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

Originally posted by petrus4

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...

So, your only issue is calling it a "human right"? I don't disagree with that. All the gays I know call the right to get a marriage license a civil right. Do you agree that tax-paying, law-abiding citizens of the state have certain civil rights?

Originally posted by kaylaluv
So, your only issue is calling it a "human right"? I don't disagree with that. All the gays I know call the right to get a marriage license a civil right. Do you agree that tax-paying, law-abiding citizens of the state have certain civil rights?

As far as I am concerned, part of the definition of individual sovereignty, is the ability of individuals to enter into contractual agreements with each other, as long as said agreement is entered into voluntarily, as a result of informed consent. Marriage is a contract, as mentioned.

The single major mistake that the left (and usually the gay movement) make, is that they assume that begging like a dog in front of governments is necessary in order to get what they want. It isn't. The gay movement don't need me to acknowledge what their rights are, and they certainly don't need the government to do it. If they want the ability to do something, they should not wait for it to be given to them; they should take it. If the government does not wish to acknowledge their ability to do what they choose, then it will shoot or imprison them for it, irrespective of what petition they attempt to make. That is what government does.

I do not personally acknowledge the legitimacy of any statute (that is, law passed by a legislature) which attempts to be binding on any person who is not physically present in the room at the time. The only means that any government has of enforcing such a statute or granting it power, is violence.

I will not speak to you in terms of rights, because I define a right as something which the government itself decides that it is willing to give you, and which it can then decide to rescind. Jefferson tried to deny that, with the further clarification that "rights," are "inalienable," but unfortunately, the failure of such claim is all around us at the present time.

We have but a single legal responsibility; and that is to avoid behaviour which results in either harm or loss to others. Assuming that responsibility is discharged, there need be no other talk of law at all, as far as I am concerned.

Humans have no human rights on this planet or on any planet.

1 2 3 (@)

You have been manufactured into existence to feed " a " machine, to feed " an " idea and will continue to do so for hundreds of thousands of years to come. When someone calls you sheeple or sheep, don't feel bad, its what our reality is all about, we follow or replicate the more affluent sheep among society in hoping we can stand in their shoes and feel dominant amongst the common sheep. It is why and how capitalism sustains its existence, we must have a law and ordered society as sheep, meaning humans, have no other form of evolution as they would most likely kill each other off in a showdown of force.

Now you are excused and allowed to return to your regular brain waves 3 2 1 (@)

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.

Let me ask you, what are you protecting marriage from?

You're seeking to deny others the right to marry and commit to a person that they love for what reason?

How is that impacting you?

If they were allowed to marry, which repercussions will destroy your marriage?

We all know darn well that you have nothing to lose if they are allowed to marry. NOTHING. Outside of religious or social prejudice there is no logical reason to prevent gay couples from marrying. The sooner we can put this issue behind us the sooner we can unite and focus our energy on resolving real problems.

Heres an idea. How about we (gay people) start our own tradition of marriage, religious or otherwise, and work with sympathetic lawyers to create a set of standard legal documents to form civil unions between same-sex partners, working with existing laws rather than trying to force unnecessary alterations to existing laws.

Stop trying to force politicians and fundamentalists to "honor our marriages", and instead work around the marriage laws, form contracts, and force them to honor legal contracts. We'll get a lot further with some legal savvy than by whining about apparently non-existent rights.

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by kaylaluv
So, your only issue is calling it a "human right"? I don't disagree with that. All the gays I know call the right to get a marriage license a civil right. Do you agree that tax-paying, law-abiding citizens of the state have certain civil rights?

As far as I am concerned, part of the definition of individual sovereignty, is the ability of individuals to enter into contractual agreements with each other, as long as said agreement is entered into voluntarily, as a result of informed consent. Marriage is a contract, as mentioned.

The single major mistake that the left (and usually the gay movement) make, is that they assume that begging like a dog in front of governments is necessary in order to get what they want. It isn't. The gay movement don't need me to acknowledge what their rights are, and they certainly don't need the government to do it. If they want the ability to do something, they should not wait for it to be given to them; they should take it. If the government does not wish to acknowledge their ability to do what they choose, then it will shoot or imprison them for it, irrespective of what petition they attempt to make. That is what government does.

I do not personally acknowledge the legitimacy of any statute (that is, law passed by a legislature) which attempts to be binding on any person who is not physically present in the room at the time. The only means that any government has of enforcing such a statute or granting it power, is violence.

I will not speak to you in terms of rights, because I define a right as something which the government itself decides that it is willing to give you, and which it can then decide to rescind. Jefferson tried to deny that, with the further clarification that "rights," are "inalienable," but unfortunately, the failure of such claim is all around us at the present time.

