Gay marriage is not a 'human right': European ruling torpedoes Coalition stance

Originally posted by My_Reality
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

OK...I read the link that you provided. It reinforces the points that I have been making. In fact, it seems that every one of the instances of same sex "marriage" had ulterior motives behind them...mainly political for the very powerful members of those societies that could essentially get away with anything they wanted.......ulterior motives that you yourself used as an argument to an earlier point of mine.

On top of that, one little picture of what appears to be two hieroglyphic men is flimsy, at best.

So...out of all the points that I raised and asked you sincere questions about....is this all that you are going to address?

I am aware that factors may have prevented you from taking the time to make a complete reply and this is why I asked my above question.

There is nothing in that link that implies same-sex marriage was for any reason other than love and commitment. I have shot down your 2 main points. Your point #2 was that marriage has always been between a man and a woman since time began. That has been proven to be false. Therefore, your point #1 is not valid. There is no valid reason why homosexuals should compromise.

The EU court ruled against gay marriage being a human right because they were pressed by the various religious institutions. If you read the article, the word 'Church' appears a lot.

Gay marriage is a right of human beings. Period.

Originally posted by masterp
The EU court ruled against gay marriage being a human right because they were pressed by the various religious institutions. If you read the article, the word 'Church' appears a lot.

Gay marriage is a right of human beings. Period.

Yes. Those who were campaigning for this were not expecting it to pass.

They were however - - very disheartened though - - - with the "Heavy Hand" opinion allowed from religion/church.

reply to post by masterp


Opinions on the behavior of homosexuality aside...

Marriage is a status defined and established by the State. There can be no such thing as a human right to a legal status.

The real court issue should be whether or not the legal status of marriage can be withheld by the state based on the sex of the couple. Note - that is a considerably different case to rule upon that has different implications.

I would argue that the State should abandon the term "marriage" and simply have different types of civil/legal unions that citizens may apply for without unnecessary qualifying factors.

The celebration of unions both official and unofficial is a "right." But the legal status is an entirely different case, and many people don't seem to really be aware of how things work.

I'm a straight male and i have to say this really grinds my gears..
The world elite have caused this problem.. By using GMOS and pesticides and other toxins they poisoning us with are causing biological changes in male and female hormonal growth and cause a neurological defect witch makes people gay. Being gay is not a choice per-say its a chemical defect.

So let anyone wed each other..

I said it in the other thread and I'll say it here.

Gay people are completely wasting valuable time in these courts. Gay marriage has never been a human right, nor should it be - they already have civil partnerships.

The time spent arguing over this could easily be spent on far more important issues such as murder and torture.

Disgusting really. In one part of the world, spoiled, westerners are arguing about the legality of marriage between two gay people - and in other parts of the world children are dying and being ignored because these courts are wasting their time arguing with gay people.

reply to post by mr-lizard

Disgusting really. In one part of the world, spoiled, westerners are arguing about the legality of marriage between two gay people - and in other parts of the world children are dying and being ignored because these courts are wasting their time arguing with gay people.

Whilst I agree it is disgusting that people should bother themselves with such an irrelevance and something so harmless I really don't see how you equate to wasted court time saving the lives of anyone?
It is The European Court Of Human Rights were are talking about here mate???

Why do people get so upset over something that doesn't hurt them one little bit whatsoever?

reply to post by Garfee


First off, I wasn't speaking to you and you have taken my statement out of context. If you would review all my posts on this topic you will see that it was the person I was responding too that brought up ulterior motives in the first place.

I can understand how you made this error, so it's no problem.

reply to post by ~Vixen~


I see your point in regards to your first paragraph. However, you may not be aware that when I joined this discussion I stated on my first post that I was speaking from personal conversation experience only(I can only assume that the first people to respond to me did not read that disclaimer...and things have since been taken out of context by other posters). That applied both to my suggested compromise and what marriage became defined as. In short, my experiences are purely speculation and I did not include religious rituals or legal aspects into my discussion on here or with my conversation buddies. In my circle of friends we do not participate in organized religion and the friends that I do have that are married have done so without a legal license...essentially a spiritual bond with certain specific responsibilities and goals...which is what I see marriage as.

