1. I won't deny that each scenario is different, but at some point as an individual you have to be willing to draw the line and decide when enough is enough. Not to equate the two in scope or magnitude, but think about German Nationalism and how out of hand that got during the rise of the Nazi party. If you refuse to draw a line somewhere those sorts of things can happen (again, not saying something like that will, just an example). Ultimately I would never want to ask my soldiers to draw that line, but if they're killing people across the globe we don't have a choice. Besides, it isn't like we can't use other methods as opposed to violence to show we disapprove of their (countries that still oppress women, gays, ect) actions, like economic sanctions or embargoes. But at some point you have to decide what the issue and what you want to do about it right?

Personally I don't care if it's destroying Islam or just making those countries stop oppressing their citizens, but we have to do something. Do you agree that we shouldn't just let those countries continue with oppressing women and gays, regardless of what it means for Islam? I don't mean to trap you, but if you support human rights there is kinda only one acceptable answer. Personally I find it absolutely ridiculous that we have the ability to change that, but when push comes to shove we back down.

2. Yeah, there could be a caveat and I can't prove that there is not (finding those UN voting results was already a pain, their website is pretty abysmal so I doubt I could find the actual agreements word for word). But, it still begs the question, why would stuff like this not get press if there was a caveat? Don't you think the united statues would call them out for putting something like that in there? Aside from that, isn't it strange that it's always just us that's saying no? Maybe a caveat could go against specifically the United States, but even so you would think we would try and put a real bill up there for vote, instead of just saying no.

Regardless it would be nice if votes like these got more press, because the US (or their allies, if there was dumb or weird caveats) should have to explain themselves for it. I wouldn't say you don't know enough; I don't think it is outside anyone's capabilities to reason and question why their country is doing what it is doing. Either way, I agree with you on that without knowing what the contracts really were we can't completely blame the US, but I also don't think that's a good sign for our human rights interests regardless. We should have an interest in making the world a better place, right? So having no press releases or discussion about votes like these explaining why we did what we did doesn't say to me that we want to progress.

Related question; do you believe that citizens deserve positive human rights? If you do, which ones?


3. I'm not going to argue with the logic behind the constitution or SCOTUS, but even if that's what we want to do (work towards a perfect society) we normally don't seem to go down that path in a timely manner. You're right that the end result can always be changed if it's shown to be flawed, but it just doesn't give me much faith in the system if decisions like that can be made in the first place.

Part of what makes me feel that way, that the Supreme Court has vested interests and can be corrupted, is just the bountiful reserve of shameless rulings by them over the years. I'm not going to bore you with a lot of cases, but what should make me feel confident in them as interpreters of the constitution? I don't think it's deniable that their decisions have been influenced by big business. Rulings like Hammer v. Dagenheart, once again, don't match the ideologies of the people, just so that argument is hopefully off the table.

(I'm switching to theoretical now) Why should the Supreme Court decide what is right and wrong anyways? Why can't, we, the citizens, make decisions like that? If it's a nation by the people and for the people, we should be making our say in those decisions, right?

but we still have a party that doesn't want to allow gay marriage... because of their evangelical base? Isn't that still a failure to separate church and state? Correct me if I'm wrong.