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

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

dailymail.co.uk

Same-sex marriages are not a human right, European judges have ruled.

Their decision shreds the claim by ministers that gay marriage is a universal human right and that same-sex couples have a right to marry because their mutual commitment is just as strong as that of husbands and wives.

The ruling was made by judges of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg following a case involving a lesbian couple in a civil partnership who complained the French courts would not allow them to adopt a child as a couple.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Well, at last some common sense from someone.
I am fed up of so called 'moral' activists and their lust supporting cronies devalue the institution of marriage whether they are heterosexual or homosexual people.
Just remember that any person who knows about concept of marriage won't support your brainwashing and evil propoganda.
You can't hide behind false emotional veils of equality and rights.


dailymail.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by deepankarm


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

Marriage isn't a human right full stop. It's just two people joining their lives together and loving eachother.

Agreed. I define a right as something which an individual will literally die without. Marriage (even in a heterosexual context) isn't in that category.

That isn't to say that I'm opposed to gay marriage; I think it could be useful for a number of different reasons. But the Left have unfortunately started to make exceptionally frivolous use of the concept of rights in recent years.

Originally posted by deepankarm
Well, at last some common sense from someone.

Common sense is denying someone something based on their sexuality when it does not affect you in any way whatsoever?

Seems rather silly to me.

You said it, Garfee and petrus4,

the judges of the European court in this case only showed once again, that they are able to differentiate - something I often miss here on ATS.

This is NOT against homosexual marriage nor partnership. It simply sets things right, what a human right is and what not.

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

If a man and a woman can have a union of ANY sort, it should be the same for any combination of these m/w m/m w/w.
Otherwise we show our prejudice.
So much for that GREAT AWAKENING!!!

I feel that it is every humans right to with their life as the please. To make mistakes as they please without others trying to correct them.

Marriage is just a legal thing. I am sure there are loop holes if one really looks hard enough. It's basically a business contract between however many parties in regards to assets, custody, etc.

At least least being gay isn't illegal.

Has hetero marriage ever been defined as a "human right"?

I am in a m/f marriage and sometimes I get so tired of all of this. The government has nothing to do with my marriage whatsoever. And SHOULDN'T have anything to do with my marriage.

Perhaps instead of arguing about whether various groups should have the same privileges, we should examine the privileges given to m/f married partners & wonder why those are in place. In most countries of the world it is a non-starter because marriage doesn't grant you any special status or tax breaks or privileges. I'm fine with that. I'm also fine with "divorcing" insurance from employment, so that you can insure anyone you want individually - most countries also work this way (if they have no broader health plan).

Marriage is a condition of the heart. It should have nothing to do with taxes or insurance - or even adoption. We know from long-term studies that almost anything is better than foster care or state homes. So why are we making all these stupid arguments?

reply to post by Schkeptick


I hope for you, that you never get a divorce.
Otherwise, you will find out just exactly how much control the Gumment has over your life.
Just maybe the gay/lesbian community is better off.

Originally posted by deepankarm


Well, at last some common sense from someone.
I am fed up of so called 'moral' activists and their lust supporting cronies devalue the institution of marriage whether they are heterosexual or homosexual people.
Just remember that any person who knows about concept of marriage won't support your brainwashing and evil propoganda.
You can't hide behind false emotional veils of equality and rights.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I always thought it was the anti gay rights groups that sought to force their moral code upon everyone else.

Rights, like laws, should apply to ALL parties equally.

Ok got it this isnt a human right I can deal with that. Well how about we restrict marriage to couples who have been together 20 plus years and proved they are really committed and mature enough to take part in such a serious and life altering institution. I mean if we are going to take this seriously we need to really take it seriously.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by deepankarm


Marriage is not a human right. The pursuit of happiness certainly is. That being said....:
Marriage is something that Muhammad performed with a 6 year old girl and that Abraham performed with his sister. It is a religious ritual that has nothing to do with modern society. I still find it puzzling that certain communities wish to take part in such a barbaric sacrament that only should have any worth to bronze-age men who wished to subjugate women (or men, as the case may be).

so are we all agreed that rights are invented nonsense that only apply as long as you agree with my philosophy..

It is a gentleman's agreement that no one pays attention to when the going gets tough...

The idea of a right is to ensure someone more powerful and smarter (like me) cant just walk in and take and do what I want ....

is this a metric point?

As long a s a behavior is agreed upon between the individuals able to make free decisions, with no one is harmed necessarily

is this a metric point?

Well my humble opinion... you ready.. I seem to remember being accused of being a conservative so I want you to pay close attention here YALL...

I fully support gay marriage

For that fact I support polygamy... (marriages are civil contracts... to deal with your problems)


if two men or two women want to get married...

Welcome to the misery?



suckers!

I support it for a very simple reason.... You do not have the authority to tell me how I can live my life and who I live it with... PERIOD....

You seek to impose your view on how things SHOULD be... after all it was good enough for gramms

Try again...

As for why society should support it... Are you so special needs I need to spell it out for you..

The world economy is in the s- hole.....

Have you looked at the marriage rates... then have you looked at the divorce rates...

My lord, you would with-in six month shove a huge cash infusion into the legal profession and court houses.....
Just raise the cost for divorces... period

the lawyers will be working overtime... drawing up contracts... buy new houses... new cars.... jewelery for their mistresses or misters.... I say vote with you pocket book on this...

For the hotel maids unions... the local car dealers, and you ags office for baby's mommy... mostly for yourself...

Vote for money in your pocket, vote Gay marriage

this was paid for by pure greed and self interest.... so homosexuals can enjoy the misery's of divorce to.....

reply to post 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.

So it's ok to hurt the church because you don't like their past history?

Who else do you want to hurt with your so called "rights" and desires?

Surley this isnt even somthing that should have found its way to court...

Get an non religous ceremony and get married.. i mean if your gay or straight or as we're on ATS alien and you wanna get hitched then get hitched, its totally up to you and no one else.. these constant argument about if its right or wrong or leagal are just stupid...

Black and white of it... if you love someone marry them... if people dont accept it then thats there problem...

if you are concerned about your belonging once your dead get a quick Will leaving everything to your other half all your stuff (you can always change it)

at the end of the day, forward thinking down to earth individuals will accept and respect your rights and treat you no different from any other married couple...

Originally posted by SteelToe

reply to post 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.

So it's ok to hurt the church because you don't like their past history?

Who else do you want to hurt with your so called "rights" and desires?

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.

Originally 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.

That is not my own definition of the concept.

I define rights as only having explicit existence, within the context of the State. That is, if you don't have a centralised government, you don't have explicit rights, because you don't need them. A right is a specifically defined exception, to what is otherwise universal and omnipotent governmental power, (in practice; I'm not talking about how I'd like things to be, here) which individuals require in order to physically survive.

I view government as a firewall for human freedom, with a deny by default policy. Using that analogy, the Bill of Rights is basically a whitelist. The Constitution might say that any governmental powers not explicitly listed, default back to the people, but unfortunately that has almost always been garbage in practice. The current American government isn't even willing to allow people the rights that the Constitution does specifically describe.