably be killing the sick and the disabled, the gays and the travelers would be long gone, probably no religions so some on the board would be happy.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 17, 2010, 08:44:53 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on February 17, 2010, 07:43:31 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 17, 2010, 07:32:35 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on February 17, 2010, 07:18:59 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 17, 2010, 07:16:39 PM
The way I see it, all killing is wrong and can never be justified. Call it simplistic if you want, fine by me :)
I will stand by what I believe
Thats simplistic.
I won't argue that, it's just how I see it
But I think you know deep down its not that simple. If someone is pointing a gun at your child, and your choice is to watch that child be killed or kill that person, you know what you would do. And you wouldnt be wrong, or a sinner, or necessarily going to hell.
So if there is even only one example where it isnt that black and white, then you have to admit there is at least one shade of grey (although the reality is that there are maybe thousands of shades of grey).
Just because you think you are justified Puck doesn't mean you are.
Lots of people can be "justified" in their actions but it doesn't make it ok. You have made it quite clear your position on the troubles and the armed struggle in particular - both sides of the equation believe they are "justified" but its black and white in these cases right?
You really have to look at this from a distance and not get emotionally involved. It's a black and white issue.
Killing is killing is killing
Are you Maggie Thatcher?... 'a crime is a crime is a crime' I can't see how it's black and white... the Yorkshire Ripper who went out on a serial killing spree for several years is hardly the same as someone gets if a fight, punches someone and they die after hitting their head on the kerb which has happened. Loads of other examples too... regarding motives, crimes of passion, insanity etc.
Quoteregarding motives, crimes of passion,
so if you kill someone with a good motive you're not as bad as the yorkshire ripper?
would you mind telling me what motives you'd consider to be ok for killing someone?
Quote from: longrunsthefox on February 17, 2010, 09:35:40 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 17, 2010, 08:44:53 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on February 17, 2010, 07:43:31 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 17, 2010, 07:32:35 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on February 17, 2010, 07:18:59 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 17, 2010, 07:16:39 PM
The way I see it, all killing is wrong and can never be justified. Call it simplistic if you want, fine by me :)
I will stand by what I believe
Thats simplistic.
I won't argue that, it's just how I see it
But I think you know deep down its not that simple. If someone is pointing a gun at your child, and your choice is to watch that child be killed or kill that person, you know what you would do. And you wouldnt be wrong, or a sinner, or necessarily going to hell.
So if there is even only one example where it isnt that black and white, then you have to admit there is at least one shade of grey (although the reality is that there are maybe thousands of shades of grey).
Just because you think you are justified Puck doesn't mean you are.
Lots of people can be "justified" in their actions but it doesn't make it ok. You have made it quite clear your position on the troubles and the armed struggle in particular - both sides of the equation believe they are "justified" but its black and white in these cases right?
You really have to look at this from a distance and not get emotionally involved. It's a black and white issue.
Killing is killing is killing
Are you Maggie Thatcher?... 'a crime is a crime is a crime' I can't see how it's black and white... the Yorkshire Ripper who went out on a serial killing spree for several years is hardly the same as someone gets if a fight, punches someone and they die after hitting their head on the kerb which has happened. Loads of other examples too... regarding motives, crimes of passion, insanity etc.
The difference would be minimal to me there fox in fairness. If you're going to go out acting the **** and throwing punches you need to accept the fact that you might cause someones death.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 17, 2010, 09:38:04 PM
Quoteregarding motives, crimes of passion,
so if you kill someone with a good motive you're not as bad as the yorkshire ripper?
would you mind telling me what motives you'd consider to be ok for killing someone?
Very hypothetical but if someone raped and strangled your child...
Quote from: longrunsthefox on February 17, 2010, 09:42:51 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 17, 2010, 09:38:04 PM
Quoteregarding motives, crimes of passion,
so if you kill someone with a good motive you're not as bad as the yorkshire ripper?
would you mind telling me what motives you'd consider to be ok for killing someone?
Very hypothetical but if someone raped and strangled your child...
well that's a very extreme circumstance! Revenge you mean.
Is that it then? What about these "crimes of passion"?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 17, 2010, 09:44:14 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on February 17, 2010, 09:42:51 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 17, 2010, 09:38:04 PM
Quoteregarding motives, crimes of passion,
so if you kill someone with a good motive you're not as bad as the yorkshire ripper?
would you mind telling me what motives you'd consider to be ok for killing someone?
Very hypothetical but if someone raped and strangled your child...
well that's a very extreme circumstance! Revenge you mean.
Is that it then? What about these "crimes of passion"?
That's a crime of passion... Don't know if you have children but I feel very passionate about mine
Quote from: Puckoon on February 17, 2010, 09:39:14 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on February 17, 2010, 09:35:40 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 17, 2010, 08:44:53 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on February 17, 2010, 07:43:31 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 17, 2010, 07:32:35 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on February 17, 2010, 07:18:59 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 17, 2010, 07:16:39 PM
The way I see it, all killing is wrong and can never be justified. Call it simplistic if you want, fine by me :)
I will stand by what I believe
Thats simplistic.
I won't argue that, it's just how I see it
But I think you know deep down its not that simple. If someone is pointing a gun at your child, and your choice is to watch that child be killed or kill that person, you know what you would do. And you wouldnt be wrong, or a sinner, or necessarily going to hell.
So if there is even only one example where it isnt that black and white, then you have to admit there is at least one shade of grey (although the reality is that there are maybe thousands of shades of grey).
Just because you think you are justified Puck doesn't mean you are.