We have but a single legal responsibility; and that is to avoid behaviour which results in either harm or loss to others. Assuming that responsibility is discharged, there need be no other talk of law at all, as far as I am concerned.

edit on 21-3-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

Now we are getting a little off-topic here. Obviously you are anti-government, and that is a topic for another thread. The OP posted this thread in order to claim some kind of victory for the far right's anti-gay marriage stance. His point is that gay marriage is not a right, therefore it is ok to deny it. My point is that gays have just as much of a "right" to get a marriage license as heterosexuals do.

You can ignore government and laws all you want, but most of us are willing to work within the confines of our current system. Gays do not want to march into a government office with guns and demand a marriage license - they'd much prefer peaceful demonstrations and consciousness-raising efforts. I wouldn't call that begging, anymore than I would call Martin Luther King's peace marches for civil rights begging. If it wasn't for those peace marches, I firmly believe blacks would still be sitting at the back of the bus, and Obama would never have been elected president.

What gays and pro-gays are doing IS working - polls are showing that more and more of the general population is in favor of equality for gays. As more of the general population recognizes equality for gays, the government will also recognize it. That's how our current system works, imperfect though it is. That's how it worked for black civil rights, and that is how it will work for gay civil rights.

Originally posted by Glass
Heres an idea. How about we (gay people) start our own tradition of marriage, religious or otherwise, and work with sympathetic lawyers to create a set of standard legal documents to form civil unions between same-sex partners, working with existing laws rather than trying to force unnecessary alterations to existing laws.

Stop trying to force politicians and fundamentalists to "honor our marriages", and instead work around the marriage laws, form contracts, and force them to honor legal contracts. We'll get a lot further with some legal savvy than by whining about apparently non-existent rights.

I'm sorry, but that's giving in. Tell the blacks they should quit whining about sitting in the back of the bus.

Fighting for rights is hard work, but the pay-off is worth it. Fundamentalists don't have to honor your marriage, but the government should honor your civil rights.

I don't think any form of marriage is a human right. I think the state should be allowed to bond same sex couples through civil unions and churches should have the option to marry them.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
You can ignore government and laws all you want, but most of us are willing to work within the confines of our current system.

Why, exactly? Do you enjoy not getting what you want?

Gays do not want to march into a government office with guns and demand a marriage license - they'd much prefer peaceful demonstrations and consciousness-raising efforts.

I am not suggesting that they do any such thing. The question that I would ask, is why there is an assumption that a marriage license from the government, has any greater inherent legitimacy, than a license written, signed, and witnessed by the parties to said contract themselves.

I do not advocate violence at all. Violence is still absolutely a statement of victimisation; that you hold the government responsible for your condition rather than yourself, and you are therefore attempting to commit punitive actions against the government, in order to coerce it to do what you want.

I am simply advocating that government does not need to be involved, in any way whatsoever. I am also aware that such a concept is, tragically, alien to the point of being completely beyond the comprehension of the average individual; which is, of course, exactly what the cabal have intended all along.

Originally posted by petrus4
The question that I would ask, is why there is an assumption that a marriage license from the government, has any greater inherent legitimacy, than a license written, signed, and witnessed by the parties to said contract themselves.

Why does a driver's license from the government have any greater inherent legitimacy, than a hand-written license written by the driver? Why does a social security card issued from the federal government have any greater inherent legitimacy than a card hand-written with made-up numbers from an individual? There are times when only a marriage license from the state will be recognized. It is the world in which we live.

I am simply advocating that government does not need to be involved, in any way whatsoever. I am also aware that such a concept is, tragically, alien to the point of being completely beyond the comprehension of the average individual; which is, of course, exactly what the cabal have intended all along.

Of course the government doesn't have to be involved for two people to simply commit their love for each other. My point is, the government shouldn't be able to say, "you two can get a marriage license, but you two can't". If you can figure out a way to completely do away with government in general, or with marriage licenses in particular, then my point is moot. But since government does exist, and marriage licenses do exist (at least for heterosexuals), then my point still stands.

Originally posted by SteelToe

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.

they aren't hurting society by pursuing their idea of happiness. Intolerant people who spout ignorance like a faucet are. Tell me, what makes you so different from homosexuals other then the fact that you don't engage in homosexual relations?

are you a better person? and if you think so. why?

were you born different? if there some gene in you that makes you better then homosexuals?

hell, are you nicer? are you kinder? are you smarter?

aren't you and homosexuals both human?

or are you the exact same as every other goddamn human on this planet; and just dislike homosexual relationships based of YOUR OWN personal beliefs that for some insane reason you think are important enough to push on others.

homosexuals don't bother me, because in the end they are just people trying to find love. Homophobes make my stomach churn, because they are hatemongering bigots with no justification for what they preach other then standard "it's immoral" or "the bible says it's wrong"

people are born equal, and it always religion that seems to deem one group of people as 'lesser' i wonder why that is?

