It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 03:25 AM
link   
I agree with this ruling. Any marriage is surely not a human right. Gay marriage as a subtype of marriage is thus also not. I think this has nothing to do with homophobia or some attack on gays. This is just common sense.

And for the record, I do support gay marriages.
edit on 21/3/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
I agree with this ruling.


Anyone who is either heterosexual themselves, or who does not engage in cultural Marxism to the point of a complete absence of logic, is likely to agree with it.

As I've said before; I have nothing whatsoever against homosexuality being integrated into mainstream human society. I just wish the gays would stop trying to cause so much secondary societal damage in the process.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 04:12 AM
link   

reply to post by Garfee
 


There's no difference between "the church" - as you put it - as the local golf club. They're private enterprises which should have no influence outside of it's own affairs - which still need to be within the law.


It wasn't I who invovled "the church".

Did you read the post I was responding to?

If you don't see the obvious hypocrisy and misplaced anger in their statement then you're not



posted by jude11
 

A "Human Right" is whatever a human desires to do with their life as long as it does not harm others in doing so.

Last time I checked, Gay Marriage hurts no one but the Church with their piety and sanctimonious stance exclusively granted to them by themselves, and the ignorant with their fear of the unknown.

Sometimes one and the same.

Peace



Starts off saying do what you want as long as it hurts no one.

Then continues by promoting the idea of hurting "the church".

Then proceeds in spewing hate speech directed at religious people. Not any specific religious group but all of them evil religious folk.

Which church ? All churchs? Which religion? All religion?

Then he has the nerve to sign his post saying peace.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 04:14 AM
link   
Glad to see many 'supporters' acknowledging that marriage isn't a human right, so can we remove the rights issue here ???
And some are moving goalposts as usual.
It's a massive victory for the protecters of MARRIAGE like me and many others like it or not.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by deepankarm
 


And restricting gay marriage is not a 'government right'.



Sorry, cannot agree. Restricting any marriage is a government (as long as it is legitimate) right. Gay marriage included.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by Maslo
I agree with this ruling.


Anyone who is either heterosexual themselves, or who does not engage in cultural Marxism to the point of a complete absence of logic, is likely to agree with it.

As I've said before; I have nothing whatsoever against homosexuality being integrated into mainstream human society. I just wish the gays would stop trying to cause so much secondary societal damage in the process.
I wish i could give you many stars for this.
I am not against homosexuals except the redefinition of marriage as it can cause divide both in cultures and society.
And civil unions do give them same legal rights.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 04:25 AM
link   

reply to post by petrus4
 


I just wish the gays would stop trying to cause so much secondary societal damage in the process.


See that's the problem. The "gays" don't see what they are doing as damaging to society.

They actually try to act like they are some kind of urban superhero fighting for truth justice and the american way.


The truth is that when a society degrades to the point of accepting all kinds of deviant behaviors it is apathetic and corrupt and will destroy itself from within until the natural balance is restored.

You can do what ever you want sexually behind closed doors. But when you try to build the laws of society around your personal sexual behaviors something is wrong.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Marriage is between a man and a woman. The antichrist will spread homosexuality prior to his arrival on earth and will force world governments to make it acceptable. He is working from behind the scenes laying the groundwork for his imminent arrival.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Marriage is between a man and a woman. The antichrist will spread homosexuality prior to his arrival on earth and will force world governments to make it acceptable. He is working from behind the scenes laying the groundwork for his imminent arrival.


I really don't understand why some of you people believe this stuff.

Let's think about this logically for a few seconds. What exactly does homosexuality have to do with taking over the world? I mean, yes; I know the gays themselves probably want to remake the world in their own pastel-coloured image, but how does that help the antichrist (someone else) do it?

Is it the idea that the rest of us, will all be so focused on trying to avoid dropping the soap in the shower, that we won't be able to fight back?

Marriage also isn't inherently divine at all. It's quite literally a statute; nothing more. As a matter of fact, Jesus himself actually predicts that a time will come when people won't get married any more at all, and he makes it sound as though he thinks that would be a fairly positive move.
edit on 21-3-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
marriage itself is not a right because it's a man made institution
nothing man made is a human right

you have a right to what you were born with which is your life and your freedom



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Never thought I would say this..

But...

Common sense coming from EU judges???

It really IS the apocalypse!!



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteelToe


The truth is that when a society degrades to the point of accepting all kinds of deviant behaviors it is apathetic and corrupt and will destroy itself from within until the natural balance is restored.

You can do what ever you want sexually behind closed doors. But when you try to build the laws of society around your personal sexual behaviors something is wrong.


LOL, First you say we shouldn't accept all kinds of "deviant behavior", then you go on to say it doesn't matter what people do behind closed doors. Which is it? And who gets to define what's deviant? Some people feel anything other than the missionary position is deviant.

What drives me crazy about this type of attitude is, being gay is not just about the sex!!!!! Are you nothing but the sex you have? Aren't you capable of loving someone beyond the sex? There are straight couples who love each other and are committed to each other, who don't or can't have sex with each other. I know a gay couple who have been together for over 20 years, and they joke about having sex once a year.