With that being said, I do see the problems that you bring up. I do disagree on some points...such as the religious marriage. For example marriage has been around a lot longer than the major organized religions of the present. I agree that legal recognition is needed and an issue. I have said it a few times in this thread that I don't see this as an issue of equality but instead an issue of definition. That is where I think the compromise could come into play. There are a lot of folks out in the world that do not wish to see marriage redefined to include same sex partners. I also think that if certain factions would agree to at least go to the negotiating table they could achieve much more than they have now. What is wrong with having all the legal benefits of a married couple today using a different term? One term -- for lack of a better phrase -- applied to straight married couples and a different term applied to gay married couples. If you want to talk about equality...how more equal can that get? Everyone gets what they want in the legal sense.

In regards to your comments about civil unions/religious marriages...to each his own. Let people do what they will. I highly doubt that I would take advantage of either of those practices.

As to flat-earths and slavery...those topics are not related to marriage and I don't see those as a remotely similar comparison. I won't go into the flat earth area but I will say this about slavery. Completely different perspective, situation, lifestyle, relationship, ETC, ETC, ETC.

reply to post by kaylaluv

There is nothing in that link that implies same-sex marriage was for any reason other than love and commitment. I have shot down your 2 main points. Your point #2 was that marriage has always been between a man and a woman since time began. That has been proven to be false. Therefore, your point #1 is not valid. There is no valid reason why homosexuals should compromise.

I never said that same-sex marriage was for any reason other than love and commitment. I specifically said, in my first post, a post you read and responded to:

Marriage, since the dawn of civilization, has been a sacred bond between a man and a woman with specific goals. Loving another human being is not the only consideration in a marriage. Marriage also is intended to create a family, specifically through the act of a male and female making love to do so. It also serves to promote harmony and cooperation between families and communities.

Obviously, you pick and choose what you want to use and what you do not. I am not going to continue this conversation. Congratulations on your link...you find a reference that perhaps 1% of all marriages in history do not have something to do with what I have typed above. I don't think that is a reliable standard.

However, I do wish to thank you for proving my point about compromise. You do not even consider it an option and you don't seem to care what your "opposition" thinks. That is a wonderful technique to keep the pot boiling on this issue. Good luck to you.

Originally posted by My_Reality
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

There is nothing in that link that implies same-sex marriage was for any reason other than love and commitment. I have shot down your 2 main points. Your point #2 was that marriage has always been between a man and a woman since time began. That has been proven to be false. Therefore, your point #1 is not valid. There is no valid reason why homosexuals should compromise.

I never said that same-sex marriage was for any reason other than love and commitment. I specifically said, in my first post, a post you read and responded to:

Marriage, since the dawn of civilization, has been a sacred bond between a man and a woman with specific goals. Loving another human being is not the only consideration in a marriage. Marriage also is intended to create a family, specifically through the act of a male and female making love to do so. It also serves to promote harmony and cooperation between families and communities.

Obviously, you pick and choose what you want to use and what you do not. I am not going to continue this conversation. Congratulations on your link...you find a reference that perhaps 1% of all marriages in history do not have something to do with what I have typed above. I don't think that is a reliable standard.

However, I do wish to thank you for proving my point about compromise. You do not even consider it an option and you don't seem to care what your "opposition" thinks. That is a wonderful technique to keep the pot boiling on this issue. Good luck to you.

No one should compromise on civil rights. Period. To tell gays they can have the same union but have to call it something else, is like telling blacks they can ride the same bus as the whites, but they have to sit in the back. It's exclusion, and it is not right. Good luck to you as well.

reply to post by petrus4


Really? I'm replying to a thread that targets my community, not yours. I'm addressing the premise of the thread. You're going to take one sentence from my post ( which has nothing to do with you at all ), take that one sentence out of context ( you must have learned that trick from say, the mainstream media??? ) and impose your interpretation on it? So your tactic is to spin my sentence into meaning something that I did not say. Nice try, but lame as hell, sorry. You don't know me at all, and you have no idea as to what I think or feel. You've stated that you're not a christian, and that you don't hold a job, or participate in mainstream society in general. In that context, it does make me wonder why you would have any concern about commenting on this topic at all, since you're obviously "above it all" to begin with. For someone who's not a christian, you sure have learned the game of using self-righteousness from them!

reply to post by kaylaluv

No one should compromise on civil rights. Period. To tell gays they can have the same union but have to call it something else, is like telling blacks they can ride the same bus as the whites, but they have to sit in the back. It's exclusion, and it is not right. Good luck to you as well.