This is a touchy subject, but it does need serious consideration.

I was reading in The Sun the other day, that if gay marriage becomes legal, that means one day we may have a same sex marriage within the monarchy.

No need to discuss your feeling of the monarchy on here now, I'm just saying, its taking regular tradition and tearing it apart.

I personally don't mind what gays get up to, they can even have their civil partnerships, and the end of the day its only a piece of paper that states you love someone else.

My concern is when you start giving these people rights on whether to adopt or not.

On one hand, if you can give a child a loving home, why not? Just like many people choose to give animals a loving home, the more the better right??

But think about it down the line...the future generations are going to believe its normal to have 2 same sex parents......because its not!!

Children are born to men and women, that's the law of nature. IMHO if you are gay, you have given up your rights to be a parent.

So where do I stand morally? I don't know.

reply to post by drgrantdiz


Come on, the guy your replying to has a point!!

Because of their sexual preferences they're changing society as we know it!!

Is change good or bad? Yet to be decided.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Why does a driver's license from the government have any greater inherent legitimacy, than a hand-written license written by the driver? Why does a social security card issued from the federal government have any greater inherent legitimacy than a card hand-written with made-up numbers from an individual? There are times when only a marriage license from the state will be recognized. It is the world in which we live.

Recognised by who?

You can (and doubtless will, at least at this point) consider me to be completely irrational; but the fundamental question to be asked here, is first of all what you want, and secondly how badly do you want it?

We will continue to experience tyranny for as long as we are willing to accept it, as an unspoken, unquestioned assumption, that government simply has inherent authority, purely because it does.

I suspect that what your argument really reduces down to, however, is that the state requires you to present a marriage license which it considers legitimate, in exchange either for certain services, or possibly for money. That is fine, but here we realise that what is really occurring is a transaction, in which you have decided to provide the state with something it wants, in exchange for it giving you something that you want.

This still does not imply that the state has some kind of magical, omnipotent authority. It simply means that you have decided that it is easier for you to obtain whatever it is that you want, from the state, by agreeing to its' conditions, than it is for you to be independent.

The central point is not necessarily to tell you, never to engage in transactions with the state. You are entirely free to do that, if you choose. The point is to make a conscious choice. You are not obtaining a marriage license from the government because you genuinely have no choice; you are doing so because there are certain things which you will be eligible to receive from the state, (arbitration service perhaps, social security, whatever else) if you do.

reply to post by Sinny


It is normal, science has found evidence of homosexual relationships all over the animal kingdom. and the members of those species don't treat homosexuals as lesser... I guess these animals are just more civilised then us on that matter.

and i would rather see a child placed in a loving home with homosexual parents then be forced to grow up as a ward of the state or with a family that is dangerous/ harmful.

anyone who would rather see a child grow up without a family, or potentially beaten/ emotionally abused by their bio. relatives rather then have said child be raised in a loving home by homosexuals needs to take a nice hard look at what type of person they really are.

reply to post by drgrantdiz


Yea its normal for them to share sexual pleasure together...not normal for them to conceive together.

I thought it was impossible Heck what do I know about the birds and the bee's...??

Same-sex marriages are not a human right, European judges have ruled.
a lesbian couple in a civil partnership who complained the French courts would not allow them to adopt a child as a couple.

Most healthy couples are allowed to have children but the laws governing this are established by nature, not people in robes.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
My point is, the government shouldn't be able to say, "you two can get a marriage license, but you two can't".

As an additional point, I will say that yes, the government absolutely should be able to dictate the terms under which it is willing to be bound by a contract; particularly if said contract is entirely voluntary for both parties, and if the government is actually offering some tangible benefit as part of the terms.

If the government is making an offer, the government gets to decide the terms of that offer. In other words, it does get to decide who is or is not inherently eligible for said offer, as part of the terms of the contract. Caveat emptor.

This is the great mistake which many among the Left make. They completely deny any form of personal responsibility, and operate under the implicit assumption that the government is their father, and they are its' victims. They do not see a scenario where the government is offering certain incentives for people to accept its' control, and the acceptance of said incentives, along with, inescapably, said control, is the entirely free choice of the individual in question.

They think the government needs to be coerced into changing its' terms, when they have retained the ability to set their own terms by accepting or creating an entirely different arrangement, all along.

Originally posted by Sinny
reply to post by drgrantdiz

 

Yea its normal for them to share sexual pleasure together...not normal for them to conceive together.

I thought it was impossible

Heck what do I know about the birds and the bee's...??

did i say anything about them concieving? Believe it or not, some of us realise that sex can be enjoyed with someone you love without the purpose of making babies and you can spend your life with someone without ever having a child... I am pretty open about not wanting children, does that mean I should not be allowed the same rights as people who want children?