All this is about being able to be with the one you love, to commit to the one you want to commit to, in the SAME WAY that everyone else does, without discrimination. There's nothing "deviant" about it.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
All this is about being able to be with the one you love, to commit to the one you want to commit to, in the SAME WAY that everyone else does, without discrimination. There's nothing "deviant" about it.


Then if they are in love, they should not need a contract from the state in order to verify it.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by deepankarm
Glad to see many 'supporters' acknowledging that marriage isn't a human right, so can we remove the rights issue here ???
And some are moving goalposts as usual.
It's a massive victory for the protecters of MARRIAGE like me and many others like it or not.


It may not be a human right to get a marriage license from the state, but it IS a civil right. It wasn't a human right for blacks to sit in the front of the bus either, but it WAS a civil right, and now blacks are no longer forced to sit in the back of the bus.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by kaylaluv
All this is about being able to be with the one you love, to commit to the one you want to commit to, in the SAME WAY that everyone else does, without discrimination. There's nothing "deviant" about it.


Then if they are in love, they should not need a contract from the state in order to verify it.


Neither do heterosexuals. But some heterosexuals want to enter into that contract for legal AND symbolic reasons. So why can't gays?



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by deepankarm
Glad to see many 'supporters' acknowledging that marriage isn't a human right, so can we remove the rights issue here ???
And some are moving goalposts as usual.
It's a massive victory for the protecters of MARRIAGE like me and many others like it or not.


It may not be a human right to get a marriage license from the state, but it IS a civil right. It wasn't a human right for blacks to sit in the front of the bus either, but it WAS a civil right, and now blacks are no longer forced to sit in the back of the bus.


Gays having the ability to get married is not the issue, here.

Their frivolous abuse of semantics, based as always on pure, hysterical emotionalism, is.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by kaylaluv
All this is about being able to be with the one you love, to commit to the one you want to commit to, in the SAME WAY that everyone else does, without discrimination. There's nothing "deviant" about it.


Then if they are in love, they should not need a contract from the state in order to verify it.


Neither do heterosexuals. But some heterosexuals want to enter into that contract for legal AND symbolic reasons. So why can't gays?


As far as I am concerned, they are completely entitled to do so. As I have already stated, I consider marriage to be extraneous in any context; so if I consider it pointless, I am not going to logically deny it to anyone who wishes it. If they want it, let them have it.

That they should not be permitted to get married, is not my stance. My only relevant stance here, is an agreement with the assertion that marriage is not a human right; because according to my own definition of what human rights are, it is not.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by deepankarm
Glad to see many 'supporters' acknowledging that marriage isn't a human right, so can we remove the rights issue here ???
And some are moving goalposts as usual.
It's a massive victory for the protecters of MARRIAGE like me and many others like it or not.


It may not be a human right to get a marriage license from the state, but it IS a civil right. It wasn't a human right for blacks to sit in the front of the bus either, but it WAS a civil right, and now blacks are no longer forced to sit in the back of the bus.


Gays having the ability to get married is not the issue, here.

Their frivolous abuse of semantics, based as always on pure, hysterical emotionalism, is.


Sorry, don't understand. What abuse of semantics are you referring to?



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by deepankarm
Glad to see many 'supporters' acknowledging that marriage isn't a human right, so can we remove the rights issue here ???
And some are moving goalposts as usual.
It's a massive victory for the protecters of MARRIAGE like me and many others like it or not.


It may not be a human right to get a marriage license from the state, but it IS a civil right. It wasn't a human right for blacks to sit in the front of the bus either, but it WAS a civil right, and now blacks are no longer forced to sit in the back of the bus.


Gays having the ability to get married is not the issue, here.

Their frivolous abuse of semantics, based as always on pure, hysterical emotionalism, is.


Sorry, don't understand. What abuse of semantics are you referring to?


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   
This DM article is a bit misleading - the Court did not emphatically strike down the concept that gay marriage could never be accepted as a legal union of two people akin or equal to a heterosexual marriage (obviously, many European already permit this) but instead said that (as obiter dicta) where a nation does not have laws permitting gay marriage, they are not required by the ECHR to permit gay marriage as a matter of law, since some discretion is left on public-policy matters such as these to the sovereign governments.

Notwithstanding the fact that gay marriage was not in fact a germane or salient issue (the applicants were civil partners (PACS; pacses), so long as there is no discrimination based on the sexuality of the applicants, gay marriage need not be conferred as a status as a matter of law.

So long as there are valid public-policy reasons which deny gay marriage to some, and so long as such measures are proportionate to the aim pursued, gay marriage as a right cannot be vindicated by the European court where national gov'ts have not chosen to confer that right by themselves.

This case involved the adoption of a child by a civil-partnerred couple who alleged discrimination against them on the basis of sexuality and and an infringement of their right to private and family life (alleged breach of Articles 8 and 14). The Court found that there was no such breach here and that the interests of child in the instant case outweighed those of the applicants in wishing to adopt.

The Court pointed out that there, where a measure is discriminatory in nature and which unjustifiably discriminates against homosexuals, then that measure will be struck down as being in breach of Article 14.

In the instant case however, no such discrimination was proven nor accepted by the Court.

www.echr.coe.int...

see: Gas and Dubois v. France (translated from the French)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join