A rationalist point of view on gay marriage

While in many articles of UN Declaration of Human Rights there is a clear reference to no difference based on gender ... about marriage ...

Have you ever wonder why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights about marriage don't say "without any limitation due to race, nationality, GENDER or religion"?

Because according to UN [many UN country members are traditionalist about this ... think to Muslim countries ...] regarding marriage limitations about gender are acceptable ...

 

Because only marriage between men and women is a Fundamental Human Right, BECAUSE
"The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State" while the two gay guys with the adopted orphan, desperately trying to mimick the nuclear family is a recent oddity.

 

*shrug* Recent families, are still families.




​

 

Refuted it the first time you posted it, and every subsequent time.

True. Which is why I actually refuted it.

 

Did they do it when interracial marriage was legalized? If not, why do you think it will be different with homos?

 

no church can be forced to perform an inter-racial marriage.

 

cause leftys are getting bolder, and now they want access to your children.....



Should We Lower the Age of Consent to Protect Teenagers?

The argument for relaxing age of consent laws is typically focused on protecting older sex partners, who can be aggressively prosecuted for having sex with (sometimes, only slightly) younger people. In 2007, Slate’s Will Saletan argued that when it comes to sex involving minors, “the ages of the parties vary widely from case to case,” and in courtrooms across the United States, “horny teenagers are being thrown in with pedophiles.” He added: “Having sex at 12 is a bad idea. But if you're pubescent, it might be, in part, your bad idea. Conversely, having sex with a 12-year-old, when you're 20, is scummy. But it doesn't necessarily make you the kind of predator who has to be locked up."

 

That declaration doesn't limit marriage to opposite sex couples. We've been over this before

 

How soon are you expecting this to occur? At what point would you admit "well, maybe they are not going to do it after all"?

 

It's anyway an extension of the original and natural meaning of "family".

If you want change our societies by extension you have to accept that also heterosexual individuals do the same ... so, just to say, I want public toilets for homosexual men and homosexual women [so public toilets should have 4 sections: men, women, homosexual men and homosexual women].

 

So? The majority of people in the US disagree. There isn't anything in the UN
Declaration of Human Rights against legalizing same sex marriage.

 

I'm not changing society, I'm just watching it evolve.




​

 

Well, noone thought gay marriage would happen.... Noone thought the US government would tax you for merely existing, but they do....

If rich progressives really want a 12 year old boy on their laps, it'll happen rather quickly.

PS why did you delete the link? what are you afraid of in that Slate.com article?

 

Lots of people thought gay marriage would happen. Even Rush did, years ago. We just did not assume it would happen this quickly.

So if it doesn't happen, maybe that means your assumptions about "rich progressives" are wrong eh?

Because it was not relevant to my response. I'm not here to promote your links. I do that with everyone...it's not just you.

- - - Updated - - -

Petition the courts then, and see what they can do for you. You know, like the homosexuals had to do.

You're not entitled to a shortcut just because you're a majority.

 

Did you hear about Seattle schools giving kids as young as sixth grade, IUDs or birth control implants? Without even informing the parents.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-school-more-easily-than-they-can-buy-a-soda/

 

Correct, it only limits the human RIGHT of marriage to men and women.

 

Right, men and women, not opposite sex couples only. No limitation anywhere in the declaration.

 

Only families made up of men, women and their children are the "fundamental group unit of society"

 

I don't want a "shortcut" I want equality ... this means that public toilets should be ready to welcome all the genders separately [natural genders and "added" genders]. There was a curious trouble about this when a transgender representative in the Chamber [Italian Parliament] claimed his/her [its?] right to enter the toilet of the women.

A woman [a representative] entering the toilet saw this transgender with his *** out. She considered this a kind of sexual offense, at the limit of the violence.

Before that the administration of the Chamber had the possibility to judge the matter [deciding if toilets for homosexual were necessary] Luxuria lost her/his seat in the Parliament, so that the problem has been forgotten.

- - - Updated - - -

So you have to make also social structures evolve [for sections in public toilets are necessary ...].

 

Men and women are the opposite sex. The European Commission on Human rights has the same language and twice now your same argument was made and rejected.
But what a beautiful demonstration of the lefts disregard for the plain and ordinary meaning of words.

 

It's that word ..."marriage" the point: the UN Declaration doesn't exclude in an explicit way that about marriage it's possible to "discriminate" about genders, because in natural right, only a male and a female individual can make a married couple.

 

Well, you can get that by going through the court system just like the homos did. If you start right now it might happen within your lifetime. Get to it.

 

Men and women are the two genders we have. The declaration does not say a man can only marry a woman.

Nope. My statement stands just as correct as the last time.

The plain ordinary words don't say what you want them to

- - - Updated - - -

There is no such thing as natural rights. Only legal rights

 

Nope....you need to check the definition of a straw man.

Who claimed that? Now you are using a straw man....again look it up.

- - - Updated - - -

It is a religion.

 

You can let go of that strawman. It says only a man marrying a woman is a human right.