Lots of people can be "justified" in their actions but it doesn't make it ok. You have made it quite clear your position on the troubles and the armed struggle in particular - both sides of the equation believe they are "justified" but its black and white in these cases right?
You really have to look at this from a distance and not get emotionally involved. It's a black and white issue.
Killing is killing is killing
Are you Maggie Thatcher?... 'a crime is a crime is a crime' I can't see how it's black and white... the Yorkshire Ripper who went out on a serial killing spree for several years is hardly the same as someone gets if a fight, punches someone and they die after hitting their head on the kerb which has happened. Loads of other examples too... regarding motives, crimes of passion, insanity etc.
The difference would be minimal to me there fox in fairness. If you're going to go out acting the **** and throwing punches you need to accept the fact that you might cause someones death.
I know but it happens in towns and villages in Ireland every weekend and on the sports field too. We could name top GAA players have punched opponents! It is wrong and could be tragic but hardly the same as the what a serial killer does.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 17, 2010, 09:21:41 PM
It's a pity the rest of us can't live in the same world you boys live in if you think killing is never justified or necessary.
It's a good job others were around to do the fighting for yous or God knows what sort of a society or country we'd have, we'd probably be speaking German for a start.
You know something, passive resistance works better than violence ever could, think of the rent and rates strike here or the american civil rights movement. Violence doesn't have to be the answer
I know all too well it happens throughout ireland - and my stance wouldnt change. If you punch someone and they die - thats on you. If you have cause to defend yourself, thats different entirely.
Quote from: Puckoon on February 17, 2010, 09:54:22 PM
I know all too well it happens throughout ireland - and my stance wouldnt change. If you punch someone and they die - thats on you. If you have cause to defend yourself, thats different entirely.
Agreed but I don't think it would warrant 30 years in jail like the Ripper. But yip, there has to be a consequence. Anyway, I suppose your conscience would be tortured... unlike that of a psychopath
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 17, 2010, 09:21:41 PM
It's a pity the rest of us can't live in the same world you boys live in if you think killing is never justified or necessary.
It's a good job others were around to do the fighting for yous or God knows what sort of a society or country we'd have, we'd probably be speaking German for a start.
Just because I believe killing is never justified doesn't mean I can't make the decision to kill. I just have to live with the consequences.
In fact I think its better to understand what you are doing and what the consequences are than being foolish about the whole thing and thinking you'll be grand when you meet your maker.
95% of soldiers can't handle the killings after any war.
5% can
I wonder are those 5% the guys that understand what they are doing and understand the consequences before they go into war
i wonder are those 95% the guys that thought what they were doing was justified and then realized what the consequences were regardless of this justification........
Black and white to me lads. While the means may in some minds justify the actually process of the killing it is still Murder/Killing/taking ones life. we would all have different views on what is acceptable in society. We may even agree with euthanasia but we must still acknowledge it as murder. If someone in my family was that ill that they wanted to die i couldn't put a pillow over their head that would stick with me for life if i made that decision. I guess a similar situation is where a nurse asks you to turn off or stop giving a elderly parent the drugs to keep them alive because there is medically no hope in their professional mind. Part of me would always wonder what if, our faith is based on hope and thus we can never make the decision to take anothers life as there is always supposed to be hope. It's a tough one to deal with and people will have many different views.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 17, 2010, 09:54:05 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 17, 2010, 09:21:41 PM
It's a pity the rest of us can't live in the same world you boys live in if you think killing is never justified or necessary.
It's a good job others were around to do the fighting for yous or God knows what sort of a society or country we'd have, we'd probably be speaking German for a start.
You know something, passive resistance works better than violence ever could, think of the rent and rates strike here or the american civil rights movement. Violence doesn't have to be the answer
I tell you what, you name me passive resistance's victories - I can think of two - Ghandi and the american civil right movement (and that only worked because they'd a government sending in people to protect their peaceful protests) and voilence's victories.
Apart from rare circumstances violence is the only answer. For example any of the major democracies in the world were built of the back of violence and the world went to war twice in the last century to protect them.
We've freedoms today because of violence, you can practice your religion and marry a woman of a different race because people killed to protect those rights!
Quote from: The Iceman on February 17, 2010, 09:57:49 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 17, 2010, 09:21:41 PM
It's a pity the rest of us can't live in the same world you boys live in if you think killing is never justified or necessary.
It's a good job others were around to do the fighting for yous or God knows what sort of a society or country we'd have, we'd probably be speaking German for a start.
Just because I believe killing is never justified doesn't mean I can't make the decision to kill. I just have to live with the consequences.
In fact I think its better to understand what you are doing and what the consequences are than being foolish about the whole thing and thinking you'll be grand when you meet your maker.
95% of soldiers can't handle the killings after any war.
5% can
I wonder are those 5% the guys that understand what they are doing and understand the consequences before they go into war
i wonder are those 95% the guys that thought what they were doing was justified and then realized what the consequences were regardless of this justification........
Have you any proof to back up those stats or did you make them up?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 17, 2010, 10:07:32 PM
I tell you what, you name me passive resistance's victories - I can think of two - Ghandi and the american civil right movement (and that only worked because they'd a government sending in people to protect their peaceful protests) and voilence's victories.
Apart from rare circumstances violence is the only answer. For example any of the major democracies in the world were built of the back of violence and the world went to war twice in the last century to protect them.
We've freedoms today because of violence, you can practice your religion and marry a woman of a different race because people killed to protect those rights!
Violence is continuously used to protect these democracies too. There is war against those who hate the freedom to live ipeace in Iraq and those who hate the freedom to marry people from another race in afganistan to protect our democracy and love of freedom.