That is complete nonsense and it is uncompromising, selfish attitudes such as this that ensure discord and strife between our species. It is not exclusion...it is properly defining a situation correctly. Sadly, shallow people get so very upset at the mere mention of perceived inequality that no progress is made. You, quite simply, are the proof of that statement. You are far more concerned with how you *think* you should be viewed as opposed to how you *are* viewed.

Your situation is simple. There are some people on this planet that would prefer that the term marriage is reserved for male and female unions. You could acknowledge this fact....however you oppose it unequivocally. By doing so, you alienate people that would support you and sabotage the very belief that you are fighting for...all due to your perceived inequity. It truly is laughable.

Also...very poor form comparing a racial issue to a sexual issue. They are completely unrelated. Once again, we have returned to areas that I have covered. You do not have a valid, logical, reasonable or fair argument as to why marriage between people of the same sex should be classified exactly the same as marriage between man and woman. As such, you attempt to create sympathy by comparing your predicament to peoples that have been far more mistreated than yourself....it is despicable.

No one is compromising on civil rights. I use the phrase "compromise" to merely attempt to get a dialogue started. Sadly, it is in vain. Defining a heterosexual union as one thing and a homosexual union as another in no way strips you of anything. Quite the opposite. It advances your culture while at the same time respecting the cultural values of others.

I stand amazed at how you hold your individual self-image and self-worth FAR above the community you claim to represent. If you truly cared about advancing the interests of the community you align yourself with.....you would sacrifice "something" to advance your goals. But no...you would rather rant on about how you are being treated "unfairly" as opposed to finding, creating, compromising and negotiating a situation that would benefit everyone. Amazed indeed.....you need only to look to yourself for the reasons why you do not succeed.

Originally posted by My_Reality
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

No one should compromise on civil rights. Period. To tell gays they can have the same union but have to call it something else, is like telling blacks they can ride the same bus as the whites, but they have to sit in the back. It's exclusion, and it is not right. Good luck to you as well.

That is complete nonsense and it is uncompromising, selfish attitudes such as this that ensure discord and strife between our species. It is not exclusion...it is properly defining a situation correctly. Sadly, shallow people get so very upset at the mere mention of perceived inequality that no progress is made. You, quite simply, are the proof of that statement. You are far more concerned with how you *think* you should be viewed as opposed to how you *are* viewed.

Your situation is simple. There are some people on this planet that would prefer that the term marriage is reserved for male and female unions. You could acknowledge this fact....however you oppose it unequivocally. By doing so, you alienate people that would support you and sabotage the very belief that you are fighting for...all due to your perceived inequity. It truly is laughable.

Also...very poor form comparing a racial issue to a sexual issue. They are completely unrelated. Once again, we have returned to areas that I have covered. You do not have a valid, logical, reasonable or fair argument as to why marriage between people of the same sex should be classified exactly the same as marriage between man and woman. As such, you attempt to create sympathy by comparing your predicament to peoples that have been far more mistreated than yourself....it is despicable.

No one is compromising on civil rights. I use the phrase "compromise" to merely attempt to get a dialogue started. Sadly, it is in vain. Defining a heterosexual union as one thing and a homosexual union as another in no way strips you of anything. Quite the opposite. It advances your culture while at the same time respecting the cultural values of others.

I stand amazed at how you hold your individual self-image and self-worth FAR above the community you claim to represent. If you truly cared about advancing the interests of the community you align yourself with.....you would sacrifice "something" to advance your goals. But no...you would rather rant on about how you are being treated "unfairly" as opposed to finding, creating, compromising and negotiating a situation that would benefit everyone. Amazed indeed.....you need only to look to yourself for the reasons why you do not succeed.

There is no valid, logical reason why marriage HAS to be between a man and a woman. Marriage is not a requirement for procreation; procreation is not a requirement for marriage. So, procreation is not a good argument for heterosexual-only "marriages". If that were the case, then we would have to ban the term marriage for any couple that does not have children.

There are churches who are willing to marry two gays in the eyes of God, so religion is not a good argument for heterosexual-only "marriages". If that were the case, we would also have to ban the term marriage for atheists, pagans, and wiccans.

Marriage is not necessarily a sacred tradition, as people get married for reasons other than love and family, so sacred tradition is not a good argument for heterosexual-only "marriages". If that were the case, we would have to ban the term marriage for anyone that married for money, politics, business, estate/tax benefits, etc.

So, you tell me - why do some people think it's so important to reserve the term marriage for heterosexuals only? If it's not because of procreation, religion, or sacred tradition, then why?

Posted by kaylaluv
No one should compromise on civil rights. Period.

Originally posted by My_Reality
That is complete nonsense and it is uncompromising, selfish attitudes such as this that ensure discord and strife between our species. It is not exclusion...it is properly defining a situation correctly.

Damn right it is. You can stay at the back of the bus, darkie.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
So, you tell me - why do some people think it's so important to reserve the term marriage for heterosexuals only? If it's not because of procreation, religion, or sacred tradition, then why?

This is where you are wrong. The argument is NOT that marriage should be reserved exclusively for heterosexuals, but rather that it should be reserved for a man and a woman to start a family unit. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation, it has to do with the sex of the participants.

The reason it is important to reserve the term Marriage for a union between a man and a woman is to encourage society to build a family unit at the basic level without the need for assistance from a third party. Two members of the same sex cannot create a basic family unit without the assistance of the state, whereas two members of the opposite sex can. That is the crucial difference why the definition of Marriage should not pander to the needs of a minority for the sake of political correctness.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
The reason it is important to reserve the term Marriage for a union between a man and a woman is to encourage society to build a family unit at the basic level without the need for assistance from a third party. Two members of the same sex cannot create a basic family unit without the assistance of the state, whereas two members of the opposite sex can. That is the crucial difference why the definition of Marriage should not pander to the needs of a minority for the sake of political correctness.

What is a family unit? A family unit can be any mixture of people.

With your logic - - hetero couples should have to prove they can reproduce naturally before they are allowed to marry.

Global population today: 7+ billion. The argument of reproduction is just plain stupid.

I create my own rights. As long as I harm no other person, nobody has the authority to decide what I can and cannot do.

I will eat what I want.
I will smoke what I want.
I will do whatever the hell I want.

I'm all for laws and regulations. Only problem is when those laws are exploited and abused by the creators of those very same laws is when you have to start questioning them.

Perfect example. Alcohol and cigarettes legal. No positive uses and they harm the body.
Marijuana at least has medicinal purposes (cry about it if you want, go through chemo and get back at me).

Rich using tax loopholes to pay less than people making far less than them. Those tax laws sure are helping.

Instead of going back and reviewing laws and making positive changes, they add onto them leaving the old irrelevant pieces as a foundation.

Which I'm starting to believe is the root of many problems today. Capitalism works. Though when the system was created there is no way the creators didn't know at some point in the far off future things would get to the point where it will collapse. Though like many officials today are doing, band aid fixes on things we won't have to deal with and future generations will sadly be forced to deal with. Sad they will have far more problems than if we got our crap together and actually 100% fixed things ourselves.

The whole gay thing need's to separate itself from the sodomites / Queers and the homo's/gays.
Until it does that they won't make any real progress.
People won't confront the issue head-on, they'll just ramble on so it suit's their agenda.
If they want the same rights as a hetro couple who get married, they gotta sort their own house out first!

Originally posted by WatchRider
The whole gay thing need's to separate itself from the sodomites / Queers and the homo's/gays.
Until it does that they won't make any real progress.
People won't confront the issue head-on, they'll just ramble on so it suit's their agenda.
If they want the same rights as a hetro couple who get married, they gotta sort their own house out first!

Most people in prison are hetero.

Most domestic abuse is hetero.

Equal Rights - - - has nothing to do with someone's behavior - - whether they are straight or gay.